Courts can remove ineligible chief executive - Precedent cited in appeal (certifigate)

WND ^ | 2/1/10 | Bob Unruh

[pissant]

In the United States, courts can, in fact, remove a chief executive officer of a government if that officer is found to be ineligible, according to a court precedent cited in an appeal of a California lawsuit that challenges Barack Obama's legitimacy in the White House.

A multitude of cases have been brought over the issue of Obama's eligibility. Some are by critics who have doubts about whether he was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, and others are from those who question whether the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the presidency.

The disputes revolve around the Constitution's demand that the president be a "natural born citizen."

Now in an appeal of a state court case in California that named as a defendant California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation is arguing that there already are two precedents that should be applied: one in a court case in which state officials removed from the ballot a nominee for president simply because he did not meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

"In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president," the brief, being filed this week, argues.

[editor-surveyor]

I’m kind of wondering if he’s really Bill Ayers.

[STE=Q]

Your entire argument is that "natural born citizen" is a phrase so exclusive and so exact in meaning that it brooks no variation.

Yes, I believe it's "exact."

Let's forget our preconceptions for a moment.

Let's start over.

Let's just look at the words, at face, -- OK?

Natural Born Citizen clause:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."

Now (please be patient)let me just eliminate the word NATURAL.

"No person except a Born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."

This would fit your definition perfectly!

All the critics claim that one is either a citizen at birth or a naturalized citizen: that these are the BASIC two definitions in the constitution.

Anyone (then or now) would understand that a "Born citizen" would only be required to be born in the country (of the soil)

So why did the founders use the word Natural before Born?

THINK!

Allow me to pose a question?

Don't you think it would be logical that the word NATURAL had a specific meaning (in context)when used in conjunction with Born?

Is it possible that it might have something to do with (some of)the framers study of Natural law?

Keep in mind that NATURAL is something intrinsic, or inborn, like a "natural" talent.

One could also pose that man has a "natural" inclination to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Whatever definition Natural means we can eliminate that it has anything to do -- per se -- with the PLACE one is born.

Here's a short comment, if I may:

So what is natural?

Isn't it NATURAL that a society perpetuate itself by children who are born of parents who are citizens of that society?

The above isn't rocket science... and we really don't need to be envious of Vettel, just because he made a few common sense observations, do we?

Wouldn't it be reasonable that the framers placed the word Natural before the word Born to delineate that such "Natural Born" citizens would intrinsically perpetuate the society -- NATURALLY -- from WITHIN: thus protecting against dissolution from outside (foreign)forces?

In any case, the word natural is extraneous in regards to place (Jus soli).

So -- by elimination -- the other alternative would be through the blood (Jus sanguinis)

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

Vettel = Vattel

oops!

Time for bed!

STE=Q

[DaveTesla]

Rep. John Bingham (R-Ohio), who was called by Justice Hugo Black “the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment,”

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

He is also the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bingham

Bingham WAS the author of section one of the 14th amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

s61 was the bill that became section 1 of the 14th.
On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

On February 2, Davis introduced a substitute for S. 61, the Civil Rights Bill. It declared that any person “who shall subject or cause to be subjected a citizen of the United States to the deprivation of any privilege or immunity in any State to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States” shall have an action for damages, and that such conduct would be a misdemeanor[16] (emphasis added). Davis’ substitute suggests that even opponents of the Civil Rights Bill were willing to concede that the explicit guarantees of the Bill of Rights should be protected. Davis grounded his compromise bill in the privileges and immunities clause of article IV.[17]

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

Center column 3rd paragraph down:

Source:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2
>! you have to turn to page 1291 !>

According to the the principal framer (John Armor Bingham )of the 14th amendment, particularly
the Citizenship and the Citizenship Clause (Defining who was a citizen of the United States) and by Mr. Obama’s
own admission he is not a Natural Born citizen.

“Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the
jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

The man is a troll.

[DaveTesla]

John A. Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119469686/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Supreme Court of the United States
OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL.,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
BRIEF FOR THE CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC.
AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONERS

I. Misleading and Unjustified Attacks on John
Bingham, the Principal Framer of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
As Petitioners and others set forth in detail, Representative
John Bingham, the principal author of
the Fourteenth Amendment and its leading proponent
in the House, frequently expressed his intent
that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities
Clause make the Bill of Rights (and other
Blackstonian and constitutional rights) enforceable
against the States. See, e.g., Pet. Br. at 29-31 (dis-
cussing statements by Bingham). Senator Jacob
Howard, the manager of the proposed amendment in
the Senate, likewise expressly stated his view that
the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment included
making the Bill of Rights enforceable against the
States. CONG. GLOBE, 39 th
Cong., 1 st
Sess. 2765 (May
23, 1866). Such explicit and public explanations of
the meaning and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment
ordinarily would and should be extremely compelling
evidence for the interpretation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. 4

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/McDonald/08-1521-tsac-CalgunsFoundation.pdf

The Radical Republicans
John Bingham: U.S. Representative from Ohio and principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Radical_Republicans

[Red Steel]

Here is an article from "The American Law Review" dated Sept./Oct. 1884. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes was one of the founder of the prestigious journal.

Title - ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

It was authored by George Collins. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association

An excerpt:

"Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution so far as it relates to this question, and which is but declaratory "All persons born, or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

The phrase in the above section "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not mean territorial jurisdiction ; that is the jurisdiction which a nation possesses over those who are its citizens or subjects as such. The phrase used in the constitution was intended to have a negative operation; that this is true, and that territorial jurisdiction was not meant, is evident from section 1992, which is a part of section 1, of what is known as the "Civil Rights Bill," and which was enacted by the same Congress which framed and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution; that section is as follows: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States." "

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins

For learned men of the time of when the 14th Amendment was adopted, understood what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant.

[EnderWiggins]

You keep trying (as is your only option) to shift the burden of proof and try to make your opposition prove a negative. No, that’s not how it works.

It is your contention that the inappropriately labeled “de Vattel definition” is the one used by the Framers. If that is true, then you should be able show that there actually was such a thing as the “de Vattel definition. There was not.

As I have demonstrated:

1. De Vattel never once used the phrase. He wrote in French.

2. No Engish edition of de Vattel ever included the phrase until ten years too late.

3. No Framer ever once quoted de Vattel in reference to citizenship.

4. De Vattel was never mentioned once in the Federal Convention debate regarding eligibility for office.

Your problem is that you have gaps to fill that you cannot. You cannot fill the 49 year gap during which not a single person ever translated “indigenes” to mean “natural born citizens.” You have another ten year gap between the Framing of the Constitution and the first time the phrase was ever inserted into a edition of his book.

The anachronism your theory demands renders it simply impossible.

Now... go prove me wrong.

Show me a single instance where “indegenes” was ever once translated into “natural born citizen” before 1797, let alone 1787. You do that and I will shut up.

[EnderWiggins]

Again, and these are simple historical facts:

1. John Bingham wrote a single sentence of the 14th Amendment, and it was not the one that had to do with citizenship.

2. John Bingham was not even born when Article II was written. As such his opinion is no more relevant than anybody else in Congress 80 years too late.

3. John Bingham’s opinion was not echoed by a single one of his contemporaries.

4. John Bingham wasn’t even talking about the Constitution in that quotation.

Why anybody thinks that Bingham’s comments on the Civil Rights Act have any authority over the meaning of Article II of the US Constitution is entirely beyond me.

[EnderWiggins]

”So why did the founders use the word Natural before Born?”

Because more than half of them were lawyers, and “natural born citizen” was already an established, well known and well defined term of the English common law that they all practiced and were familiar with.

It is my contention (and the record of the historical debate backs me up) that the terms “born citizen,” “native citizen,” “native born citizen” and “natural born citizen are all exactly synonymous. Certainly the Framers used them interchangeably in their debates, pre-existing state citizenship laws used them interchangeably, and the US Supreme Court for our entire history has used them interchangeably.

”Don't you think it would be logical that the word NATURAL had a specific meaning (in context)when used in conjunction with Born?”

Not based on the actual historical evidence. No.

That is not how it was used in 1787.

”Whatever definition Natural means we can eliminate that it has anything to do -- per se -- with the PLACE one is born.”

No, we cannot. The written record is that English common law used it explicitly and exactly in that way, so rather than eliminating it, it is the only usage we have any actual evidence for.

What is missing from this debate is the corresponding evidence from your side.

You need to find at least one single instance where the phrase “natural born citizen” was ever used as you define it prior to or contemporary with the Framing of the Constitution.

Why can you not do so?

[editor-surveyor]

Thanks for the ping!

Good article, has Bill Ayers (wiggins) weighed in on it yet?

[editor-surveyor]

English common law applied only to British common subjects. It has never been used as a basis for anything in the U.S.

Those born in the U.S. of parents that are citizens are “natural” by birth, while those born here of parents subject to the governance of another nation are not, and must be “naturalized” if they wish to become citizens. This is the written position of all of the founders that expressed opinions on the subject, and there are no writtwn opinions on record supporting your bizzare version.

So, Mr Ayers, that is where it lies.

[EnderWiggins]

"English common law applied only to British common subjects. It has never been used as a basis for anything in the U.S."

Well, that's fascinating. How then do you explain that 49 out of the 50 American States have officially and formally adopted English common law either in their State Constitutions or in "Reception Statutes" that they signed into law?

Louisiana is the sole exception, preferring to defer to their French roots and the Napoleonic Code.

That is not a rhetorical question. I would really love for you to try and reconcile that truth with your comment.

"Those born in the U.S. of parents that are citizens are “natural” by birth, while those born here of parents subject to the governance of another nation are not, and must be “naturalized” if they wish to become citizens. This is the written position of all of the founders that expressed opinions on the subject, and there are no writtwn opinions on record supporting your bizzare version."

Please show me a single one of the founders or framers who ever wrote that. Just one.

In contrast to your expected silence on this issue, let's see what James Madison said on the issue of jus sanguinis vs. jus solis. In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:

"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from Their Register of Debates; and from the Official Reported Debates, by John C. Rives By United States. Congress, Thomas Hart Benton

[EnderWiggins]

You do know that the author of this article was the losing attorney in Wong Kim Ark, right? He used these same arguments in front of the US Supreme Court and they tossed him out on his ear.

[EnderWiggins]

"That “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” are two different things is obvious to all who understand the difference between a sovereign individual, and a subject of a sovereign."

Apparently that does not include the US Supreme Court. because in the Wong Kim Ark decision, they said more than once that "citizen" and "subject" are the exact same thing.

[EnderWiggins]

Oh... and one more thing.....

"It was authored by George Collins. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association."

Not when he wrote that article. At that time he was not even "Attorney Collins" yet. He was just a law student.

And yes, it is true that he eventually became the Secretary of the California Bar Association. So it must be equally relevant that he also eventually became a convicted felon who (after briefly becoming an international fugitive) ended up running the jute mill in San Quentin Prison.

[Red Steel]

You keep trying (as is your only option) to shift the burden of proof and try to make your opposition prove a negative. No, that’s not how it works.

As usual, you make claims that are just not so. The Supreme Court has never upheld your flawed viewpoint.

As I have demonstrated:

1. De Vattel never once used the phrase. He wrote in French.

You have proven your ignorance about de Vattel's citizenship definition.

2. No Engish edition of de Vattel ever included the phrase until ten years too late.

A silly point by you. I showed you why repeatably.

4. De Vattel was never mentioned once in the Federal Convention debate regarding eligibility for office.

There was nothing to debate. De Vattel's definition was easily accepted by the Founders. However, I showed you that the Founders irrefutably read de Vattel's Law of Nations and were signers of the US Constitution. You content that there was noway that de Vattel had anything to do with the 'natural born citizen' clause but offer no real proof that was the case.

Your problem is that you have gaps to fill that you cannot. You cannot fill the 49 year gap during which not a single person ever translated “indigenes” to mean “natural born citizens.” You have another ten year gap between the Framing of the Constitution and the first time the phrase was ever inserted into a edition of his book.

There is no gap of anything. I told you even if au naturel is the same as indigenes or native, Vattel's definition of what constitutes a citizen remains.

Now... go prove me wrong.

I have proven you wrong see above.

You do that and I will shut up.

I don't think that's possible...to shut you up in any case.

[Red Steel]

George Collins must have been one bright student to be given the honor to write for The American Law Review and later to argue in front of the Supreme Court.

Finding himself afoul of the law at a later date does not take away from his past good. You used the tried and untrue tactic of the leftist media...well, that is misdirection from the point at hand.

[Red Steel]

Good article, has Bill Ayers (wiggins) weighed in on it yet?

He has now and I rebutted him again.

[Red Steel]

Apparently that does not include the US Supreme Court. because in the Wong Kim Ark decision, they said more than once that "citizen" and "subject" are the exact same thing.

Oh, please. Since you guys love to quote the dictum from Wong Kim Ark, here's some more of it:

“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens … Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate … and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen …’”

The Leftists were, or still are all jumping for Joy, literally, when they read this part of Justice Grey's opinion, until one looks a little closer at what he said. You'll notice that Grey is making a comparison between a citizen [Wong Ark] and a "natural-born child of a citizen"

Oh, pooo pooo the lefties sigh...no Joy! As you can see, even justice Grey who wrote for the majority opinion did not bestow natural born citizen upon Wong Kim Ark.

[EnderWiggins]

So... you still can't find a single example of where anybody ever connected the phrase "natural born citizenship" with de Vattel until ten years too late.

Thanks for playing.