Obama, America's illegal President

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court, took to itself the task of offering a careful and detailed support as to interpreting a US Constitutional provision based on original intent and original public meaning. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in DC v. Heller, heavily documenting justifications toward an “originalist” view.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/slip/554/07-290/opinion.pdf

In June 2008, the then Illegal Candidate for President, Barack Obama, was quoted even by multiple lap-dog media sources stating that he was then supporting the DC v. Heller decision:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms…the Supreme Court has now endorsed that view… Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. … We can work together to enact common-sense laws … Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe." For example, see:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/26/1169956.aspx
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/06/page/3/

In other words, a clear and distinctive legal analysis of a Constitutional Article is “much needed guidance” , even according to illegal “Candidate” Barack Obama. What his views are now, are expected to be in contrariness, as he fights through both Perkinscoie and the US Attorney’s Office to hold onto what he has gained by fraud, deceit, and felonious activities.

In Originalism: The Lesser Evil, Justice Antonin Scalia writes that despite a myriad of legal opinions given to the contrary of the “originalist” view, Scalia examines the historical context of a separate part of Article 2.1 of the Constitution than we discuss and debate upon, and examines why an original intent is the more proper view.
http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/lesserevil.asp

In the instance of the legal definition of who and what is a “natural born citizen” qualified to run for the Presidency, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts – - as in the example of DC v. Heller -- can give an “Originalist” and long cited response to justify, once and for all, who and what a natural born citizen is.

In mock debates, the Supreme Court Justices are not above revisiting the past and delving into justification decisions. Dred Scot was a long winded justification on what was original intent and public policy. On April 09, 2007, Harvard’s “Crimson” reported that SC Justice Stephen Breyer (a liberal) stated that the Dred Scot decision was written to the effect as to divert a Civil War. He and the nine US appeals court judges concluded that red Scot should have never been brought before the Supreme Court, and that under 1850s law, and abstained via a claim of a “lack of jurisdiction”.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518101

This “lack of jurisdiction” is the same argument now used by the Government to kep any challenge of Barack's lack of US natural born citizen standing from ever being addressed.

On 9-28-2005, at a Harvard Question and Answer Session,
http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/hls9-28-05.asp
Scalia expalined how he views his role as a Supreme Court Justice:
"...in the case of my court is that we have this institution of certiorari. We don't really take a case in order to, quote-unquote, "do justice", to make sure the right person has won. In a number of cases that we decline to take, I suspect that the lower court may have got it wrong. But there has been at least one appeal, in most cases two, by the time it reaches us, and our job is not to correct mistakes. By reason of certiorari, our job is to resolve those issues of federal law on which there is disagreement below. Once you have that institution of certiorari, it really alters the nature of what the court is doing; it means that we're really not there to ensure that the good guy won and the bad guy lost."

In Contrast, at the same Q&A: Justice Breyer described the Supreme Court’s role as “100 percent law interpretation” and “much more mechanical than you might think.”http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508682

Strangely enough, in the majority opinion of 2001’s 533 US 53, NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS. http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/ , one of the criteria of proving one's birth location and birth citizenship is through the 100% mechanical means of hospital records and witnesses. 533 US 53, NGUYEN ET AL. v. INS. (2001) @ 54 :“The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.” And @62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”

In the case of Barack Obama, we have no original Birth Certificate or Hospital records to verify his birth hospital, his birth location, his citizenship. We do have a clear short-form forgery conducted by a zealot groupie, a claim by an administrator who may be commiting perjury based on political zeal and complicit in conspiracy to se a "Democrat" in power; and the only witness still living to testify regarding Barack said he was born in Mombosa, Kenya. The US Supreme Court needs to deal with the natural born issue, and Obama's illegal usurpation of the office, before the next ticket is Governor Arnold Schwazeneggar v. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Some argue that the precedent was already established with Chester Arthur having been legally a British subject (like Obama is now, a Commonwealth British subject), would allow such a usurpation as Obama has commited. In 1884, Democrat Arthur P. Hinman published the January 10, 1881 letter in which Democratic Senator Bayard of Delaware affirmed Chester A. Arthur’s right to be President of the United States because Chester’s father naturalized as a US Citizen prior to Chester’s 21st birthday.
A free copy is found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States

Constitutional Amendment ARTICLE XII., SUB-DIVISION 3.
" But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President, shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States."
New York, January 7th, 1881.

Hon. THOS. F. BAYARD, U. S. Senator.
DEAR SIR:- What is the construction of Article II., ~ I,
Clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States-that
.. No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc., shall be
eligible, etc." * * *
Yours respectfully,
A. P. HINMAN.
--------------
Senate of the United States.
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York.
DEAR SIR
:-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term" natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor.Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD

In contrast, Barack Sr. never became a US Citizen. Hence, Barack Jr. is unconstitutionally qualified and illegal in the office he now holds.

In a letter dated July 9, 2009, California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein stated to me that the 14th Amendment qualifies Barack Obama to the Office.

In it, Mrs. Feinstein writes:
“Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years.

President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old US citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible for President.”

Senator Feinstein either fallaciously assumes that any 14th Amendment Citizen has the originalism to mean that such a one is automatically “natural born”, or she simply and intentionally skirted the vast differences that were later part of the debates in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) and Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927), which clarified and interpreted the 1898 case of US v. Wong.

But even before that, the same 14th Amendment argument that Feinstein rationalizes with, was neutralized as far back as the Sep/Oct 1884 issue of the American Law Review, just 16 years after the passing of the 14th Amendment. The ALR issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins

This differed from Senator Bayard's letter just 3 years earlier. Just 14 years later, Collins was co-chief prosecutor who sought to deny Wong Kim Ark citizenship, and won.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/13135/United-States-v-Wong-Kim-Ark.html

Barack’s father lived and died as a Kenyan national with dual British citizenship. Kenya states, that because Obama was born to a Kenyan Citizen "father", Obama is effectively a "natural born" Kenyan. See pdf.
http://www.kenyabrussels.com/docs/nationality_of_child_born_abroad.pdf

Hence, Barack Obama Jr. illegally occupies the office of President of the United States and needs to be legally and peacefully removed from office (or resign) immediately.