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.
“Do we ignonre the opinions of two Justices of the Supreme Court, and only recognize the partisan opinion presented by Vince, Mike A. et al, or do we recognize that further non-partisan interpretation should be explored?”
Jim,
Be honest enough to cut the crap why don’t you? You are more partisan than those you accuse, except that you are also too disingenuous to admit your bias.
The Opinion of the Court is the law and by virtue of the Supremeacy Clause is binding on all federal and state courts and on federal and state legislatures, until reversed or changed by a later decision, or by an Amendment.
As for the Saudi child, anyone can “question” his loyalty, but he can run for President. It is up to the people to decide. If is is a problem, propose a constitutional amendment. It is not easy to take away citizenship.
“This is a legal issue. I fully believe that you don’t think it is, but you are confused. You’re more than happy to abide by our Constitution when it supports your needs, but when it imposes a restriction that you consider to be unfair, you’re more than happy to trash it.”
Jim,
I’m not at all confused and neither are you. You may have the ability to deceive yourself to think you are being fair but you’re not. Actually though I dealt with that in a previous post, which is unfortunately “awaiting moderation” due to the amount of links and so this post will probably appear first.
As for saying that I abide by the Constitution when it suits my needs. You cite an 1850 tome by a Swiss as your basis for knowing the intent of the Constitution. Now of course you got that from Leo C. Donofrio, that retired lawyer, professional poker player, erstwhile Republican and con man for a buck who couldn’t get SCOTUS to accept his suit. Thin at best Jim and clearly not the person I’d go to for Constitutional Theory.
“What’s the difference between the list of Plaintiffs supplied above, FFLEO, myself, and you? -Other than you, the rest of us operated/operate under the authority of the President. We took an oath to support and defend our Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic, and nowhere in our oath did we swear to ignore the Constitution when it didn’t fit our needs.”
I have your word that you were in the service. If you actually served in combat, more credit to you. After that your comment becomes insulting. You don’t know me Jim. you know little of my life or the struggles I’ve been in to do my part to make this country a better place. If you served directly in combat, yes than you put your life on the line. However, to a lesser extent so have I. Don’t claim, however, that being in the military gives anyone the right to claim special status when it comes to following the Constitution.
George Bush and Dick Cheney swore a similar oath and both of them trashed the Constitution and were equally derisive of it.
Most of those people who you linked yourself with above voted for those draft dodging traitors, not once but twice, so I guess that their duty to their oaths had flexibility.
“No. Given the information provided by Barack Obama, and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen; I do not believe that Barack Obama meets the natural born citizen qualification of Article II.”
Again we revert to the authority of a Swiss writer to interpret our constitution. Jim you are so clearly full of it.
This is all about politics for you and you are front and center in the mainstream of the birther movement.
“When you understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful (or illegitimate) order, you may understand my position.”
I may not have been in the service Jim but I more than understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful order and my career, income and family suffered for it on more than three occasions. In only one of them as the Chief Contracting Officer for the NYC/HRA Adult Services Administration (read Colonel), with 450 million$ in contracts under my purview, I refused a direct order of my Executive Deputy Commissioner (read two star General)to give a no-bid contract that was phony but had been asked for by Mayor Giuliani’s people. I never talked to the man again and he was about to fire me when the HANAC contracting scandal broke and the contract I refused to do was withdrawn. Nevertheless, I had to leave that Agency for another job which was equivalent to a Majors in pay and perks. So I took a demotion for my principles.
That was one of three times I put myself on the line for the law and principle and suffered greatly for it. Also too, in 1966 after graduating college I tried to enlist in the Air Force, where I was guaranteed OCS, but was rejected for high blood pressure. A good move since I have had extensive heart trouble since then.
How many unlawful orders did you ignore in your military career Jim? We both understand the obligation, but as you well know some in the military put their career advancement ahead of the niceties of legalities and their own personal morality. People like Major Cook even like to play pretend to advance their political feelings. Jim, deny it all you want but this is only about politics and relying on 18th Century Swiss for constitutional insight and 21st Century legal hacks does nothing to disprove it.
While it is true that dissenting opinion is of no precedential value, it does provide us with the interpretations of two judges of the U.S. Supreme Court.
We are left with a decision. Do we ignonre the opinions of two Justices of the Supreme Court, and only recognize the partisan opinion presented by Vince, Mike A. et al, or do we recognize that further non-partisan interpretation should be explored?
Quotes from the estimable Mr. Byrnes,
“Why would an honorable man continue to fight so hard to hide information about his birth? Why? –How long does one stand on “you can’t make me”?”
MS: This is a clear political, not legal statement.
“The Law of Nations (1758), Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212
Now, who thinks “natural-born” status has been resolved?”
MS: Mr. Vatel’s book would not have been authoritative because British Common Law and Statutes would have first preference. Also it is bizarre to use as a reason since it did not recognize the rights of women, who were considered chattels. Times do change, Constitutional Issues do evolve, even if certain people recognize the evolution only when it suits their political views. Scalia anyone, or perhaps Jim Byrne?
“Mike S.,
We need to start with things to which we will both agree:
1. We have a written Constitution.
2. Article II of that Constitution requires that the President meet 3 criteria to be qualified.
3. One of those qualifications is that he must be a “natural born citizen”.
4. We have no choice but to adhere to the requisites of our Constitution.
Do you agree with the 4 points presented above?”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/
MS: Given agreement on the above, where does the fact that Monsieur Vatel wrote a tome, that John Jay purportedly read have to do with our Constitution, except in the sense of people with political objectives who lack substance and need to sound as if they’re authoritative? By the way the link below the quote shows where you got Vatel from, the “estimable” professional poker player, retired lawyer and money hungry (see website to donate) Leo C. Donofrio.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/
“Sorry Mike, I should have answered your question first.(You)
“In that respect could somebody please show me where the “fact” came from the the President has spent million$ in lawyer’ fees to keep this hidden?” (quoting me)
I don’t know. Our transparent President is not that transparent.”(You)
MS: Another purely political answer by you Jim to a legitimate question dealing to one of the major lies spread by the people you support
“One lie is relatively meaningless, but it is still a lie, and reflects upon the general truthfulness of the one who tells it.”
MS: Jim your hypocrisy is showing. How is it that the oft repeated claim of those you follow, Obama has spent million$ covering this up, has no bearing upon their general truthlessness? It doesn’t because this isn’t about the constitution for you Jim it is decidely political, but you choose to hide that to make yourself seem a fair observer. Nice pose, but it doesn’t fly.
“Does he meet the standard of qualification set forth in the Constitution, under the definition that I have provided? -No.”
MS: And your definition is based on a book written in the 1750’s by a Swiss citizen. That isn’t Constitution Jim it’s political. By the way have I mentioned that while not a lawyer I went to Law School for 2 1/2 years (albeit at night)
and there I learned that the background of our jurisprudence comes from British Common Law and Statutes. These legal standards were decidedly not similar to the legal theories practiced in Europe. However, when one plays political games any port in the storm, I guess.
“As the high court has never addressed the definition of natural born citizen, we must look to a definition that existed prior to adoption of our Constitution. -That is the only way to interpret what the Framers would have considered.”
MS: So we should look at Monsieur Vatel in determining the intent rather than to British conceptualization? Idiotic and lacking historical understanding and by the way don’t throw Voltaire at me as an influence, I’m quite aware of the history. However, what really is wrong with your statement Jim is the part about interpretation. That kind of thinking about the Founder’s thoughts. That method of interpreting the Constitution allows for people, Federalist Society anyone, to give free reign to whatever fantasies are driven by their inability to separate their political beliefs from reality. Politics again Jim.
“We know that John Jay was familiar with the writings of Emmerich Vattel. (See Madison’s instructions to John Jay, Dated Oct. 17th, 1780)”
MS: Interesting word choice “familiar with” because it doesn’t say believed in or fervently supported. A man as erudite as Jay was also familiar with the doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings and may have commented in letters about it to anyone. He may hqave even thought there was some minor applicability. More political claptrap Jim and no direct link to the issue, except by smoke and mirrors.
“As such, and unless some other definition of “natural born citizen” was floating around at the time of the Constitutional Convention (I am not aware of any others), we must be willing to recognize the definition presented by Vattel.”
MS: No we mustn’t to be willing to accept Vatel’s definition. While you state it confidently as if it is clearly logical, it in fact isn’t logical at all and truthfully downright silly. Using the reasonable person standard, I doubt if you’d get more than 2% of Constitutional lawyers alone to agree with you and I’m being generous in that estimate.
“According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
Leo C. Donofrio”
MS: Mr. Donofrio is a retired lawyer, professional card player and man on the make for a buck. He is also decidedly
Republican and decidedly political as the link below from the website carrying his blog until at least November 2008 shows.
Jim protest all you want that this is serious stuff, but your own words, your lack of candor and your answering questions with questions clearly indicates that this too for you is political, but it suits you to be disingenuous about it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/bloggers-forum/index
I’ll deal with your last snarky reply in my next post.
Always important to distinguish between the Opinion of the Court and the Dissent.
Those are remarks in a dissenting opinion.
Vince,
Let’s say; a Saudi couple visiting the U.S. has a child born on U.S. soil, while visiting…and they take their child with them to grow up in Saudi Arabia. The child returns to the U.S. when he/she is 30 years old, and, at 45 runs for/ and is elected President.
Do you think the loyalty of that person could be legitimately questioned?
“[I]t is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” -dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Fuller (joined by Justice Harlan) United States v. Wong Kim Ark
I-97, wrong! I have addressed the issues here.
Obama has produced a valid birth certificate. He was born in Hawaii in the United States.
He is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the US, and that status is NOT affected by the fact that his father was Kenyan.
Obama is the President of the United States of America.
I have supported all of this here and on many other threads, as the regulars will attest.
nice one…
Vince takes the true lawyer/Judge/Justice tract and instead of joining in the birther arguement wraps up the case on standing and the smaller albeit core issue before the birther reasoning can even enter the conversation.
brilliant!
i love that kind of resolution. shows you are concentrationg on the law and not the issue. not all lawyers do that unfortunately.
Sandra, at July 20, 2009 at 7:54 am on General did not join suit.
Thanks, Sandra, for a great catch. The General is not on the case, so the jury will disregard my para on his lack of standing. It continues to apply to any and all other innocent bystanders.
This General is a lot smarter than Cook, and infintely smarter than Orly.
I am going to repost from another thread to clarify the underlying facts of Cook’s suit and to expand a little on my post above.
These facts may not be clear to readers from the summary at the top. There it is written that “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 reader might get the impression that 1) Cook was ordered to be deployed to Afghanistan, 2) he filed suit to stop the deployment, 3) arguing that Obama was not a natural born citizen, and 4) as a result of the lawsuit, the Army cancelled his orders to prevent a ruling on this issue.
That is not how it went down. In fact, 1) Cook volunteered for deployment and 2) had the right to revoke his application at any time up and until deployment; 3) he then filed suit to stop the deployment; and 4) the Army reasonably concluded that a soldier who had sued to stop his deployment no longer wanted to go overseas and 5) cancelled his orders.
This is clear from the news reports. So where is the lawsuit? Where is the case or controversy?
Maybe Cook should have gone on active duty and then refused to obey a lawful direct order to get on the plane. That might or might not have been a case, but he did not, and there is no case.
If he suffered employment retaliation, he has to go the Labor Department under the federal veterans employment protection statute. It cannot be raised this case.
As for the retired General, he has no standing or interest in the case at all. Please, someone tell him that you can sue to challenge your own tax assessment, but not your neighbor’s. Can a PI attorney explain to him that you can sue if you yourself are run over, but not if someone else is run over.
Here is the article that makes it clear that he volunteered to go on active duty.
QUOTE Earlier today, Quon said Cook submitted a formal written request to Human Resources Command-St. Louis on May 8, 2009 volunteering to serve one year in Afghanistan with Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Central Command, beginning July 15, 2009. The soldier’s orders were issued on June 9, Quon said.
“A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” Quon said.
Swarthmore Mom, Liz Cheney is simply positioning herself to run for public office so that she can contribute to the wonderful legacy left by her father.
Swarthmore mom 1, July 22, 2009 at 9:43 am
The “birthers” are not giving up
************
I think you are correct. How is this morning going?
The “birthers” are not giving up although they should. Last night Liz Cheney joined them. I think they are on a mission to invade the blogs and get their message out.
–I have no problem with citizenship being bestowed upon one who is born on U.S. soil.
I don’t think that’s what the Framers intended when they used the term “natural born citizen”. They could have easily stated that the president must be born on U.S. soil, but they didn’t.
I’m open to exploring other definitions of “natural born citizen”.
***********************
How about Slavery and all of the other stuff going on at the time. Natural, meaning “whether or not “colored men” can be citizens of the United States.”
“I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ….” In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
########
This is a dead issue hear? I could have said here, but do you hear that it is a dead issue.
Vince T., welcome back to the latest installment of “Reinventing the Wheel.” Every birther argument I have seen asserts that a Swiss legal scholar is the only legitimate authority on the citizenship issue. I don’t know why, but they appear to believe that the Commentaries on the Laws of England was a work unknown to the Founders. This debate has found its way into three or four different threads on this site so far and I am convinced that a pronouncement by Scalia himself would be unsatisfactory to the opposition. I am expecting at any moment that someone will raise the issue of the unlawful abolition of primogeniture.
Vince,
Welcome back. Work or vacation?
–I have no problem with citizenship being bestowed upon one who is born on U.S. soil.
I don’t think that’s what the Framers intended when they used the term “natural born citizen”. They could have easily stated that the president must be born on U.S. soil, but they didn’t.
I’m open to exploring other definitions of “natural born citizen”.
Jim Byrne. Sec. 212 is not in the Constitution, was not written into it by the framers and not ratified by the people in conventions, so it does not settle anything about the Constitution.
Scholars mostly look to the British common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and that provided for citizenship on the basis of place of birth. A court so held even before the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Gee, I leave town for a few days, and look what happens.
George and rcampbell. Birth to a single US citizen parent outside the US does not automatically confer citizenship. The parent must meet certain residence requirements that have changed over the years.
FFLEO. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that a natural born citizen have two US citizen parents. Please show us the words. This was confirmed by the Wonk Kim Ark case that held that a person born in the US of noncitizen parents was a citizen by reason of birth, not naturalization.
I have pointed out that Donofrio’s thesis that Obama was subject to Kenyan jurisdiction or has Kenyan citizenship at birth does NOT translate into a two-citizen parent requirement. Suppose Kenyan law at the time said that only persons born in Kenya had citizenship? Then anyone born outside Kenya would NOT have been under dual jurisdiction. So you do not even have stated Leo’s argument correctly.
Mike A., Mike S., gyges. Right.
Professor Turley. Cook volunteered for deployment. He could have changed his mind at any time. Then he filed a lawsuit to stop deployment. That was pretty good evidence that he had changed his mind. How could the Army possibly defend on the merits? If they agree to his request for an injunction to stop the deployment, then they have to cancel his orders. There was no possible way for this case to present a case or controversy to the court. There was simply no basis for jurisdiction.
As I said earlier, he was like the guy who sued for an injunction to stop himself from chopping down his own tree.
Very well said Jim, I am not an attorney, in most court procedings I’ve seen on TV. Alot of times they have to build a case on circumstantial evidence and then connect the dots on why someone has broken the law. They give it to the Jury and they decide. Thats all I was trying to do. Be out all day,keep up the fight