By
Chief Justice John G. Roberts will give, by long-standing tradition, the following Oath to Obama on January 21, 2013:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
When Obama released his fraudulent long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, he proclaimed to the World that he is a usurper of the Office of President as he is not a Natural Born Citizen! His Father was a British Citizen of Kenya, making Obama a British Subject at birth. Let that soak in for a moment, so he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen. Since a Natural Born Citizen is defined as a “Child born of two citizen parents“ Obama is not NATURAL BORN….
Roberts should be familiar with Minor v. Happersett, where SCOTUS defined a Natural Born Citizen in 1875 as shown below:
The office of President is the only office in the land that has this condition, and Roberts should know as Chief Justice that John Jay (our first Chief Justice) is the one who advocated for this condition on the office of President. An excerpt from his letter to George Washington when he was the President of the Constitutional Convention that assembled in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution is as follows:
This is why the Constitution has this requirement for the Office of President… in Article II Sec. 1 Clause 5.
This was to guarantee that the President did not have divided loyalties as we have with Obama and his Muslim roots. The following link is from an Egyptian source that verifies domestic sources of Treason from Obama.
If Chief Justice Roberts administers the Oath of Office to Obama in defiance of the Constitution and his own knowledge, the Republic is as good as dead; and he will have handed the Coup de Grace to the nation and opened himself to impeachment.
He must publicly stand and denounce Obama as unfit to lead and refuse to swear him in. That is, if he intends to comply with his Oath to “Protect and Defend the Constitution…from all enemies Foreign or Domestic”!
We will have to wait and watch what will unfold; may he have the conviction of a patriot and stand for the Constitution. If he does not…who will?
The World wonders…our Republic is now in the hands of one man and one man only!
Chief Justice John G. Roberts will give, by long-standing tradition, the following Oath to Obama on January 21, 2013:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
When Obama released his fraudulent long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, he proclaimed to the World that he is a usurper of the Office of President as he is not a Natural Born Citizen! His Father was a British Citizen of Kenya, making Obama a British Subject at birth. Let that soak in for a moment, so he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen. Since a Natural Born Citizen is defined as a “Child born of two citizen parents“ Obama is not NATURAL BORN….
Roberts should be familiar with Minor v. Happersett, where SCOTUS defined a Natural Born Citizen in 1875 as shown below:
It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.(Note: bold and underlined “parents” is my emphasis.)
The office of President is the only office in the land that has this condition, and Roberts should know as Chief Justice that John Jay (our first Chief Justice) is the one who advocated for this condition on the office of President. An excerpt from his letter to George Washington when he was the President of the Constitutional Convention that assembled in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution is as follows:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
This is why the Constitution has this requirement for the Office of President… in Article II Sec. 1 Clause 5.
This was to guarantee that the President did not have divided loyalties as we have with Obama and his Muslim roots. The following link is from an Egyptian source that verifies domestic sources of Treason from Obama.
If Chief Justice Roberts administers the Oath of Office to Obama in defiance of the Constitution and his own knowledge, the Republic is as good as dead; and he will have handed the Coup de Grace to the nation and opened himself to impeachment.
He must publicly stand and denounce Obama as unfit to lead and refuse to swear him in. That is, if he intends to comply with his Oath to “Protect and Defend the Constitution…from all enemies Foreign or Domestic”!
We will have to wait and watch what will unfold; may he have the conviction of a patriot and stand for the Constitution. If he does not…who will?
The World wonders…our Republic is now in the hands of one man and one man only!
Chief Justice Roberts is certain to swear in Obama again this month because Chief Justice Roberts knows, as he did the first time he swore in Obama, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case (which by the way was AFTER Minor v. Happersett). And the Wong Kim Ark case defined Natural Born Citizen as coming from the common law and referring to the PLACE of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents of a US-born citizen.
ReplyDeleteAnd so far there have been eight state and federal courts ruling on Obama and one on John McCain, all NINE of which said that the key ruling defining Natural Born Citizen is the Wong Kim Ark case, and all NINE of which said that the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth and that it ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen, except for the children of foreign diplomats. Here are some of the rulings:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.” [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born int he United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” [Citations to Wong Kim Ark case and Hollander and Ankeny].
Continuing:
ReplyDeleteAllen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: “While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”
Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case.’ [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
Last Friday the votes of the US Electoral College were counted, and NOT ONE of them, not one single one in 538 electors, changed her or his vote out of the belief that Obama was not born in the USA or that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen or that dual citizenship affects Natural Born Citizen status.