Posted on 08/16/2010 9:34:44 AM PDT by LonelyCon
I don’t agree. I don’t agree at all with your statement. There have been many types of cases that should go to trial, but due to red tape, beauracracy, back scratching, deals, or who knows what else - a case does not go to trial. And many of those reasons exclude integrity and some back bone.
Generally a good point. OTOH, the part that makes them sane may be that they realize there's no way the power structure will ever allow the case to be fairly heard regardless of merit. Personally, I think there's a lot of tin foil going on. I think the Democrats would have made sure their golden boy was eligible before running him. If he is ineligible, the possibility of last-minute proof surfacing could be remote, but it would be absolutely devastating to their power. It's too much of a risk.
What perks my interest is how much money Obama spent fighting against any release of any proof of citizenship. I generally subscribe to the "where there's smoke there's fire" principle. You don't spend that much money preventing something from being released unless there's something you are trying to hide. Even if it isn't the citizenship, what is it that is worth hundreds of thousands in attorney fees?
/spelling earror
bureaucracy (sorry)
Is there a problem with relying on the text of the Constitution to interpret it?
Don’t sweat MHGinTN. Anger and name-calling tends to be all he ever brings to the party.
They don't spend many pages talking about it at all. The decision has somewhere around 200 paragraphs and 20,000 words. Natural born citizen is mentioned only about eight times. In contrast, 'citizen of the United States,' the term that applies to qualifying for Congress and the only term applied to WKA, is mentioned more than 20 times throughout.
And why did the dissent object to the children of tourists being allowed to run fro President?
I've addressed this before. It’s not acknowledging the decision of the court, but simply giving the historical context for how the founders understood the term natural born citizen. If you look at the charters of some of the original colonies, it acknowledges the children of citizens would be recognized as citizens and the children of denizens (legal aliens) would be recognized as denizens, not citizens. Likewise, the preamble to the Constitution says, “We the People of the United States,... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...” When they say their posterity, they are referring to their children, i.e., the children of citizens, not to ‘ourselves and anyone else who happens to be born in the country.’ For the latter, the Constitution grants the power of naturalization to the Congress. This mirrors the charters of the colonies in granting the natural rights of citizenship to the children of those who were citizens. A few colonies, such as New York, would recognize anyone born in the colony as a citizen, but not all colonies. The English common law wasn’t comprehensive to all colonies nor the new country as a whole.
This is easy to dissect.
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign ...
Such was only the case for colonies still under the governance of England, but certainly not after the Declaration of Independence and upon the establishment of the Constitution. We have no English Sovereign in the United States continuing to the then present day. There was also no requirement of allegiance, obedience, faith or loyalty to any aliens residing in the United States. Our country required the naturalization of aliens to be considered citizens while in Britain, aliens are required to owe temporary allegiance to the crown. There's no equivalent requirement in the United States.
WKA also ignores Dicey's comment here: "nationality or allegiance ... in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance ..." While someone might be born within the jurisdiction of the United States, they aren't necessarily born within its allegiance.
Notice too this section explains the difference between 'permanent' and 'temporary' allegiance. WKA recognized they couldn't justify WKA as being a citizen of the United States in only having temporary allegiance, which is why they emphasized WKA's parents had a permanent domicile and were permanent residents of the United States.
However, NBC & NBS are considered by the Court to be equivalent.
What you cited from the Supreme Court of North Carolina via WKA says nothing about natural born subjects and natural born citizens being the same. In fact, it acknowledges you can be born within the dominions and still be an alien, which completely shoots your argument in the foot.
The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Hopefully you understand that analogous does not mean 'exactly the same.' There are tremendous differences between allegiance, obedience, faith and/or loyalty, protection, power, jurisdiction due from a subject to a sovereign as opposed to the relationship between a citizen and his republic. And there's nothing in what you quoted that says NBS = NBC. Nothing.
“The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Precisely. “being exactly that and neither more nor less”
Analogous. “similar or corresponding in some respect”
So a term that is precisely analogous is exactly similar, neither more nor less in some respect - and in this case, it means the change in term “has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
So the Court uses the common law meaning to determine the extent of the phrase natural born citizen by looking at natural born subject. When it is shown that a NBS can have 2 alien parents, then one can deduce that a NBC can, since the terms only differ to the extent that the change of government has substituted citizen for subject.
The Court may or may not have ignored parts of Dicey that it didn’t want to apply. The part they did want to apply they quoted.
Obama Sr wasn’t a tourist. He lived here for 4 years and supposedly had two marriages, although I doubt the first ever took place. He was here legally, and “in amity” with the government. As the husband of an American, he had the option of remaining here indefinitely.
When the Indiana Court concluded that WKA required that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen, they were not making something up. That is the understood meaning of WKA, and has been since 1898.
The dissent was not discussing history, but rebuking where the majority had gone. That is also the way the dissent has been understood for 112 years. You don’t get to invent a new meaning to WKA to satisfy your ODS. People who obsess over a person rather than the philosophy - regardless if it is GWB, Palin or Obama - find themselves turning the world upside down to match their delusions. That is what most birthers are guilty of doing.
I understand the birthers who say Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. Although I think they lack evidence, it is a logical argument with significant consequences. But the Supreme Court will never overturn WKA & 112 years of legal precedence to throw out a sitting President based on facts well known to every voter prior to the election. To think they will is insanity.
Yes there is. How else can you account for the fact that aliens (even illegals) are required to register for the draft?
THAT COULD NEVER BE!!!! A CONSPIWACY EXPLAINZ IT ALLZ BETTA!!!!
According to Dicey, that's only if the child is born to diplomats, invaders or persons otherwise not subject to the laws of the King at the time of birth. If the aliens are living under the King's rule and are in amity with him, then they are under temporary allegience to the King, and that's all that is necesary for the child to be a natural born subject.
Notice too this section explains the difference between 'permanent' and 'temporary' allegiance.
Common law does not require permanet allegience of the parents to make the child a natural born subject. Temporary allegience at the time of birth suffices, as in the case of Obama's father.
WKA recognized they couldn't justify WKA as being a citizen of the United States in only having temporary allegiance,
Actually, that is precisely the grounds upon which they recognize it.
which is why they emphasized WKA's parents had a permanent domicile and were permanent residents of the United States.
Simply not true. They do not emphasize it. They merely note it as one of the facts of the case, but nowhere do they indicate it is important.
Furthermore, even a permanent resident alien only owes temporary allegience. As soon as he leaves the country, his allegience ends. Only a citizen has permanent allegience, but under common law, such allegience of the parents at the time of birth is not necessary for a child to become a natural born subject.
In my experience, virtually all birthers make both arguments. I guess they figure that the more arguments they throw out there, the more likely one of them is to stick.
It does, though, rather amuse me how they spend a lot of time and energy aruging for the Kenyan birth story, while at the same time making another argument in which the birthplace doesn't matter. Most can't see the cognative disconnect.
I think it is likely Obama was born in Hawaii, but I understand both the frustration of those wanting more evidence and their legal argument.
The legal argument that Obama Sr makes Obama ineligible, in spite of the fact that all 50 states knew about it when they put him on the ballot, McCain knew it, the voters knew it, the Electoral College knew it, Congress knew it, the Supreme Court knew it - and none objected to his election.
Either that conspiracy is of Ludlum proportions, or the birthers are nuts. I obviously believe door # 2 has the prize...
If you find merit in the argument that insufficient evidence has been given for the the birthplace, don't you think it rather strange that the same people who make that argument also passionately make the ineligible-because-father-not-a-citizen argument?
WKA also ignores Dicey’s comment here: “nationality or allegiance ... in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance ...”
According to Dicey, that’s only if the child is born to diplomats, invaders or persons otherwise not subject to the laws of the King at the time of birth. If the aliens are living under the King’s rule and are in amity with him, then they are under temporary allegience to the King, and that’s all that is necesary for the child to be a natural born subject.
Notice too this section explains the difference between ‘permanent’ and ‘temporary’ allegiance.
Common law does not require permanet allegience of the parents to make the child a natural born subject. Temporary allegience at the time of birth suffices, as in the case of Obama’s father.
WKA recognized they couldn’t justify WKA as being a citizen of the United States in only having temporary allegiance,
Actually, that is precisely the grounds upon which they recognize it.
which is why they emphasized WKA’s parents had a permanent domicile and were permanent residents of the United States.
Simply not true. They do not emphasize it. They merely note it as one of the facts of the case, but nowhere do they indicate it is important.
Furthermore, even a permanent resident alien only owes temporary allegience. As soon as he leaves the country, his allegience ends. Only a citizen has permanent allegience, but under common law, such allegience of the parents at the time of birth is not necessary for a child to become a natural born subject.
Yes.
Hey, n00b troll - MHGinTN is a conservative, and you are a brand new suspect with a nasty tone and instantly ganging up with others who lie, obfuscate, and do everything they can to support 0thugga.
Are you now going to tell us to use our time more wisely by fighting 0thugga’s agenda, while spending hours on FR harassing people who want the truth to be made public?
PS - that was a rhetorical question.
Did you see detritis?
My gawd.
There seems to have been a wave yesterday and today.
Do you think they’re paid, or interns? ACORN maybe?
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.