The controversy over President Barack Obama continues with an interesting twist: Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (ret.) and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff are supporting the litigation. On July 8th, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor. The government is now claiming that the lawsuit is “moot” since Cook doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan. Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.
The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants. It was an unfortunate decision to revoke these orders. The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter. The optics are perfect for those alleging a grand conspiracy to conceal Obama’s birth certificate (which has been viewed as third parties) and hide his alleged foreign born status.
For the full story, click here.
Jim B,
Can the father alone transmit NBC status?
“Let me be clear: Are you maintaining that a father can transmit NBC status and a mother cannot? I think that interpretation is unconstitutional via the 14th and 19th amendments.”
I’m stating that the definition of “natural born citizen”, which I believe to be controlling as to the qualifications of the President would not grant natural born citizen status by virtue of the mother alone being a citizen.
FYI -Something mandated by the Constitution itself, cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional.
” The fact remains that the SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a case on Obama’s citizenship and declined to do so.”
No. They had the opportunity to hear a case on “standing” and declined.
Jim B,
Let me be clear: Are you maintaining that a father can transmit NBC status and a mother cannot? I think that interpretation is unconstitutional via the 14th and 19th amendments.
Mike A,
Thanks for clearing that up. The fact remains that the SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a case on Obama’s citizenship and declined to do so.
“Throw the 14th into the mix then – do you still think women are 2nd class citizens constitutionally?
I still think the 14th Amendment has no direct effect on the natural born citizen clause. However, it does convince me that anyone, regardless of race or gender, are determined to be citizens by birth on U.S. Soil.
I would not consider a child, the offspring of foreigners, to be elligable for the Office of President, simply because they were born here.
Now my turn for a question.
Do you think a child of foreign parents, born on U.S. soil, then wisked away to their parents homeland, and brought up in the traditions of their parents country, who returns to the U.S. at age 45 and runs for President at age 60, would have more deep-down loyalty to this country, or the country in which the child was raised? Do you think that person might be inclined to favor his parents country over another?
Mike A.,
I appreciate your clarification on effect of the Supreme Court refusing to grant certiorari. I refrained from getting into too much detail with SBF. (I’m tired of typing slartibartfast) :>)
I just wanted SBF to know that the Supreme Court had not really decided anything about Obama’s qualifications.
Mike A.,
“The law governing the qualifications for a presidential candidate is part of the municipal law of this country.”
Can you provide support for that position, or is it just your opinion?
Lecture XX is irrelevant, as it deals with the various laws of the states -not of the Union.
Kent really doesn’t say much about the qualifications of the President. He suggests that anyone born on U.S. soil can be president. I disagree. Kent does not discuss why he thinks a natural born citizen is the same as a native citizen.
Jim Byrne and Slartibartfast, as a technical matter the Supreme Court’s declination to hear a case does not constitute approval of the appellate court determination or of the reasoning of the appellate court judges. It means only that the Court has decided not to hear the matter for reasons which are generally not disclosed, thereby allowing the appellate court decision to stand. When the Supreme Court declines review, that does not mean that the appellate court decision is the law of the land. That’s one of the reasons that there are numerous conflicts among the circuits on various points of law.
Jim B,
Throw the 14th into the mix then – do you still think women are 2nd class citizens constitutionally?
Gyges, I don’t know about predictions, but I’m relatively certain that BVM is advocating a coup d’etat.
Slartibartfast,
“The SCOTUS has addressed this issue – by not hearing cases which were reviewed in conference they have implicitly said that there is no need for them to review this issue. If it would precipitate a constitutional crisis I would think that the justices would consent to hear the case (if only to clearly state that Barack Obama was eligible to be president). That they saw fit not to do so in multiple cases heard in conference speaks volumes to me.”
You’re misunderstanding the role of the appelate court. What is presented to the Supreme Court are errors of the lower court. In these cases, it was the lower court’s determinations of standing that was appealed to the Supremes. The justices of the Supreme Court determined, by not granting cert, that the lower court’s decision to dismiss for lack of standing was correct. The Supreme Court has never addressed the merits of the case. (i.e. They never addressed the natural born citizen status of Barack Obama. Alll they did was determine that the person bringing suit had not been directly harmed)
“Additionally, while you’re interpreting the constitution in the framer’s mindset, please look at all of it. You cannot assert a constitutional difference between men and women without ignoring the 19th amendment and the intent of those that wrote it! By your own arguments, (President) Barack Obama would have received NBC status from his mother. It seems to me that for any interpretation of the constitution to be valid in light of the 19th amendment, the sexes of his parents cannot matter.”
The 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. While voting is one of the benefits of citizenship, the Amendment itself does not define/redefine natural born citizen.
Jim Byrne, I believe you have misinterpreted Prof. Scott. Under traditional legal definitions, the “law of nations” is what we refer to in modern jurisprudence as “international law,” public law governing the relationships among sovereign states. That’s why I stated earlier that Vattel’s primary interest was in developing natural law principles to guide relations among states. The phrase “municipal law,” although its Latin root is “municipium,” meaning a provincial town, does not relate to city government. It describes the internal or domestic law of a sovereign state. The law governing the qualifications for a presidential candidate is part of the municipal law of this country. But the phrase is a bit archaic. The Constitution represents the supreme “municipal law” of the land. See, e.g., Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Vol. I., Lecture XX, pp. 419-420.
The military has the authority and duty to arrest Obama.
Is it just me or did BMV just predict a coup d’état?
Ask the military when they take him into custody.
BVM,
I have a North Carolina Driver’s License! Do I get to be president when you throw Obama out?
Have a gorgeous evening!
Jim B,
Forgive me for addressing just a couple of points on your recent post, but Vince can (and has) addressed most of them far more ably and easily than I ever could. The SCOTUS has addressed this issue – by not hearing cases which were reviewed in conference they have implicitly said that there is no need for them to review this issue. If it would precipitate a constitutional crisis I would think that the justices would consent to hear the case (if only to clearly state that Barack Obama was eligible to be president). That they saw fit not to do so in multiple cases heard in conference speaks volumes to me. Additionally, while you’re interpreting the constitution in the framer’s mindset, please look at all of it. You cannot assert a constitutional difference between men and women without ignoring the 19th amendment and the intent of those that wrote it! By your own arguments, (President) Barack Obama would have received NBC status from his mother. It seems to me that for any interpretation of the constitution to be valid in light of the 19th amendment, the sexes of his parents cannot matter.
BVM, you’ve established your Einstein observation quite satisfactorily. Thank you.
Mike A.,
Perhaps this will provide some guidance.
“It is therefore to be expected that when terms of municipal law are found in the Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone’s Commentaries; and, when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them.”
“The United States of America” by James Brown Scott (1920)
Who is this James Brown Scott?
He founded the law school at the University of Southern California, and was its dean. He was dean of the college of law at the University of Illinois (1899-1903), professor of law at Columbia, and professor of law at George Washington University (1905-06).
Print out a copy of Obama’s COLB and drop by the DMV in your city … see for yourself. They won’t accept it as proof of birth. They aren’t Obama fools 🙂