Those who read the propagandists like BladeBryan and are confused should analyze the responses, and trust that if we trust our abilities to reason, and the words of our framers, founders, and supreme court justices, more than the complicit mainstream media and various political allies of the statists, we will recover out legal foundation.
Note that the criticism by BladeBryan completely avoided any response to the words of two Chief Justices of the Supreme court (and I could have cited two more as well as numerous other justices), the author of the 14th Amendment which Obama supporters claim makes a “native born citizen” a natural born citizen - John Bingham who was elegantly explicity that the opposite is true, and Mr. or Ms Blade ignores the quotation from Senate Resolution 511, April 30 2008, signed by every US Senator.
People who know the truth are afraid because they know the left is fully capable of really imposing the dictatorship “of the proletarian” they believe in. We may some day find out why the “pundits” won't talk about it, but ask yourself why Beck, Levin, Limbaugh, Coulter,... assiduously avoid the words of Chief Justice Marshall, or Chief Justice Waite, or Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, or why justia.com, founded by Obama’s legal ally and campaign contributor, a Harvard Law classmate sanitized supreme court cases to eliminate references to Minor v. Happersett? They are trying to rewite history.
The “Pundits” are doing what they can by never letting the name John Marshall, or Morrison Waite, or David Ramsay, or by Benjamin Franklin, and envoy to France, who distributed our first law book to his colleagues in The Colonies in 1762, long before the revolution, Vattel’s “Law of Nations”. To dictators the truth is subservient to the objective, and history is an enemy.
Another technique of the Obots, many of whom are being paid by the group run by Anita Dunn (she may no longer be managing it since her husband, Obama’s left-wing White House Council Bob Bauer resigned his position), is to bury the naive with irrelevant citations of politically motivated presumed legal briefs. I've read most of them, and it can be illuminating to ferret the mode of deception, but you don't need to. That is why we have such a concise summary of our founding ideas in a Constitution, a Constitution written not in legal terms, but in the language of the common man at the time it was written, using terms defined in our common language and by our common-law, as Mark Levin noted in Liberty and Tyranny, and quoting a letter by James Madison to Henry Lee in 1824. To allow reinterpretation of our Constitution as language changes would render it meaningless, so use of the language of our framers, as Justice Morrison Waite noted, was quite deliberate, and designed to preserve original meaning. Try to find any words defined in the Constitution. There are a few, but very few, such as "treason." The meaning of natural born citizen was common language, and clearly defined in our most cited legal reference as a new nation, "Law of Nations."
The realm of our common law is muddled by opinions by those who, like Obama, Kagan, Sotomayor, and virtually all of the left, believe they should be allowed to reinterpret the intent of our founders and framers. One of our framers, justice James Wilson, and one of greatest legal scholars on the Court wrote extensively on the meaning of common law, not Blackstone's, but the common law of all nations, explains it in his Lectures on the Law delivered at the College of Philidelphia in 1792, Vol II.
Ignore the left-wing bar, unless you have the time. They don't count. But I'll leave with one more quote, by a left-wing attorney, who happened to be Barack Obama’s Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard, and who would not sink to lying about the history of our foundations - a credit to some integrity in this man, Larry Tribe, who has always wanted, since he began his studies to be a mathematician, to be known for rigor and intellectual honesty. Larry was joined by Ted Olson, whose wife would certainly have been horrified had she survived 9/11, in submitting a brief clarifying the meaning of natural born citizenship.
The following statement was written to support the candidacy of John McCain, and can be found in the Senate Archives for April 30, 2008 under Senate Resolution 511, sponsored by McCaskill, co-sponsored by Leahy, Obama, Clinton, Webb, and Coburn - all cronies. McCain's eligibility had been challenged by some very good, and clearly liberal, law professors, and was the subject of a half dozen Congressional eligibility hearings and three law suits. The most thorough explanation of McCain's ineligibility can be found at U of Arizona's Rogers Law School, Prof. Gabriel Chin, in July of 2008, and reported extensively in the liberal press, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship."
Suddenly, having McCain's alleged ineligibility to silence questions about Obama’s eligibility made him a darling of the left, and with almost total control of the media, they set out to repatriate him. Tribe was on Obama’s campaign committee, but that doesn't mean he would sacrifice his reputation for veracity by lying about the law:
We have analyzed whether Senator John McCain Is eligible for the U.S. Presidency, in light of the requirement under Article II of the U.S. Constitution that only “natural born Citizen[s] ... shall be eligible to the Office of President.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. We conclude that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain's birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.
The operative words are “...by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents.” The qualifier “...who were serving their country on a U.S. military base” has no context in the Constitution, though Larry tries to imply that it does. As Justice Marshall asserted, (paraphrase) every word in the Constitution must be assumed to have meaning. Larry and Ted waved their hands at the 1790 Nationality Act, which made children born abroad of two citizen parents “reputed” natural born citizens, but failed to note that the 1790 Act was corrected in 1795, completely removing any reference to natural born citizens. There is no other reference to natural born citizen in all of the US Code. There cannot be, since precedence is clear, we have a separation of powers and the legislature cannot amend the Constitution except by amendment or a Constitutional Convention.
That reveals the political mission of the Tribe/Olson letter to the Pat Leahy/Claire McCaskill SR511 hearings. Tribe played legal and syntactical games with his essay. That is the difference between lawyers and mathematicians, who cannot play syntactical games because a mathematicians get credit for finding logical or conceptual reason in published work; Larry would probably not have been a good mathematician. But his statement retains the integrity of the integrity, while distracting with a political wish. There were eight attempts to amend Article II section 1 during the five years before Obama became a candidate, by such as John Conyers (twice) and Claire McCaskill, both clearly working to insure Obama's presidency. There were some 25 other attempts to amend Article II Section 1 and none came close even to passing out of the House.
My opinion is that John McCain was willing, for a last shot at becoming president, to run interference for Obama’s patent ineligibility. No one needs to read the dozens of political legal essays, some of which, like Sarah Herlihy’s of Kirkland Ellis, working for Kirkland's Christopher Landau, partner with Bruce Ettelson, on the Obama and Dick Durban campaign committees, and partner with Jack Levin who received Obamas “Lifetime Achievement Award for service to the equity and venture capital community.”
This is crony capitalism paying respect to the Constitution only when it doesn't prevent them from running their political machine. Obama was never eligible and every congressman knows it. The only politician to raise the issue and act on it (Jim DeMint talked briefly, but wouldn't act) Congressman Nathan Deal, was a poster boy for what happens to those who raise the issue, he immediately faced ethics charges. As Scooter Libby showed, truth has nothing to do with political ambition and the power to direct money conferred by political power. Deal resigned and was subsequently elected Governor of Georgia; those of us who pay attention won't forget, just like we won't forget LtCol/Dr. Terry Lakin, who had too much integrity not to ask for verification of Obama’s eligibility before accepting the veracity of another deployment, as officers swear to do when the source of the orders is in doubt. Men and women's lives are at risk and they must trust their commanders with lives. Lakin was denied the presumed right to defend himself, present evidence, or even to present witnesses. Our nation is not now a constitutional republic, but we will return the precedence of our Constitution by whatever means necessary.
Just ignore the Obots unless they address the words of our Justices and Constitution. They are idiologues, and good at redirecting issues when the truth is a threat.
Or it could be that Beck, Levin, Limbaugh and Coulter--not to mention just about every American jurist--find this theory to be too ridiculous to take seriously. The pieces of information you've selectively read on blogs might form a coherent theory in your head, but to most people it just comes across as the ravings of a crank.
I mean, in that paragraph alone, you pass off as fact a paranoid, half-baked theory from the blog of some guy who not long ago was claiming George Bush and Joe Wilson were conspiring to commit treason.
Just ignore the Obots unless they address the words of our Justices and Constitution. They are idiologues, and good at redirecting issues when the truth is a threat.
I feel they must be answered so as to encourage others to learn the truth for themselves. As long as they have opposition, Unknowledgeable people will see the issue as still in dispute until they weigh the facts for themselves. Lies must be opposed with the truth. If unopposed, the lies become the new truth. We must all hold up a beacon of light with which to guide men to their own honest reckoning. I say we should engage the defenders of Obama at every opportunity. We should force them to stare into the abyss of their own falsehoods until they can no longer bear the sight of it. Light makes the cockroaches scatter, and that's what we need most right now.
If they go unanswered, their lies may gain strength.
Spaulding wrote: “We may some day find out why the “pundits” won’t talk about it, but ask yourself why Beck, Levin, Limbaugh, Coulter,... assiduously avoid the words of Chief Justice Marshall, or Chief Justice Waite, or Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, or why [...]”
Because actual experts have already gone over it. You are merely pretending an expertise you do not have. For example, you list Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes on your side. Justice Hughes’ parents were British subjects at the time of his his birth, so according to the two-citizen-parent theory, he was not a natural-born citizen eligible for the presidency. If Justice Hughes agreed with your theory, why did he in June of 1916 resign from the U.S. Supreme Court to run for president?
Spaulding wrote: “The most thorough explanation of McCain’s ineligibility can be found at U of Arizona’s Rogers Law School, Prof. Gabriel Chin, in July of 2008, and reported extensively in the liberal press, ‘Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship.’”
Had you read that paper you would know that even Professor Chin, arguing against McCain’s eligibility, accepted that natural-born citizen means citizen from birth.
“Larry was joined by Ted Olson, whose wife would certainly have been horrified had she survived 9/11, in submitting a brief clarifying the meaning of natural born citizenship.”
Where do you get off putting your crank theory on the late Barbara Olson? The lawyers who agree with you are a few losers such as Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, and Orly Taitz.
Spaulding wrote: “Obama was never eligible and every congressman knows it.”
You are wrong about Obama’s eligibility, and you are just plain lying when you put your theory on those who do not hold it.