Posted on 12/31/2010 3:34:20 AM PST by RobinMasters
My education was fine, although unlike you, where I lived I didn't get to take Red Diaper Baby class.
” always back whomsoever wins the Republican Primary. Now, if you can convince Karl Rove to do it .....”
Me too....even if I have to wear a clothes pin on my nose!
“But I don’t want a shiner
delivered by a big tough guy Forty Niner!”
No chance of that at all....I save that for liberals/socialists/radicals........LOLOLOLOL
Happy New Years to you kind sir.......
What “efforts” are you talking about? You’re the one making efforts, or at least claiming to, by “talking” to “Senators” and Congressment. Everyone knows that’s not how it’s done, is it?
When the wife calls, a wise man will always listen. lol.
The bill itself wouldn’t require that the person have 2 citizen parents. The bill would only require that if someone was born to a parent who was not a US citizen, the courts have to determine eligibility and the name cannot be placed on the ballot until the court determines that they are eligible.
And the cost of the court case would not fall on the prospective candidate; it would fall on the state. But the end result would be a court ruling establishing a working definition of “natural born US citizen” - the decision being made by the people the Constitution authorizes to interpret the Constitution.
Once that definition was in place the state could expect that ineligible candidates would not even try to be placed on the ballot, which would make the court costs a rare thing for the state. Hopefully it would be a one-time investment on behalf of the entire nation.
The only requirement the state would be making is for the candidate to authorize access to documentation pertinent to Constitutional eligibility. Would that be considered extra-Constitutional? It seems to me that if the law can currently require documentation for every federal employee before they can receive a federal paycheck, the issue of requiring documentation is already established as Constitutional. Would you agree?
Let the House investigation on Zerobama’s eligibility begin!
No court has heard any case on its merits. This bill would require them to hear it on the merits. That’s basically all it does. It requires the documentation to be collected, any potential problems identified, and any problems referred to the court to decide expeditiously, since the plaintiff has standing.
This bill wouldn’t change anything Constitutionally; all it would do is require that a court actually hear the case on its merits. Because the AG is to present the case on behalf of the plaintiff it would actually end up SAVING the plaintiff money, as compared to the current process.
I don’t see where there would be Constitutional grounds to challenge it.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment!
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
The text of non binding Senate resolution 511 on McCain's status:
"Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';"
The resolution of 2008, and the first Congress's Naturalization Act of 1790 Both referred to two citizen parents. The first Congress tried to extend NBC status to children born, to citizen parentS, overseas. Congress doesn't have that authority, only for naturalization. So, it was repealed by the act of 1795.
Vattel's definition is stated in the dicta of a number of SCOTUS cases as well, even though those cases had nothing to do with the intent of NBC and POTUS eligibility (thus the reason the definition, well known to the justices, appears in the dicta). The definition is well known, except by revisionist historians and progressive globalists.
One can't be a "Natural Born Citizen" and have multiple alligiences owed at birth.
Don't be an after-birther tool.
Splendid!
Teamwork, my good man. You and your crew work that line of country, and I'll keep working on the GOP/TeaPartiers/Conservatives to hold to an appropriate ideological line over the next two years. I did not think much of their strategy during this Lame Duck session, but there is hope.
And ... I am quite serious about finding one Republican Governor with a Legislature to match, who will fight to keep whasisname off the ballot in their state. I am also backing Lawyer Donofrio in his effort to secure a Wrtit of Quo Warranto from the Federal District Court in DC. He is in desperate need of a Republican from the Congress to step up in support.
Good plan!
"May you live in interesting times!"
Well, 49-er, we have lived through an anti-constitutional coup d'état. Whoop-ee! I fear there are going to have to be at least a punch-out or two before this is over.
Another area of probable constitutional infirmity in your bill is your mandatory language regarding a state court to hear a case regarding this eligibility issue. That is a definite violation of the constitutional separation of powers. If you recall the Schiavo case in Florida several years,that was one of the constitutional infirmities the courts found in the law passed by Congress. I also don't
believe your idea that the AG present the case on behalf of plaintiff, will pass muster. In most, if not all states, the AG is charged with representing the state or elected officeholders in which they are a party. Since obviously the state would be party to any case brought under your law, a conflict of interest will immediately arise. In addition, I do not think that an individual whose candidacy is being challenged by state, will want that state's chief legal officer representing his interests.
Whenever a Left-Wing-Nut is in serious trouble, his handlers trot out the "CIA Connection." They tried it with Bill Clinton to explain his year behind the Iron curtain after expulsion from Oxford on a date-rape complaint. They tried it with John Kerry to explain away his private peace mission to the North Vietnamese in Paris.
Now they are floating this possible "CIA Involvement" as an explanation of something or other for whatsisname. I've heard that Stanley was based in Pakistan as a liaison to the mujadahin (or however that is spelled) when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. I am researching this fascinating bit of obamian apochrypha ... but I ain't buyin' it!
IMHO, The Dunhams were real communists, not FBI plants. BHO, Sr.? No question. Lolo Soetoro, Absolutely. Raila Odinga, for whom whatsisface campaigned so strenuously in Kenya? You betcha.
If you can think of it over the next week or so, throw me some links.
The reason the Senate Resolution refers both of McCain's parents being citizens is because McCain was not born within the sovereign territory of the USA, but rather in the Panama Canal Zone which was the sovereign territory of Panama. It that fact which caused the inclusion of that language. Obama’s fact situation is completely different, and frankly I would think it rather embarrassing for birthers to try and make an analogy between the two different situations.
The Left wing Nuts arent trotting anything out.
It is people who are interested in Obama’s past that are putting the pieces together.
I have absolutely no doubt that the family was involved with the Spooks.
you don’t have to believe it.
Real Communists and Russia do not have the ability to make all this info go down a black hole. Very few outfits could have done it.
Do you think the State Department of Revenue can audit a deep undercover operative?? Or might it get shut down.
The answer is...if necessary...it gets shut down. Just how does one go about claiming income that is so far off the records that it is done in cash and if that person is caught in the mission the Government denies everything?
it’s not the Commies who could make this info go down the black hole..it is the US Government that can do it.
Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949...CIA has no jurisdiction in the US. Anyone who believes that it didn’t is about as naive as can be.
Wow, it’s a real coincidence that a CIA operative leaves his career as Ambassador to Indonesia by going to be the Chancellor at East-West as East-West was hacked off about Lolo doing an end run around them through INS trying to get out of going back to Indonesia right before the bloody coup.
But you must be one of those that think the CIA didn’t set the whole coup up.
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?_JONES_HOWARD_PALFREY
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06/17435?_JONES_HOWARD_PALFREY
What a coincidence that Jones leaves Indonesia as the Bloody Coup is going down and Lolo can’t get a hardship waiver and is shipped off to participate.
The state has no interest in whether the candidate makes it onto the ballot or not. If an AG can prosecute crimes by individuals and that’s not “against the defendant’s interest” - because the AG is supposed to be as close as we can come to “fair and unbiased”, with no axe to grind one way or the other - then why would a case like this be any different?
An attorney suggested to me that a state court would be better than the feds because the state can mandate expedited review, whereas the federal courts could stretch things out forever - and because any decision by the state court can immediately be appealed to SCOTUS, which is where the interpretation of the US Constitution is properly done anyway. See, time is of the essence so that no candidate can be legally sandbagged into missing the ballot deadline.
Regarding whether the state can hear cases regarding Presidential eligibility, it seems like the CRS is saying that states are precisely where the Constitution places responsibility for the nitty-gritty administration of elections, so that is where it would HAVE to happen - but with SCOTUS ultimately being able to interpret the Constitution.
No matter how you slice it there is that uncomfortable gap between two conflicting Constitutional mandates - that the states run Presidential elections and that the federal judiciary interpret and apply the Constitution. The only way I know of for that gap to be bridged is if the state handles the process but is subject to the Consituttional review of the federal judiciary. And that’s what this bill proposes.
This bill does not support any particular view of the definition of NBC. It only provides a framework so that the courts must define it - because until they do, the Constitution is being interpreted and applied by a secretary who has no skilled knowledge of the US Constitution.
The issue of the AG supposing to side with the state workers is a really sore spot with me. The AG is not supposed to side with his cronies. He is supposed to protect the interests of the residents of his state as expressed through the laws and Constitution of the state. This is the crux of the whole stinkin’ problem with government in this nation. The bureaucrats think they are suppsed to do CYA and scratch backs for each other and screw the people. We’ve got NOBODY who EVER serves the interests of Joe Sixpack when the bureaucrats screw him, break laws, and do all kinds of corruption.
But even at that, the AG would not be arguing a case AGAINST the SOS because the SOS isn’t trying or wanting to keep anybody off the ballot. It’s not even his/her decision to keep the person off the ballot; he/she is just doing what the law requires, and that is just to allow the right people to make the decision as to whether the candidate is eligible.
Dispassionate. No vested interest except following the law - which is exactly what we need when we’ve got the fiasco with SOS’s like in Ohio, NJ, CA, and Alaska, and we’ve got communists like Soros intending to subvert the election process by getting the rule of PEOPLE, rather than the rule of law. As it is right now Soros knows that if he can get a corruptocrat in as SOS the law will be damned and so will the interests of the American people. That’s why we need laws like this, where the SOS is simply obeying the law and getting out of the way. And where we the people have a way to undo the damage of a corrupt SOS BEFORE it’s too late.
As to whether the candidate would want the AG to represent his/her interests, there would be nothing to stop that candidate from having his/her own counsel as well, although it might be good for politicians to have to rely on a public defender so that money can’t buy the decision. I nominate NEAL PUCKETT to represent the interests of every politician in the country in these cases. May he screw them all just like he screwed Terry Lakin, and good riddance to them all.
Can an AG file a suit to clarify the eligibility of a candidate? The reason I suggested that the SOS deny placement on the ballot is because then there is clear injury which gives the candidate standing to have the case heard. If the AG could file a suit contesting eligibility or asking advice, and the court would have to hear it, that would be a way to keep there from even being a defendant and any “conflict of interest” from AG v SOS.
The trick is to eliminate the problem of “standing”, so that the courts CANNOT refuse to decide the case on its merits.
Would there be any legal problem with an AG being required to challenge a candidate’s eligibility or request judicial clarification that would also then be subject to review by SCOTUS?
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.