The title of this article is correct. After
having completed a more thorough review of the relevant US Supreme Court cases
discussing the Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause, I have
discovered precedent which states that a natural-born citizen is a person
born in the jurisdiction of the US to parents who are citizens. Read that again.
I said precedent, not dicta. The precedent holds that Obama is not
eligible to be President of the United States.
Up until the publication
of this report today, all discussion of the natural-born citizen issue (from
both sides of the argument) agreed there had never been a precedent established
by the US Supreme Court, and that the various cases which mentioned the clause
did so in “dicta”.
Dicta are authoritative
statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.
Black’s
Law Dictionary defines
“precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a
particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar
cases“.
Precedent that must be followed is known as binding
precedent. Under the doctrine of stare decisis,
a lower court must
honor findings of law made by a higher court. On questions as to the meaning of
federal law including the U.S. Constitution, statutes, and regulations, the U.S.
Supreme Court’s precedents must be followed.
It can no longer be denied
that there is controlling US Supreme Court precedent concerning the definition
of a natural-born citizen according to Article 2 Section 1 of the US
Constitution. I predict satori will overcome those of you who have labored over
this issue. This is not a remote obscure reading. It is, when revealed, a clear
undeniable holding and binding precedent established by the highest Court of our
nation which specifically defines an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as
a person born in the US to parents who are citizens.
Therefore, Obama –
according to US Supreme Court precedent – is not eligible to be
President.
PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY MINOR V. HAPPERSETT
The
direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88
U.S. 162 (1875). Furthermore, the precedent stated in Minor is consistent with
other US Supreme Court cases – both before and after Minor – which discuss the
natural born citizen issue. While that part of the holding in Minor regarding
woman’s suffrage was superseded by the 19th
Amendment – which Constitutionally established a woman’s right to vote –
the rest of the case is good law. And the remaining precedent stated regarding
the definition of “natural-born citizen” – with regard to Article 2 Section 1 of
the US Constitution – is still binding upon all lower courts.
Therefore,
lower court decisions – such as the holding
in Arkeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana – which have misconstrued
the US Supreme Court’s holding in Minor v. Happersett are wrong. Below,
we will review what the Indiana Court of Appeals had to say and explain why they
got it wrong. But first we must revisit Minor v.
Happersett.
THE SUPREME COURT IN… …Continued here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president
Socialism is not the Answer 
I want the worst punishment my country has to offer
Although I agree completely, nothing will come of this. There are simply too many powerful and complicit individuals in the upper echelons of our once great nation—Eric Holder being one of them. With Obama’s support level at only 39.9 percent according to the latest Zogby poll, he can only win re-election by fraud. We all know how well he excels at that, particularly with the cadre of aforementioned complicit individuals. By successfully skirting our laws and re-interpreting the Constitution, Obama has become even more emboldened by the pronounced lack of resistance to his criminal agenda.
The fact they went after McCains status and completely ignored obummer is very disturbing. There are people out there with more power than should be allowed.
Some of the legislators have said they do not want to push the issue as it may lead to violence. To say that is actually racist. When Nixon was impeached they didn’t worry about Quakers burning and looting. Is there something in obummer that would cause it? Hmmmm
Check out what happened in Kenya when Odinga (Obama’s cousin) lost the election.
THE FACT THAT ALL OF THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE IS ONE OF THE MOST DISTURBING ACTIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT I CAN THINK OF. THIS GOES BEYOND FRAUD, IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AND THE LIKE. IT BOILS DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- THE PLACE THAT WE LIVE IN- HAS BEEN DECIEVED ON MANY DIFFERENT LEVELS AND WHEN WE QUESTION IT, AS THE CONSTITUTION GIVES US THE RIGHT AND THE AUTHORITY TO DO, WE ARE LIED TO EVEN MORE AND THEN WE ARE THREATENED. THE THREAT COMES IN MANY FORMS- FROM THE ATTEMPTED REMOVAL OF BASIC RIGHTS TO THE ACTIONS OF THE TSA IN TAMPA. IF ANY OF YOU THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ABLE TO REACH OUT IN A MANNER THAT CAN AND WILL THREATEN OUR VERY EXISTENCE ON THIS EARTH THEN YOU ARE JUST AS MINDLESS AS THE ONES WHO ELECTED THE PRESENT REGIME. THIS IS BEYOND GETTING “REPUBLICANS” BACK IN POSITION- POLITICIANS CAN NOT BE TRUSTED PERIOD. WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY UNITE AND TAKE A STAND TOGETHER. THIS HAS BEEN COMING FOR AWHILE- THE FURTHER THIS COUNTRY HAS MOVED AWAY FROM GOD AND HIS LAWS THE CLOSER IT COMES TO THIS TYPE OF CONTROL. WE HAVE ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN OVER THE LAST 30 OR SO YEARS. NO PRAYER IN SCHOOL, THE 10 COMMANDMENTS NOT ALLOWED TO BE POSTED IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS( A COMPLETE DIATRIPE IF I EVER KNEW ONE), NO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, EVEN DOWN TO PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR SPANKING THIER KIDS IN PUBLIC. THE ONLY WAY OUR COUNTRY WILL GET BACK TO WHAT IT SHOULD BE IS A REVOLUTION, AND UNTIL ENOUGH OF US ARE PREPARED TO GET IT GOING AND STICK WITH IT THEN WE WILL NEVER SEE THE COUNTRY WE REMEMBER AND SO LOVE.
Time for the pitch forks and torches.