Posted on 06/20/2011 12:56:33 PM PDT by Elderberry
On June 16, 2011 Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Bond v United States #09-1227 Argued February 22, 2011, decision 16, 2011.
This decision declares, that individuals have a right to enforce the 10th amendment state rights. This decision is relevant to the case at hand for following reasons:
a. In the United States of America presidential elections are conducted by individual states, through state ballots and the states are the ones vetting eligibility of different candidates to be on respective state ballots. Presidential candidate has to be a Natural born citizen based on Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution.
Legitimacy of the state ballot and state elections is a right and a function guaranteed to the individual states based on the 10th amendment, as it is not one of enumerated powers reserved for the Federal government. No decision by Congress, no ratification by Congress can usurp such powers.
b. Plaintiffs are stating, that 2008 election was not legitimate, as Mr. Obama is not a Natural born citizen, being a child of a foreign national and not having any valid US vital records. Recent disclosure of Mr. Obama’s purported long form birth certificate shows it to be a forgery, CT Social Security number 042-68-xxxx, that he is using, was never assigned to him and there is evidence of fraud and/or forgery in his Selective Service certificate and his educational records.
The Plaintiffs were denied standing and the case was dismissed. Current decision by Bond v United States gives the Plaintiffs standing to proceed. In an unanimous decision the court stated “The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the states. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of Federalism. See New York, supra, at 181.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Anything filed with the “9th Circus” is bound to be loony by definition. Look at the past wacky rulings that have come from there.
It appears, from the n00b poster’s posting history, that to mislead/knit chaos is the poster’s intent. When a poster slaps a fellow freeper with a clearly erroneous definition (Black’s definition cannot be the most accurate, for the reason you so clearly identified), you know you’re dealing with a dissembler.
seriously is the a Dr. Ukelele in Hawaii?
check the sig block on the pres recebntly released “long form” birf certificate
yep, U. K. L. Lee
LOL ooops. Of course I meant Vattel. LOL again...
Congress can make a law regarding how a President shall be chosen if both the VP and President Elect are not qualified. And Congress can count the electoral votes. Both those things are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But I don’t see anywhere in there that it gives Congress the authority to determine whether any specific President-elect HAS “failed to qualify”. It doesn’t give that job specifically to anybody.
And to even BE the “President elect” the candidate had to have had the electoral votes counted and met the necessary number of electoral votes. So the 20th Amendment in effect says that if a candidate made it through the entire Constitutional process (states’ electoral votes and the counting of such by Congress) and has STILL “failed to qualify”, then the VP elect shall “act as President” until a President shall have qualified. IOW, the provisions of the 20th Amendment are for those cases when somebody has made it through the entire process and has still “failed to qualify”.
It doesn’t specifically say who is to determine whether the “President elect” (who was already declared by Congress to be the electoral winner) has “failed to qualify”.
The judiciary is specifically given the duty of deciding all “controversies” arising out of the Constitution or the laws. That means if the Constitution doesn’t specifically say who is to determine/judge the issues of fact or law in cases involving the Constitution and a controversy arises over that issue, it is the judiciary’s job to decide the matter.
And that is the case with Presidential eligibility. The Constitution doesn’t specifically give the job of determining Presidential eligibility to any branch of government or any specific body. It would definitely be outside the expertise and authority of any other body to decide what the Constitutional term “natural born citizen” means. That is definitely an issue for the judiciary, since it involves INTERPRETING the language of the Constitution.
And SCOTUS has never decided that eligibility is outside their jurisdiction (as if it were a “political question” because the Constitution had delegated the duty to another branch of government). Instead, they have evaded their responsibility by claiming that there WERE NO “controversies” because none of the cases that came before them were worth their time.
The lower courts claimed there were no “cases” because nobody who brought a case had “standing”.
So the problem we’ve had stems around the refusal of SCOTUS to acknowledge that there is a “controversy” being brought before them.
The "necessary and proper" clause gives it to Congress.
(I would also point out that the counter of the votes usually gets to exclude votes improperly cast, but I do acknowledge that this would have to happen before someone ineligible becomes President-elect.)
We have come to a very dangerous situation in this country when even patriots think it is more proper that some unelected group of old people should decide matters like this rather than a larger body of men elected by, and answerable to, the people.
ML/NJ
“All that proves is that Black’s law Dictionary is wrong.All that proves is that Black’s law Dictionary is wrong.”
Let me guess: You did not say one word about Blacks having it wrong until you needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president. I can respect contrarians, but not people who start telling the rules different when then don’t like who is winning.
“Legal Jargon is fine, but when it conflicts with actual facts, it needs to be slapped down hard because it is misleading.”
That’s not what you did. None of the eligibility deniers spoke up when what was at stake was the principle.
Yes, and he’ll be removed from office. Father was a British Subject...father doesn’t meet Jus sanguinis requirement...so yes by all means show the BC...
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by posting those links.
You’ve been had. “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — /Black’s Law Dictionary/, Sixth edition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to that definition and current "thinking" (read - bastardization of the original intent of the 14th), anchor babies and the baby of a temporary visitor to the country such as a vacationer...would be Commander in Chief eligible.
The framers didn't read Black's Law Dictionary Sixth edition (1990) during the penning of the federal Constitution. They did, however read and reference Vattel's work during that Grand Convention at Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.
Additionally, the great Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Waite, the father of the 14th Amendment John Bingham and others would disagree with Black's Law Dictionary.
Speaking of Dictionary's...
1928 Baldwin Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, courtesy of bp1.
…most of the matter in the English law dictionaries will be found to have been written while the feudal law was in its full vigor, and not fitted to the present times, nor calculated for present use, even in England. And there is a great portion which, though useful to an English lawyer, is almost useless to the American student. What, for example, have we to do with those laws of Great Britain which relate to the person of their king, their nobility, their clergy, their navy, their army; with their game laws; their local statutes, such as regulate their banks, their canals, their exchequer, their marriages, their births, their burials, their beer and ale houses, and a variety of similar subjects?[1]
Heeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyy, wait a second there. That Edith b.c. looks like a fake to me. It doesn't have the same smiley face stamp on it like Barry's LFBC does:
Notice how it says "See CITIZEN"? The entry for "Citizen" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary gives a fuller examination of these terms for different nations. Looking at U.S. law in particular, it gives a different explanation that is at odds with the standard birther view.
I can't tell whether this is a joke or not.
Yeah...it’s a dictionary from the early 1920’s. And?
I can't tell whether this is a joke or not.
-------------------------------------------------
Naw....no joke there:
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.