Posted on 12/11/2008 3:30:02 PM PST by STARWISE
Justice Ginsburg is that you???
Folks,
I’m going to bed.
I realize have not answered some post addressed to me. I will answere them tomorrow.
My best regards and thank you.
As far as I can tell, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alitio did not buy Donofrio’s argument.
I pray this issue is conclusively and
constitutionally resolved, once and for all,
for the sake and good of our country.
God bless and protect our beloved America.
Yet the orginal argument that Leo has made is being heard again by them tommorrow even though they had no obligation to grant a conference to it again.
You weren’t aware of that?
It is impossible under the Constitution to somehow create a natural born citizen by statute. You either are, or you are not.
If sufficient citizens of the United States wish to change this requirement, that has been in place for the entirety of the existence of this country, a Constitutional amendment will be required.
The originalist judges on the Court are aware of the orginalist argument for this case. The real question is whether or not they will cave or not.
We are about to see a great moment in history. Hopefully it comes down on the side of the Framers.
They are aware of the other cases coming, heaven knows, they received 60,000 letter in just one week.
If the terms natural born citizen and citizen at birth were intended to mean the same thing, then where is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference, as specifically applied to the Presidency, the only place where it actually matters at all? Can you point me to any of that?
You said:
If the terms natural born citizen and citizen at birth were intended to mean the same thing, then where is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference, as specifically applied to the Presidency, the only place where it actually matters at all? Can you point me to any of that?
And also ask where it is defined historically as well that they were intended to mean the same thing because they were not. If anyone should disagree then they should point to historic context at the time of the Constitution and show otherwise.
The case that Leo makes is to the original definition of the terms involved at the time.
The case made against his argument is made with references that have no bearing on the original historical difference between the meaning of the term ‘citizen’ (which had different meanings or ways of qualifying at the time) and the term ‘natural born citizen’ (which had a very distinct meaning and only one way of qualifying for at that time).
People simply are either trying to ignore this fact or just are having problems understanding it.
Some might be having problems understanding, but the majority who don't appear to be sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
“Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding allegations that U.S. Senator Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen. I appreciate hearing from you.
This story has been percolating in the media for a number of months. Unfortunately, unless Senator Obama produces the documentation on his own, at this time, there is no way to verify if he is in fact a natural born citizen of the United States.
On January 8, 2009, both the U.S. Senate and House shall meet for the purpose of counting and certifying the electoral votes. After the vote has been counted, the President of the Senate shall call for objections. It is at this time that Federal officials in both the House and Senate may object to the certification of President-elect Obama by alleging that he fails to meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as President of the United States. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue very carefully, and I will act when appropriate and necessary.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Sincerely,
John Linder
Member of Congress”
http://www.democratic-disaster.com/index.php?topic=1637.0
VIDEO: A MESSAGE TO OUR ELECTORS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX7uuhHXs-0
All others are naturalized or not citizens.
Thank God.
I saw this over on http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ in the comments:
From the “Law of Nations”
Ҥ 30. Of the support of the constitution and obedience to the laws.
The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquility, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigour and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires.
It is very uncommon to see the laws and constitution of a state openly and boldly opposed: it is against silent and gradual attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard. Sudden revolutions strike the imaginations of men: they are detailed in history; their secret springs are developed. But we overlook the changes that insensibly happen by a long train of steps that are but slightly marked. It would be rendering nations an important service to show from history how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution. This would awaken the attention of mankind: — impressed thenceforward with this excellent maxim (no less essential in politics than in morals) principiis obsta, — they would no longer shut their eyes against innovations, which, though inconsiderable in themselves, may serve as steps to mount to higher and more pernicious enterprises.”
‘principiis obsta’ means ‘resist the first advances’, and I’d note that though I could argue that this is not the first advance against the constitution, we should definitely resist this one.
Were those hospitals administered by the US military or were theybeing utilized in much the same way industries were all over the country?
Native is not natural. They are two different words.
And the term isn’t native born, it’s native citizen.
And the very next obama shill that shows up here will be reminded of that in no uncertain terms by MOI!
Please post that comment more often...it needs to be repeated.
“Unfortunately, unless Senator Obama produces the documentation on his own, at this time, there is no way to verify if he is in fact a natural born citizen of the United States.”
Hmm. I almost missed this. This is what concerns me; that everyone gets all caught up in the birth certificate, was he born in hawaii question, thinking that will resolve the issue once and for all, ignoring the admitted fact of his fathers’ british citizenship at the time of his birth.
Where is any source for this? You invent it because you want it to be so?
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.