Posted on 10/29/2011 1:02:58 PM PDT by Jacquerie
We should be wary of allowing any court to define Constitutional terms. Even more important, for the very sake of representative government, we must resolutely oppose judicial interference with the Presidential election process.
From Madison’s record of the Federal Convention, it is clear the Framers considered anyone born in the US, less slaves and indians, to be a natural born citizen. They did not bother to specify parentage because it just didn’t matter. What was important was to minimize the possibility of a paid foreign born agent becoming President. Yes, I know Wiki says it was to keep foreign aristocrats out. Wiki is wrong.
So, who or what body gets to define NBC? Since Congress has all legislative powers therein granted under our Constitution, it would seem after 220+ years, it would have come up with a definition. But it hasn’t, and actually it doesn’t matter that Congress has been silent. Equally irrelevant are the various musings of the Courts over these past 140 years. NBC applies solely to Presidential elections and the Framers wisely set up a system that kept Scotus entirely out of it.
The reason is called separation of powers. We take for granted (Or have most of us forgotten?) that Congress cannot judge felony guilt or innocence, nor can federal judges make law. The concept was not exactly clear early in the convention. For instance, it was thought a Council of Revision, composed of Scotus and the President should be responsible for deciding which bills from Congress become law. After some heated debate, a majority figured out it would be best to keep Scotus out of political decisions and give limited veto powers to the President.
Nothing is more political than elections, and as per Article II Section I and the Twelfth Amendment, the duty to give us a President lies with State legislatures and Congress.
Federal courts can no more legitimately interfere with the vote of State electors than it can interfere with the President’s power to nominate ambassadors. Both acts are non-justiciable. To do so would be a gross, impeachable violation of the Constitution. Unfortunately, all liberals and too many Freepers have fallen into a rat trap concocted these past 80 years that any dispute must be settled by a branch of government unaccountable to the people. It simply isn’t true and Scotus cannot legitimately “fill in” when some people become disgusted with the other branches.
But, you say, the Constitution is silent as to ambassador qualifications. Quite right, so who or what body is responsible for keeping a Kenyan, or any clearly foreign born and positively unqualified individual out of the White House?
As I have explained, it isn’t Scotus. The responsibility can only be with the parties charged with giving us a President, State Legislatures which are responsible for the appointment of electors, the electors themselves and perhaps the Senate which counts the votes. That is why it was not unimportant for the Senate in 2008 to find that McCain met the Constitutional requirements. Our Senate must ultimately count the electoral votes and that Senate decided McCain was qualified. Very simple, and no court can interfere with State electoral votes, nor the Senate in its duty to count the votes as directed by the Constitution.
The place to stop Constitutionally unqualified candidates is your State legislature. These are the people our Constitution charged with exercising electoral judgment. Do you know the name of your State Rep and Senator? You should, for he/she is the one who must be satisfied that your State sends votes for qualified candidates to the US Senate. Now, what if it becomes clear after an election the President was born in Kenya as I believe Hussein was? What if the Kenyan Ambassador publicized his Brit/Kenyan Birth Cert tomorrow? The only solution prior to the next election is impeachment and conviction. Don’t even think about Scotus or any federal court; they won’t touch it and shouldn’t. The Constitution provides the means to be rid of him and it is not the courts. Oh, and if for instance Hussein’s Praetorian Guard, aka the Senate makes it clear it will not vote to convict the man who boldly violated the Constitution? Tough. Let the political chips fall where they may.
Finally and actually most importantly, our Leftists Rulers over the generations have so polluted case law, that most politicians and almost all average citizens think the Constitution means whatever the courts say it means. Liberals love precedent and despise our beloved Constitution. If you think federal courts have the power to define NBC, adjudicate the Constitutional qualifications of a candidate, and subsequently deny a candidate or boot a nominee off a Presidential ballot, you will set in motion a process that will ultimately result in judicial selection of Presidents.
Don’t laugh, consider what Scotus did to the innocuous and harmless Commerce Clause beginning 70 years ago. A once well understood enumerated power may become the tool to enslave under Obamacare, the once freest people on earth.
I predict Scotus will steer clear. Be fall-on-your knees thankful, if given the opportunity to substitute its opinion for that of the States, our Scotus pulls back and lets a representative republic do its duty. If you think Hussein & Rubio are Constitutionally unqualified, do YOUR duty and impress your thoughts to your State rep and Senator.
In Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court identified children of aliens as an additional class about whom there were doubts as to citizenship, not natural born citizenship which they defined to exclude children with an alien parent...such as Obama.
In Wong Kim Ark the Court resolved some of those doubts regarding the citizenship the the child of aliens but did not declare Wong to be NBC.
Nowhere do the Framers define citizenship, let alone NBC as anyone who has visited a Constitutional index website can attest. That didn’t stop them from discussing length of citizenship qualifications for immigrants to serve as a Rep or Senator. They left a future Congress to determine naturalization laws to establish citizenship and then the clock started ticking if an immigrant wished to become a Rep or Senator.
So their length of terms, length of citizenship, residency, and fear of foreign agents in our government were debated in debilitating detail off and on to the end of August.
Then out of the blue on September 9, “natural born citizen.” No debate. Nothing but a vote in the affirmative. It was the first time the words natural and born were used together.
So yeah, it is clear from the context of the debate that while they feared foreign paid agents infiltrating our government, they would require/accept a certain amount of time from immigrants be spent as citizen before they could become Reps or Senators. The fact that immigrants were not considered for President, and the term “natural born citizen” was in the place of length of citizenship requirement as per Reps and Senators, and the words natural born in themselves, I consider the term to mean what it implies, someone born in US.
But if you insist, August 13th is probably the best day to gauge their thoughts on the subjects. Here.
To paraphrase Double Secret Amendment 37B: foreign birth, the lack of citizens as parents, or birth in the US while parents are here illegally shall be no bar to any office in the land. This must be either established or denied by digitally created documents from an accredited Kinko's. Photoshop for MAC or PC required and 2 GB of RAM.
Furthermore, Obama is OK with me. My Republican Representative said so, because he was born in Hawaii, and guys from Hawaii hardly ever lie. It's against the Surfer Code, which you also may not know, has replaced that funky old Word doc, The Constitution, which was written by dead white people who owned slaves.perhaps even bought from BHO, Jr.'s slave-tradin' Luo relatives?
Furthermore, as I tire of patiently explaining to you all, President Chester A. Arthur got away with it cause he be white (Chet Lied His aSS oFF)and so we must also let the present half-white POTUS also get away with it, so we can Affirmatively Action our way out of this.
You say, We should be wary of allowing any court to define Constitutional terms.
You are quite right. Although courts are regularly asked to interpret contracts, the courtroom is not the place to try this dispute. Clearly the Constitution provides the place for this dispute is the Congress via impeachment. Consistent with this view the founders provided the Chief Justice is to preside over the trial.
In this regard, there is much evidence regarding the meaning of the language used by the founders. DL has presented much of the contemporaneous record of the common law as well as the writings of those such a Geo Washington. Importantly, there is Minor which told us there are no doubts of NBC with two-citizen parents while there are doubts any other combination conveys any citizenship at all. Senate Resolution 511 passed more recently provides for two citizen parentage. Clearly, the place and opportunity to hear that evidence is in the Congress.
Most would readily agree we are more likely to obtain a sensible result from a large group of representatives accountable to the voters, than from a 9 individuals with sharply divided political views that are accountable to no one.
The only thing missing is the “dispute”. Despite our continuing protestations that commenced in advance of the election, our political representatives have ignored us. Here your recommendation that we pressure our politicians is spot on.
“Get some rest, Kenny. You look tired.” (;^)
Aa well as Nixon's VP, Spiro Agnew, I believe.
And that's not counting those who contended for the Presidency as major candidates, but lost, who would have also fit the ‘not having two citizen parents’ bill.
There you go. And the biggest precedent is occupying the White House right now.
Any way, I am not necessarily trying to revive Rubio. I am just trying to state the reality of what is actually happening. As a good engineer, I know that actual results always trump any theory.
I say we re-run the test.
Then out of the blue on September 9, “natural born citizen.” No debate. Nothing but a vote in the affirmative. It was the first time the words natural and born were used together.
No it wasn't. Thomas Jefferson himself used the term back around 1777. Where did he get the term? From the Vattel Book. (Whose principles he cited to write the Declaration of Independence.)
So yeah, it is clear from the context of the debate that while they feared foreign paid agents infiltrating our government, they would require/accept a certain amount of time from immigrants be spent as citizen before they could become Reps or Senators. The fact that immigrants were not considered for President, and the term “natural born citizen” was in the place of length of citizenship requirement as per Reps and Senators, and the words natural born in themselves, I consider the term to mean what it implies, someone born in US.
But if you insist, August 13th is probably the best day to gauge their thoughts on the subjects. Here.
You get THOSE conclusions from THAT? You gotta be kiddin me? Seriously?
I get the exact opposite. That there was no debate whatsoever regarding the requirement of the Presidency to be a "natural citizen" is indicative that not a single one of them considered doing otherwise. In the case of the Presidency, even the doves sided with the hawks on this issue. While they felt like squabbling about foreign influence in the Congress, they were of a unanimous mind regarding keeping it out of the Presidency.
Of course I'm tired, Froggy! Not only am I running my own screen door and live bait business in this time of Global Warming which struck Olde Newe England, but I am doing the job on eligibility (Along with Butterdezillion)the SCOTUS will not do.
Apparently they lack the standing necessary to handle Constitutional appeals from citizens. I am thinking of getting Orly to bring the case in Honduras. They reportedly have a Supreme Court there and a Constitution they seem to take seriously.
HA! You’ve got ANOTHER Judge quoting Vattel on Citizenship! Awesome! :)
Hey, I don't care if you don't agree with what I personally took from reading and studying the notes of Madison, Yates, and King.
The point of my blog post was, “If you think federal courts have the power to define NBC, adjudicate the Constitutional qualifications of a candidate, and subsequently deny a candidate or boot a nominee off a Presidential ballot, you will set in motion a process that will ultimately result in judicial selection of Presidents.”
Yes, I know Jefferson wasn't at the convention, he was in France being our Ambassador. As he said, he succeeded Franklin because no one could replace him. Now you've got me into a "HUH?" moment. The point of my posting that excerpt from the book has nothing to do with the convention, or for that matter, Thomas Jefferson, it has to do with your claim that the term was never used prior to the convention.
I have demonstrated quite conclusively that it WAS used, and in a prominent fashion, ten years before the convention. I don't suppose I could get a "mea culpa" out of you on this? When someone demonstrates to me that I have made a provable factual error, my response is to say "You are correct. I was wrong about this."
Unfortunately, some part of the Constitution ultimately rested on the honor and integrity of Western Christian Gentlemen. As our country expands to include those who do not share those values, challenges to the Constitution are inevitable. The eligibility or lack thereof, of one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to have run for the Presidency, and to serve in the post is, IMHO, a valid constitutional issue requiring the attention of the SCOTUS.
They have ducked their responsibility here, perhaps fearing the establishment of the precedent of "judicial selection" to which you allude. Perhaps they are also considering themselves "burned" by Gore's appeal to them in the election of 2000.
Those who support Rubio (or Jindal) for the office, therefore, may or may not have a legal leg to stand on, but that is a for the courts to decide. It cannot be left to the public, the candidates, or officeholders to decide whether or not the Obama Presidency is some sort of a precedent, when it itself has not been ruled upon.
This is a Constitutional crisis.
WTF are you blabbering about? You didn’t prove jack.
In Message number 76 you said:
Then out of the blue on September 9, “natural born citizen.” No debate. Nothing but a vote in the affirmative. It was the first time the words natural and born were used together.
I pointed out that the Committee of which Jefferson was chairman, used the phrase "natural born citizen" 10 years prior to the Constitutional convention. This establishes that the Constitutional convention was NOT the first time the term was used. This directly contradicts your statement.
So therefore, I did indeed prove jack.
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.