Posted on 05/17/2012 1:43:58 PM PDT by Brown Deer
You're supposed to be a lawyer. It should be a simple matter to answer the question.
Real Constitutional Lawyers react to this argument the same way the ALJ in Georgia did; the same way the well known Constitutional Lawyer who wrote the Congressional Research Service opinion did; the same way the academic Constitutional Law bar reacts--we don't listen to the argument because it is settled law that a person born in the United States under any circumstances is a Natural Born Citizen for all purposes.
I know you won't like the answer--but the issue is settled law because the academic Constitutional Law community; as well as the professional Constitutional Law bar sees the issue as resolved.
The Natural Born clause is disfavored generally on policy grounds--the establishment would prefer not to need to deal with the issue and the efforts to change it are to substitute a provision that says that a person who is a citizen by any means who has resided in the US for some discrete period (twenty or twenty-five years) is eligibile.
Yes, an anchor baby or other baby who originated with the intention to make him or her eligibile would qualify--no one has ever thought that was a serious risk until now.
In addition to the goal of not being limited in their ability to install someone as President, there is the concern that in the event of a succession issue (because the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, etc. are eliminated in some kind of adverse event) there would be an objective to have an immediate answer to the "who is in charge" question without any issue about where the person holding the office of Secretary of State or Treasury or who is next in line was born.
The academics all think that is a reasonable set of goals. I do not agree but a number of amature lawyers here want to keep rearguing what is not only a settled legal question but also one which interferes with the primary objective of forcing Zero to explain where he was in fact born and what his personal history really is.
No I am not going to write you a brief on the issue--you can read the opinion published by the Congressional Research Service, the first 40 pages of which are a reasonable summary of the law and state the overwhelming view of the bar.
Is that how we ought to make Constitutional Law on unsettled questions? No.
Is that how we do it? Yes.
The actual state of the legal question on the record at present is this.
Zero has gone around for years telling people he was born in Kenya. Those statements are evidence--they are admissible as either an exception to the Hearsay rule or they are not Hearsay depending on the jurisdiction and the character of and parties to the legal action where the issue is presented.
And those statements are the only evidence on this issue. So all you had to do to win before the ALJ in Georgia was make a credible showing that the latest Hawaii birth certificate was fraudulent; and present a handful of affidavits from people to whom Zero made such statements or who heard him make such statements.
We lost because the lawyers who argued the case on our behalf did not do a good job for our position under circumstances where a win was almost certain.
The ALJ wouldn't even let Orly make your argument during her oral presentation.
Do I think he was born in Kenya? Probably not. I know of a number of facts that lead me to think the Kenya story is a fairy tale but so far that is not conclusive.
Place of Birth? In his last twelve pages, the Congressional Research opinion author makes the argument that even that makes no difference--even if it proves Zero was born outside the US, he ought to be eligible. I respectfully disagree although you can expect to hear that argument if it ultimately proves he was in fact born elsewhere.
On that score, the Liberals and the Academic Community made such a conclusive argument against Goldwater and Romney #1 that I think they are pretty well stuck with the proposition that a person born outside the US would be held not eligible.
I am not going to address the possible US birth record for Zero at this time.
Other than that, where he was born is unclear. And given the expensive effort undertaken on his behalf to conceal where he was born, it is going to take significant financial resources to find evidence to prove the actual location.
That review was done in November 2011, why? And who makes up this team? http://is.gd/aDIKs0
They better alert Clarence Thomas because he has no clue this is settled.
And if Myth starts to repudiate the attacks, they should direct some "independent" fire his way.
Q: How do you save an America drowning in debt and excessive governmental control?
A: Throw them an anchor-baby president...
It isn't a matter of me liking it or not. It's just that hearing/seeing someone openly explain how a small group of people (an oligarchy) can successfully mislead the vast majority of their fellow Americans merely for convenience can be an eye opening experience.
Thanks for taking the time to reply and for the explanation.
See 142 and 146.
“Settled law” meaning opinions of people with titles who care nothing for the intent of the Constitution.
Just like it’s “settled” that 0mugabe is a natural born citizen.
No wonder people loathe lawyers.
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.