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.
Show me where in the constitution the natural born is defined as having two US citizens? I am 100% behind everything in the constitution, but not its interpretations by some others.
This issue has been repeatedly discussed here. And recently someone even found a book owned by John Adams in the Boston Public Library in which that traditional view of natural born citizen is given. Vatel is the best known, but numerous others repeated what he said.
The Supreme Court hasn’t specifically defined it because it was always understood—until now, when it’s convenient for the Democrats to change the rules.
As for Obama as a precedent, you don’t reward felons by making what they do legal.
That is a frightening concept that plays into the hands of our enemies.
Unless you can prove your theory in court, it is irrelevant. Many lower court decisions are overturned, and only the decision of the highest court counts.
I would be thrilled if you can prove in a court of law that Obama is not qualified. But I won’t hold my breath.
Unless you can prove your theory in court, it is irrelevant. Many lower court decisions are overturned, and only the decision of the highest court counts.
I would be thrilled if you can prove in a court of law that Obama is not qualified. But I won’t hold my breath.
You are pivoting my point of view. I never said I am happy Obama is in the WH. I personally believe he is ineligible.
But I am also a realist first. The very fact that he is allowed to serve has now defined what a natural born citizen is. Precedents do matter.
In any case getting back to Rubio, if he is popular with the voters and wins, I am not going to crawl into a corner and bump my head on the wall thinking he is ineligible. He is a good conservative, extremely photogenic, above average public speaker. I am just happy he is on our side.
There are three options that I can think of:
1. You’re a retread, in which case there’s no point in trying to school you.
2. You’re a noob to the topic, which I don’t think is true, but if it was, you can search on FR and learn.
3. You have an agenda known only to yourself and those affiliated with you, which will be made clear in short order.
Thats the problem I have with outfits like WND. They try to make a case on politics, rather than on Constitutionality.
There are a lot of people trying to use native born vs natural born, but the problem with that is they do not appear in the same realms. Natural born is in the Constitution, and the phrase native born appears no where in it. Native born is a classification category, where natural born is not.
And the courts have passed on making an ultimate definition for the term natural born each time an issue relating to citizenship has come up. So there are no rulings that support the citizenship of parents as a requirement.
Please cite the references in the Federalist Papers and the four SCOTUS opinions.
Also remember that the original intent of the bc issue was to show that he was not born in Hawaii. His father’s status was not hidden at that time.
I will give you chops for your defense of a federal court reluctance to rule on “political questions.” It is crucial that separation of powers be maintained.
But I believe that SCOTUS has a legal right to and did in fact define natural born citizen in the Minor v. Happersett case. So far federal courts seem to have ruled that the eligibility of a candidate and even an elected candidate can be challenged by a secretary of state at their option or by another candidate (subject to limitations) before he/she is sworn in, but not after.
You do not touch on one way in which Obama could be vulnerable in federal court and that is if Obama gets indicted for criminal fraud for falsifying identity documents prior to being sworn in...documents on which the “political question” of his eligibility was decided.
Donofrio has raised the possibility that agents of Obama conspired criminally to remove citations to Minor v. Happersett intending to materially obstruct vetting by citizens, candidates and secretaries of state.
Here is a hypothetical. Arpaio’s posse investigation concludes that there is sufficient evidence to indict Obama for forging his LFBC .pdf image. This triggers discovery of Obama’s 1961 HI BC which is found to have been forged and that Obama knew fully well that he was born in Kenya.
Given that set of facts it has been argued that because of the fraud, Obama was never actually POTUS and thus not eligible to be impeached under separation of powers. There is precedent in one state of a governor being removed, not impeached, due to never having been eligible to be governor. Bottom line is that the federal courts might not be violating separation of powers if they ruled to uphold simple removal of Obama without impeachment and only they could ultimately approve their authority to do this, if it came to that.
That is not what the courts said. They said that there is no doubt that born here with citizen parents is definitely natural born, and there have been questions on whether you can be natural born with non citizen parents, but the courts decided that issue was not relevant to the cases, so they did not decide either way. So the actual results of the USSC cases are that they did not completely define the term because it was not relevant to the cases. The issue remains without USSC closure.
Obama isnt any worse than someone like Pelosi or Schumer would have been. So should we just not let anyone born in the northeast run for President either?
The problem is that in Minor and the other cases, they did not define it as much as they said, we know 1/2 is, and we are not sure if the other 1/2 is, but it is not relevant to the case so we are not going to define what the 2nd half is.
The Minor v. Happersett case is a Supreme Court case which has never been overturned.
Donofrio has gathered evidence that US citizens and courts were sucker-punched by Obama operatives who hid the case on Justia.com and dispatched operatives far and wide on the internet to beat citizens over the head with bogus Wong Kim Ark and 14th amendment-based claims that Obama was both a natural born citizen and that no one should be suspicious if Obama obstructed discovery of his actual 1961 LFBC.
Joe Arpaio has intimated that "his guy" on the posse has found a "shock" in their investigation of Obama's eligibility claims. I am hoping that whatever is is will hold up in federal criminal court.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Could Himself be prosecuted for falsification? I suppose so and don't see why not, except I remember the buzz that Bent Willie could only be impeached, convicted, removed and THEN be prosecuted for his crimes. His crimes were admittedly not associated with getting into office in the first place, but no matter the crime, impeachment is the way to go. Screw him to a felonious wall afterward.
As for Scotus, as I explained, their definition of NBC is irrelevant. The Senate decided McCain was NBC and neither Scotus nor anyone else could change that.
Hussein is not POTUS? That argument is reminiscent of ancient Catholic problems with Donatism. Hussein is President even though Judge Roberts had to swear the twit in twice and only resignation, untimely death, impeachment or unelection next year will remove him.
I fear more letting a court determine who our candidates can/cannot be, and the awful precedent that would set.
Citation?
4 SCOTUS cases have already defined Natural Born as born in the US of two US citizen parents.
Again, citations?
Yes, it was. I can make bald assertions, too.
This stuff has been “citationed” to death. Your own fault if you haven’t been keeping up.
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.