Posted on 01/26/2011 5:57:29 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
 |
| Tim Adams |
More reactionary diatribes at Reaganite Republican
You think a second-year associate was earning $220,000 a year?
Moreover, clerking for a federal judge is a fairly prestigious gig. Maybe he wanted to be able to put that on his resume. Maybe he didn't like working for Perkins Coie. Maybe he hopes to use this as a stepping-stone to a higher clerkship, or into the judiciary himself. There's no shortage of reasons that don't involve him being there as a Perkins Coie agent.
I doubt that is true ("most").
However each one of these cases involved a risk of a legal result, or a preliminary result on a motion, or a discovery order, or other precatory action that would have affected other cases or facts that will be relevant in an ultimate case that reaches the merits. Thus the guy who is driving the legal effort will have lawyers looking over the shoulder of everyone who is on his side of every case.
That is why you usually would see one of the large firms involved in a case which involves a national effort on the other side. You see this in proxy fights and other kinds of national litigation.
And you can't use low end associates because the guy who is actually involved needs to understand the substance of the main argument and all of the elements of your client's position so that he can see the things coming in peripheral actions that will affect the ongoing effort.
In this case, they benefited from the fact that the challenging parties did not have a coordinated national plan for raising the issues in the several different kinds of settings in which you might have reached the merits. In cases like a proxy fight, the cost is much higher because the aggressor party does have one set of lawyers in charge.
Not necessarily. You might simply be mistaken.
I **absolutely** read about here on Free Republic and wrote letters to every representative, my secretary of state, and attorney general. I did this BEFORE the 2008 election.
Your memory is faulty. No one made the two-citizen parent argument before Nov. 2008.
That's not to say people didn't make other arguments. They did. Most of them had to do with his birth allegedly happening in Kenya, or him supposedly losing his citizenship because of being adopted by an indonesian.
But no one made the argument that he wasn't eligible because his father wasn't a US citizen.
That's a fact. Deal with it.
For the record, the argument that Obama lost his natural born citizenship due to a secret adoption dates back more or less to July 2008. I haven't researched that too extensively, but the claim was definitely popularized by 'TexasDarlin' and her cohort 'Judah Benjamin.'
You’re kidding—right?
Birther archeology can be fascinating. Phil Berg apparently included the myth about the Indonesian adoption in his early lawsuits. Do you think he made it up on his own, or do you think he picked it up off the web?
Then you posted a short time later that two parent Citizenship was not required for NBC status.
The definition I posted was the one used very close to the time the FF were writing the Constitution yet you want info from between the Civil War and the 1890’s AFTER the Constitution was written, or even more revealing of you documentation from the progressive era.
That's how it relevant, obot.
jill pryor Yale law review 1988
That’s the implication rumpswab.
David was onto it too in that thread.
"Native born citizen" and "natural born citizen" are synonyms. Your dictionary definition of "native" doesn't refute that.
Establishing if or when those immigrant parents naturalized isn't easy. Naturalization records are hardly comprehensively available online. And because nobody really cared about a Presidential candidate's parents' citizenship until 2008, it's often not mentioned in online profiles of the candidates. And there are a LOT of candidates to sort through. Heck, it's often not mentioned for men who actually served as Vice President.
Take Mike Gravel, for instance. He ran in 2008, both of his parents were immigrants from Quebec, but I have no idea when or if either ever became US citizens. No one ever asked.
I do know for a fact that Bill Richardson's mom never naturalized. She was and still is a Mexican citizen.
He's not a major candidate, but I know for a fact that Andy Martin's dad didn't naturalize until he was 5. And he's run before and has already declared his candidacy for 2012.
Chester Arthur, we all know. James Buchanan's father was an immigrant, and I don't know of any evidence that he ever naturalized.
And John Charles Fremont, the first Republican Presidential candidate, was the son of a rather disreputable French immigrant who almost certainly did not naturalize. This was also definitely public knowledge at the time, because the relationship between his parents when they met (privileged mother, low-life father) was somewhat scandalous.
Really? Let's take a look at the whole post, shall we?
"Wouldn’t he have been considered a citizen even if he was born in another country, if his mother was a citizen."
Yes, it appears so — but it gets a little iffy, since Obama’s Mother was 18 when he was born, so technically she didn’t meet the requirement of residing in the US for 5 years after age 14 — but, as I said, this could be just a technicality.
... “If both parents are U.S. citizens, at least one resided in the U.S. before the child’s birth.
If one parent is a U.S. citizen, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after age 14.”
But his Father was a citizen of Kenya at the time, would that make Obama also a citizen of Kenya with dual citizenship? I read somewhere that he has dual citizenship. Did he ever renounce his Kenyan citizenship?
Nope. No indication, at all, not even an incling, that Obama's father's citizenship might make him ineligible if born in the USA. The entire post is about the implications of his father's citizenship if he were born in abroad.
So no, Electric Graffiti, you haven't found an example of someone making the two-citizen-parent argument.
No soup for you!
Then you refuted your own words a couple of posts later, which appears to have been pulled.
So now that we agree Native and NBC are the same, i.e. two parent Citizens, how can your boy be eligible?
Wrong. You didn’t do well on reading comprehension tests either, did you?
Berg picked most of his stuff off the web. Heck, on that subject, Berg just outright cited online rumor in his complaint:
"26. ...Additionally, there is rumor circulating on the Internet that his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, adopted Obama."
It's hard to say whether that's better or worse than what he did four paragraphs earlier, where he cited to an online hoax birth certificate that was signed by 'Dudley Doright' and 'John Kennedy.' Which is more ridiculous: citing rumor or citing an obvious hoax?
Here's a link:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2145092/posts#40
Uh huh. So according to you theory, the founders wanted to deny natural born citizenship status to an baby born on US soil, to a US citizen mother, based on the mere on fact that the Queen of England claims that baby as a subject?
Do I have that right?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No he did not. Amazing how birthers just love to make things up out of thin air.
From http://www.michiganlawreview.org/first-impressions/volume/107
ORIGINALISM AND THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE
Lawrence B. Solum* †
Introduction
The U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1, provides: “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.” The enigmatic phrase “natural born citizen” poses a series of problems for contemporary originalism. New Originalists, like Justice Scalia, focus on the original public meaning of the constitutional text. The notion of a “natural born citizen” was likely a term of art derived from the idea of a “natural born subject” in English law—a category that most likely did not extend to persons, like Senator McCain, who were born outside sovereign territory. But the Constitution speaks of “citizens” and not “subjects,” introducing uncertainties and ambiguities that might (or might not) make McCain eligible for the presidency.
What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.” Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen. John McCain, born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, had citizenship conferred by statute in 1937, but there is dispute as to whether the statute granted retroactive naturalization or...
* Associate Dean for Faculty and Research and John E. Cribbet Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois. Professor Solum is the author of numerous articles on constitutional theory and the philosophy of law.
† Suggested citation: Lawrence B. Solum, Commentary, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 22 (2008), http://www.michiganlawreview. org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.pdf.
Permission is hereby granted to duplicate this paper for scholarly or teaching purposes, including permission to reproduce multiple copies or post on the Internet for classroom use and to quote extended passages in scholarly work, subject only to the requirement that this copyright notice, the title of the article, and the name of the author be prominently included in the copy or extended excerpt. Permission is hereby granted to use short excerpts (500 words or less each, so long as the total word count of the excerpts does not exceed 50% of the total word count of this work) with an appropriate citation and without inclusion of a copyright notice. In the event of the death or permanent incapacity of the author, all claims to copyright in the work are relinquished and the work is dedicated to the public domain in perpetuity. Even if the author is then living, all copyright claims are relinquished as of January 1, 2050. In the event that the relinquishment of copyright is not given legal effect, an unlimited license of all rights to all persons for all purposes is granted as of that date. A more scholarly version, with complete citations, is available via the Social Science Research Network: Lawrence B. Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1263885.
Thanks for the reference. I looked it up. Here are the first couple sentences:
Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution" has never been completely understood. It is well settled that "native-born" citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization," do not. But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent," qualifies/as natural born has never been resolved.
Sorry, rolling_stone. You lose. Ms. Pryor is actually rejecting your notion that two citizens are required for natural born status for a child born in the USA. The only controversy, according to her, is regarding children born abroad. Here's the full article:
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
“jill pryor Yale law review 1988”
How far did you get in reading that law review article?
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
Because the SECOND SENTENCE in it is:
“It is well settled that ‘native born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”
Ms. Pryor works fairly near my office. Would it affect you at all if I confirmed with her that the President does not need to have two citizen parents?
The thread was whether or not your dream mandingo butt buddy was a Natural Born Citizen.
You asked if someone brought up the citizenship of his father. FocusNexus did.
You lose, you ignorant puffed up smidgen of blow-fish sh!t.
Thank you, will read it carefully later tonight.
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.