Stuter: The Georgia Case
Will the Georgia administrative court actually get to the bottom of the Obama “natural born” controversy?
The internet is abuzz with speculation regarding what will happen on January 26, 2012 when the next hearing on this matter is scheduled; the Administrative Law Judge Malihi having denied Obama’s motion to dismiss on January 3, 2012.
The internet has been abuzz since then with claims that Obama will be forced to provide his birth documents, forced to prove his eligibility, forced to prove he is “natural born”.
I hate to throw water on what has been a hot issue for the past three years, but I do believe that many are counting their chickens before they hatch. And anyone who has had much experience in hatching chickens knows that nothing is a given.
And what so many are ignoring is the fact that Obama has to prove nothing, but the plaintiffs do. In civil actions, which this is, you really are innocent until proven guilty.
As such, it is up to the plaintiffs in these cases to prove that Obama is not eligible. In this pursuit, the two different birth documents Obama has produced, the fraudulent social security numbers, and the fraudulent selective service registration matter not. They are accessories after the fact, so to speak; their existence speaking to crimes committed to fraudulently secure the office to which the candidate is not eligible.
What does matter is who Obama’s acknowledged father was and his nationality at the time of Obama’s birth. And I will remind all that it is assumed that Barack Hussein Obama, British National, was Obama’s father. If the birth documents are forgeries, then the only evidence that he was, is the immigration records of Obama (Sr) which acknowledges Stanley Ann Dunham as his wife and a son of that union born 4 August 1961.
January 24, 2012
© 2012 Lynn M Stuter – All Rights Reserved.
Submitted for publication to the Federal Observer by the author.
~ About the Author ~
Mother and wife, Lynn M. Stuter has spent the past ten years researching systems theory with a particular emphasis on education. She home schooled two daughters, now grown and on their own. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance and education reform. She networks nation-wide with other researchers and citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas. Visit her WEB SITE.
Ellen, please reference the Minor vs Happersett decision by The Supreme Court in 1875
I am not saying that we are government by English common law, just that we used the words the way that the common law did, and not the way that Vattel did. The common law is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers; Vattel is not mentioned at all.
And what did Natural Born mean in the common law? It referred to the PLACE of birth, not the parents.
This is what Blackstone said:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
(And generally speaking refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
The hearing was held today. Obama did not show up. The judge did not say a word about Obama having violated a “subpoena.”
Ellen your information is not correct. I wouldn’t believe Orrin Hatch if my life depended on that rat. He was the creep who exhonorated Lon Horriuchi the FBI sniper who murdered Vicky Weaver while she stood in a door way holding her infant child. Hatch, like Joe Biden, and Ed Meese are government stooges.
Obama’s father holds every bit of bearing on Jr’s status for eligibility to become president of the US. The Natural Born Citizenship qualification only applies to the office of the president of the united states.
The founders considered a natural born citizen to be the offspring of American citizen parents. ie; two American parents – and this is what will be discussed in the Georgia court providing the judge is still living at the time of the trial.
THe people can show that AKA has not produced a REAL birthcert. What he has showen was a Cert of Live birth, that is not a birth cert. So the people can demand that a REAL birth Cert be produced and the judge can demand it or AKA is not on the ballot.
Richard said: “. What he has showen was a Cert of Live birth, that is not a birth cert.”
A Certificate of Live Birth is a fancy name for a birth certificate.
The citizenship of Obama’s father has no effect on Obama’s Natural Born Citizen status.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” –(Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC)
I don’t know where you get your information, ellen, but you should research the hearings on the 14th amendment;then you would know the truth. By the way, we are not governed by English common law. I seem to remember a Revolution some 230 years ago.
In reply to what hippybiker said:
I am not saying that English common law applies. I am saying that they used the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the English common law, not the way that it was used in Vattel. The common law is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, while Vattel was not mentioned at all.
So, what did the common law say?
Blackstone wrote: “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/
(And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)
And was that the way that the phrase Natural Born was used in America too? Yes. How do we know? Because we cannot find a single American leader who used the phrase the way that Vattel did, and many used it the way that Blackstone did, referring to the place of birth–not the parents.
Here is an actual example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents.
And here is how it was used in 1829:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
Re the debates on the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment deals with citizenship, not Natural Born status. I have read many quotations from speakers in the debate and NONE said that Natural Born referred to the parents. Some thought that citizenship should require US parents, but that was not passed, and it does not refer to the meaning of Natural Born in any case.
Moreover, Senator Lyman Trumbull, the US Senator who wrote the citizenship section of the 14th Amendment, said this some years after the debate:
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
Notice how similar “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together” is to what Blackstone wrote. Notice: “it is the common law of this country as well as of England.”
Finally, here is what Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general had in his book on the US Constitution:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]