Posted on 06/21/2011 1:55:34 PM PDT by rxsid
How many court cases has Leo won?
If your child had a brain tumor and Leo Donofrio was the best brain surgeon available, would you not allow him to operate on your child because of his views?
I'd prefer a brain surgeon who hasn't lost all his patients.
SO WHAT? Is he running for president? Is he running for anything? Why the hate?
Maybe to you. Should we never speak of it again, in case someone new might hear it? Shout it from the mountain tops, over and over until EVERYONE knows Obama is a USURPER.
If you are having fun, it is a STRANGE kind of fun because you are missing my Internet Articles on stuff, like the ORIGINAL Internet Article about Sarah Palin and the "blood libel" thingy and what it was all about.
What is this, a substitute for YOU lacking the MANHOOD to go over and debate the Obotski all by yourself like I did???
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
FWIW(which means For What It Is Worth)Monkey Boy is a well known Obot who used to post at gretawire, and now at Gratewire. He also used to name-jack me a lot. Now, I have to give him a Squeeky Smackdown all the time along with the other Obotski at Gratewire, where I get ganged up on all the time.
OH, plus back on Sarah Palin you might like this Internet Article I just remembered I did where I let her debate Obama:
Obama and Palin Square Off In An Intelligence Debate
Plus, can you do me a favor while you are researching me. Can you give me the links to all the times I debated the Obotski at Obotski Central??? I have a hard time finding them.
Thank you!!!
2. I believe that Obama is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” because (if his father is BO Sr.) then both his parents were not U.S. citizens when Obama was born. I guess that makes me a “Vattel Birther”
More accurately,
I don't think Obama can PROVE he is a natural born citizen.
He may not be able to PROVE who his father was.
He may not be able to PROVE where he was born.
Any “thinking” person can see that NBC means being born on U.S. soil by TWO citizen parents.
If you disagree with this, you are under informed, or an idiot. This recent Donofrio post is just MORE evidence.
Well, I am a thinking person and I don’t see it. But if YOU think this law case is what proves it for your side, then maybe you should drop all the Vattle stuff because who needs him if this AMERICAN law case says what you think it does???
Your behavior is obnoxious, your intellect childish, and your arguments unenlightened. Go back to debating the Obots on their turf. It’s a better fit for you intellectually.
That is funny, because I am not the one who started calling people names and researching them and stuff. I simply pointed out that this case does NOT say what the Vattle Birthers say it says.
That's where you miss the whole point. Congress has the power to amend the Constitution and thus modify the founders' original intent.
Leo's analysis attempts to reveal the founders' original intent and demonstrate that the SCOTUS has confirmed the founders' intent with a ruling. But Leo has always taken the position that if the SCOTUS were to rule that Obama is a NBC that he would accept their decision. (As would I.) Likewise, he believes it is right and proper that Congress can amend the Constitution's original intent.
I just don't see how this fits with your previous statement that "a law which grants citizenship is, in and of itself, an act of naturalizing a group of citizens." The way I see it, this would create a sort of Catch-22 problem where the very act of redefining "natural born citizen" makes those people it includes not natural born citizens.
After much searching I finally found it! I wish someone had included the link. It was referenced many many times with NO LINK!
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/academics/journals/mdlr/print/#archive
28 1968
PDF download, starts on page 11
"a statutory law which grants citizenship is, in and of itself, an act of naturalizing a group of citizens."
There's a significant difference between Congress passing naturalization laws and Congress amending the Constitution.
I’m always leery of anyone that pretends to be offering something new, but just regurgitates the ongoing discussion.
You keep on offering up false doubts, and ignorant mutterings from irrelevent people of the past, but none of those aches and pains have the power to ammend the constitution, nor the established content of Court opinions.
Put a kotex on it, and walk away before we all vomit on your face.
You needed to warn me that you weren't too good with English and comprehension. I said that Wong Kim Ark (the Supreme Court decision, not the person) affirmed and followed the precedent in a previous Supreme Court decision (which was the Minor decision). That IS legal precedent.Can't wait to see your next silly comeback.
It's not about me looking for credit, but Leo not treating this as if he had some kind of breakthrough legal epiphany. There are too many eligibility skeptics that seem more worried about establishing themselves as the person who uncovered a magic bullet instead of simply trying to get to the truth. In this regard, Leo comes across like a Polarik, jbjd or Andy Martin.
Ummmm, no. Citizenship was pivotal to Virginia Minor's argument. She claimed that by being a 14th amendment citizen, she had a protected right to vote via the 14th amendment. Justice Waite rejected her claim because he said her citizenship (and that of women as a class) was not due to the 14th amendment because she was a natural born citizen. We've been over this several times.
And you are wrong. WKA does not affirm Minor. WKA establishes who is a 14th Amendment citizen.
Again, you've missed the point of Leo's article:
Gray’s use of the words, “to this extent” –with regard to the dissent by Curtis –indicates that the extent to which the holding in Wong Kim Ark applies is to the definition of “citizenship”, not to the definition of who is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President. The precedent stated by the Court in Minor still stands to this day.So, going on about how you've been saying the same thing for months that Leo is now "patting himself on the back" over makes you look silly because you aren't saying the same thing as Leo.
You may have been over it, but you have blinded yourself to what they said. She argued that as a citizen, the equal protection clause meant she could not be denied the right to vote. The court found:
“1. The word “citizen” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.
4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.
6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to “male citizens of the United States,” is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.”
Other quotes:
“But if more is necessary to show that women have always been considered as citizens the same as men, abundant proof is to be found in the legislative and judicial history of the country...
Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her...
The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere. In this case we need not determine what they are, but only whether suffrage is necessarily one of them...
As has been seen, all the citizens of the States were not invested with the right of suffrage. In all, save perhaps New Jersey, this right was only bestowed upon men and not upon all of them. Under these circumstances it is certainly now too late to contend that a government is not republican, within the meaning of this guaranty in the Constitution, because women are not made voters.”
Her citizenship was not the question. Her right to vote under the 14th’s protection of equal rights was.
As for being a NBC, the court said there was no doubt about it. If she had an alien parent, THEN they would have needed to determine if NBC applied to those born with alien parents - but she did not have an alien parent.
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.