Posted on 03/08/2010 7:02:51 PM PST by Man50D
No.
I am an absolute original intent person. If I were a Supreme Court justice, everything would be in play--I would reverse NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel; the Commerce Clause doesn't give the federal government the power to do anything except regulate actual between states commerce.
Unfortunately not the law as applied by the current courts. And further, in looking and thinking about all of this, you should understand that I am writing in a context of an effort to set out the practical limitations and choices under the law as I expect it to be applied.
We are a long way from the form of Constitutional governance intended by the framers. I look at this entire issue from the perspective of a practical lawyer managing large complex matters and think about action in the context of what I would do if engaged and paid to seek a practical result in my client's interest.
But, that's a little different also from the point in the quote from you. In addition to the basis for interpretation of the Constitution, things change; and the Constitution itself has been in fact changed by amendment; and creative thought has found new applications for original thought.
The 14th Amendment is the new rule in the context of the current discussion.
I agree with all of your points as to how citizenship ought to work. I don't think the anchor babies ought to get citizenship. But you and I do not make the law. And there should be no doubt in your mind that when one of these anchor babies reaches age 35, still sending money to his parents offshore, and decides to run for President of the United States, the Courts, at least as presently constituted, are going to hold that he is eligible.
In light of hindsight, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was very poorly thought out. I doubt that its possible application to interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen clause was ever considered.
But reliance on the 14th Amendment provision for person's born in the USA forces them to believe that the individual in question was in fact born here--otherwise he doesn't win the argument on that basis. Further, the Constitutinal Bar which is very Liberal politically, is pretty well hung with their position on Goldwater.
For those reasons, Obama loses if he wasn't born here--he can't claim 14th Amendment rights and even if he had a theoretical statutory claim to citizenship (which it appears to me clear he does not), it would not amount to natural born under applicable historical precedents. McCain loses because he was born subject to the sovereignty of another state.
On the other hand, you ought to understand that however good your argument on the underlying authorities might be, the practical political and legal considerations that apply here are going to leave you with Obama as President if the Court is persuaded that he was born in Hawaii.
Can you imagine, actually I'm sure you can, what happens when one party to a contract decides to change the meaning of the terms in that contract, well after it has been agreed to and signed?
No, the Supreme Court does not have initial jurisdiction in this case.
Because? I'm not disputing the statement, but I'd like to see your reasons for making it.
As I understand the Donofrio case, his argument does not include the born outside the US position. I think there is serious downside to this kind of case. If I represented Obama, I would let him get to the merits with his argument because ultimately I would get a decision that Obama was qualified which would then operate as a bar to other attacks on Obama's qualification under the rule of res judicata.
Is not the same thing true about a case based on birth in Mombassa, should he turn out to have been born in Canada?
It would not need to be merely on a military facility. What about the children of advisors and attaches?
Besides, Vattel, in 1758, already said that such children, plus those of diplomatic personell, are "reputed born in the country", for purposes of citizenship.
Also, a mere statute can't change or really even "clarify" the meaning of a Constitutional term. It would be like your lawyer issuing an opinion "clarifying" the terms of the contract I had with you.. in your favor of course.
The Constitution is what it is, and means what it meant when written.. save the effects of any amendments passed by the processes specified in the Constitution itself.
If you believe in Vattel's Law of Nations, then you must believe McCain is eligigle. See LoN, Book 1, section 217.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
I'm thinking, even absent an actual court decision...such a revelation would not only bring Barry down (a-la Nixon), but Pelosi as well as she certified him as being Constitutionally eligible. The (D) brand would become the most notoriously corrupt political party in the country's history. Not to mention, all this crazy progressive/socialist/marxist nonsense that they're trying to rahm down our throats would come to a screeching halt.
The actual judicial process can be had latter, to determine the extent of his crime(s) and hopefully, by way of a SCOTUS decision or perhaps even an Amendment, the NBC definition as intended by the framers (born in country, to two citizen parents...and thus not owing allegiance to a foreign country) can be entered into our laws, plain as day and without question.
Yes, first Immigration Law, of 1790, repealed and replaced in 1795, without the "natural born citizen" language. It did make such children "citizens at birth", but the courts have since ruled that "citizens at birth" via statute must be considered "naturalized at birth" for Constitutional purposes, under Congress' power to define an Uniform Rule of Naturalization.
Several parts of the oringinal Constitution have been modified, especially those dealing with Presidential elections. At first the top electoral vote getter became President, with the runner up becoming VP. That turned out to be "awkard", more than once. So it was modifed so that votes were cast separately for President and Vice President. Although they still did not, and technically do not, run as a "ticket". However each elector generally votes, and did even then, for the VP and Presidential candidates on the same ticket. It's just not constitutionaly required.
Already been done. You can find the video on YouTube.
But the "Nuts and Sluts" defense kicked in, and it was ignored.
Already been done. You can find the video on YouTube.
But the "Nuts and Sluts" defense kicked in, and it was ignored.
---------------------------------------
It hasn't. Not in the context that I was referring to (which isn't anything related to Dr. Taitz or Lucas Smith). Go back and look at who I was quoting and addressing that comment to.
Yes. I want the truth out, in public, fully exposed and resolved. BUT, I also share David’s concern, quote:
” . . .I view the eligibility issue as an increasing handicap to Obama’s effectiveness which is good. I am not so sure that we want him kicked out and replaced by Mrs. Clinton or Ms. Pelosi—they are effective enemies under circumstances where Obama is shooting his toes off, one a week. And they would have an advantage in the 2012 election.”
I disagree with you, also, on your general belief that a statute can't clarify (or elaborate) on a constitutional term. There are great deal of those.
Thank you for your even and well reasoned posting. Fellows like you are few and far between here on FR.
A private investigator has found that during Obama’s adult lifetime there are 39 SSNs associated with his name and past residences. During attendence at Occidental College in 1979, his name and the address where he resided are attached to a SSN with the prefix 999-XX-XXXX. No U.S. citizen ever has that type of SSN.
According to this PI that 999 prefix SSN is given to foreign students receiving tuition aid from the Federal government. So he is either a foreign usurper in the Presidency or he has defrauded the U.S. government in the past. Not an attractive situation in our White House.
I don’t know where Obama was born. Like others, as time goes by I realize I know very little about him. Two years worth of looking and researching and...zilch. But there is a huge, ever increasing pileup of circumstantial evidence indicative of a foreign birth, so it would make sense for Obama to present that Hawaiian BC, and soon.
The only reason, a really politically radioactive reason I can think of why he hasn’t done so, is that he is actually Polynesian and not black African.
Or more likely, Micronesian, since they are the Pacific Islanders who most closely remember sub-Saharan Africans.
We ought to just turn that around--tell me again on what theory you might reasonably think the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction? What parties; what plaintiff; what theory of the case; what claim for relief; what defendant?
You recognize, I assume, that original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court is limited. So far, none of the several hundred lawyers that have started actions here have done so in the Supreme Court.
In fact, I do have a theory but it takes a state or better, a couple of states, as plaintiff parties. I haven't done legal research so at this point, it is only a creative thought which might or might not work if I got hired to pursue it.
"Is not the same thing true about a case based on birth in Mombassa, should he turn out to have been born in Canada?"
No. If it turned out he was born in Canada, he would be out anyway.
As a practical matter there isn't any doubt where he was born--he was born in the Coast Provincial General Hospital in Mombassa, now located in modern Kenya. The legal status of the geographical area is a little complicated.
The 50 mile strip of land on the East Coast of Africa was owned by the Sultan (?) of Zanzibar (Tanzania ?); leased for some nominal rent to either Kenya or to the British Colonial Service for administration as part of Kenya. The Brits got the owner to agree to grant the area to Kenya shortly before independence when Kenya became a Republic which agreement was performed shortly thereafter.
The strip of land was the "Coast Province"--initially of the original owner; perhaps later of Kenya as administered by the British.
Thus technically, it is probably not precisely accurate to say that he was born in Kenya. Although the area which was the Coast Province is now part of modern Kenya.
Thanks.
With all due respect I don't think there is any support for the Polynesian theory or the Frank Davis or Elija Muhummud theory and that stuff tends to cloud the issue.
Having studied the bare legal issue about his eligibility to hold the office of President, I think there is no doubt that he was born in Mombasa.
As to the rest of the post, there are those and a number of other issues about his past, his mother's life and activities; as well as his grandparents. There are holes in his Selective Service Story as well as giant holes in his claimed educational background.
I do think that he may well have initially applied for a SS# as a NRA (Non-Resident Alien). That and some of the other factors that the other legal theories depend on might well have been grounds in earlier times to challenge his eligibility--maybe still are. But I don't think those arguments get you anywhere.
The simple case is that he is not eligible because he is not a "natural born citizen"--he was born in Mombasa. There is abundant evidence proving where he was born; there is no evidence suggesting he was born in Hawaii. That is a case that ought to be won on the facts.
That doesn't work, either retroactively or prospectively. For the reason that it is another effort to define the Constitution which is not in the form of an amendment. Same as the Senate attempting to tell the Supreme Court McCain is a Natural Born Citizen. Not the way it works.
That has been done. By Orly. Nothing happened. Her presentation was insufficiently articulate to make it clear what it was she had.
She let true copies of the documents float on the internet; the Obama Forces immediately reproduced copies with flaws in font's and name spellings while leaving the essential data intact; then put out a release that the certificates were forgery's.
That is the kind of stuff you can deal with fairly easily in court--you prove the documents which in this case, there is supporting evidence to do.
In the meantime, telling the world about your case didn't do you any good.
Zanzibar consists of two Islands, one called Zanzibar internationally but known locally as Unguja.
The merger with Tanganyika to form Tanzania did not occur until 1964. By that time the Coast Province was part of Kenya. It had only nominally been under Zanzibar sovereignty anyway since 1895, being part of the British Kenya protectorate.
Strangely Mombasa is a sister city to both Seattle and Honolulu. (Something I did know until just now. :) )
Oh there is evidence, possibly untrue, but evidence. There is also evidence, also possibly untrue, of birth outside the US, specifically in Mombasa, but some more circumstantial evidence of Canadian birth.
Actually we don't know why the Natural Born language was dropped from 1795 and later immigration law.
However I'm firmly convinced from first principals that Congress cannot define "natural born citizen" for Constitutional purposes under their power to define rules for *naturalization". They are complete opposites. And the courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled that "citizens at birth" by statute must be considered "naturalized at birth" for Constitutional purposes. I don't have the citation at hand, but, IIRC, it involved the differences in "citizen at birth" requirements between the child of US citizen mother and one of a US citizen father.
An interesting article and what say you now?
“Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship
Here is a legal brief written by a law professor and he’s not kidding or smoking dope. “
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.