Posted on 02/23/2010 8:02:16 AM PST by butterdezillion
Nowhere in the Wong Ark opinion does it say he was a natural born citizen. As far as GrAy goes is to call Ark a native born. The Supreme Court has reserved the term for people born in the US to citizens of foreigners. GrAy states native born in the facts of the case and does the same in his conclusion of his opinion. In his dictum, GrAy makes a comparison between a native born, [Wong Ark], and a natural born citizen. If the Obot websites tell you different, they are misleading you down the wrong path.
I’ve read less than $1,000. The $1.5 million claim is suspect. Those are the payments made to Perkins / Coie, his campaign lawyers. Per the birthers this is all for defense of the long form, but they have no way of knowing what it is for. Simply another suspicion. I found out they are on three cases. In one case, they supposedly got $520 back when the Plaintiffs had to pick up costs. Another case, $20 for expenses only.
So far, the birthers have been getting punted out with little trouble. The lack of evidence thingie is kinda hampering their case. The “Not an NBC” Birthers, as opposed to the “He wasn’t born in Hawaii birthers”, might last a little longer since their basis is legal interpretation.
But, the law is not their friend.
parsy, who hopes this helps
Screw the flowers! Send money!
parsy, who has earned it having to deal with you knuckleheads!
He she it ...had me fooled.
That big long post is pretty funny, palsy. There is one thing you don’t know.... do you really think that all of the evidence that has been gathered and is really relevant and important, is posted on this forum for people like you and the O team to see. Get a clue sunshine. It ain’t, you can take that to the bank.
That’s all I am going to say on that matter. You can choose to believe it or not. I couldn’t care less. You notice I don’t get into debates with you on here. I’m don’t intend to give them ANY information except BS things and what you don’t realize is that most of the others are doing the same thing.
While I do not keep up with this angle, I must say that a “lack of evidence” is not the reason it doesn’t move forward. It is a lack of merit or standing.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
You are an idiot. You didn’t REALLY read what I said, did you?
EPIC FAIL! Go to the back of the class and think about why you are there.
Cheers
I sit here with a BIG grin on my face. I don’t even bother to debate or argue with them anymore. They have no clue what has been found and whose hands it is in. *Big smug smile*
He will be gone in 2012 if not before. Suck it up, accept it. That.... is a fact. Deal with it. He can’t and won’t be re-elected. Just sit back and watch it all unfold. My best guess is early spring of 2011 if not before. It’s best to save the goodies for when they will make a difference. It’s far easier to destroy any chance of him winning again than it is to get him removed right now. So hang in their sunshine, the best is yet to come.
That’s not what it says in the case. The case is about being born in this country, and whether or not that makes one a citizen. IT DOES, with a few exceptions, which are explained fully in the case. But lets not argue. Here is the holding. NOTE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH:
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, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. 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, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” 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, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.
See the language they are adopting and relying on:
“independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, “
and this:
although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”
Thats the law...
parsy
That excerpt you just posted is a comparison of a citizen versus a natural born citizen. Read it closely Parsy.
|
> 1. No birther lawsuit has got far enough to require a defense Based upon ACTUALLY accepting Obama’s “birth certificate” in Court as a Legal “FACT” — as allowed by HRS 338-13(b) and 338.19 — BEFORE the Inauguration? OR Based upon Legal Standing, Jurisdiction and Political Question AFTER the Inauguration? I'm not following your logic here, Parsnip. > 2. If it did, I feel pretty sure the Defense counsel My friend, the minute the actual COLB *is* submitted in Court — even IF by some miracle it matches the online version — it opens the door to requests for more prima facie. I know of about six more attorneys who are ready to pounce with new suits. They'll be making strong valid requests for Barry's citizenship in Indonesia, his immigration records, and his “father's” records as a British Subject ... all as the attorneys begin grappling over the “original intent” definition of “Natural Born Citizen.” Parsley, trust me — your boy does NOT want to let the Eligibility attorneys get their foot in the door. Sadly for him, however, Obama cannot keep dodging it forever. Just like a Greek tragedy, the outcome is predetermined against the antagonist.
 Even many of the punch-drinkers want the f*cker gone because he's an ineffective political leader and he's destroying their party. |
Here, take all you need, Parsley:
Also, here ... call up Domino's and order
a Large Pizza with Pepperoni and Xtra-Change.
Epic fail is trying to get this thread to load. Maybe all the birther kiddies should restrict their pics and emoticons. This isn’t DU, you know.
Anyway, you said:
“but what I guess I am trying to say is that when After-Birthers cite a terribly “Progressive” and obviously logically flawed decision like Kim Wong Ark to use as some sort of “proof” against us Constitutional Disciples, well...it is like me quoting the Dred Scott decision to them to justify slavery before the signing of the emancipation proclamation; it doesn’t change what I, and others, instinctively know to be proper and just.”
You seemed to love Vattel in Dred Scott. In Wong, the Court discussed the law of nations. I will let you find the section. A re-read of Wong would be good for you. (Hint: The Wong Court doesn’t “Over-rule” Vattel)
So, again, you “instinctively know “ which cases are best. It doesn’t work that way. Usually, the later cases subsume earlier cases on relevant points.
Wong is used because Wong decides the relevant issues. Like it or not, its the law. I gave you that Indiana case. It is a 2009 case. It is not binding on any court, but as I said, it shows you where the current state of the law is.
parsy
You are right. I suspect, though, had they some actual evidence that he was born overseas, or something else was fishy, a court may grant standing.
Why would any court open this can of worms when there is nothing to the case to start with. That would be a lot of trouble for no good reason. Courts ain’t going to disturb a sitting president over the paranoid delusions of Orly Taitz.
parsy, who is getting sleepy
Much as the newspaper birth announcement, Nelson didn't say Stanley Ann was at West's hospital or any hospital, nor said she was even in Hawaii. It could very well be, if the story has a shred of truth, that the good doctor and typical white granny knew each other and granny went to him about the birth... thus opening a whole new can of very wiggly worms. At this point, I won't believe the bound book and would want to see the billing and the every nurse and orderly assignments for that week along with every instrument used in the delivery.
I didn’t post it all. The thread is horribly long and with all the birther kiddies posting pictures LIKE TEEN AGE GIRLS READING COSMO have in their magazine, I an having trouble getting it to reload.
Whats-his-diddle said that only “permanent aliens” kids had rights, and that’s just not the case at all. So I posted that part. Do you need a link to the whole case?
parsy
I didn’t post it all. The thread is horribly long and with all the birther kiddies posting pictures LIKE TEEN AGE GIRLS READING COSMO have in their magazine, I an having trouble getting it to reload.
Whats-his-diddle said that only “permanent aliens” kids had rights, and that’s just not the case at all. So I posted that part. Do you need a link to the whole case?
parsy
I didn’t post it all. The thread is horribly long and with all the birther kiddies posting pictures LIKE TEEN AGE GIRLS READING COSMO have in their magazine, I an having trouble getting it to reload.
Whats-his-diddle said that only “permanent aliens” kids had rights, and that’s just not the case at all. So I posted that part. Do you need a link to the whole case?
parsy
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.