Boop His Cute Little Tootsies!
Pretty Baby Looks Innocent Now
But He'll Be Huge and Fiery Soon
Donate!
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/07/2012 11:59:10 AM PST by Danae
LEO PING!~
bump for later reading
Mr. Donofrio has published yet another historical piece on Wong Kim Ark. This piece looks into the history of a document that Justice Gray relied upon in writing his decision in WKA.
He also very effectively makes the case that WKA is a horrible SCOTUS decision, which today’s court really should be forced to addressed. With the Malihi decision in Georgia an appeal-able case, it just may be possible to present before SCOTUS the means and ability to so just that.
Enjoy!
God bless you Leo! Thank you for giving us back out REAL history!
Oops!
The sentences: “God bless you Leo! Thank you for giving us back out REAL history!” should read “God bless you Leo! Thank you for giving us OUR history back!”
Folks, I have read this and checked Leo’s links. This is spot on. Gray, in WKA relied upon a PAMPHLET by Binney which incorrectly quoted the 1790 Citizenship act, then analyzed and sort of corrected that miss-quote in order to craft his holding in WKA. The Binney Document was published decades before WKA. And Gray claimed to have it in his personal library. What makes this even stinkier, is the fact that the 1790 law was revoked in 1795, making the 1790 analysis irrelevant to begin with in 1898!!! So why was Gray using a pamphlet which was published decades before on a law which was revoked 5 years after it was signed into law? Better yet, why did Gray rely on something less than the FINAL version of Binney’s paper. We may never know.
Be that as it may be.... this still remains and smells worse than a 3 week old bag of used baby diapers... If Gray had used the FINAL version of that pamphlet, he could NOT have used it in reaching his WKA holding!!!!!!
Ergo, he used the version most convenient in the decision he had already decided to make - regardless of it’s correctness in law - he went about looking for literature which would support what he wanted to write in WKA. He did NOT let the LAW tell the court how to rule, he DECIDED how he would rule, then went about justifying his decision. In this case, he had to rely upon a document which was so flawed on it’s face, that it should never have been a source with any weight to it at all.
I trust Leo’s assessment of Binney as being a good man. He made an error, attempted to correct it, and failed to accurately do so for what ever reason. SO at last, 2 months or so later, the correct version and analysis appears - sans Binney’s name. Perhaps out of embarrassment, perhaps to save he further embarrassment... what ever the reasons were. Again we may never know.
What do DO know is that Gray literally use false information to create the WKA decision and holding. How can ANYONE trust the holding in WKA? It was BASED upon inaccurate false information. That invalidates the decision!
I sure hope the Georgia attorneys get a hold of this, they are going to need it to literally dismantle WKA and THAT right there may well kill the Indiana Ankney decision as well. Talk about killing two birds with one stone.....
If WKA were decided today under the same legal conditions as present in 1898, Gray would have been unable to even WRITE the decision. If WKA were, as it was written, coming up from an appellate court in the form we see today, it would be SHREDDED by Leo’s historical analysis of the decision and holding.
I can appreciate what Leo is trying to do, but I don’t see this as the most effective way of going after the issue. It needs to be simplified to where the average voter can draw no other conclusion than Obama is not a natural-born citizen. No lower court is going to overturn a Supreme Court decision, so instead of attacking Wong Kim Ark, it’s better to show what’s right about it and how it still proves without a doubt that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. Ankeny is the new decision du jour for courts to fall back on, so we need to show how it’s wrong, but Ark is right in using and affirming Minor’s exclusive and uncontested NBC definition: all children born in the country to citizen parents.
Heya edge....
That isn’t what Leo is doing here, he isn’t informing the average lay person per say. He is offering research for use by the lawyers who are litigating Obama’s ballot eligibility cases.
The Ankney case incorrectly discarded the concept that it takes two parents as well as being born in the United States in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. The Ankney case states that anyone born here, regardless of parentage, can run for POTUS.
Malihi in Georgia used the Ankney case to justify ruling for the Defendant Obama, even though no evidence of Obama’s eligibility was presented BY Obama.
Ankney relied upon WKA and its holding to come to IT’S decision, and because the WKA decision itself if based upon false and incorrect information, totally destroys the foundation of not only WKA, but ALSO of Ankney.
What we have here is the historical legal keys NECESSARY in in reaching a CORRECT decision for the future SCOTUS appeal in the Georgia Case.
If Leo’s research is made part of the SCOTUS appeal, as part of the case for Obama’s INeligibility for POTUS, and SCOTUS makes to historically correct legal decision as it MUST upon accepting the historically accurate EVIDENCE Leo presents, then we the people will FINALLY get a correct definition of Natural Born Citizen, in a modern day case. We have it already in Minor. This will be the 6 feet of dirt over the grave of the after-birthers arguments that anyone born in the USA is a natural Born Citizen.
You act like this language matters.
The court has the outcome it wanted.
If the correct information had been used, the opinion would have been worded differently.
And I do not agree that a facility with twisting language gives the court any honor.
The only reason the judges are not drug out and stoned in the street is because they generally cater to those most inclined to do so.
9 Roy Beans.
History is repeating itself. Nothing about the last 4 years have been about abiding by the law.
Except Thomas says SCOTUS is “evading” the issue, Ginsburg says the US Constitution is “old” and “outdated”, and Sotomayor and Kagan will do anything to keep the kenyan in power. As the court now stands, we might have Thomas, Scalia and Alito on our side but that’s it.
I know they are avoiding it. SCOTUS does not want to deal with it at all. They would rather have Obama just lose the election. That is much easier for them. Its flat out EVIL because then future generations are forced to face the same issue, assuming there is a USA still in existence.
This is a fight for the constitution. Without the constitution, we are nothing. We simply cannot give up.
“History is repeating itself. Nothing about the last 4 years have been about abiding by the law.”
True that.
Mr. Jay wanted to ensure the commander in chief of our armed forces had sole allegiance to the United States.
The armed forces prevent dual citizens from serving due to their questionable allegiance. They too must have sole allegiance to the United States.
If officers and enlisted personnel are required a strict form of allegiance, why would the president be allowed to command an army against an enemy to which he owes allegiance by birth or by statute???
Great point DeVattel!
This is quite a read, very detailed. Does this mean that WKA will have to be retried and overruled in a “birther” challenge to Obama’s grip on the seat of authority? Can you sum this up in a few words — I haven’t yet thought the whole thing through. Thanks for this note!
The mother and father are who are listed on the birth certificate at the time of birth. In the case of in-vitro, the same still applies. Same with a sperm donor. It is who is listed. Funny thing for Obama is, if his dad was listed as the Easter Bunny, he would be an NBC. Assuming the Easter Bunny is an American citizen ;) that is.
In the case of adoptions, it is who the adoptive parents are. The laws really are pretty clear about that now-a-days.
Minor v Happersett clearly states that those born in country to parents who are it’s citizens are Natural Born Citizens. The reasons for SCOTUS not pursuing this particular POTUS is multifaceted. 1) First “black” POTUS found ineligible and removed by SCOTUS is gonna attract some serious antipathy from a certain segment of the population. 2) Having to eradicate all the BS laws the cretin signed is gonna be a nightmare. 3) all the international treaties which are now totally void, another nightmare. 4) all the money the bastard has stolen from US, the PEOPLE to give to his BFF’s in big business, wall street, and the auto industry, oh yeah and the unions, is ALL stolen money.... 5) then there is the constitutional issue of who succeeds him... is is Joe, or is it John Bohner?
This is why I have been calling this a constitutional crisis on the magnitude of the civil war. We have never faced it before as a nation and our Judicial branch is NOT handling it at all well.
“Ba Da Bump!”
LOL
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.