Justice Thomas: 'The court is 'avoiding' the Natural Born Citizen question.

CSPAN ^ | April 15,2010 | CSPAN

[penelopesire]

A curious thing happened in the Supreme Court budget hearing yesterday. Rep. Joe Serrano went on a long monologue about 'diversity' in the court and even said he would be glad when the day came, that a Puerto Rican could be president...to which Thomas replied that the court was avoiding that question. Nervous laughter ensues and the topic is quickly dropped. I'd like to know what my fellow FReepers think of the exchange.

It happens around the 1:13-1:14:10 mark in the video. It would be great if someone could isolate that exchange and put it on YouTube so everyone could hear it without sitting through the entire hearing.

[bgill]

Well done, kyright! 187 posts to get to the crux of Thomas’ statement. They aren’t “avoiding” the issue, they’re “evading” the issue.

I pointed that out way back in #14 but, as usual, people get something stuck in their minds ("avoiding") and run with it without verifying it for themselves. There is a huge difference between the two words.

[bgill]

What would a revolution be in a country the size of the US?

If there were a revolution today, it would be a lot less violent than if it were to happen in two years. By then, he'll have had time to recruit more foot soldiers, set up more detention areas and have many of our rights infringed upon or taken away.

[BP2]

They all looked very uncomfortable when he said it, lots of shifting around in chairs and pained looks on their faces. A very odd statement and very odd reactions. My take on it is that they all know, they are just going to wait it out and hope he loses in 2012 and they don’t have to deal with it.

The SCOTUS has dodged it with Chester Arthur (1880), George Romney (1968), Henry Kissinger (1974) [via Line of Succession], and countless other times since 1789, including Obama.

For the US Supreme Court to declare the US Chief Executor ineligible is a very tall order. In fact, it would undoubtedly be the most far-reaching decision they would have ever made, and that's saying a lot considering the 231 years since the Constitution's ratification. HOWEVER, it's why our Framers gave us the Separation of Powers.

We are obviously in uncharted territory, hence the Appeal after Appeal, as the Eligibility attorneys try to angle their legal sabers to stab in between the armor plating of Standing and Jurisdiction to kill the de-facto king (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Since there will be NO help getting to the bottom of this with a Democrat Pelosi/Reid Congress, we are subject to the slow grind of the Federal Courts.

Here's what it took with Nixon (courtesy of LandMarkCases.org):

Diagram of How the Nixon Case Moved Through the Court System

Supreme Court of the United States

In a special session, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on July 8, 1974. The case issues: 1) Do the courts have the jurisdiction to hear a case involving a dispute within the executive branch? 2) Does the president have the power of absolute privilege and, if so, does his privilege prevail over the demands of the subpoena in this case? The Court rules that it does have jurisdiction and that the president's executive privilege power is not absolute. Therefore, the president must comply with the subpoena and turn over the tapes.

United States v. Nixon (July 24, 1974)

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

President Nixon appeals the U.S. District Court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which does not hear the appeal because the case moves directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. The special prosecutor asks the Supreme Court of the United States to take the case in the interest of achieving a final resolution to the case. The Court agrees to hear the case.

U.S. District Court

Rules against President Nixon and supports the subpoena, saying that he must turn over the tapes

United States v. Mitchell (May 20, 1974)

President Nixon releases edited transcripts of 43 conversations, 20 of which had been subpoenaed. President Nixon refuses to release more material and tries to ignore the subpoena.

April 30, 1974

U.S. District Court

Judge John Sirica issues a subpoena, ordering President Nixon to turn over certain tape recordings of specifically named advisors and aides on particular dates.

In re Subpoena to Nixon (August 29, 1973)

[DrC]

“The reference was first made by the Chairman about 1:05 in the tape and Justice Thomas made a reference a few moments later in one of his responses.”

Right, and the first reference made by Serrano was a joke that he was waiting for the SC to decide that a Puerto Rican was eligible to be president. This clearly was a reference to his own circumstances, since Serrano is the most senior Puerto Rican in Congress [http://serrano.house.gov/Biography.aspx]. Likewise, Thomas jokingly points out that “we’re giving YOU another option” in response to Serrano’s teasing that the Court hadn’t addressed the Puerto Rican question, but that Thomas apparently was willing to indicate it would be fine for a Puerto Rican to serve on the Court. Thomas’s allusion to “we’re ducking that question” (clearly said jokingly) was a reference back to Serrano’s original question about eligibility of Puerto Ricans to be president.

The issue of Puerto Rican statehood is a perennial one in Congress. Puerto Ricans are “statutory” citizens, but may not be NBCs.
http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2003/vol7n38/Poll0738-en.html Many Puerto Ricans would like to have the full rights of U.S. citizenship, including the presumption that their children are NBCs etc.

In short, this is much ado about nothing. I don’t think anyone can reasonably infer from this exchange that Thomas is a birther.

[RegulatorCountry]

Many Puerto Ricans would like to have the full rights of U.S. citizenship, including the presumption that their children are NBCs etc.

A "presumption" of natural born citizenship cannot be acquired. It's either present at birth, or it isn't. Should Puerto Rico become a state, the children born of citizens (plural) at the time of statehood will be without doubt natural born. Refer to the so-called "grandfather clause" for precedent.

[Danae]

Meh....

District of Columbia is OWNED by the federal Government. Ergo - American Soil. Puerto Rico is OWNED by Puerto Rico. It is NOT United States Territory, it cannot vote or even have a say in a Constitutional Amendment.

Is it getting clearer now? A Puerto Rican can be a Judge if also a US Citizen, but they are NOT Natural Born Citizens of the United States and are therefore ineligible.

[Canadian Outrage]

It would be about time if SCOTUS finally dealt with this. After all, isn’t their main and only job “to uphold the Constitution of the United States”? I have found their timidness appalling!! CO

[Candor7]

This is an historic test of SCOTUS, and Clarance is giving the signals.....HUT, HUT, HUT!

[thecodont]

Thanks for the clear chart of court cases.

I remember when Nixon resigned. It was devastating for the country, but it reaffirmed that “the system worked.” May it happen again!

[ethical]

It depresses me that Thomas would laugh so heartedly when joking about refusing to address this important Constitutional issue. There is no hope with the men (or women) in the black robes.

[BP2]

It would be about time if SCOTUS finally dealt with this.

The SCOTUS cannot take this issue up on its own. It must come to them via a qualified suit through the Federal courts. However, waiting again until 2012 is extremely irresponsible for the Judicial branch of government, as the Presidential campaign timeline in 2008 will only be repeated in 2012.

Like every presidential election cycle, any 2012 Election cycle lawsuits against an unqualified candidate (even if Obama doesn't run) could likely ONLY be filed AFTER the August 2012 DNC & RNC Conventions have taken place, once both party's candidates have been selected — leaving a VERY SHORT window of less than 10 weeks before the November election. Legal Standing, still a vexing problem with Obama, probably would NOT be granted by a Federal Judge before the Conventions in 2012 against another ineligible presidential candidate ... whomever that person could be.

The 2008 Election has shown us the deficiencies in:

— State Election laws
— DNC, RNC and FEC rules and guidelines
— Electoral College laws under US Code and directives
— Senate decorum ... i.e, having statesman-like courage when asking, “Of course we all trust you Barack, but sorry ... we still need to see your original birth certificate.”

Despite the fact that Obama IS in the White House, successful in exploiting the weaknesses of all of the nation's Election laws and stopgaps, when the SCOTUS eventually rules on what we HERE know to be true they will have NO choice than to rule Obama’s 2008 campaign, the officials actions in certifying him, and Obama's resulting Presidency:

With all of the consequences that such a ruling would entail ...

[Key Eligibility Question]

Thanks for your posting.

There is also the possibility that “they” do not “all know” and understand the significance of the “Natural Born Citizen Question”.

Those speaking out (or failing to speak out)about eligibility matters in the courts as well as in the media and in the Congress do not seem to understand this central question. If a judge or former judge has never encountered Vattel’s influential work (known well by the Founders) and if he or she does not understand the difference between a “native born citizen” and a “natural born citizen”, then such a person may truly not know what the issues are and may not understand the “Natural Born Citizen Question”.

Most people in the media seem to think that key question is whether or not Mr. Obama was born in the U.S. This is not the key question. The key question is whether or not “dual citizenship” at birth renders even a native born citizen ineligible for the Presidency.

Mr. Obama acknowledges his dual citizenship at birth. It is also noted in the short form Certification of Live Birth, versions of which are displayed online.

Most people think “native born” and “natural born” mean the same thing. They do not. The Founders would not have written Article 2, Section 1 using the wording that they used if “native born” and “natural born” had identical meanings. Why would they have specified that no one born after the Constitution became law could be a dual citizen at birth and be eligible for the Presidency?

A website that might be helpful to those in the Judiciary as well as other public officials and the media, and the public is http://eligibilityquestions.com .

[little jeremiah]

And the sooner the better.

[danamco]

How to tell if you are a British citizen

If you were born before 1 January 1983

On 1 January 1983, anyone who was a citizen of the UK and Colonies on 31 December 1982, and had the ‘right of abode’ in the UK, became a British citizen.

‘Right of abode’ means you are entirely free from UK Immigration Control and don’t need to get permission from an Immigration Officer to enter the UK and can live and work in the UK without restriction.

This includes people who:

* were born in the UK
* were born in a British colony and had the right of abode in the UK
* have been naturalised in the UK
* had registered as a citizen of the UK and Colonies
* could prove legitimate descent from a father to whom one of these applies

People who had the right to live in the UK but not the ‘right of abode’ did not become British citizens.

[Spaulding]

With Arthur, the issue was his father. Arthur was a jus soli citizen, born on U.S. soil. His father was a British subject, just like Obama’s father. Arthur’s father naturalized when Arthur was 14. Obama’s father never did.

There is also the remarkable “discovery” that Charles Evans Hughes’ father was always a British citizen. So was his mother. Hughes ran against Woodrow Wilson in 1916. To run he resigned from the supreme court. After losing to Wilson he was appointed to be chief justice of the Supreme Court, probably by Harding. While Chief Justice, in 1936 Hughes wrote the decision in Perkins v. Elg citing Minor v. Happersett, since Elg was born a natural born citizen. Minor v. Happersett is virtually a quote of Vattel and cites Vattel - born in the country of citizen parents. That is fascinating because, while we can’t prove it, it seems unlikely that Hughes didn’t know he was illigitimate when he ran. The St. Louis Attorney who pointed out in 1916 that Hughes was not a natural born citizen, writing in the Chicago Law Record, was Breckenridge Long, AG under FDR. (Thanks to Sharon Rondeau of Post and Email for excellent research)

This points out that McCain and Obama are not the first whose ambition led them to ignore or momentarily forget the qualifications for the presidency - momentarily because McCain had been the subject of at least four Senate hearings, a 2008 law which wasn’t passed and a non-binding Senate Resolution also in 2008 three months later which was signed by every senator, and two law suits charging illigitimacy from the 2000 election. McCain knows very well what a natural born citizen is because the very aspect of natural born citizen ship used to claim McCain was legitimate made Obama illigitmate - two citizen parents. McCain’s problem inolved the jus soli requirement, whether or not McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, the Panama Canal Zone was not, like an Embassy, under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. (There has been a photocopy of McCain’s birth certificate showing doctors names, hospital and location Colon Hospital; don’t let it distract you because McCain is not the issue, and the Canal Zone was not U.S. territory in 1936).

Arthur became president, lied to redirect suspicions, and may have been aided by a newspaper reporter who kept the focus on Arthur’s Canadian birth, when there was testimony that he was born in the U.S. where his British father was a minister and his natural born mother had always lived. The reporter wrote a book and Arthur lied about birth dates and his parents’ age to assist the case of the book’s author by making facts difficult to confirm, like Obama and the missing passport documents or Illinois Senate records or Fulbright scholarship applications for alien students. There was never a mention in the press of Arthur’s father naturalization.

[Candor7]

Well this prognosis of yours might make some sense BP2, if all presidents were in fact created equal. This is not the case , and as Obama continues to wreck havoc with his policies both domestically and internationally, and as his popularity as a treasonous unamerican president declines, it may become clear that the court MUST act.

We are not at that point yet, but we are indeed getting there. Thomas's remark makes us all realize that SCOTUS is keeping an eye on Obama, and this is especially true after Obama's gratuitous pep rally remarks about SCOTUS in his last "state of confusion" address to the joint "recession" of Congress.

Americans elected an idealogue-thug , and he has established a Junta , a shadow government bent on dismantling our constitutional government, or even worse, using the constitutional government as a cloak for nefarious,treasonous activity, to ram through a "reformation" to bring about the Republic's destruction that the people do not want.

So we will have to see how much worse the Obama Junta gets. If it does, I would expect that the federal court system may very well find itself considering the question of Article II and our current pretender.It remains to be seen. It is not cut and dry as you seem to think. Secondly, the more we press the issue of the courts considering the question, the more informed the US public is beginning to be on the subject, despite the stonewalling of the MSM. ( also witness the waves of Holder/Emmanual,/Obama Trollies at work on FR to spin away the birther movement, unsuccessfully I might add, they do not want this as an election issue and are desperate to villify the movement) It is a serious issue, and the remedy might well be that it will be an election issue in Nov, 2010 and 2012.The state of Arizona thinks so because of legislation it passed on vetting the presidential candidates natural birth status.We have made huge inroads into the issue politically. The judicial aspect may have to come along before long, depending on the circumstances created by the Obama Junta and his treasonous, ba$tardly Tzars.

[seekthetruth]

Hi friend,

I will be listening to hear if Rush or Mark Levin have the courage to “replay” the exchange between Justice Thomas and the DEM on the House Sub-Committee!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=142101

This video clip needs to be spread far and wide! And folks need to realize this issue is NOT going away.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

[Beckwith]

“I believe that the Supremes and other powers that be, either KNOW or suspect that he is not a natural born citizen. If the evidence in the case supported Zero’s position, it would already have been tried amidst great pomp and circumstance.”

Excellent point. What I don’t understand is the media’s near universal complicity in the whole thing. It goes way beyond just the typical OBOT bias. Even many in the media that are on ‘our side’, don’t want to open this pandora’s box.

Hans Christian Andersen described the phenomenon almost two hundred years ago in his tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes."

[Spaulding]

BP2 I hope you are wrong about the necessity for a qualified suit. There is somewhere a clause which appears to anticipate a corrupted federal court system. It may have been John Marshall, but there is a circumstance where the supreme court is ordered to act directly. We need an attorney to explain what original jurisdiction means to the supreme court in cases involving direct interpretation. These days with so much agitprop in the air, no single statement can be trusted, unless it comes from the words of framers or supreme court cases. That puts the importance of original intent in relief. I will search for the statement, but there are some real scholars who sometimes clarify things on these threads. No one should believe that legal statements need to be impenetrable. Demand clarity and that terms be defined. John Marshall was one of our finest examples, but there were others.

It seems likely as the dust is beginning to clear that Obama will one day say “I told you before I ran for president that I didn't believe the Constitution was relevant except as a historical document.” “When I said I was eligible I told everyone I was a “Native born U.S. citizen” and I have always believed that “Native born U.S. citizens are eligible to be president.” “John McCain was not a “native born U.S. citizen yet I believe he too was eligible.”

The left will interpret the Constitution for us as long as we allow them to.

[OafOfOffice]

Thank you for looking that up. I will look up my information as soon as I can. My problem is I will be there forever once I start researching. But I know I saved some.