Defend Israel

The Patriots Call
The Black Robe Regiment - The Patriots Call

Democrats party of Racism
Racism of the Democrat Party
Herman Cain - The DNC has BRAINWASHED most of the Blacks of this Nation
Racism - the Nemesis of the Democrat Party
Democrats invented racism and democrats HATE all blacks
The Snooper Report articles on Democrat invention of racism

The March on DC
Callin’ All the Clans Together
Sick and tired - marching towards the Constitution of the United States
We. Are. Finished. With.  DC.
We. Are. Finished. With. DC. - Addendum Part 1

Civility: The Leftinistra Own None Of It
Civility: The Leftinistra Own None Of It Part 2(?)
Civility: Leftinistra Own None Part Three
Obama, Civility and The Clansmen of Dumb
Brain Dead Leftinistra: Their Stoic Civility
Libtards Have No Class - Civility Escapes Their Brain Deadness
The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare
War Is Coming: Blood On Our Own Streets - Thanks Democrats
Civil War…
We Are In The Midst of Chaos and Civil War
Live Free Or Die
Live Free Or Die Trying
State’s Sovereignty or Live Free Or Die
Live Free Or Die - The Movement Marches On
The Country Surrounds The City

When They Came
Is The Left Still “Proud To Be a Left-Wing Extremist”?
Be It Known - Attention Unconstitutional Congress
Obama: One Big Ass Mistake America
Do Birthers Rock and Roll or Stop and Drool?
Good vs Evil…It Is Your Choice
I Apologize For My Nation
Obama’s Civilian National Security Forces (CNSF)
Obama’s Brown Shirts - Civilian National Security Forces
What Is It About The American Liberal?
The Plan To Destroy America
Another Soldier Has Been Given the Haditha Treatment!
Callin’ All The Clans Together
Callin’ All The Clans Together Show
A History of the List of 45
Constitutionality: The Movement
Vindication: Iraq’s Saddam and Al Qaeda Links Revealed
Redefining The Center or the Moderate
The HIC (Hoax In Charge) Going To Copenhagen
We Didn’t Start This Goddamn War!

Copy Cat Frauds of the IAVA

Contract With America
Snooper’s Declaration of Independence
Thanks Obama

Contract From America

Timothy McVeigh
Thoughts To Ponder and Reflect Upon
Snooper Report Vindication: Al Qaeda, TWA Flight 800 and OKC Bombing
Clinton alludes to 1995 bombing, says words matter

Missing 13th Amendment
TITLES OF “NOBILITY” AND “HONOR” - The Missing 13th Amendment

The Coup
Military Coup Against Obama

The United States Constitution
Our founding document wasn’t set in stone for a reason

Deepwater Horizon
Did Hugo Chavez Sink the Deepwater Horizon Oil Platform?

The New Right

Arizona Rising

Texas Wars

Editor's Choice


Powered by Squarespace



Wake Up GOP

« Thoughts To Ponder and Reflect Upon | Main | Dana Loesch at the April 15 Tea Party »

Quo Warranto: Demand Constitutional Standing

If you demand a return to our Constitutional Republic, you will send this letter as is with the only differences being your name at the very end and the date you send it.  Fax it.  Email it.  Snail mail it.  Send it via Telegram.  All 4, not just one.

Subject: Quo Warranto: Is Obama eligible? Not since Slavery; an Issue so Volatile!
To: “Eric H. Holder Jr.”,
“Jeffrey A. Taylor”
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 12:13 AM

U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office

Dear U.S. Attorney General Holder:
U.S. Attorney Taylor:

Apart from whether there is a legal basis for questions re the eligibility of Barack Obama – other considerations beg for your timely intercession via the Quo Warranto statue. Over the past twelve months the U.S. Constitution has been bypassed, questioned, dismissed, mocked and violated from several perspectives. Consider:

1) Senator McCain is not a “natural born citizen” (nbc) because, as he admits, he was born either in Colon , Panama or on a U.S. military base nearby, and neither is American soil. Yet, in April 2008 the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a resolution declaring John McCain to be an nbc, but this holds no legal value whatsoever much less any Constitutional merit. All Senators knew this, proceeded anyway and insulted every American.

2) It is conceivable the Supreme Court could, someday, make a ruling that declares children born to U.S. military parents serving overseas will, henceforth, be viewed as if born on American soil. But this question (case) must be posed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Quo Warranto process might well become the means to do so.

3) President Obama asserts he was born in Hawaii , but his only proof is the website posting of his certificate-of-live-birth. This may be correct, but a website is devoid of legal value, plus a COLB is not the primary document. Also, Mr. Obama admits his father never was a U.S. citizen. Mr. Obama’s place-of-birth is a simple fact, but never verified. His father’s non-citizen status requires judicial interpretation regarding its effect on a ruling re “natural born citizen.” Both are required to declare Obama eligible per the U.S. Constitution.

4) Granted, Hawaiian officials, on October 31, did state they had Obama’s birth documentation on file per applicable policies. However, they did not state he was born in Hawaii , and Hawaiian law in 1961 permitted a child born anywhere to be recorded in their state. The COLB cannot resolve these specifics, but the primary document (long-form of his birth certificate) can. Obama can easily authorize its release, but he has not.

5) Every President in American history was born to parents who were BOTH citizens. The one exception, Chester Arthur, as the VP candidate in 1880 (later made President) intentionally deceived America regarding his non-citizen father. Why have we now turned a blind-eye to the very same issue with Obama?

6) Members of the U.S. Military, active & retired, have questioned whether President Obama meets Constitutional requirements to be their Commander in Chief. These challenges have begun to threaten and erode the military chain-of-command. I cannot imagine a more precarious scenario for America ’s security, domestically and internationally.

7) A Florida Congressman has proposed legislation requiring presidential candidates, as of 2012, to submit their birth certificate as a prerequisite to initiating a campaign. A nice idea, but it does not address – on its own – the Constitutional requirements regarding “natural born citizen.” Furthermore, such a check cannot be legislated because nbc has not yet been defined by any court as it pertains to presidential qualifications.

8 - Some view Louisiana Gov. Jindal to be a potential presidential candidate, but is he a natural born citizen? How can he or his supporters ever know? How can any future candidate for the Presidency know? Jindal, similar to Obama, reflects the ever more multi-cultural mix of American politicians; hence another compelling reason to address this now.

9) Countless individuals have made enumerable postings in numerous online blogs. Their writings show that many people see absolutely no difference between the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” as used within the U.S. Constitution. Sad, but hardly surprising since a clear legal distinction seems to have been nebulous. However …

10) Recent legal research has built an impressive case that asserts “natural born citizen” means a person born on American soil to parents who were both U.S. Citizens at the time of their child’s birth. (Ref. Compelling though this may be; it holds little merit until adjudicated. History will view us poorly if we ignore these new findings. Quo Warranto is the only Constitutional means for an inquiry.

The foregoing has resulted in ever greater upset and confusion across this Great Land . I can only imagine the confusion it causes internationally. This confusion is not going away and will only get worse. This has gone beyond matters of “the law” and is being driven by passion causing grave concern for many Americans. We ignore this at our peril, for the Constitution is our foundation.

While emotional – it can be resolved legally; in fact it’s only possible to do so within our nation’s judicial framework. You two gentleman have been vested, by Congress, with the authority to initiate action via the Quo Warranto statute. Not since slavery has a matter this volatile come to the fore in America . It took a war to resolve that matter, and civil it was not! In the months leading up to our Civil War, leaders – so-called – on both sides arrogantly declared the looming conflict would spill no more blood than what a single handkerchief could absorb. Five years later nearly 600,000 Americans lay dead; in addition, this horrific 1860’s conflict still reverberates, to some degree, within our body-politic today – despite the passage of 150 years.

The matter of Obama’s eligibility places a huge burden upon each of you, but it is one America needs you to step-forward and assume – and both of you are needed to minimize the political rhetoric. I most respectfully implore you to do so. Thank you for considering my request.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,

(place your name here)

HT Robare

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (7)

Thanks Mark.
The author of that letter has put lots of hard work into getting
that letter structured where anyone interested in this going forward,
and clearing up the mud of Obamas eligibility to a sitting president.

April 24, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMaggieW

The One has spent a lot of money fighting this which casts more and m ore doubt as to his "origin".

April 24, 2009 | Registered CommenterMark "Snooper" Harvey

Because of the doctrine of separation of powers, it is for Congress to define what natural born is. They never have.

Leaving aside the fact it is for congress, not SCOTUS to legislate what natural born is, do you really want taxpayer standing?

Here, your suggesting that the state secretarys of state did not do their jobs. The usual way we deal with elected officials who dont do their jobs is to vote for the other guy the next election. Do you really want to give taxpayer standing so anyone can gum up the courts anytime they don't like a decision made by the Executive? This flies in the face of the doctrine of separation of powers and I am suprised you are for this.

I suppose you've got even less of a chance getting the hundreds of years old rules of standing changed than getting congress to get off their asses and do their jobs.

Kind regards

April 24, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterkris

Read the United States Constitution and pay particular attention to the "redress of grievance" verbiage. Therein lies the answer you seek.

It's kind of odd how the Constitution explains things, Kris. It really is. The problem is that so many of my fellow Americans have no earthly idea what the document states so clearly.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

American citizens have been told by the Judiciary that they have no standing. That is a direct violation of the Constitution they are sworn to defend and protect. If we citizens, the We The People "thing", have no outlet of redress, the only alternatives are to roll over or take up arms against the tyranny from which we were spawned in the first place.

That doesn't sound attractive to me one bit.

Madison's notes, as the constitution was written and debated, are a must read supplemental for an already perfectly clear document.

I only hope and pray that our elected cockroaches return to our Constitutional Republic before it's too late to do so peacefully.

As for the "separation of powers", that doesn't fly. We have three branches of government but they are certainly not three co-equal branches of government and it is clearly stated in our Founding Documents as such.

Quo Warranto is our heritage and you should know that. I'm surprised that you don't, apparently.

April 24, 2009 | Registered CommenterMark "Snooper" Harvey

One more thing...Congress doesn't need to determine what "natural born" is. The meaning is obvious and the intent is obvious by the preceeding verbiage in the Clause. The last thing we need is for an unconstitutional US Congress is to define gnat farts let alone "natural born" anything.

April 24, 2009 | Registered CommenterMark "Snooper" Harvey

I am amazed that you think separation of powers "doesnt fly". The Founders were highly influenced by Montesquieu because they needed to formulate a system that would protect liberty- our constitution.

Montesquieu's theory was simply that power corrupts. Too much power, al la King George, would always lead to oppressive regimes. Hence the separation of powers. We do not give all power to the Executive or to Congress in the Constitution. If you think otherwise, tell us the Article.

As for "natural born"being "obvious"- if it's so obvious, then why all the debate. It's not obvious, it could include several different situations, and should be nailed down by Congress. That is their job after all.

What bemuses me is you want SCOTUS to define "natural born". Yet you say SCOTUS should not be making law. That is precisely what you are asking them to do by defining "natural born". You can't have activist judges only when it suits your view.

April 26, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterkris

I may have been unclear. It is the fact that the "separation of powers" have been nullified by our out of control judiciary and legislative branches due to the lust for power and control. I may be wrong but I also think the Presidential Executive Order thing has also gotten out of control by and large.

I am a firm believer of separation of powers so I apologize for not making that clear at all, evidently. It looked clear to me but I was writing it, if you know what I mean.

Still, we have the right to redress and when the adjunct legislative branch that the SCOTUS and the federal judiciary has become, we no longer have separation of anything nor do we have three branches of government.

The judiciary has become the new legislature which is strictly forbidden in our Constitution. The most powerful branch, according to the Constitution, is the legislative branch and we know have TWO legislative branches and, at times, 535 executive branches, each vying for power and control.

Sooner or later there is going to be hell to pay as we take our country back in one of two ways.

PS Are you still in England or are you back stateside? I would like to have you on my show and talk about how screwed up things are in DC.

April 26, 2009 | Registered CommenterMark "Snooper" Harvey
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.