Posted on 09/21/2010 8:59:08 AM PDT by wintertime
Mr. Limbaugh,
You have FAILED to defend the Constitution in the important matter of Obama's very questionable natural born status! On those rare occasions that you have mentioned the topic ( less than 5 total minutes) you have treated it like a joke. I am mystified that you have done this.
The only consequence, Mr. Limbaugh, for directing attention to Obama's eligibility as a natural born citizen would have been a little ridicule from the mainstream Marxist media. If you fail to defend the Constitution in time of relative peace and security, only a FOOL would expect you to defend the Constitution in the face of real tyranny, tanks in the streets, and cattle cars filled to the brim? Only a fool would expect you to do what is right and brave.
Personally, I will never fully trust you and your opinions again. Some things are deal breakers. That you have failed to cover the important question of having a constitutionally eligible president is a deal breaker for me.
By the way, LTC Lakin is facing court martial for having dared Obama to prove his natural born citizenship. LTC Lakin is brave and honorable man. Hopefully, you, Mr. Limbaugh, you will have one thousandth of the courage of this military officer, and you will do what is right. You will give LTC Lakin the generous time on your program that his legal case deserves.
Mr. Limbaugh, that little itty bitty phrase in the Constitution about having a natural born citizen for a president is **not** a JOKE!
Respectfully,
Wintertime
No one complaining has had standing because no one with any legal expertise agrees with your interpretation, and therefore no one WITH standing will file a complaint.
When the Supreme Court cites a case to make their point, they agree with it - and the first part of WKA argues that since WKA qualifies as a common law natural born subject, he therefore qualifies as a natural born citizen and is thus a citizen.
As in Minor, they understand that there are citizens by birth (natural born) and naturalized citizens, and aliens. That is it. There is not a distinction between a natural born citizen and a born citizen based on parentage. WKA was not a citizen by naturalization, but by birth.
Sure it does, as anyone who can read can plainly see, your attempt to deny reality notwithstanding.
It doesn't change that only one of these defintions has never had doubts.
No, what it does is indicate that Justice Waite was uncertain about the definition of NBC. While he was certain that US-born children of US citizens are included, he was uncertain about US-born children of aliens.
That completely destroys your claim that Minor defined NBC to exclude children of aliens.
It doesn't change that the Minor decision only used ONE of these defintions as THE definition of natural born citizen.
Wrong. The court never says the definition of natural born citizen excludes children of aliens. The court just says it is uncertain about them.
Being uncertain about whether a certain class of people fall under a definition is not the same thing as excluding them from the definition.
It doesn't change the fact that Justice Waite said the accepted defintion of natural born citizen was THE defintion in the nomenclature familiar to the framers of the Constitution.
Yes, but Justice Waite DID NOT rule the accepted definition excluded children of aliens. He explicitly said there were doubts about that.
FYI, those doubts were later resolved in the Wong case.
That alone tells us that in regards to the Constitutional issue of presidential eligibility, ONLY ONE DEFINITION APPLIES.
Sorry, but that's just illogical.
So, no, curiosity, the burden is solely on YOU to man up.
Your refusal to accept reality is very sad.
I've destroyed your pathetic and errant accusation of quoting this definition of out context.
Your triumphalist claims of victory remind me of Baghdad Bob.
Repeating that debunked accusation does not make it true and never will.
No, but the evidence I have already presented proves it to be true.
So pwned, and his inability to deal with it, and steadfast denials in the face of obvious reality just makes it more delicious pwnage!
Technically, all citizens have standing on this issue. When powers are not specifically delegated to the federal government nor denied by the federal government, such powers are reserved to the states or the people. There are states with laws that allow citizens to challenge the eligibility of candidates on presidential ballots. Any states that do not have these laws would allow that power to fall directly on the people. The Supreme Court said every citizen has a right to government that is run according to the law, so any citizen has standing to challenge.
When the Supreme Court cites a case to make their point, they agree with it - and the first part of WKA argues that since WKA qualifies as a common law natural born subject, he therefore qualifies as a natural born citizen and is thus a citizen.
The Supreme Court in WKA cited Minor's definition of natural born citizen, and therefore according to your standard agrees with it. It does not says that WKA qualifies as a natural born subject. This is more of your personal delusion.
As in Minor, they understand that there are citizens by birth (natural born) and naturalized citizens, and aliens. That is it. There is not a distinction between a natural born citizen and a born citizen based on parentage. WKA was not a citizen by naturalization, but by birth.
You're making a flawed assumption. Minor does not equate all citizens by birth as being natural born. There IS a distinction. Making things up as you have will not lead you to successful debates.
” I think it is a matter that no one — Republican, Democrat, judge, “journalist” ... no one of any stature — wants to go down in history as the one who caused the first “black” (negro, mulatto, minority, whatever) president to be removed from office. Ain’t gonna happen.”
You are right on!
That is the very essence of the situation and what Obama and his team have relied upon in their efforts to transform the USA into a socialist nation. Political Corectness is a tool of the left and domestic enemies, and the real danger to our Repblic.
The solution is looking more and more like an issue destined for resolution at the ballot box.
I hope that the issue of Presidential eligibilty vis a vis Natural Born Citizenship is resolved post facto the Obama administration, when PC will be of lessor import. It depends solely on political and judical courage which, in and of itself, is a cause for concern, So far those exhibiting such courage have been ridiculed, disparaged, marginalized, and even persecuted.......jmho
It's not enough simply to be contrary and to make snarky, but ultimately ignorant insults. You have to actually support your point with logic and a proper citation. Since you've punted, I'll accept your concession.
No, what it does is indicate that Justice Waite was uncertain about the definition of NBC.
BWAH??????? What part of 'no doubt' indicates uncertainty to you?
Wrong. The court never says the definition of natural born citizen excludes children of aliens. The court just says it is uncertain about them.
Wrong. The court tells us the definition of which there is no doubt is THE definition that was in the nomenclature of the framers of the Constitution. This definition was provided as answer to what what qualifies a person as being a natural born citizen in order to be constitutionally eligible for the office of the POTUS. If the court was uncertain, it would not have accepted this definition.
FYI, those doubts were later resolved in the Wong case.
Sorry, but Wong Kim Ark cited Minor's definition of natural born citizen. It made no attempt to refute it nor did they state that they were planning to solve the doubts about any other defintion of natural born citizen. That decision also failed to declare anyone to be a natural born citizen, especially the plaintiff. Read it. Since you offer nothing more than personal jabs to the remaining points ... as well as a dearth of substance to support ANY part of your claims, I'll accept your overall concession. Since you did so well, you might want to try out for the NFL. They can always use a good punter.
Good point. EVERYONE has standing...so just why is it your side keeps getting cases thrown out for lack of standing? Like the definition of NBC - I guess the courts just don’t know as much about the law as you do!
Most likely because these plaintiffs haven't done a sufficient job of explaining why they have standing.
Like the definition of NBC - I guess the courts just don’t know as much about the law as you do!
The Indiana Appeals court is one such court. BTW, thanks for the compliment. Wish I could return it, but I haven't been impressed.
This isn't hard. Justice Waite had no doubts as to whether US-born children of citizens are natural born. He had doubts whether US-born children of aliens are natural born.
Wrong. The court tells us the definition of which there is no doubt is THE definition that was in the nomenclature of the framers of the Constitution.
Yes, but the court says it is uncertain as to whether US-born children of aliens fall under the definition.
If you wish to claim to the contrary, please show me the passage where Waite rules that children of aliens can't be natural born citizens.
This definition was provided as answer to what what qualifies a person as being a natural born citizen in order to be constitutionally eligible for the office of the POTUS.
Yes, and the sentence I quoted above explicitly says the court has doubts about the case of a US-born child of aliens. Again I ask you, what part of "there are doubts" do you not understand?
If the court was uncertain, it would not have accepted this definition.
The court DID NOT accept it as the exclusive definition. The court explicitly left open the question of whether children of aliens could be natural born citizens.
Sorry, but Wong Kim Ark cited Minor's definition of natural born citizen.
Please cite a paragraph.
I wrote...”“The court said that yes there are citizens other than NBC.”
You replied...”Assuming you mean other than NBC and naturalized, because of COURSE there are citizens other than those who are natural born, there are those who are “naturalized” - WHERE did the court say this?”
My bad! I should have written..“The court said that yes there are BORN citizens other than NBC.”
Your response incorrectly frames the issue... I’ve rewritten it for you as... There are two classes of citizens.... those BORN citizens and those naturalized citizens....(Besides that, your response makes no sense as written, and is circular in arguement, so you may wish to edit?)
The born citizen is, under western political thought, divided into two distinct catagories/concepts/definitions .....
Jus Sanginies....that is citizens by blood. No country in the west, and I’ll bet the world, denies citizenship to the children of its citizens. The USA holds that all children of its citizens are themselves citizens. Pretty easy to find agreement here isn’t it? Arguements? None? Good!
Jus Solis.......An extension of the concept of serfdom. That is, citizenship aquired through birth on the land without reference to the condition of it’s parents. The 14th amendment, and Kim Wong Arc codified and affirmed this legal concept in the US. Again an easy concept to grasp and accept isn’t it? Arguements? .... Note that there are restrictions to aquiring citizenship via this route per the 14th Amendment....KWA met those restrictions....
Naturalized citizens are of course, those, not born citizens, who have legally applied for, and been accepted as citizens. Adoptees of the country? Yep, and subject to various restrictions that change from time to time. Again no problemo? Right? Again, Arguements?
The issue before us is then “What is a Natural Born Citizen as identified by the Founders and listed in their written eligibility requirements for the Office of the President?”
The mere fact that this term “Natural Born Citizen” is used only once in the Constitution, in the eligibility requirements for the highest elected Office in the land, is evidence that it is a special word/phrase/concept in the minds of the Framers/Founders.
So what did they mean by the term NBC?
The answer, supported by references by framers like Ben Franklin, is that the Founders used the concept advanced by Vittal in his 1757 work “Law of Nations” that a nation seeks it’s preservation and continuence in the hands of the children born in the country of parents that are themselves citizens.
In essence the founders recognized a quality of born citizen that combined both the concepts of Jus Sanginis and Jus Solis..... In words repeated often both here and in the legal arena as .....
Wait for it....
“Born in the country to 2 citizen parents.”
This is a minimum eligibility requirement for the office of the President, and, if you consider it fairly, a common sense requirement easily met by the vast majority of the population.....and certainly no great burden on a legitimate presidential candidates.
Only one question left....why can’t you see that simple, logical, and common sense concept?
What do you seek/hope to gain by advanceing your denial of that simple definition/concept?
The phrase “natural born citizen” did not exist in Vattel at the time of the writing of the Constitution. That phrase was entered as a translation from the French word for “indigenous” about 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written.
Thus it is far more likely that when the Founders were talking about “natural born” they were going with the phrase as found in English law, and as cited in KW Ark; that being “natural born subject”.
Why I, and the entire rest of the nation, including legal scholars from both political parties; cannot see what you see in the law, is that it quite simply is NOT there.
As to what I hope to gain, I want people to concentrate on removing 0bama via the ballot box and stop blowing smoke about delusional fantasies of having him removed from office through ineligibility, and mass trials for treasonous officials who didn't see what you say you see about the law, and condemnations of good Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh because they didn't carry your fetid water on this issue.
I mean, even you admit (through your cowardly backing out of a bet) that there is just about NO CHANCE of there being a ruling finding him ineligible.
So then, what do YOU hope to gain from insisting upon this definition that is, quite simply, not in evidence, and NOT the prevailing view of the law?
“So what did they mean by the term NBC?”
It means a naturalized citizen cannot be President.
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.” - Blackstones Commentaries 1803
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.” - Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” - William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States`(1829)
In WKA, the Supreme Court wrote
“In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:
It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.”
and
“Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject...”
and
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
and
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.
The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.
Every warrior and leader will pick the battle and set the stage at his own timing, not yours, not mine.
Rush has no obligation to lose.
The importance of the BC issue is huge. As it holds with it the ability to nullify all the marxist law and executive orders issued...
and if that is the battle...is not important to control the matter.
Do you send the Pentagon desk jockey in to do the job of Special Forces?
We each have our job and role in saving our Nation. Now, get back to it!
If Rush does, indeed, pursue the Obama natural born citizenship issue, I will definitely apologize in another open letter to Rush Limbaugh, and to all Freepers, for having started this thread yesterday.
We shall see what he does.
6 out or 10 Americans now have serious questions about Obama’s eligibility. This is **in spite** of the near complete media blackout, both mainstream Marxist and conservative. How did that happen?
Answer: Concerned citizens by the millions, just like me!
People, just like me, have contacted their relatives, friends, and neighbors, and have been busy on social and political Internet network sites. Free Republic is merely one example.
Wintertime,
You make a mistake in thinking that Rush is an Action Figure!
LTC Lakin is an Action Figure! Orly Taitz is an Action Figure!
Rush is simply a talking ditto-head, but sometimes a funny Comic Figure!
Rush will strike when the iron is hot.
Keep up the good work wintertime.
Rush will strike when the iron is hot.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I pray that you are right. It’s been more than 2 years. It’s like “Waiting for Godot”.
I stopped holding my breath long ago.
Like the cowboy Woody from Toy Story?
Clarabell the clown?
“So in other words, NO, the court in no place said that KW Ark was NOT a natural born citizen, despite your statement otherwise.”
Stop being intentionaly obtuse. Being a natural born citizen was not an issue in KWA, he never made the arguement that he was, nor did the court rule on it because the only time that NBC has relevance is if you are a candidate for POTUS. KWA was not running for president.
Wrestling with a pig in the mud is not worth my time nor effort....similiarly, discussing the Constition, it’s Original Intent, etc. with you is as futile.
I’m done with ya sonny.....goodbye, and good luck....you’ll need it in this life!
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.