Arpaio: I briefed Santorum on birth certificate investigation

CNN ^ | 02/21/12 | Jim Acosta

[writer33]

Phoenix (CNN) – Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, briefed GOP contender Rick Santorum on his investigation into President Barack Obama's birth certificate, the controversial law enforcement official told reporters Tuesday.

After a speech to a Republican gathering in Phoenix where Santorum appeared earlier in the day, Arpaio explained he wanted to inform the candidate of his investigation "as a matter of fairness in case he wouldn't want me to support him."

Arpaio said he plans to endorse one of the four remaining GOP candidates in the coming weeks. But the sheriff added he would not make his choice known before he announces the findings of his birth certificate probe at a news conference set for March 1st. This endorsement would be his second in the race; in November 2011, he endorsed then-candidate Rick Perry.

[philman_36]

An example...
@8 USC § 1101 - Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

Is there a "general" legal definition or is there a specific legal definition?

[LibertyRocks]

My sincere apologies to Sen. Santorum, you are correct. I had forgotten he left the Senate in January of 2007 - way before the discussion of eligibility during the 2008 election.

[cynwoody]

Citizen parents is the core principle of the natural law of being a natural born citizen.

Give it up. The Supreme Court is not going to find Barack Obama ineligible, neither prospectively (theoretically possible) nor retrospectively (impossible).

Chief Justice Roberts doing it over, just to make sure (LOL)

Stare decisis et non quieta movere. For those of you in Rio Linda, that means they aren't going to walk it back. Birthright citizenship == natural born citizenship! Any other interpretation by SCOTUS would seemed contrived to screw Obama judicially (a 'Rat specialty, BTW). So they are not going to do it (in the unlikely event they are actually called upon to rule)!

Consider the futility: Billy Ayers is fully eligible to president. His parents were both US citizens. His daddy was Thomas G. Ayers, a solid citizen, who was CEO of Commonwealth Edison. So much for depending on constitutional arguments to select presidents!

[philman_36]

Give it up.
NO! I'm not going to give it up. Your statement alone is enough to tell me that I'm right.

The Supreme Court is not going to find Barack Obama ineligible, neither prospectively (theoretically possible) nor retrospectively (impossible).
Well since it has never gotten that far your statement is nothing more than an opinion and I'll disregard your opinion if that's all right with you.

[cynwoody]

There is no such thing as a "general" sense when discussing legal issues!
There is a definitive legal definition and that's it!

No, there isn't.

There are nine people in a room who read the polls and have a certain understanding of the Constitution, backed up by their respective staffs who read the polls and hopefully strive for an understanding of the Constitution.

[cynwoody]

Well since it has never gotten that far your statement is nothing more than an opinion and I'll disregard your opinion if that's all right with you.

It's more of an assessment of the situation and a prediction than it is an opinion.

What it really comes down to is, birtherism is a blind alley, a waste of time and resources. It diverts bandwidth from the real effort!

[wintertime]

What it really comes down to is, birtherism is a blind alley, a waste of time and resources. It diverts bandwidth from the real effort!

Well! Gee! You have certainly wasted a lot of your time on these threads. Isn't there something more productive that you should be doing?

[Josephat]

What if the American mom was a conservative Christian patriot?

She wouldn’t be screwing around with a psychopath Nazi if she were a conservative Christian patriot. She is more likely to do so if she were a nazi sympathizer with loose or no morals. Kind of like Stanley except she preferred communists to nazis. Obummer is just what the Founders were trying to prevent.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"Case in point: Zero's neighbor and probable ghost writer, Billy Ayers!"

The point of the natural born citizenship requirement was, and is, to ensure to the greatest degree possible the presumed loyalty of an aspirant to the office.

If "Obama" is telling us the truth about his origins (which he very well may not be, since no definitive proof has been offered to date, one way or the other), then his even potentially divided loyalties deriving from the foreign citizenship and transitory nature of BHO Sr's sojourn in the US would make Barry a citizen of a type other than Gold Standard (Natural Born) Citizen. That being a citizen not requiring the force of manmade law, including the 14th Amendment, to make you a citizen.

There were necessarily naturally occurring citizens prior to the 14th Amendment, and didn't require human law to render them citizens. They could not be anything but citizens of their country, because they were born there, and of parents who themselves were citizens. This shouldn't be difficult, and yet you fail basic logic. Again.

Now tell me once more how I'm circling the wagons. Heh

[philman_36]

There are nine people in a room who read the polls and have a certain understanding of the Constitution, backed up by their respective staffs who read the polls and hopefully strive for an understanding of the Constitution.

What the hell do polls have to do with strict legal definitions?

And your choice of words is condemning! A certain understanding of the Constitution? Certain as in fixed or certain as in it's their own interpretation of what it means or as they wish it to be?
Strive for an understanding as in understanding it as it was meant or striving to bring about a "certain understanding"?

Are these the same nine people who swap on and off the computer to battle wits with one person? Or do they simply whisper "sweet nothings" into the ear of the person typing trying to give the illusion that it's just one person instead of nine? Lengthy silences are telling. All that scrambling for an answer, delayed replies. Quick, somebody jump in and take over and get this guy off of my back! Shift change...see you tomorrow! Shift change...the style, tone and argument changes....so obvious.

Yeah, your "nine people" are following the polls. They're following the polls on how this issue is going and they're simultaneously trying to steer it in a "certain" direction and the polls they're watching show whether or not they're successful.

Don't even bother with the petty "tin foil hat" BS.

[philman_36]

It's more of an assessment of the situation and a prediction than it is an opinion.
Call it what you will, it doesn't matter. It's still BS psychological reinforcement.

What it really comes down to is, birtherism is a blind alley, a waste of time and resources. It diverts bandwidth from the real effort!
You have the effrontery to dictate how bandwidth is spent?
Who are you to be making that decision?

So go spend your time on "the real effort" instead of spending it on eligibility threads if it's such a concern to you.

[noinfringers2]

Could it be that Arpaio is intending to do Obama a favor by clearing any doubt as to where he i.e. Obama was born? This could tie in with that ex Odinga compatriot publishing a book and Arpaio delaying his announcement of his posse’s findings on Obama’s eligibility for POTUSA. Could it be someone had to get safely out of Kenya? It is very interesting how many dots that existed a few years ago are now being connected.

[Kansas58]

Congress does not agree with you.

The Courts do not agree with you.

Yet? You treat yourself like you are the legal genius here?

[Kansas58]

“Where does Madison specifically say Congress has the ability, or the authority, to define a natural born citizen?”

The case in question, that Madison speaks of, is CLEARLY, even by wacko bither standards, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Yet? Madison still tells Congress that more legislation concerning Citizenship rules, would be helpful.

Congress DOES have the right and duty to interpret, enact and enforce the Constitution.

The opinions of Congress, On Constitutional matters, are EVERY BIT as important as the opinions of the Courts.

Even more so, in situations were the Constitution CLEARLY grants the the authority to the States, the Electors, and Congress, in Presidential elections!

Congress has spoken.

The Courts will NOT reverse Congress, on these matters.

[philman_36]

Congress does not agree with you.
Then it should be simple enough for you to show where Congress has the authority to determine who is and isn't a natural born citizen and that their Constitutional authority goes beyond rules of naturalization.

The Courts do not agree with you.
SCOTUS has never heard the issue as all of the cases were dismissed prior to the case being heard in court.

Yet? You treat yourself like you are the legal genius here?
And yet you are the real legal genius?

The case in question, that Madison speaks of...
Yes, let's discuss that case further and read down a bit past where you traditionally end your quote...
@James Madison, House of Representatives 22 May 1789

I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society. This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation; it is necessary that a national act should pass to admit an individual member. In order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has now endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of parliament.

And just a bit further down...

What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.

So, no your argument of Madison proving your assertion is wrong.

[philman_36]

So what say you now?
You should thank your lucky stars I'm not a legal genius.
One of them would eat you alive.

[philman_36]

Your article seems to have misspelled something...
@James Madison on Contested Election, Citizenship, And Birthright (22 May 1789), House of RepresentativesIn order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has not endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of Parl1ament.

Correctly...

In order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has now endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of parliament.

[philman_36]

Do I need to expand on this... ...it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation...

Or do you "grok" what he's saying? It's a little archaic so some may need help.

[philman_36]

You might find reply #175 informative as well.

[CommieCutter]

That’s no doubt. Just about every thread I read regarding this issue he’s there wasting time and resources.