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

To: Spaulding

Spaulding wrote: “Colonel Sellin is certainly correct, though I always wonder why people asserting ineligibility use the likelihood of a phony document when, if we still place credibility in our laws, Obama’s ineligibility has been thoroughly confirmed by our greatest constitutional scholars, as well as our current complicit senate”

In case you have not noticed, this crank legal theory gets even less traction than the born-in-Kenya theory, and would require an even bigger conspiracy. That native-born citizens qualify as natural-born was clear and settled long ago. There are no constitutional scholars questioning it, just pretenders such as we see here.

What’s more, none of the wanna-be constitutional scholars advanced this theory until they needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president. If I’m wrong on that, please cite. None of them were writing essays arguing that /Black’s Law Dictionary/ had the definition of “natural born citizen” wrong. There were no rebuttal’s to: “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).

I can respect contrarians, but not people who start telling the rules different when they don’t like who is winning. But again, if I’m wrong put that on you, just cite yourself advancing this two-citizen-parent theory before Barack Obama ran for president.


42 posted on 07/25/2011 8:29:17 AM PDT by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: BladeBryan
In case you have not noticed, this crank legal theory gets even less traction than the born-in-Kenya theory, and would require an even bigger conspiracy. That native-born citizens qualify as natural-born was clear and settled long ago. There are no constitutional scholars questioning it, just pretenders such as we see here.

That people would challenge your notion of a "Geocentric" Universe and refuse to respect your Robed Clergy, ought to be clue enough for you that Your false, albeit established religious dogma is on a collision course with reality.

The Law will obey the people, and as we educate the people, the "Law" will eventually follow.

46 posted on 07/25/2011 9:51:05 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (The TAIL of Hawaiian Bureaucracy WAGS the DOG of Constitutional Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: BladeBryan
I can respect contrarians, but not people who start telling the rules different when they don’t like who is winning. But again, if I’m wrong put that on you, just cite yourself advancing this two-citizen-parent theory before Barack Obama ran for president.

Those who read the propagandists like BladeBryan and are confused should analyze the responses, and trust that if we trust our abilities to reason, and the words of our framers, founders, and supreme court justices, more than the complicit mainstream media and various political allies of the statists, we will recover out legal foundation.

Note that the criticism by BladeBryan completely avoided any response to the words of two Chief Justices of the Supreme court (and I could have cited two more as well as numerous other justices), the author of the 14th Amendment which Obama supporters claim makes a “native born citizen” a natural born citizen - John Bingham who was elegantly explicity that the opposite is true, and Mr. or Ms Blade ignores the quotation from Senate Resolution 511, April 30 2008, signed by every US Senator.

People who know the truth are afraid because they know the left is fully capable of really imposing the dictatorship “of the proletarian” they believe in. We may some day find out why the “pundits” won't talk about it, but ask yourself why Beck, Levin, Limbaugh, Coulter,... assiduously avoid the words of Chief Justice Marshall, or Chief Justice Waite, or Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, or why justia.com, founded by Obama’s legal ally and campaign contributor, a Harvard Law classmate sanitized supreme court cases to eliminate references to Minor v. Happersett? They are trying to rewite history.

The “Pundits” are doing what they can by never letting the name John Marshall, or Morrison Waite, or David Ramsay, or by Benjamin Franklin, and envoy to France, who distributed our first law book to his colleagues in The Colonies in 1762, long before the revolution, Vattel’s “Law of Nations”. To dictators the truth is subservient to the objective, and history is an enemy.

Another technique of the Obots, many of whom are being paid by the group run by Anita Dunn (she may no longer be managing it since her husband, Obama’s left-wing White House Council Bob Bauer resigned his position), is to bury the naive with irrelevant citations of politically motivated presumed legal briefs. I've read most of them, and it can be illuminating to ferret the mode of deception, but you don't need to. That is why we have such a concise summary of our founding ideas in a Constitution, a Constitution written not in legal terms, but in the language of the common man at the time it was written, using terms defined in our common language and by our common-law, as Mark Levin noted in Liberty and Tyranny, and quoting a letter by James Madison to Henry Lee in 1824. To allow reinterpretation of our Constitution as language changes would render it meaningless, so use of the language of our framers, as Justice Morrison Waite noted, was quite deliberate, and designed to preserve original meaning. Try to find any words defined in the Constitution. There are a few, but very few, such as "treason." The meaning of natural born citizen was common language, and clearly defined in our most cited legal reference as a new nation, "Law of Nations."

The realm of our common law is muddled by opinions by those who, like Obama, Kagan, Sotomayor, and virtually all of the left, believe they should be allowed to reinterpret the intent of our founders and framers. One of our framers, justice James Wilson, and one of greatest legal scholars on the Court wrote extensively on the meaning of common law, not Blackstone's, but the common law of all nations, explains it in his Lectures on the Law delivered at the College of Philidelphia in 1792, Vol II.

Ignore the left-wing bar, unless you have the time. They don't count. But I'll leave with one more quote, by a left-wing attorney, who happened to be Barack Obama’s Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard, and who would not sink to lying about the history of our foundations - a credit to some integrity in this man, Larry Tribe, who has always wanted, since he began his studies to be a mathematician, to be known for rigor and intellectual honesty. Larry was joined by Ted Olson, whose wife would certainly have been horrified had she survived 9/11, in submitting a brief clarifying the meaning of natural born citizenship.

The following statement was written to support the candidacy of John McCain, and can be found in the Senate Archives for April 30, 2008 under Senate Resolution 511, sponsored by McCaskill, co-sponsored by Leahy, Obama, Clinton, Webb, and Coburn - all cronies. McCain's eligibility had been challenged by some very good, and clearly liberal, law professors, and was the subject of a half dozen Congressional eligibility hearings and three law suits. The most thorough explanation of McCain's ineligibility can be found at U of Arizona's Rogers Law School, Prof. Gabriel Chin, in July of 2008, and reported extensively in the liberal press, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship."

Suddenly, having McCain's alleged ineligibility to silence questions about Obama’s eligibility made him a darling of the left, and with almost total control of the media, they set out to repatriate him. Tribe was on Obama’s campaign committee, but that doesn't mean he would sacrifice his reputation for veracity by lying about the law:

We have analyzed whether Senator John McCain Is eligible for the U.S. Presidency, in light of the requirement under Article II of the U.S. Constitution that only “natural born Citizen[s] ... shall be eligible to the Office of President.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. We conclude that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain's birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.

The operative words are “...by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents.” The qualifier “...who were serving their country on a U.S. military base” has no context in the Constitution, though Larry tries to imply that it does. As Justice Marshall asserted, (paraphrase) every word in the Constitution must be assumed to have meaning. Larry and Ted waved their hands at the 1790 Nationality Act, which made children born abroad of two citizen parents “reputed” natural born citizens, but failed to note that the 1790 Act was corrected in 1795, completely removing any reference to natural born citizens. There is no other reference to natural born citizen in all of the US Code. There cannot be, since precedence is clear, we have a separation of powers and the legislature cannot amend the Constitution except by amendment or a Constitutional Convention.

That reveals the political mission of the Tribe/Olson letter to the Pat Leahy/Claire McCaskill SR511 hearings. Tribe played legal and syntactical games with his essay. That is the difference between lawyers and mathematicians, who cannot play syntactical games because a mathematicians get credit for finding logical or conceptual reason in published work; Larry would probably not have been a good mathematician. But his statement retains the integrity of the integrity, while distracting with a political wish. There were eight attempts to amend Article II section 1 during the five years before Obama became a candidate, by such as John Conyers (twice) and Claire McCaskill, both clearly working to insure Obama's presidency. There were some 25 other attempts to amend Article II Section 1 and none came close even to passing out of the House.

My opinion is that John McCain was willing, for a last shot at becoming president, to run interference for Obama’s patent ineligibility. No one needs to read the dozens of political legal essays, some of which, like Sarah Herlihy’s of Kirkland Ellis, working for Kirkland's Christopher Landau, partner with Bruce Ettelson, on the Obama and Dick Durban campaign committees, and partner with Jack Levin who received Obamas “Lifetime Achievement Award for service to the equity and venture capital community.”

This is crony capitalism paying respect to the Constitution only when it doesn't prevent them from running their political machine. Obama was never eligible and every congressman knows it. The only politician to raise the issue and act on it (Jim DeMint talked briefly, but wouldn't act) Congressman Nathan Deal, was a poster boy for what happens to those who raise the issue, he immediately faced ethics charges. As Scooter Libby showed, truth has nothing to do with political ambition and the power to direct money conferred by political power. Deal resigned and was subsequently elected Governor of Georgia; those of us who pay attention won't forget, just like we won't forget LtCol/Dr. Terry Lakin, who had too much integrity not to ask for verification of Obama’s eligibility before accepting the veracity of another deployment, as officers swear to do when the source of the orders is in doubt. Men and women's lives are at risk and they must trust their commanders with lives. Lakin was denied the presumed right to defend himself, present evidence, or even to present witnesses. Our nation is not now a constitutional republic, but we will return the precedence of our Constitution by whatever means necessary.

Just ignore the Obots unless they address the words of our Justices and Constitution. They are idiologues, and good at redirecting issues when the truth is a threat.

60 posted on 07/25/2011 5:31:18 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | 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