Posted on 01/27/2012 10:02:09 AM PST by Danae
The difference between you and me is that I’ve supported what I posted. These courts did NOT reject Vattel. This is your fervid imagination at work.
Oh, but it does matter
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation (1833)
Joseph Story, LL.D., Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States [...] Abridged by the Author, for the Use of Colleges and High Schools (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company/Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Co., 1833), Chapter 5: Rules of Interpretation, pp. 134-148, 154-162
§ 180. Let us, then, endeavor to ascertain, what are the true rules of interpretation applicable to the constitution; so that we may have some fixed standard, by which to measure its powers, and limit its prohibitions, and guard its obligations, and enforce its securities of our rights and liberties.
§ 181. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties. Mr. Justice Blackstone has remarked, that the intention of a law is to be gathered from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the reason and spirit of the law. He goes on to justify the remark by stating, that words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use; that if words happen to be dubious, their meaning may be established by the context, or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument; that illustrations may be further derived from the subject-matter, with reference to which the expressions are used; that the effect and consequence of a particular construction is to be examined, because, if a literal meaning would involve a manifest absurdity, it ought not to be adopted; and that the reason and spirit of the law, or the causes, which led to its enactment, are often the best exponents of the words, and limit their application.
§ 183. II. In construing the constitution of the United States, we are, in the first instance, to consider, what are its nature and objects, its scope and design, as apparent from the structure of the instrument, viewed as a whole, and also viewed in its component parts. Where its words are plain, clear, and determinate, they require no interpretation; and it should, therefore, be admitted, if at all, with great caution, and only from necessity, either to escape some absurd consequence, or to guard against some fatal evil.
§ 188. IV. From the foregoing considerations we deduce the conclusion, that as a frame or fundamental law of government, (2.) The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the constitution; that which will give it efficacy and force, as a government, rather than that, which will impair its operations, and reduce it to a state of imbecility.
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_rules_of_constitutional_interpretation.htm
Ask yourself, are naturalization laws statutes? Is any person whose citizenship is subject to approval by the US govt a citizen after birth or by statute which is governed by A1S8?
It's not rocket science. Congress has but one power over citizenship and that is of naturalization, thus any parents who sign a govt form thereby giving the govt the power to grant citizenship to their child has thereby agreed that the child is a naturalized citizen per statute by the power given to Congress under A1S8. Two paths to citizenship, birth or statute which is naturalization per the US Constitution.
\ As well it should in a world not gone mad!
Does Amazon sell a “I do not understand” stamp? Do not be the stamp-pad mad third grader!
Most of the references Google called up upon my query are of the very style of legal guidance you requested. General, hornbook style, universal Codes of Statutory Construction. They do apply to Federal law, except where specific disclaimer in statute trumps them.
Okay, let's just cut this short. Cite for me the federal statute that codifies the rule of statutory interpretation you are talking about. Don't bother with state statutes because a state law does not govern the interpretation of federal laws because of this little thing called the supremacy clause....
In "real-lawyer" parlance, the word "Code" has a specific meaning. It refers to something formally enacted. So please, provide me with the legal citation to this so-called "Code of Statutory Interpretation."
Cut short you are! The law, friend, is for all. Not for a few.
The term “code” is not as constrained and limited in use with law and courtroom as you claim it to be.
Of course, as I said in my very next paragraph, there are widely acknolwedged rules or principles of construction, some of which are related to what he cited. But then, he applied even those rules/principles incorrectly, so he was wrong in any case.
Who is not a lawyer?
By the ideals of our Founders and many generations after, any good man or woman can and even must be able to make a fine legal argument, to craft as solid as technical argument in law and theory of law as any. Yes, it is that long practice of law before the courts, that membership in active and scholarly professional societies, that training in a school dedicated to such training, count for something, in some cases can count for a lot.
Yet with some ad-hoc scholarship, access to a reasonable body of law and attention to detail any citizen of intelligence and clear mind can equal an argument of the best of any esteemed or accredited professional.
You have taken the short cuts here, and used a overly narrowed construct applied in some places and scopes of the practices in this intellectual field, to limit the more general, the more foundational and basic.
Even if you ignore the issue of the birth certificate, the Manchurian President should be fired for all the other documents he has refused to reveal!
• 1) Marriage license between Obama’s father (Barak Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) — not found, not released
2) Obama’s baptism records — sealed
3) Obama’s adoption records — sealed
4) Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as US citizens on return from Indonesia — not found, not released
5) Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not found, not released
6) Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) — not released
7) Punahou School financial aid or school records — not released
8) Occidental College financial aid records — not released. (These records were, however, subpoenaed but Obama lawyers succeeded in quashing the subpoena in court. No other Occi records have been released.)
9) Columbia College records — not released
10) Columbia senior thesis — not released
11) Harvard Law School records (not mentioned below, but not released)
12) Obama’s law client list — sealed
13) Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State Senator — sealed
14) Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed
15) Obama’s medical records — not released
16) Obama’s passport records — not released
“According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.”
And that is where his logic falls apart, right at the beginning. “Must”? nope. The constitution was not written to the level lawyers twist things today. Lawyers twist words, extract nonsense from words never meant to mean what lawyers want them to mean, ect.
His “must” demands of the courts what he thinks the words mean and starts with that assumption . In no way is a court required to accept his interpretation.
Yes, that is correct. There is no law and there should be. But GPO is using certificates issued by a well-recognized provider of such services.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.