Posted on 01/07/2011 8:52:56 AM PST by butterdezillion
The court would rule on the constitutionality of the 2-citizen parent requirement. That ruling would be based on the legal precedents and (hopefully) what the terminology meant at the time the Constitution was ratified. That is for the court to decide, and the only way they will decide it is if they have a case that they can’t refuse to hear. That is the reason to have the 2-citizen-parent requirement.
With the severability clause the whole law can’t be unenforceable just because that part is being challenged or found to be illegal.
So I asked you on what constitutional grounds the DOJ or anybody else would say that the rest of the law could not be implemented.
Your response seems to be case law, statutes, and history. That doesn’t answer my question. Where in the Constitution does it forbid the provisions of this law - either the longer form or the shorter form? What is the constitutional basis?
As I have indicated in previous postings, trying to modify, restructure, replace, or anything of the like in laws and especially those directly involving the Constitution is asking for much hashing of many ideas, words, and expressions. There has been no success with a frontal attack on the matter of Obama’s eligibility because of congressional and judicial bodies not being pro active as to the oath to defend the Constitution. I do think that bit- by-bit the attack will succeed. Before that time I believe a worthwhile course, simpler, direct and in less time,is to by law open very widely the exposure of all candidates to a rigorous public scrutiny of qualifications along with recognition in law that everybody, including individuals, has standing to challenge the eligibility. There will be less turmoil making such a specific law apart from the existing Constitution. Some will plead a tremendous burden on the courts. Let the courts be busy with this important part of our Government. Instead of the courts dismissing actions because of no standing of ‘We the People’ on the part of petitioners the courts can show their character and judgements by ruling ‘frivolous’.
As I have indicated in previous postings, trying to modify, restructure, replace, or anything of the like in laws and especially those directly involving the Constitution is asking for much hashing of many ideas, words, and expressions. There has been no success with a frontal attack on the matter of Obama’s eligibility because of congressional and judicial bodies not being pro active as to the oath to defend the Constitution. I do think that bit- by-bit the attack will succeed. Before that time I believe a worthwhile course, simpler, direct and in less time,is to by law open very widely the exposure of all candidates to a rigorous public scrutiny of qualifications along with recognition in law that everybody, including individuals, has standing to challenge the eligibility. There will be less turmoil making such a specific law apart from the existing Constitution. Some will plead a tremendous burden on the courts. Let the courts be busy with this important part of our Government. Instead of the courts dismissing actions because of no standing of ‘We the People’ on the part of petitioners the courts can show their character and judgements by ruling ‘frivolous’.
“It’s a valid State of Hawai’i birth certificate.”—Janice Okubo, Director of Communications, Hawai’i Department of Health
“It’s identical to my own [COLB].—Janice Okubo, Director of Communications, Hawai’i Department of Health
“It’s crazy, I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them [the birthers].”—Janice Okubo, Director of Communications, Hawai’i Department of Health
“If you were born in Bali, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawai’i saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the hospital lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”—Janice Okubo, Director of Communications, Hawai’i Department of Health
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i Department of Health have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii Department of Health verifying that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural born American citizen.”— Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health, state of Hawai’i.
“For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-email inquiries a month seeking access to President Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that the President posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website.”—Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health, State of Hawaii
“It’s been established. He was born here.”—Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle.
“The state of Hawai’i says that the President was born there. That’s good enough for me.”—Representative John Boehner, Speaker of the House
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, Royce C. Lamberth
“A spurious claim questioning the President’s eligibility may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—U.S. District Court Judge Clay R. Land, Middle District of Georgia Federal Court
“We conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for purposes of Article II, Section 1, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny, et. al. v Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana
“Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not initiated impeachment proceedings, and in fact, in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. [See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong.(2009)] commemorating, by a vote of 378-0 the 50th anniversary of Hawai’i’s statehood and stating: “the 44th President of the United States was born in Hawai’i on August 4, 1961.”—U.S. District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, Clay R. Land
“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution, and to effectively overthrow a sitting President who was popularly elected by “we the People”—over sixty-nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claims, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction.
Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate expression of patriotism.”—U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, Barnett, et. al. v Obama et. al., October 29, 2009
Since the Constitution does not define NBC, the courts must look to other sources in making it's definition of NBC.
If you can get your proposal passed, you will have a court issuing a ruling on the issue, although I am not sure SCOTUS will necessarily rule on it.
You should know that while the severability clause may save constitutional provisions of the bill if other parts are found to be unconstitutional in the final ruling, it does not have an effect on the original injuntive relief. Although an argument can be made for a more narrow TRO, I believe the court will enjoin the entire law until it is decided and all appeals are exhausted. I further believe there will be challenges to the law, constitutional and otherwise, that we have not discussed.
At this time I hope you have thought about lining up sponsors for the bill and expert witnesses to testify in committee for the necessity of your language. I am sure you realize that you are going to have to educate most, if not all, legislators because they think the entire issue revolves around the BC, and have not even heard of this 2 citizen-parent theory. I think I saw a post by Kenny Bunk on another thread that he had talked to several legislators and everyone said the issue was settled because Obama was born in Hawaii. I realize that is anecdotal, but I think it is an issue you need to address if you expect to get anywhere with your proposal.
All this being said, I sincerely wish you luck in getting a ruling on the 2 citizen-parent theory.
Imo, it’s good as written. Citizens (and lobbyists) write bills all the time. Don’t legislators run them by staff lawyers to clean them up? Is this what you’re planning to do? Have a state legislator introduce this? I think it’s great.
We need the information and it MUST be available to the public, because how else will anyone be able to raise logical, fact-based objections? Objecting to the person’s eligibility within the given timeframe is just about the only check the people have on this issue. Our only chance to “vet” the candidate.
It’s not enough to have a partisan Secretary of State or elections boards look at the documents. Remember Soros’s Secretary of State plan? Control the state secretaries, you control the elections.
If anyone wants to hold public office, then he or she must give up this small piece of personal privacy.
We have to cough up our personal documents all the time. It’s the cost of doing business with the government. Want a driver’s license? Show your papers or else you can walk.
How about that IRS paperwork you send in every year? Talk about personal information. But everybody who wants the privilege of earning money in these United States must file and comply with the odious documentation requirements of tax returns.
Want your health insurer to pay for your operation? Then you have to give their clerks access to THE most private and personal information imaginable. Now the government, under Obama, wants to computerize and create a central database, accessible to the government, of ALL your medical records.
Why should candidates for public office, people who want to work FOR US, not have to prove their eligibility? No problem, so long as they’re not trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by LYING.
That's dud TNTNT's purpose here.
Electoral College Protocol and Tradition calls for the President of the Senate to ask, "if there are any objections ... " before the votes are tallied.
For some reason, Dick Cheney did not do that in the last election. More tellingly against us, not one elector took exception to this critical lapse.
Ain't that the damndest?
n law, severability (sometimes known as salvatorius, from Latin) ....
Well turnabout is fair play. What Team Obama is doing to the Constitution certainly qualifies a severability in regard to Article II!
My hope is that they get to deliver it themselves in front of the SCOTUS. Your point also has as much popular support as the case against Obama's eligibility. That is a huge problem for the country, and certainly would have already led to civil strife in any number of our sister American republics! It is also weakening our country because, no matter what the outcome, this administration has the taint of illegitimacy about it.
This is why I and many others are calling for one state, 1 governor, 1 state attorney general ... to keep Obama off the ballot in 1 state. It actually has NOTHING to do with Obama .... much ..... What it has to do with is getting the SCOTUS to narrowly define Article II ... one way or the other... and quickly.
A Constitutional Republic simply cannot have a divisive question of this magnitude remain unanswered. IMHO, Team Obama cynically took advantage of the Chester Arthur case. At the time, had the people known that Arthur had lied about his origins, which has only very recently been definitively proven, he would have been dragged bodily from the White House, or worse.
Traditionally The Federal AG would, in a way, "recuse" himself, because he is the President's lawyer. In the practical sense, that is why the Federal District Court names another to defend the "public interest" in a case where the President is a defendant.
The actual statute calls for it.
My suspicion is that Dick Cheney refused to obey the law so that Obama could never legally be the president, even if everybody pretended he was. I think Cheney knew it was all a farce, just like Chief Justice Roberts knew it was a farce. As long as the critical characters were willing to play the part just enough so nobody would claim that Obama wasn’t POTUS, Soros was willing to throw them a bone to salve their consciences. The 2 things claimed to prove that Obama is really the POTUS are the Congressional certification (which Chency never did according to the law) and the oath of office (for which there is no video of Roberts doing it correctly).
Wow. But 2 “justices” (I use the term loosely. cough) whose place on SCOTUS, along with all the trappings such as salaries, prestige, and power, depend on a certain outcome for a certain case..... refuse to recuse themselves. And that seems to be cool with the rest of SCOTUS, Congress, etc.
I told my husband this morning that I live in a universe most people don’t want to live in. Most people want to live in the alternate universe where we can still trust the government because we just don’t KNOW the shenanigans and crap they are doing routinely.
One of my sisters, who I greatly respect, told me at one point, “Nellie, if I believed what you do I couldn’t go on.” She didn’t want me to give her evidence because she had already decided that the conclusion she would have to reach if she had the facts was unbearable to live with. She’d rather just not know. I suppose I would rather just not know too, although it’s a bit late for that - except that hiding under the covers when you could be protecting yourself or your family in some real way seems irresponsible to me.
The media is trying to spin the AZ shooting to say that only “crazies” distrust the government. Doesn’t matter what evidence there is for a person’s belief; a person is just crazy if they think the government is corrupt.
And now it’s “incendiary” to even talk about the danger in what the government is doing - even what they are doing overtly, such as policy, etc, that the talk radio hosts limit themselves to discussing, much less the covert crap they’re documentably doing.
The basic gist of everything the media is doing is that it isn’t HOW a person thinks, or the evidence they process - but WHAT they think that must be regulated, silenced, and called crazy. Just like the schools don’t teach kids HOW to think, but WHAT to think. It’s not about processing evidence and reasoning it out. It’s about what conclusions are OK to reach and which are verboten. It’s post-modernism on steroids - that we make our own truth as we see it and the facts be damned.
Dangerous, unsustainable ground.
Butter, Sis (and my 3) is in there with 90% of the people. The people of Troy were warned about the horse. Welcome to the world of the uncomfortable 10%. We'll be joined by another 2-3% when gas hits $5. When a loaf of bread hits $10. When they lose their jobs. Are we the Weimar Republic? Next two years will tell the tale, although the "recovery" could take another 5, or longer.
We will not be the first Republic in history that hit the skids. My children and grandchildren assure me, "We can handle it!" LOL.
"Run into the roundhouse, Nellie. Nobody can corner you there!"
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.