8Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Georgia Court To Take Up Eligibility Issue
Georgia Court To Take Up Eligibility Issue
Georgia Court To Take Up Eligibility Issue
By Jack Kinsella
An American court has finally taken up the question of whether or not the sitting President of the United States is eligible to appear on the Georgia ballot in 2012 under the Constitutional provision that requires candidates to be "natural born" citizens.
The ruling was handed down by Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia office of State Administrative Hearings:
"In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
"State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined."
According to the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 4, "a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of his birth."
Under the law as it existed in 1961 when Barack Obama was born (and no matter where he was born), his citizenship status was derived from his father, who was born in Kenya, at the time, a British colony subject to the authority of the British Nationality Act.
As far as Supreme Court precedent is concerned, the Court ruled in the case of Scott v. Sandford (1856) that "natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens" (Scott v. Sandford, 1856)
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. One class consisted of U.S.-born children of U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consisted of all other U.S.-born children.
The Court used the term "natural born citizen" only in reference to members of the first class. The ruling was as follows:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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."
Regarding members of the second class, the Court doubted whether they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. The Court distinguished "natural born citizens" from "aliens or foreigners", suggesting that a "natural born citizen" is one who is not a "foreigner" (foreign citizen) at birth.
Of America's 44 presidents, 34 were born after 1787 when the Constitution was adopted and subject to the "natural born" provision. Every one of the remaining 34 were born in the US of US parents except Barack Obama and Chester A. Arthur.
Chester Arthur's father was also a British subject who became a naturalized US citizen in 1843. Chester Arthur was born in 1837. Arthur lied about his background in 1880 and was elected vice-president. He became president after President James Garfield was assassinated in 1881.
Although Arthur was Constitutionally-ineligible to be president, no precedent was established, since had it been discovered, he would have been removed from office, based on the Supreme Court decisions of 1856 and 1874 and Article II of the Constitution.
Arthur lied about his eligibility because he knew he was ineligible. As such, he was a usurper to the office, although no concrete evidence emerged until after his term in office had expired.
The fact that Arthur concealed the circumstances of his father's birth and burned all his personal papers speaks volumes about how "natural born citizen" was understood in 1880.
Since Obama's birth certificate and his autobiography both say that Obama's father was a native of Kenya who never applied for US citizenship, when Obama was born, he acquired British citizenship by descent through his father.
In other words, Obama was born a foreign citizen. Under the 14th Amendment, a child born in the US becomes a citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
Citzenship by birth was not conveyed until the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1866.
When Section II of the Constitution was passed in 1787, the only natural born status possible was by birth to two US-born parents.
Obama's mother was only 18 -- the law says that in order for Obama to derive 'natural born' status from her, she would have had to have lived inside the United States for six years after reaching the age of 16.
Stanley Dunham was only 18 when Obama was born. So Obama could not be considered "natural born" through EITHER of his parents. Conversely, although John McCain was born outside the United States while his father was stationed in Panama, both his parents were natural-born US citizens.
The question was raised during the 2008 election and settled on those grounds. But the fact that McCain was judged to be natural-born under the Constitution doesn't help Obama, either.
Indeed, it hurts him, since Obama's case rests on his birth on US soil, while McCain's was settled by his parentage, since, as it turns out, the US was never sovereign over the Panama Canal in the first place.
"In a February 1978 speech to the nation on the Panama Canal Treaty, heavily vetted by government lawyers, President Carter said, "We have never had sovereignty over it. We have only had the right to use it. The US Supreme Court and previous American presidents have repeatedly acknowledged the sovereignty of Panama over the Canal Zone."
McCain's eligibility was determined by his parents' bithplaces rather than his place of birth. Conversely, Obama's claim rests on his place of birth rather than his parents.
Finding Obama ineligible for the ballot in Georgia for 2012 automatically means he wasn't eligible in 2008.
What will that mean to America?
Nobody dares to think of what it might mean for the President of the United States to be ineligible to hold his office. If Obama isn't eligible, what about Biden?
Biden was elected as Obama's running mate --voters can't separate the ticket by say, voting for McCain as President and Biden for VP, so Biden's election is linked to Obama's eligibility. If Obama is illegitimate, so is Joe Biden.
It gets crazier. Since Nancy Pelosi was Speaker in 2008, it is at least possible that she could be named his first eligible successor. But since Pelosi illegally certified his credentials and, since she is no longer speaker, it is more likely that John Boehner would become America's 44th president. (Not 45th, since Obama's presidency would be declared null and void.)
What about the laws signed by Obama? Some argue that his ineligibility would nullify every law passed since January 20, 2008.
And what do you suppose the reaction would be on the street to the nullification and removal of America's first black president?
Can you imagine a worse time for America to have to deal with a leadership crisis of this magnitude? Has there been a time in living memory when the country was more divided than it is today?
Leaving aside for just a second what America's people might do, imagine what America's enemies might do while Washington is paralyzed and the Pentagon is leaderless?
Faced with this possibility, it is not inconceivable that a coup might be deemed necessary by one side or the other to settle the leadership question immediately. After all, the Constitution already doesn't really seem all that important to the White House -- Obama has already promised to govern by fiat, bypassing the Congress.
It wouldn't be stretching the Constitution much further than it already is for him to declare martial law to prevent the collapse of the US government and then ruling by decree.
It is impossible to separate politics from Bible prophecy for the last days and make any sense of it, because the antichrist is a politician. Daniel says he has a "look more stout than his fellows and has a mouth speaking great things."
"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." (Daniel 7:21-22)
I don't know if Obama is the antichrist -- the standard interpretative model sees the antichrist as a prince of the revived Roman Empire. The EU encompasses most of the territory of the Roman Empire -- America does not, and so it would seem unlikely for an American citizen to be the antichrist.
But Obama is technically a British citizen; Britain WAS part of the Roman Empire. Is that a stretch? Probably. But at this point, all options are worthy of consideration.
Neither is it completely beyond possibility that the US could be forced into a confederation with the existing EU to ensure the survival of both. Especially in the event of a catastrophic war with either Russia or China.
But here is what I want to emphasize in today's briefing. Bible prophecy was not written in this generation.
The prophecies of the Ancient of Days, the beast, the antichrist, the revival of Rome's two legs of iron, the global economy, global religious system and global government have been studied and examined and debated and discussed for at least twenty centuries and some for more than twenty-five centuries.
For fifty generations, (assuming two per century) the faithful have been on the lookout for signs that point to the conclusion of human government and the Millennial Kingdom Age prophesied by the Prophet Isaiah.
Never in any of those generations have these prophecies been possible before this one. In 1948, the first sign, the restoration of Israel, started God's time-clock ticking.
Today, everything is in place. For the first time in recorded human history everything that the Bible prophesied for the last days is not only possible, but trending in the Bible's direction.
Everything. I can't think of a single exception to that statement.
Everything the Bible prophesied for the last days; wars, rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, signs in the sun, the distress of nations with perplexity, a centralized global economy, even the predicted political alliances; everything is in place.
The seven-year covenant between Israel and "the many" remains unconfirmed, but the basics are in place and trending in the direction the Bible predicted.
The Bible identifies four specific power blocs that will exist in the last days. All four of them; the kings of the east and south, the Gog-Magog Alliance and the revived Roman Empire, all exist in some identifiable form today.
Every participant in the last day's drama that is named by the Bible exists in some form today. There is only one wild card. There is no Biblical reference to a fifth independent power bloc resembling the United States.
Even fifty years ago, such a thing seemed unimaginable.
"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." (Luke 21:28)
Maranatha!
Reply With Quote
------ 
------ 
Bookmarks