Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
There ya go! A picture is often worth 1,000 words, isn’t it!
Gypsy Lee Rose, a true beauty in her time. She drove many a man to...uh...ahem...distraction.
Speaking of following the money, these excellent points about conservative media being AWOL on the eligibility issue beg a question: Why not at least try to put our influence in play?
How many Rush, Hannity, Levin, Hedgecock and Beck listeners are supportive of at least allowing this issue to be properly heard in court and aired in pubic?
I have listened to each of these broadcasters since I began listening to Rush in the mid-80’s. I picked up on Beck in 2001. I hear at least one of these bloviators nearly every day. That said, I am more than willing to stop listening to ALL them and their advertisements until they give the eligibility issue the respect and air time it deserves.
I seem to recall polls suggesting that upwards of 40% of the conservative media audience describes themselves as “suspicious” of Obama’s citizenship and eligibility status. I would say it is possible that 20% of that audience tends to believe that Obama is a usurper.
If that is so, if Birthers are 20% of the conservative media audience, then we are plenty strong enough in numbers to move these talking heads who rely on our attenion for their impressive salaries.
Certainy, our foundering Constitution is worth rejecting the passive infotainment system which has rejected us. Anyone who can do a Web search has access to news and opinion without feeding the ratings of these cowards who are jeopardizing our republic for the sake of their personal interests.
To be effective, such an effort would need a proactive, organized campaign. But if we interrupt their ratings numbers, we WILL get our concerns heard with the respect we are due.
What do we risk by trying? What is at risk from failing to act?
How about a Birthers’ boycott of TV and radio news until the eligibility issue hits newspaper headlines over details that reasonable express our concerns?
Brother, I’m way ahead of you. I don’t listen to the radio and I don’t watch any news on TV. I haven’t done so for a number of years now.
SR511 has nothing to do with Obama, so I don’t CARE. However, a Senate Resolution is not law. Unfortunately, lying birthers sometimes bring it up to support their argument that a NBC requires 2 citizen parents. Thank you for arguing they are wrong to do so.
“Why would a court use a case that had nothing whatsoever to do with determining the NBC status of the person before them when they could have used a case that had the very definition of NBC in its holding?”
Because you have it backwards. The dicta in BOTH Minor & WKA address NBC, with Minor saying ‘we all agree on x and we don’t need to think about y’, and WKA saying, ‘we need to determine y now’.
The dicta in WKA goes into great detail on what NBC means. The formal RULING did not, because it was not required for the case - just as the RULING in Minor does not in any way discuss the meaning of NBC, but only says voting is not a right of all Americans.
Neither case gave a formal ruling on NBC, because neither case involved a person running for President. However, the dicta in Minor was one sentence, while in WKA it was most of the decision. And the court in Ankeny used the argument in WKA to determine that Obama was, if born in the USA, a NBC.
So now let me ask you this...don't you find it comical that the Senate is going to have to create a non-binding resolution with no force of law behind it every time this issue comes up instead of following the existing law?
Something in the syllabus is not automatically a ruling. For example, Minor did not rule that “The word “citizen “ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.”
The ruling of Minor was:
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
The Senate was giving their opinion on a question that has continued to be debated - can a person born overseas be considered a NBC if his parents are US citizens?
But since McCain was accepted on the ballot of all 50 states, I think that has been settled. But if you want to worry about it, go ahead. No one else is going to join you.
Remember, Ankeny also said that question is unresolved.
” Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”
For example, Minor did not rule that “The word “citizen “ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.”
And yet what do we find in the full decision?
That's what the syllabus says but only in fewer words, right?
1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
Search/Find "citizen".
No argument from me. Spot on!
From the syllabus...
“The dicta in WKA goes into great detail on what NBC means.”
I disagree.
According to Minor v Happersett:
x=NBC=born in country with 2 citizen parents
y=non-NBC=born in country to alien or foreigner parents
We know that y=non-NBC because the Minor court explicitly DISTINGUISHED them from x=NBC.
IMO, the NBC definition in Minor is a holding that is a finding of fact that the court relied on to determine what class of citizen Mrs. Minor belonged to. Then and only then, could the court determine whether that NBC class had an inherent right to vote as a conclusion of law.
IMO, the dicta in WKA explores the y=non-NBC class that the Minor court distinguished but could not reach to determine whether WKA was in a portion of that y=non-NBC class that was entitled to citizenship at birth on US soil even with alien or foreigner parent.
The extensive exploration comparing US citizenship, including NBC and NBS was all directed at evaluating the y=non-NBC class boundaries and whether WKA fell within those boundaries. The WKA court was NOT trying to change or expand the x=NBC definition previously held and distinguished in a way that obviously excluded WKA.
After the extensive ruminations by Gray on US citizen compared to UK subject and the 14A meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of,” Gray's majority placed numerous qualifiers on their conclusion of law that WKA was a citizen based on their finding of fact that WKA was in a class of y=non-NBC persons entitled to be citizens at birth under the 14A. The WKA majority was able to “reach” WKA and extend citizenship at birth to him, but only within the qualifiers. The WKA majority did NOT declare WKA to be a natural born citizen but only as much a citizen as a natural born citizen.
(not that I really expect anything else except that from you)
Nice try moron, but it isn’t about what I have or haven’t done, the topic under discussion is the lack of spine concerning the NBC issue and our conservative talking bobbleheads. Your tacic is from the left’s playbook, and no
I am not a syncophant Paul supporter, unlike many who are syncophants and ignore someone’s flaws.
His tory will prove that your hero’s have clay feet and were on the wrong side of this issue.
“So, do you think I can find something in the decision that will substantiate citizen parents just like in the syllabus but only in a shorter manner?”
If you had even one functional brain cell, you would know the decision is not the ruling. Hence, dicta. Look up what it means, since you don’t know.
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.