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.
MIke S writes: Jim Byrne, however, is something else entirely. He is playing a game and he’s got you playing on his board, so he keeps going and no matter how logically you demolish his foolishness, he just dances around it and gets you repeating points where you’ve already demolished his idiocy with many posts before. As I showed by dissecting his posts this is someone who has an axe to grind but is so dishonest and dishonorable that he plays games with us.
Me: Mike. this is the way I see it. everyone needs a hobby and this is Jim’s. It’s also my hobby and there have been lots of folk here who dont care for my opinions either. At the end of the day he is the one stuck with a president he doesn’t like and stuck talking to people he doesn’t respect. I’d say that is a collossal waste of time, but, who am I to tell Jim how to spend his days? I kind of like his sense of outrage and love standing on the side of the winner for a change. After 8 years of Bushco, this feels really good.
MIke: You see the disingenuous always have an advantage in a debate with the earnest. The why is obvious. He doesn’t hesitate to dissemble when each of his points are destroyed. What can we learn though about Jim Byrne despite his penchant for disingenuity?
me Nah.he doesn’t have an advantage. he is just persistent. perseverating, if you will.
1. He is a birther, but more cerebral than the norm, that is obvious.
2. He believes in interpreting the Constitution strictly based on the Founder’s Intent view, which would put him four square with the Federalist Society.
me: maybe he’s a racist too. I don’t care about that. he has no power here or anywhere else. so he’s annoying and doesnt get that his ideas only make him laughable. this does not win him anything. not even respect.
Mike: 3. He believes that Constitutionally women are less than men despite the 19th Amendment which he interprets in a most curious manner.
me: well we are. until we earn what men earn, until we can raise our children with enough to eat everyday, until we can go where we want and do what we want and say what we want without being called bitches or whores for having ideas that men have, for being successful, we are not equal. the constitution might grant us equal rights. doesn’t mean we have them.
Mike:
6. You will never win a debate with him, even though his points are weak and stupid, but simply because he ignores it when he is bested. If you think I’m wrong read all of the posts on the thread and see where when a telling point is made he simply responds in a non-responsive fashion.
me: i don’t debate. I just respond with my own ideas. I’m not in it to win I just like writing about stuff. JIm is not my enemy. I don’t want to invite him for cocktails. He doesn’t seem like my kind of guy. He isn’t temperate, doesn’t have a sense of humor. probably isn’t very good looking.
I don’t respect him. But I don’t care if he comes here or not. For every Jim who comes here there are thousands of others who do not. I learned a longtime ago that some people like this for the combat. some like it for attention. some like it to control others. some do this to make friends. Me? I like it for the entertainment and to hear the ideas of people that I really respect. sadly I also get to hear the ideas from people I don’t respect and who do not entertain me.
in the end. shouldnt it just be fun?
GWLSM said; “if Obama were white would this be happening? I dont think so”
Yes it would. I would hold the same position.
Bob,Esq.,
The election is not being challenged. Your point is therefore moot.
Does the Constitution provide for the possibility of one being elected, but not meeting the qualifications? -See the Twentieth Amendment.
Jim Byrne writes: OK. I’ll play the game. Let’s say it is racially motivated. But just in case; let’s also say that it’s politically motivated, anti-christian, anti-muslim, anti-lawyer, anti-hope and anti-change, et al. I don’t want to miss any.
me: what makes you think that smarter people than you and I have not already authenticated the president’s legitimacy? and why do we have to throw in all these other ways of looking at what is motivating this birher stuff? if you followed the campaign at all and I did, there is a large straight line from all those hysterical anti-obama folks at palin rallies screaming that he is an arab and a terrorist to this. they failed. he was elected and sworn in and all they can do is wait 4 years. maybe 8. and even then, who is there to take his place? which uptight, screwed up, republican adulterer do you have in mind? some one from The Family? those holier than thou shamelessly craven polls who believe that god is their bitch?
ask yourself this: if Obama were white would this be happening? I dont think so
Jim: So what? A legitimate constitutional question about the qualifications of the President exist for the first time in our life, a question that should be decided…once and for all, and you want to ignore it? Why? Don’t you trust our Court?
me: do you? The Court already decided it wasn’t going to hear this. And Obamas birth certificate was already authenticated. its done. its over. He is the president. don’t like it? that is your right. Find anothe candidate. Work for him or her and maybe you will be successful in 2012. anyway, do I trust the court? no. hell no. I like some of the decisions they have made and I dislike others. Roger Taney who wrote the majority in the Dredd Scott decision was an unreconstructed bigot who created the basis for all modern race relations and it all comes to race in American, every time. A black president calls a police action against a decent moderate head of a Harvard black studies department stupid and looky looky…. it is suddenly a lightening bolt for every flag waving anti-black voice in american who will certainly use this in the mid-terms as proof that Obama is a militant who wants black men to rape their sisters.
Jim: If you have that little faith in our system of laws, you might as well give up. The only correct decisions aren’t just those with which you agree.
Me: huh?
Jim: Tell me. Why do you think the President would endure all this controversy just to keep the vault copy of his birth certificate from public view? Think about it. Who would let this continue when it can be so easily resolved? Haven’t you figured out that there is more to this than our President wants us to know? If his BC is as he claims…he should be proud to show it. -One call to the Governor of Hawaii and I’m sure it would be released.
Me: it has been solved. its over. you wanna call the governor of hawaii? knock yourself out.
States elect presidents.
Individuals lack standing to intervene in issues between the states.
Birth Certificates are non-dispositive and ultimately constitutionally irrelevant.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/19/retired-major-general-joins-litigation-over-obamas-birth-status/#comment-69625
Vince and Mike A.,
I believe that the term “natural born citizen” is a term of art. As such, the words cannot be separated. It is evident that Vince and Mike A. do not consider “natural born citizen” to be a term of art. The question is; will a court of law agree with their conclusion or my conclusion? -That is yet to be determined, and will not be decided on this blawg.
IF, a court determines that “natural born citizen” is a legal term of art, they will look for a definition of that EXACT TERM. Vattel’s is the only one that matches that EXACT TERM.
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses two risks. In the law, Double Jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial.
The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art can have legal consequences. Since this has been a recent topic of discussion on Professor Turley’s Blawg, let’s examine Molzof. In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711, 116 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1992), Shirley M. Molzof brought suit against the federal government after her husband, Robert E. Molzof, suffered irreversible brain damage while under the care of government hospital workers. The federal government conceded liability, and the parties tried the issue of damages before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Molzof had brought the claim as executor of her husband’s estate under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680 [1988]), which prohibits the assessment of Punitive Damages against the federal government. The court granted recovery to Molzof for her husband’s injuries that resulted from the Negligence of federal employees, but it denied recovery for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. According to the court, such damages were punitive damages, which could not be recovered against the federal government.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. According to the Court, punitive damages is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning under state law. Congress was aware of this meaning at the time it passed the FTCA. Under traditional common-law principles, punitive damages are designed to punish a party. Since damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life were meant to compensate Molzof rather than punish the government, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit.
Jim Byrne, one further point. We do not have “subjects” in this country in the monarchical sense, as you well know. We also have two tiers of citizenship, in recognition of the limited sovereignty of the individual states. Therefore, your reference to being “subject” to the laws of North Carolina while not being a “citizen” of that state has no relevancy to the issue.
Byrne, try to learn from Mike before asking questions.
The definition from Black’s says that people are “subjects as well as citizens.”
Think about it. Some persons are both subjects and citizens.
But how about a lawfully admitted resident alien awaiting citizenship? That person is a subject, since she has left her old country and is fully subject to the laws of the United States. She is not yet a citizen. So that is the difference.
Also learn that the state court decisions were controlling on citizenship before the 14th Amendment.
And subject and citizen can be interchangeable. The British jurisdictions are now using citizen in place of subject to get away from the idea of subjecttion to a monarch.
BTW, still not addressing the fact that Vattel does not seem to be relied upon in the Cranch reports on the topic on natural born citizenship. Just because he is right on one topic does not make him right on everything.
Finally, still not anwering the point that there WERE sources of the meaning of “natural born” other than Vattel. He was not the ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET that wrote about the topic, or whose writings were available to the framers.
Still waiting for anybody with a long form BC that lists the citizenship of parents.
Jim Byrne, don’t be silly. I specifically stated that the North Carolina decision was intended to provide “historical context” for the point that in applying the English common law definition of citizenship, the Founders treated the words “subject” and “citizen” as essentially interchangeable. The court in the North Carolina case acknowledged that understanding.
Mike A.,
Yes. I read other citations of Vattel in Cranch. The most applicable is Chief Justice Marshall’s recognition of Vattel on the subject of citizens.
I provided you with the Black’s Dictionary of Law, First Edition (1891) definition of subject to demonstrate the legal difference between subject and citizen. Here; I’ll repost it.
“A “subject”, in constitutional law, is one that owes allegiance to a sovereign, and is governed by his laws. Men of free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws.”
Are you really suggesting that a North Carolina court’s decision should be controlling?
When I drive thru North Carolina am I a subject or a citizen? I am subject to their laws, but I don’t have the right to vote. Clearly, their must be a difference between subject and citizen.
Byrne himself linked to a guy named Greshak who actually posted Blackstone’s commentary on the laws of England. That is clearly an alternative source to Vattel. Why does he say no one has shown an alterntive to Vattel?
quote
William Blackstone at Oxford…
THE firft and moft obvious divifion of the people is into aliens and natural-born fubjects. Natural-born fubjects are fuch as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, fuch as are born out of it.
Also, there is the following passage from the same work:
Natural allegiance is fuch as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themfelves.
O.K. Mr. Appleton, but what about Jesus? Where was his father born? Was Jesus a NBC of anywhere?
I call for the arrest and prosecution of BVM for unlawfully converting to his own use and benefit the acronym of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
BVM, please call. Your room is ready.
Is Orly Taitz a US citizen. She seems to have a thick un-American accent. Where are her papers and is she here legally?
BVM=moron and traitor
To give just one more example of Orly’s idiocy, here is a typical filing:
Q
(33) However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as President, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the “long-form” birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961.
UQ
Anybody, anybody, out there got a birth certificate that lists the “citizenship” of the parents?
We will wait.
We call for the arrests of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Treason, War Crimes, Fraud and a multitude of other charges.
Byrne; “One need only look at the words in order to find the source. I have repeatedly asked for presentation of an alternative source. None has been provided, and none will be provided.”
Everybody. How does one find a source by looking at words?
He has repeated asked for an alternative source to Vattel. He has been repeatedly been referred in great detail by Mike Appleton and others to the existing common law at the time of the Declaration and the Constitution. Under the common law, all persons born in the realm were citizens. The common law is the source of the meaning of many of the terms in the Constitution, and that includes natural born citizen. We still have not seen any framer who referred to Vattel on citizenship. It is just assumed that since Vattel’s books were in the States, then he was the source of the meaning of the clause. That is a long, long, loooooonnnng leap from premise to conclusion. It is an Olympic record in conclusion jumping.
And Benji Franklin above performed a valuable service for everyone when he discovered that the stuff that Vattel wrote and that Story or Marshall read may not even have been translated into English until 1797.
And finally in the post above about sec 212 at July 19, 10:40 PM, Byrne quoted Vattel:
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent….I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” That doctrine is not the law in the United States, and has never been the law in the United States, even though it may have been Swiss law, since I think Vattel was Swiss. So why is anyone looking to Vattel as authority? When Vattel wrote “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” he was perhaps talking about the Swiss and other continental countries. He could not possible be talking about the United States in 1758. The Constitution as first adopted did not address the issue of citizenship, leaving that to the states under the federal system, but state laws recognized persons born in the United States as citizens. So the reliance on Vattel is misplaced.
He can find abundant information at obamaconspiracy.com.
One just has to look in the right places.
“Looking for love in all the wrong places.”
Thanks for removing any doubts about the Coup issue.
In looking up more on coup, I found an interesting thing about Coup d’état: what Julius Caesar, and Napoleon were Coups. There is such a thing as a self coup, that is one in which the establish government takes on extra non-constitutional powers with the help of the military.