ELIGIBILITY UPDATE: US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

Knowledge Creates Power

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 dictaThe 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.

Continue reading

Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent on Citizenship

Natural Born Citizen

Obama not Eligible

Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the US Constitution with an eraser by listing POTUS eligibility as available to any person “born a citizen”.  (Please review Pixel Patriot’s excellent analysis on this issue, “New York State BOE Web Site Cover Up“.)  The Constitution states that only a “natural born Citizen” may be president, a much more stringent requirement than simply being “born a citizen”.  This effort in New York is part of a much larger effort nationwide to falsely revise history (in this case by scrubbing the very words of our Constitution).  The tactic contributes to an insidious pattern of behavior being perpetrated just so Obama will be allowed to occupy the White House despite US Supreme Court precedent which states directly that he is not eligible.  (This report assumes Obama was born in Hawaii.)

Other instances of gross intellectual dishonesty documented at this blog include the recent attempt by Justia.com to rewrite American history by scrubbing links in subsequent cases which establish that Minor v. Happersett has been cited multiple times as precedent on citizenship issues as well as voting rights.

Continue reading

JUSTIA.COM CAUGHT RED HANDED HIDING REFERENCES TO MINOR v. HAPPERSETT IN PUBLISHED US SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.

The US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions.  They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.

I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).

Continue reading