See # 3.
Posted on 02/05/2012 9:33:38 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Congress made eight different attempts to alter our U.S. Constitution concerning the Natural Born Citizenship Clause according to research by Carl Gallups proving they knew Barack Obama lacked presidential eligibility prior to the 2008 election!
If there was no problem for Obama why would these people do this? There had never been a question of Natural Born Citizenship in our lifetimes! Why fix what wasn’t broken?
The youtube ……..reveal a secret, closed door meeting was held with eight Supreme Court Justices just prior to the January 2009 Inauguration sent our other courts an unspoken message to don’t go there. Plaintiff attorneys with cases were pending at the time were not allowed into this meeting! Only Justice Samuel Allito declined…….
“Gallups video, are the eight different attempts to amend our Constitution…. Obama’s eligibility questions: 1 On June 11, 2003: House Joint Resolution # 59, introduced by Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR), failed to obtain a vote; it sought to allow non-natural born U.S. citizens, “but who have been citizens of the U.S. for at least 35 years,” to serve as President or Vice President.
8. On Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-MO) attempted to add language onto SB 2678, Children of the Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, to again weaken the NBC clause.
Co-sponsors of the failed legislation were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama!. By the way, was not the John McCain eligibility hearing really a head fake to draw attention away from the Democrats’ elephant in the room?
“This is (a) 100 times worse situation (than Watergate); this is a crime against the Constitution and all the people of the U.S. Obama is not who he says he is, ” says Charles Kerckner whose eligibility lawsuit was turned down by our Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Wong Kim Ark won, he did not lose his case!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
BTW, a Treaty on Citizenship, with another Country, would be the Law of the Land. The Constitution can be altered by Treaty, in many cases.
(Obama knows this, and this is why Obama and Holder wanted a Treaty with Mexico, to restrict gun rights!)
If we accept your view, then Congress can legislate away every freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Indeed, they can legislate away the entire US Constitution, and replace it with whatever they like. Legislation trumps everything, after all.
Your statements on this matter are repulsive and un-American. Natural law cannot be legislated into non-existence. Congress can no more change the inalienable and intrinsic nature of man, than they can repeal the law of gravity.
If you'd ever really learned anything from American history, you'd understand that the American Revolution was fought over these very concepts, and that our Constitution enshrined and codified these ideas into a framework for organizing a society of free people for the very first time in human history.
The point you continually miss in these conversations, is that the Framers recognized the inherent differences between the various conditions of citizenship. They knew that barring the presidency to all except those who were born on American soil, to two US citizen parents, was the strongest insurance they could impose against someone of divided loyalties assuming control of that office.
That is the entire simplicity of the Natural Born Citizen clause.
When the 14th Amendment was written with the natural born terminology, the term was borrowed from Britain's Natural Law. Under the concept of Natural Law, a citizen's status is determined at birth by the citizen status of the parents. Under natural law, 2/3rds of a child's citizen status is derived from the status of the father with the remaining 1/3rd coming from the mother. IMO, this was the original intent of the 14th Amendment. However, the intent and the actual meaning has been muddied by the numerous discussions and interpretations from everyone's brother, sister amd dog.
You are correct when you say However, Congressional Legislation has frequently changed the requirements necessary, to obtain birthright citizenship. Legislation trumps Common Law. Legislation trumps Natural Law. Legislation trumps the Law of Nations. I don't know what you mean by the last statement.
Yes...very very foolish t oallow what was once only private education, be taken over by the government. The most important segment of our economy, the education of our young citizens, has become socialist and Americans allowed for it and are still allowing it!
Actually, Burr and Hamilton shot AT each other, but Hamilton died as a result.
(Thanks for the correction :)
You’re right, but consider this. A lot of Americans have little or no idea of the worst propaganda to which their kids are being subjected. [Though by now the first brainwashed batch ARE the parents, so they wouldn’t care anyway.] The real villains are the RINOs, who knew, or should have known, what was being done to our kids and who, far from stopping it, enabled it. It served the Dems’ interest to make mindless liberals out of young Americans. How did it help the Stupid Party? But they let it happen, so they must have seen some gain.
Um, I thought the fact that my post stated the opposite of the actual result might have clued you in to something important. Specifically, the fact that my post was dripping with sarcasm.
BTW, a Treaty on Citizenship, with another Country, would be the Law of the Land. The Constitution can be altered by Treaty, in many cases.
There was a treaty between the US and China. And it did prohibit the children of Chinese nationals from becoming US citizens. But the Supreme Court didn't follow your script in that case, did it? It ignored that treaty. It ignored the statutes that prohibited the children of Chinese nationals from becoming citizens.
Why would that be, if what you say is true, that statutes trump everything?
But didn’t the supremes declare “common law” dead. No longer any of any legal import? Can’t remember the legal opinion that said such—but do remember the summation of it.
They do not have the right to alter it, however, without first amending that Constitution, something that was attempted numerous times leading up to 2008, but not accomplished.
Tell me, Kansas58, just how your understanding of the Constitutional term of art "natural-born citizen" jibes with any one of these Bills, some of which were sponsored by Obama himself?
Were they just entertaining themselves with useless gestures, since "natural-born citizen" has always merely meant born on the soil, according to you? What of that Sense of the Senate Resolution, stating that natural-born citizenship required citizen parents? How does that fit into your preferred scenario?
There is a lack of logical consistency to your contentions. Clinging to legislative efforts that can only pertain to naturalization, and portraying them as somehow definitive regarding a citizenship status that is anything but naturalized, defies logic as well.
It appears emotion has gotten the best of you. Why?
Unless and until such a “declaration” is made regarding Article II, it’s meaningless. The meaning of the term remains the meaning of the term, however derived.
See # 3.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth. It has always meant Citizen at Birth.
However, the rules and regs and requirements to obtain such Citizenship have changed, over the years.
Your case is very weak. Your attitude, and the nasty attitude of many other Birthers, is why most Conservatives ignore you folks -— it seems a waste of time to point out the flaws in your strategy and argument.
The vast majority of Conservatives believe that Marco Rubio, for instance, IS qualified to be President, as he was born in Florida. The fact that his parents were Cuban Citizens, at that time, does not matter to the vast majority of Conservatives. When the fight is over Rubio, rather than Obama, you will see a huge outpouring of Conservative judicial, political and historical experts who will all squash your arguments like bugs.
But for now? To many Conservatives, it is a waste of time to argue with you.
For me? Well I think Birthers can make Conservatives look foolish, and I think at least a few of you are forced now, to do better research against my arguments, even if you do not agree with my position (Which is the majority opinion at law, in politics and among historians.)
Your right there. It might take a generation or so and indeed will be hard. I'm 80 and seen lots of water under the bridge. But the current buildup of communists like thinking predominates much of Washington.
Says who??!!! ... You?
Yes, in the case of McCain, he is a Natural Born Citizen as he was born out of the country to two Citizen parents.
Different case entirely. The Sense of the Senate Resolution was appropriate in that case and it conflicts with nothing I have posted, here.
You have a problem with logic and with reading comprehension.
I never said that Legislation trumps a Treaty. In fact, a Treaty trumps almost every other form of law.
Oh, so there are different meanings depending upon circumstance, for a specific term of art used in the Constitution of the United States? And those different meanings can be legislated on a whim?
Listen to yourself. If you really believe what you say, extend it to every Constitutional protection you hold dear. You should be afraid of the consequences, of what you’re claiming, seemingly due to having your judgement clouded out of emotion.
Common Law is not dead, but Common Law is trumped by every other form of law.
Yes and no. Depends on what is meant by "common law." It also depends on whether it's State or Federal law.
All US courts except the State courts of Louisiana operate using common law principles regarding how laws are interpreted and constructed (Louisiana does so partially.) That means that courts have the authority not just to decide how the law applies in a particular case (even civil law courts do that,) but that each decision creates a precedent that binds (or at least strongly influences) subsequent decisions.
In this specific sense, common law is fully operational in the United States. In fact, it has created American Common Law—a body of "case law" or precedent that is complete separate and distinct from English Common Law.
The Supreme Court case you're looking for is Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (Pet. 8) 591 (1834):
It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The Federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our Federal system only by legislative adoption.
In spite of that, it is occasionally necessary to use English Common Law to divine the intended meanings of terms in the Constitutions of either the States or the Federal government. And most States have Constitutional provisions that incorporate English Common Law as the law of the State—as of a some stated cut-off date—but make it inferior to any positive law enacted by the State Legislature.
English Common Law in the States is now almost completely overridden by statutes. That's what Scalia meant when he said: "The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it's codified now."
Yes, we are going to have to eliminate the socialist school system eventually.
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.