Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship
WND ^ | 9/01/2012 | Larry Klayman

Posted on 09/01/2012 6:31:40 AM PDT by GregNH

[SNIP]Last week, I had the occasion to cross paths with “revered” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia has been for many years the darling of conservatives, a judge who they believed had the guts to enforce the Rule of Law and the Constitution in the face of corrosive influences, foreign and domestic. I took the occasion to ask him a simple question, one he would be able to answer. I asked the “constitutionalist” Scalia what he believed to be the definition of “natural born citizen,” without asking him to render an opinion on whether Obama was eligible to be president, given that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States at the time he claims falsely that he was born here.

Looking like a deer in the headlights and stuttering sheepishly, Justice Scalia responded, “I don’t know. Isn’t a natural born citizen a person born in this country?” I pressed on, asking “then why are there separate references to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution?” Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”

(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthers; bithcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; scalia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-178 last
To: X-spurt
When Romney takes the oath of office, I'll wait to see you and the other dim bulb birthers object, saying “Wait, Mitt, your dad was born in Mexico...”
161 posted on 09/02/2012 5:10:20 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (I didn't post this. Someone else did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Revisiting the previous subject, the 2nd Amendment's language is clear to me and was clear to everyone else until Liberals introduced their own interpretation of how it was written.
The High Court's opinion was much ado about the obvious.
162 posted on 09/02/2012 5:14:30 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (I didn't post this. Someone else did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: edge919

You are another nut, which is why you cannot understand LOSING every case. Unlike the courts, you cannot understand single sentences, let alone paragraphs and pages. YOU will not be convinced by anything.

There is a reason why every state, every member of Congress and every court is in agreement - and no, it is not a giant conspiracy. Folks need to read WKA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html), and decide for themselves. Those with functioning brain cells will then know why all 50 states, every member of Congress & all the courts are in agreement. And that will leave only one reason why you are not...


163 posted on 09/02/2012 5:41:31 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

wrong, that’s citizenship, not natural born citizenship.


164 posted on 09/02/2012 5:44:07 AM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

I’m certain that your son is a wonderful human being and likely a patriot, considering one of his parents is a freeper; however, since he also has dual allegiance, he thus falls outside the founders’ natural born citizen criteria.

Nothing against your son- this ultimate firewall was created to avoid people like our current president,who has no natural love for our country.


165 posted on 09/02/2012 6:34:43 AM PDT by mills044 (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Delhi Rebels

Both. I think he believes (correctly) that if he answers the question then there will be those who say he can’t be objective in participating in the case and that ultimately he will have no choice but to disqualify himself.


166 posted on 09/02/2012 10:48:07 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Both. I think he believes (correctly) that if he answers the question then there will be those who say he can’t be objective in participating in the case and that ultimately he will have no choice but to disqualify himself.

But on what grounds? Because he he has his own idea of the definition of natural born citizen? That's not grounds for recusal.

He probably answered the question the way he did because he didn't want to be bothered by someone like Klayman.

167 posted on 09/02/2012 12:33:49 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Delhi Rebels

No. It’s standard practice not to comment on issues that might potentially come before the Court. If you’ve prejudged the issue, then a colorable argument, at least, can be made that you’re biased. That is why Supreme Court nominees refuse to comment in Congressional confirmation proceedings on issues that have even a remote chance of coming before the Court. What’s interesting to me is that he did dodge the question, which suggests that he thinks it might come before the Court.


168 posted on 09/02/2012 2:13:36 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You are another nut, which is why you cannot understand LOSING every case.

I understand perfectly well why these cases have not prevailed, but none have used the tortured logic you have used in lying about the Wong Kim Ark case. Not one.

169 posted on 09/02/2012 2:47:43 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

Your son does not have the right to be President just because your family, like mine, was here before the Revolutionary War. Your son is a U.S. citizen because of your citizen status and because he was born here.

Three types of citizenship are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute (derived citizenship from parents). All have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate.

The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of statutory citizenship. Natural born is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, and requires, as per the Founders, the President to be born in the United States (jus solis) AND of two citizen parents (jus sanguinas).

The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUS’s unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett (1874). Virginia Minor sued to be included as a candidate for U.S. President based on her eligibility under the 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. SCOTUS rejected her argument and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment. This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.

No one has the RIGHT to be President. The eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegiance for any President of the United States.


170 posted on 09/03/2012 12:35:23 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

If it is so clear to all the Freeper Law scholars, why doesn’t the SCOTUS act to remove Obama?


171 posted on 09/03/2012 5:14:33 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
" It is excruciatingly clear to any rational mind."

The question would then be wether you have a rational mind. The answer to that question IS excruciatingly clear to those with a rational mind.

172 posted on 09/03/2012 5:59:59 AM PDT by Godebert (No Person Except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

Fear.


173 posted on 09/03/2012 6:02:02 AM PDT by Godebert (No Person Except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I didn’t see anyone PING you on this???

Also you may wish to see post #122 of this same thread.

Posts #54, #102, #107 looks like they may have some info, but I haven’t done any research on the info yet.


174 posted on 09/03/2012 6:55:39 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

“If it is so clear to all the Freeper Law scholars, why doesn’t the SCOTUS act to remove Obama?”

Because they cannot, per the U.S.Constitution.

Only Congress can remove a sitting President. In the case of a President who is ineligible, a usurper, Congress has delegated its authority to try the offender via Quo warranto in the District Court of Washington, D.C.

So, all these efforts to drag BHO2 into SCOTUS is the wrong way to go about it. The problem with the District Court in Washington is that it is so thoroughly in the back pocket of the Democratic Party that route is effectively blocked. The only way to remove BHO2 from the White House is to vote someone else into that office.

The Rule of Law no longer really applies in the U.S. today. Corruption throughout our judiciial system is endemic. When Newt Gringrich said that most judges should be fired, he wasn’t joking.


175 posted on 09/03/2012 1:08:28 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

The corruption in our Judicial system makes me sick to my stomach. Along with Holder’s inJustice Dept only enforcing the laws that they choose to enforce. Our country is going downhill on a freight train.


176 posted on 09/03/2012 2:28:20 PM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

obumpa


177 posted on 09/06/2012 8:35:18 PM PDT by Dajjal (Justice Robert Jackson was wrong -- the Constitution IS a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH
Again, Justice Scalia, pulling back out of apparent fright at having to give a straight answer, responded in the same fashion, “I don’t know.”

Scalia knows Obama is not a natural born citizen. That's why his aversion.

178 posted on 10/01/2012 11:24:54 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-178 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson