Posted on 09/01/2012 6:31:40 AM PDT by GregNH
You are another nut, which is why you cannot understand LOSING every case. Unlike the courts, you cannot understand single sentences, let alone paragraphs and pages. YOU will not be convinced by anything.
There is a reason why every state, every member of Congress and every court is in agreement - and no, it is not a giant conspiracy. Folks need to read WKA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html), and decide for themselves. Those with functioning brain cells will then know why all 50 states, every member of Congress & all the courts are in agreement. And that will leave only one reason why you are not...
wrong, that’s citizenship, not natural born citizenship.
I’m certain that your son is a wonderful human being and likely a patriot, considering one of his parents is a freeper; however, since he also has dual allegiance, he thus falls outside the founders’ natural born citizen criteria.
Nothing against your son- this ultimate firewall was created to avoid people like our current president,who has no natural love for our country.
Both. I think he believes (correctly) that if he answers the question then there will be those who say he can’t be objective in participating in the case and that ultimately he will have no choice but to disqualify himself.
But on what grounds? Because he he has his own idea of the definition of natural born citizen? That's not grounds for recusal.
He probably answered the question the way he did because he didn't want to be bothered by someone like Klayman.
No. It’s standard practice not to comment on issues that might potentially come before the Court. If you’ve prejudged the issue, then a colorable argument, at least, can be made that you’re biased. That is why Supreme Court nominees refuse to comment in Congressional confirmation proceedings on issues that have even a remote chance of coming before the Court. What’s interesting to me is that he did dodge the question, which suggests that he thinks it might come before the Court.
I understand perfectly well why these cases have not prevailed, but none have used the tortured logic you have used in lying about the Wong Kim Ark case. Not one.
Your son does not have the right to be President just because your family, like mine, was here before the Revolutionary War. Your son is a U.S. citizen because of your citizen status and because he was born here.
Three types of citizenship are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute (derived citizenship from parents). All have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate.
The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of statutory citizenship. Natural born is ONLY an eligibility requirement for the U.S. Presidency per Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, and requires, as per the Founders, the President to be born in the United States (jus solis) AND of two citizen parents (jus sanguinas).
The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUS’s unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett (1874). Virginia Minor sued to be included as a candidate for U.S. President based on her eligibility under the 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. SCOTUS rejected her argument and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment. This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.
No one has the RIGHT to be President. The eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegiance for any President of the United States.
If it is so clear to all the Freeper Law scholars, why doesn’t the SCOTUS act to remove Obama?
The question would then be wether you have a rational mind. The answer to that question IS excruciatingly clear to those with a rational mind.
Fear.
I didn’t see anyone PING you on this???
Also you may wish to see post #122 of this same thread.
Posts #54, #102, #107 looks like they may have some info, but I haven’t done any research on the info yet.
“If it is so clear to all the Freeper Law scholars, why doesn’t the SCOTUS act to remove Obama?”
Because they cannot, per the U.S.Constitution.
Only Congress can remove a sitting President. In the case of a President who is ineligible, a usurper, Congress has delegated its authority to try the offender via Quo warranto in the District Court of Washington, D.C.
So, all these efforts to drag BHO2 into SCOTUS is the wrong way to go about it. The problem with the District Court in Washington is that it is so thoroughly in the back pocket of the Democratic Party that route is effectively blocked. The only way to remove BHO2 from the White House is to vote someone else into that office.
The Rule of Law no longer really applies in the U.S. today. Corruption throughout our judiciial system is endemic. When Newt Gringrich said that most judges should be fired, he wasn’t joking.
The corruption in our Judicial system makes me sick to my stomach. Along with Holder’s inJustice Dept only enforcing the laws that they choose to enforce. Our country is going downhill on a freight train.
obumpa
Scalia knows Obama is not a natural born citizen. That's why his aversion.
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.