The law-dictionary, explaining the rise, progress, and present ..., Volume 1 By Sir Thomas Edlyne Tomlins, Thomas Colpitts Granger“We have ex. “military” defectors, and armchair keyboard pretending attorneys who constantly jumps in...”
A movement that has lost every case PROBABLY shouldn’t complain about the other side consisting of armchair attorneys. Let me know when you find one - ONE of 50 - state AGs that will issue a ruling that NBC requires two citizen parents.
“...claiming our Constitutional questions are crazy and bad for Conservatives.”
Golly...do I sound like Michelle Malkin? Constitutional questions aren’t bad, but weirdo conspiracy suggestions - such as suggesting I’m part of CIA psyops, or being paid by Obama - are out of line. It makes you look like a tin-foil freak.
“Why do the want to keep an illegal alien and usurper in office at any cost if they were/are real Conservatives???”
If we believe in the Constitution and law, we believe it for everyone. I had no use for the BDS types demanding GWB be removed because he lacked authority, or because he was illegally engaging in war, etc. I also have no use for folks who suggest the US military stop obeying orders, and take upon itself to decide if Obama was legally elected.
In the USA, Obama gets the same legal rights and protections that Charles Manson got. He gets the same protection GWB had as President.
A review of your posts to and about me would show lots of name-calling, but few if any facts.
Fact: Natural Born Subject was a standard legal term at the time the Constitution was written.
Fact: Multiple courts have argued that in a republic, a citizen is the equivalent of a subject in a monarchy.
Fact: Natural born subject did NOT require 2 subject parents. It probably required more than a parent just passing thru, which is why I object to applying WKA to anchor babies. However, there is a solid legal case for arguing that a NBC does NOT require 2 citizen parents.
AS of the moment, every state government agrees with me. Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin & Rush Limbaugh agree - NONE of them have argued that Obama Sr makes Obama Jr ineligible. Every member of Congress agrees with me. The Supreme Court seems to agree, since they refused a case arguing your points in Dec 2008.
If you are serious about this and not just flapping Internet gums, then you need to approach a legislature such as Utah’s and see if you can get them to pass a law declaring a NBC requires 2 citizen parents. That would force a court fight, since Indiana has found that it does not. THEN you might achieve something other than attacking a conservative as a heretic for defining NBC differently than you do.
If you cannot convince a legislature in a state like Utah, you have no chance with the rest of America.
Until then, feel free to call me names...although there is a good chance I’m politically to the right of you. But anyone fighting in the courts is wasting time and money that needs to go into electing conservatives. And folks claiming I work for the CIA in psyops need to connect with the real world.
The law-dictionary, explaining the rise, progress, and present ..., Volume 1 By Sir Thomas Edlyne Tomlins, Thomas Colpitts Grangerhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-860.ZO.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 95-860
BARBARA SMILEY, PETITIONER v. CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N. A.
on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of california
[June 3, 1996]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
“See, e.g., 1 J. Bouvier, A Law Dictionary 652”
Wonder if Justice Scalia has the 1928 Edition..the subject of this thread. The one he referenced is the 1856 6th edition.
|
> In the USA, Obama gets the same legal rights and protections that Charles Manson got. No, Obama as the de facto Chief Executive has FAR MORE “legal rights and protections”. Obama has the Justice Department and the US Attorneys Office at his disposal to “protect the office of the President,” regardless of how guilty he may be. And after observing Obama in action for nearly 16 months, it's safe to assume that he would undoubtedly have Holder and Napolitano invoke National Security to save Obama’s own sorry ass from his own lies if it came down to it. Charles Manson has no such executive power to abuse. At the center of the Framer’s desire to place the unique “natural-born citizen” requirement for the President was Loyalty. There are 535 members of Congress and 9 Justices to disperse the Legitimate Power they wield for their branches of government. But there is only ONE President in the Executive Branch ... there damn well better not be ANY conflict (actual or implied) as to whom that one Executive owes his Loyalty! The Framers all too well understood that even though they were all American citizens and severed themselves from the King on July 4, 1776, EVEN THEY had unbreakable ties as British Subjects, succinctly expressed in this excerpt from the “The Pamphleteer, Volume 2”:
This concept of nemo potest exuere patrium ("No man can renounce his own country") endured in the US even AFTER the Constitution was ratified, which is the reason the Framers inserted “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” as part of the Constitutional requirement for the POTUS in Art II, § 1, Clause 5. The British used nemo potest exuere patrium to dragoon on the high seas as many as 10,000 Americans — deemed British deserters by the British Admiralty — and force these American sailors into British military service (more often jailed) before the War of 1812. Indeed, even the United States government did not expressly claim that naturalization released a citizen from his or her former allegiance until 1848. A Declaration of the Prince Regent in 1813 rejected the idea that American naturalization laws had any force on the high seas. To recognize those statutes outside American territory "would nullify the jurisdiction of the British crown over its natural-born subjects." Even the slightest judicial erosion of nemo potest exuere patrium did not occur until 1824 with Doe d. Thomas v. Acklam. However, nemo potest exuere patriam (or Indelibility) was established law in Great Britain until 1870, and in the United States until the Expatriation Act (1868) that declared "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It's important to note however that the Expatriation Act is a Congressional Act, and obviously does not trump the US Constitution. Additionally, in terms of how the Framers would have recognized Loyalty to the British Crown from a British Subject, Obama's loyalty to the Crown — whether or not Obama recognizes this loyalty — ENDURES THIS VERY MOMENT and for as long as Obama shall live. |
