Posted on 08/14/2011 3:09:33 PM PDT by MaxCUA
Do you think Sarah Palin will run for President?
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“...The Constitution does NOT define “natural born” and the US Supreme Court has NEVER taken the issue up...”
I am stunned by your ignorance!
*******************************************************
The US Supreme Court definition of an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as stated in Minor v Happersett is strictly limited to those persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens...
NATURAL BORN CLARITY
The Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen. Instead, the Court looked no further than the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1. The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens. (For more detailed analysis of this issue, see my two previous reports, here and here.)
The Court also noted that the “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt. Since Virginia Minor was in the class of natural-born citizens, that doubt didn’t need to be resolved. The Court exercised judicial restraint and thereby avoided construction of the 14th Amendment as to the citizenship issue.
Such avoidance and restraint were called for. In order for the Court to act, there must be a genuine controversy with regard to the laws in question. Since there was no controversy before the Court involving a 14th Amendment citizenship issue, the Court decided the issue on other grounds, specifically Article 2 Section 1.
Now we turn to US v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the US Supreme Court held that (some) persons born in the United States of alien parents were “citizens”. In doing so, the Court stated that it was specifically construing only the 14th Amendment. And here lies the rub of clarity:
If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)
That statement is a perfectly true mantra. Read it again… and again, until it sinks in. Then share the mantra. There is no antidote for it. There is never an antidote for truth.
THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED OR REPEALED.
Minor and Wong Kim Ark were both decided years after the 14th Amendment had been adopted. Minor avoided construing the 14th Amendment, while Wong Kim Ark required it. Since Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen under Article 2 Section 1, the Supreme Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him citizenship.
The 14th Amendment did not repeal or amend Article 2 Section 1 (but it did repeal part of Article 1 Section 2). Furthermore, while other parts of Article 2 Section 1 have been amended (by the 12th and 25th Amendments), the natural-born citizen clause has never been amended.
The official US Constitution is hosted at archive.gov where it highlights those sections of the Constitution which have been repealed or modified. The archive.gov site states:
“The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution in its original form. Items that are hyperlinked have since been amended or superseded.”
Go to the link provided for the official Constitution and you will see that the natural-born citizen clause is not hyperlinked because it has not been amended or superseded.
Neither the Court in Minor nor Wong Kim Ark alleged that the 14th Amendment superseded Article 2 Section 1. If the 14th Amendment had superseded the natural-born citizen clause, the Court in Minor would have been required to construe the 14th Amendment.
In US v. Wong Kim Ark, the US District Attorney argued that Ark was not a citizen because his parents were aliens. Ark was a person from the other “class” discussed in Minor whose citizenship was in doubt. Since Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen, his citizenship could not be determined by Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, the Supreme Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant Wong Kim Ark US citizenship.
Again, if Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)
The Court determined Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, but in doing so the Court did not expand the “class” of persons who were eligible to be President. This is because the Court specified clearly that it was only construing the 14th Amendment, not Article 2 Section 1. Article 2 Section 1 and the 14th Amendment are mutually exclusive sections of the US Constitution.
ONLY NATIONAL LAW MAKES BINDING PRECEDENT.
The Supreme Court’s definition of the natural-born citizen clause in Minor is not common law, natural law, or international law. Vattel is not cited by the Supreme Court in Minor. And Vattel does not make US law. The Court’s holding in Minor is national law. It is United States law.
Those other sources may have been consulted, but when the Court held that Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.
The other sources are not necessary. Relying upon them actually weakens the authority of Minor. There is no need for insecurity in the face of supporting Supreme Court precedent.
On November 22, 2008, Justice Scalia addressed the Federalist Society, stating:
“Natural law has nothing to do with originalism. I mean, I believe in natural law, but unfortunately I have no way to show or demonstrate that my understanding of it is the same as yours, or is the same as anybody else’s. I don’t enforce natural law. I suppose God enforces natural law. I enforce United States law. United States law should not contravene natural law, but that’s not my problem… I worry about, ‘What does this text mean?’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Earlier in that same speech, Justice Scalia stated:
“What has happened can only be compared to the naive belief that we used to have in the common law… Erie Railroad, you know, blows that all away… and we sort of chuckle at how naive the world could have been ever to have thought there was a common law…”
Do not get sidetracked by extraneous theoretical sources. We have United States Supreme Court precedent which defines a natural-born citizen – under Article 2 Section 1 – as a person born on US soil to parents who were citizens. Neither Obama nor McCain fit that definition. Neither are eligible to be President.
While some may argue McCain was eligible based upon a reference to Vattel, McCain simply does not fit the strict US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen as defined in Minor. To fashion an exception for McCain not found in the actual text from Minor is purely partisan and unfair.
Unlike others commenting on eligibility, I have always maintained that both McCain and Obama were not eligible. I brought my law suit all the way to the Supreme Court – prior to the election – arguing against both candidates’ eligibility. I was the first person to raise this issue with the American people. And I hold them both accountable for the damage done to our Constitution as a result of neither having more concern for the nation than they did for themselves.
Leo Donofrio, esq.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/
“It’s called publicity. She doesn’t have to run - she’s made her millions. (I had to laugh at your naivete)”
____________________________________________________________________________
In case you hadn’t understood, “millions” isn’t a preclusion to running for President. John Kerry, John Edwards, anyone named Bush, Obama himself (thanks to his up-fronts for those worthless books he “wrote”), Hillary Clinton - all millionaires many times over when seeking the White House. When you think her “millions” made is the end game - when it stopped none of these people - is absurd.
Will she run to WIN the Presidency?
No. Although her followers are quite delusional, Sarah Palin is actually quite smart. More than $12 million dollars worth of "smart".
April 15, 2010: Sarah Palin income 12 million dollars since leaving office
She knows exactly what the polls mean. (See August 10, 2011 FOX News Poll below)
Will she "pretend to run", even to the point of declaring a candidacy but having no staff that costs money?
Maybe. If there is money to be made in such a charade. That is exactly what Newt Ginrich is doing right now.
The decision about the run (by this, I mean a SERIOUS run, not a phony Trump run or a current phony Gingrich) was made a while back. Bristol Palin spilled the beans last June 28 when she said on Fox and Friends, "You know, she definitely knows. We've talked about it before. Some things just need to stay in the family."
"Some things just need to stay in the family"?
After Bristol's "tell-all" book (which will be highly embarrassing to her son 13 years from now when he reads a copy), what could possibly need to "stay in the family"?
The fact that Palin is playing her supporters like a cheap fiddle, that's what.
Things are going exactly as Sarah Palin intended them to go and her objectives are being accomplished.
Sarah Palin ceased to be a serious politician long ago and is now a media celebrity. It is a very lucrative gig.
April 15, 2010: Sarah Palin income 12 million dollars since leaving office
Palin's current profession is that of a very well paid entertainment celebrity whose main focus is maximizing her personal income and Bristol's income in the business of Reality TV shows, book sales, paid speeches, paid appearances and paid interviews.
The primary goal that Palin has is to maximize the profitability of her Sarah Palin™ Brand.
Why did Donald Trump pretend to be running for President, why is Newt Gingrich still pretending to run for President and why does Sarah Palin keep teasing and teasing and teasing about running for President?
Because it "enhances the Brand" and that translates into more money.
Palin and FOX NEWS also has a very lucrative game going on:
Due to the "Equal Time" provision of Section 315 of the Communication Act, TV networks cancel the contracts of employees that are serious Presidential candidates. Yet, Palin and FOX News continue a very cozy relationship that is very lucrative for both of them:
1.) Sarah Palin spends a week here and a week there pretending to, maybe, run for President. Such a fake "teaser" campaign does not trigger Section 315.
2.) FOX News hypes each of her fake "teaser" campaigns.
3.) At the end of each fake campaign, Palin's loyal supporters and the curious Palin non-supporters then drive the FOX ratings as Palin appears in an "exclusive FOX interview of Sarah Palin" where one FOX employee (Palin) is being paid to be interviewed by another FOX employee that is paid to toss Palin cream puff questions.
4.) Palin cashes her paychecks and FOX News gets their ratings bonanza.
5.) Rinse and repeat, again and again and again for as long as the game keeps generating money for Fox and Palin.
The longer Sarah Palin keeps playing the teasing game, the more money the Sarah Palin™ Brand brings in. Therefore, Sarah Palin will play the teasing game as long as she can possibly get away with it.
If that keeps her loyal follower "Waiting for Godot" ...... Well, too bad, so sad, ....... That is what needs to happen to keep the money rolling in.
Palin may even be able to keep playing the game until the first primaries because, since she is not hiring any professional staff, a fake "campaign" (where she actually declares but spends no money on staff to actually win) will not put her into debt like the serious campaigns of Hillary and Gingrich put them in personal debt. Newt Gingrich has been playing that "phony campaign" game since his staff quit.
Whatever she does, I predict that the end result will be a maximization of the Sarah Palin™ Brand income.
As far as actually winning the general election in November of 2012?
Well, let's just say that there are none so blind as those that absolute refuse to see and understand the poll below.
Sarah Palin sees and she is playing The Game all the way to the bank.
Her followers refuse to see and they keep "Waiting for Godot".
====================================
FOX NEWS Poll released on Wednesday, August 10, 2011
FOX News Poll: (August 7-9, 2011)
Question 25. Sarah Palin - Do you think this person would make a good president or not?
.................YES.........NO.......DK.....Never heard of
ALL...........19%.......75%.........4%.......1%
Dem ............7%........89%.........3%.......1%
Rep ...........34%.......58%.......7%.......1%
Ind ...........20%........74%.......5%.......1%
Who would Palin bring that Perry wouldn’t?
1) Republicans from the Upper Midwest and the Northeast.
2) Lower middle class, HS or less, white rural Democrat women.
Romney doesn’t have the problem that Perry has with 1), so Palin over Romney with 2).
Palin is the most well liked Republican (to Republicans) and the most famous Republican (to Republicans).
To paraphrase Yoda, you will care....
Whatever sugar. I guess you can be the first to bring a lawsuit when PERRY/RUBIO gets inaugurated in 2012. But you will lose.
OK, let us assume you are right that Perry gets less republicans than Palin. Sorry, how does that add up to a win against Obama? By just getting republicans?
Palin has zero chance of getting independents and blue collar white Democrats from Pennsylvania and Ohio.
yes.
I hate to think that she would or did do this, but you may be right. Big thing in entertainment, leave them wanting more...
I hope she hasn’t been stringing people along all this time. Maybe that’s why she said she didn’t want to be seen as doing that, because that is what she has been doing and she’s already trying to cover her butt. Time will tell. If she doesn’t run, we’ll know that she did just that. After all as her supporters tell us, why did she go to Iowa at the time of the Straw poll if she wasn’t running??
The next couple of months are going to be interesting.
No, YOU have what YOU hope will be YOUR nominee.
In full agreement.
Absolutely, she’s getting as much press coverage as anyone lelse at this point and as long as she’s undeclared she isn’t constricted by the Federal election rules.
“Do not care as we have our nominee, Governor Rick Perry.”
No damn way i’ll vote for that bastard!
Of course she does. Anybody that is a natural born citizen and at least 35 years old has a "right to run".
Even Charlie Sheen has a "right to run". Actually getting elected President, however, is a totally different subject.
and a Palin can actually beat Obama.
That, however, is totally delusional.
Obama's approval rating sank to an all-time low of 39% today.
How can a sitting President with such horrible polling win reelection?
Simple. Just nominate a candidate with an approval rating of only 19%.
Sarah Palin, for example.
===================================
FOX NEWS Poll released on Wednesday, August 10, 2011
FOX News Poll: (August 7-9, 2011)
Question 25. Sarah Palin - Do you think this person would make a good president or not?
.................YES.........NO.......DK.....Never heard of
ALL...........19%.......75%.........4%.......1%
Dem ............7%........89%.........3%.......1%
Rep ...........34%.......58%.......7%.......1%
Ind ...........20%........74%.......5%.......1%
English, please.
case closed!!!
Not really.
I have to wonder about those of you who go into histrionics and use lots of exclamation points when someone suggests that obsessiveness over a candidate might not be a good thing.
If you don't participate in the obsessive and almost worshipful behavior, then why are you pitching a tantrum when someone mentions it?
Think about it.
I disagree with you on blue collar whites and Palin in PA and OH.
That’s where Perry would get creamed. Palin would be great.
Palin is just superior to Perry in all cases.
Polls indicate that Romney, followed closely by Paul, have more appeal outside the Republican base.
Palins polls outside the Republican base don’t look so good, but they look great with Republicans. Even with those questionable polls, she remains strong with lower middle rural D. Urban moderates, urban independents, etc., Palin will have to work on, or pick someone who is stronger in those areas.
The elites love Perry, so the msm won’t stop talking about him. Perry has a long list of terrible that makes the globalists drool, so we have to hear about him. The people won’t be having it.
Bring that back up again about a week after she announces and we can talk.
Perry = awful
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.