Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: usmcobra
"The Supreme Court does not write Laws. It was a trick question, and you gave the standard liberal answer."

It was not a "trick question." It was a dumb question.

First you need to figure out what "common law" means. It is important because the United States uses a common law system.

Then, look up "stare decisis."

Once you've got those under your belt, think again about the question you asked. You will discover that the trick is on you.
404 posted on 02/13/2010 4:57:40 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies ]


To: EnderWiggins

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

“Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

Senate Resolution 511, was an attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution, and amend the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Clause of which there has NEVER been an amendment or change too.

More then just a non-binding resolution, SR511 defined John McCain’s eligibility based on being born of US Parents [NOTE the plural] but outside the country. Therefore the only alternative based on THEIR wording is ‘born in country’. They did not change the requirement of two (2) US parents.

Where is there a definition as to a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ based on parents [again plural] and born in country? Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Why if John McCain was held to these requirements, was Barack Obama not held of being born of US Parents [plural] and in the United States.

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?

This Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004 refers to the following; S.2128 Natural Born Citizen Act. That act never passed and hence as of this Judiciary Hearing in Oct 2004, the meaning and Constitution had never been amended.

So let’s look at the Natural Born Citizen Act

S. 2128: Natural Born Citizen Act

A bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

(About the paid content on GovTrack)

Navigation

> Overview

- Summary (CRS)

- Full Text

- Committee Assignments

- Related Legislation

Track S. 2128 [108th]

Because this bill was introduced in a previous session of Congress, no more action can occur on it.

Primary Source

See S. 2128 [108th] on THOMAS for the official source of information on this bill or resolution.

Overview

Sponsor: Sen. Don Nickles [R-OK]show cosponsors (2)

Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-10]

Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK]

Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?

Text: Summary | Full Text

Status: Introduced Feb 25, 2004

Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments

Reported by Committee (did not occur)

Voted on in Senate (did not occur)

Voted on in House (did not occur)

Signed by President (did not occur)

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.

Last Action: Oct 5, 2004: Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.

Related: See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

Now lets fast forward to Feb 2006 and look at the following.

SARAH P. HERLIHY 2/22/2006 AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution,1 “undecidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policy-makers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligi-ble for the presidency.5 Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution defines the eligibility requirements for an individual to become president. Article II provides:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Of-fice who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.6

Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.

Again, no amendment has ever been passed to alter the Founding Fathers and Framers definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”. However Obama and his supporters have continued to attempt to not only disregard the United States Constitution, but to alter it’s meaning.


408 posted on 02/13/2010 5:01:41 PM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies ]

To: EnderWiggins

Do you actually believe that Wong Kim Ark is US Law?


422 posted on 02/13/2010 5:13:25 PM PST by usmcobra (Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson