CA – Noonan v Bowen – Educating the confused

In their reply brief to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, 3rd Appellate district, it is ‘argued’ that:

RESPONDENT OBAMA is as much a foreigner as he is a U.S. citizen, if in fact he is one. It cannot be legally stated that OBAMA is without foreign national citizenship/allegiance.

While it is true that under British Law, our President may have been born a Citizen of the UK, or one of its variants, it is also clear that under US law, he was born on US soil and therefore a US citizen and natural born. See for instance US v Wong Kim Ark.

Thus the claim that he is disqualified because of English law is somewhat outrageous and ignores the fact that our Country separated itself from it several centuries ago. As to claims that he was adopted by Soetoro, again, these unfounded assertions have no relevance to the nationality of our President.

As to the term allegiance, it needs to be properly understood in its legal context and there is no doubt that he has no foreign allegiance by any meaning of the word.

Of course, this is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the dismissal of the petition for writ of mandamus.

6 thoughts on “CA – Noonan v Bowen – Educating the confused

  1. “Allegiance,” in its present legal context, runs counter to the l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by Declaration of Independence. Allegiance, under the republican constitutional theory follows the enlightened Lockean concept of free, consent-based citizenship, requiring jus sanguinis at birth rather than jus solis US citizenship, which follows the old Cokean concept of perpetual allegiance without choice at birth.

    “Allegiance, under the monarchical constitutional theory, before the American revolution, conceived individuals as subjects of the king. After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.

    This direct reversal of the ‘legal’ status of the individual as sovereign was accurately reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
    ” [A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . .”

    Justice James Wilson confirmed Jay’s articulation of the opposition between subjects and citizens. Wilson noted that with the exception of Article III, the Constitution refers to “citizens” and “persons,” not subjects: “The term, subject, occurs, indeed, once in the instrument; but to mark the contrast strongly, the epithet ‘foreign’ is prefixed.”*

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    *Liberally plagiarized from Prof Lawrence B. Solum’s work on “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause”

  2. “Allegiance,” in its present legal context, runs counter to the l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by Declaration of Independence. Allegiance, under the republican constitutional theory follows the enlightened Lockean concept of free, consent-based citizenship, requiring jus sanguinis at birth rather than jus solis US citizenship, which follows the old Cokean concept of perpetual allegiance without choice at birth.

    Yawn, meaningless statements that ignore the legal definition. But I appreciate your effort. But jus sanguinis was rejected and thus your position has no foundation in law or reality.

  3. Let me remind you, this is the same David Farrar who just a few weeks ago posted right here (https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/obama-finds-he-birth-certificate/#comment-68468):

    “This [the Georgia ballot challenge hearing] was the perfect setting for Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, to bring in Obama’s hospital birth certificate, along with a certified copy of his Hawaiian, state issued, birth certificate; moved them into evidence, and soundly beaten all us the birthers inside of 15 minutes in 2012.”

    But David, I’m sorry to say, was not being truthful when he said that, because as David well knows — better than anyone else, I might add! — the President’s eligibility is barred by l’Esprit de la Révolution. David was being dishonest to claim that he would have been influenced, much less “soundly beaten,” by any form of birth documentation.

    I mean really, David, if l’Esprit says no, how would a birth certificate help?

  4. Judge Mahili in Georgia seemed satisfied with the evidence that was presented, even if Michael Jablonski didn’t show up. Judge Mahili ruled: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b).”
    That seems pretty definitive to me. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp agreed with a Judge Mahili’s ruling, as did the Fulton a County Superior Court. The Supreme Court of the United States saw no reason to grant cert to this appeal and they sent Farrar and friends packing.
    And now you know…………………the REST of the story!

  5. Well, Malihi had to assume that Obama was born in the US since he had to rule on the status of Obama if born in the US.

    laintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree.

    The court did not accept the evidence, it merely presumed so that it could deal with another part of the complaint.

Comments are closed.