Posted on 09/14/2012 6:03:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Greek law has little to do with American Constitutional Law.
My point, of course, was that Diogenes of Greece was a nut case, just like you.
Perhaps this is why Obama said the other day he was born to a single mother. More mud in the waters. More arguing and name calling here on FR. He said that in a campaign speech out West on the day we were seeing and hearing on TV about the people killed in our embassy in Libya.
What if one of those young women in the Las Vegas hotel room recently with Prince Harry became pregnant and gives birth to a son; there are some here who think that son can be our President. Now, imagine Prince Harry takes the throne of England and his son becomes President of the US. Common sense tells me that would not be a good thing.
Our founders had vision way beyond that of any of our greedy, corrupt so called “leaders” of today.
The founders were blessed by God. I am waiting anxiously to see who He has raised up for us for our time.
My point, of course, was that Diogenes of Greece was a nut case, just like you.
You are pointless from beginning to end. You are a person that wallows in the cesspool of his ignorance, and is proud of the fact that he is an idiot.
What is your basis for this assertion? I just re-read the governing statute (USC 8, Section 1401) and find that it uses the term “parent”. Nothing about husband, wife, marital status, etc.
He is arguing that as a "bastard" Obama automatically acquires the sole citizenship of his mother, which is how English Law and American law has always dealt with bastards.
I would argue as a matter of common sense, that if a father's status is indeterminate, then so is the NBC status of the fatherless child. Citizen yes. Natural citizen? No.
You have not convinced a single legal mind, in America, that you are correct.
Yet you call ME ignorant?
You have not convinced a single legal mind, in America, that you are correct.
Yet you call ME ignorant?
Thanks for the source link.
How do you wish away the divorce decree, by which the State of Hawaii legally recognized the fact of a February 1961 Obama-Dunham marriage, and dissolved it for reasons other than bigamy, an allegation never raised in the proceeding (or known to have been raised in any court otherwise)? Is there a hitherto unknown process for annulling marriages of divorced dead people?
Two points.
1. A lot of people ended up believing wrongly, because much of the legal system was taught wrongly. Too much British influence.
Attorney-General Black, whose opinion of July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover, has become a classic on this subject. It seems worth while to quote from this notable opinion:
“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”
2. If you think he was born in Hawaii, why has he been so recalcitrant for so long about providing his original birth certificate? As it turns out, Hawaii has been running a birth certificate racket since before statehood. Who knew?
If the Vattelists are right*, and if I had been around in 1868, I would have advocated modifying Article II to allow ex-slaves etc to be eligible for President.
Not to be mean about it, but do you really think that someone freshly released from bondage would not be interested in delivering some comeuppance to his previous captors? A possibly dangerous trait in a President. That is of course, a practical point and not a legal one, But let me flip the legal point on you a bit. How are the Vattelists not right? Were they wrong, no 14th amendment would have been needed. The very fact that it was needed is an admission by the entire U.S. government and all the states that the Vattelists are exactly right. Even so, the 14th amendment did not make citizens of Indians born here. They had to be naturalized one at a time prior to 1924.
Both of Douglass’s parents were slaves; Bruce was fathered (and raised) by his mother's owner.
Being a slave is not the sole deciding factor for exclusion. Being a slave which has not become a citizen is. Many former slaves became citizens. Their children became Natural born citizens. This happened in many cases long before the Civil war. I used to have links to examples, but that was several computers ago. I'm sure more could be found.
So my view is: if it was generally believed by the legal community in the era during & immediately after Reconstruction, that ex-slaves, and children of at least one slave (or ex-slave etc) were ineligible for the Presidency, then I would expect to be able to find, in the public record or the historical literature, at least some debate or comment on the topic.
Perhaps, but an alternative explanation is that the people of the time regarded the idea as so implausible that it was deemed not worth of debate during that time. Racism was very prevalent throughout the North as well as the South. I expect those who proposed Frederick Douglas were on the razor thin edge of extremism back in those days, though Douglas would have made a better President than some of the ones we got. Brilliant and Dignified is good material to work with.
*First, by “Vattelist” I don’t mean merely the two-citizen parent claim, but the stronger claim that Article II was generally understand this way for some longish period of time after 1789 (until Wong Kim Ark, perhaps – maybe longer. Maybe until 2008!). Obviously, if the founders were Vattelists, but their views were lost or distorted before the Civil War, say, that would change things – though I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anyone take that view.
I believe I have examples of writing from long ago that you might want to see regarding this. I'll just post a link to one of them because a person really can't focus on any particular thing when they are overwhelmed by information sources. This was published in 1916 regarding Presidential Candidate Charles Evan Hughes, running against Woodrow Wilson.
But the Republican framers of the 13th Amendment believed that ex-slaves became citizens as soon as it was ratified – which means it killed Dred Scott all by itself (The Civil Rights Act of 1866 didn’t create new citizens – it protected their rights as citizens.).
The point remains, Dred Scott had to be killed by Legislative means. This simply reinforces my point about the Vattelists being right. If they were wrong, no legal action would have been needed.
Obama will be on the ballot in Kansas.
Now, lets all get back to the hard work of defeating Obama at the ballot box!
The divorce decree was obviously an error. Stanley Ann may not have known about the bigamy or may have been advised by counsel not to use it, there being other more convenient and sufficient grounds for getting out of the marriage and moving on.
Also, as as been shown by FOIA document releases, the State Department knew of his prior marriage in Kenya and was on the lookout, lest he use a sham US marriage to convert his transient, non-immigrant student status into citizenship. Of course, that was never his intent. He aspired to be a big shot back in Kenya and "shape the destiny of Africa". But ultimately, it seems it was his womanizing ways that turned Harvard against him, got his student visa revoked, and sent him back to Kenya without the Harvard PhD he had hoped to obtain (not that he didn't claim to have it, once he got back home).
I admire your tenacity, but get real. Errors, bad legal advice, what the State Department suspected, etc. add up to zip in this matter and have no force in law. The marriage is documented via the divorce decree, so Baby Hussein was not born “out of wedlock” legally (even if Barack, Sr. was cuckolded and not the biological father). No one has standing to file any sort of action to undo the marriage now. This is a red, or at least dead, herring, from darn near the bottom of the barrel.
It depends on what you mean by saying that the legislature has power over the courts and the executive branch. All three branches technically exercise power over each other in some form or another.
The Legislative Branch has made clear how they feel about the “Natural Born Citizen” issue.
How has Congress made this clear? As far as I can tell it hasn't done this at all. The term "natural born citizen" remains undefined in the law. A Non-binding resolution expressing an opinion of only one chamber of Congress such as the Senate has no bearing on the law.
Also, even if Congress did pass a simple statute defining Natural born citizen, it would be meaningless, because Congress cannot change the definition of Constitutional terms by simple statute. If it could there would have been no reason to have included the amendment process in Article V, because simple statute would have sufficed. Changing the definition of Constitutional terms IS DE FACTO amending the Constitution.
Also, if Congress could be the FINAL interpreter of the law, it would be a breach of the principle of separation of powers which delegates the definitive authority to interpret the law and the Constitution to the SCOTUS.
Congress certainly has remedies against a rogue SCOTUS, but it would be a breach of constitutional practice for Congress to simply start usurping judicial authority for itself. If Congress wants to clarify or define Constitutional terms, it needs to formally amend the Constitution, restrict judicial jurisdiction in constitutionally approved ways, or impeach judges who have done violence to the Constitution.
To start with, the Constitution does NOT grant SCOTUS the final say over any matter. SCOTUS gave ITSELF that power, in Marberry Vs Madison (sp?)
Also, you are wrong in as much as the Congress DOES have the power to interpret the Constitution.
James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” was implored Congress, in a speech, to further define the rules of Citizenship, both Natural Born and Naturalized.
I suggest you go back and read some of Newt Gingrich's writings about reining in our imperial courts. Many of your views are unsound politically and legally.
No, your assertions are patently false. Marbury v. Madison (1803) did not give the final say over interpreting the constitution to the courts. The Constitution itself gave--and was intended to give--that power to SCOTUS. Marbury v. Madison was simply the first time that this constitutional power was used by the Court.
Read Federalist 78. It explicitly states that SCOTUS must have the final say on the Constitution if limited government is to be protected. Federalist 78 clearly states: The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
--Federalist 78
Also, you are wrong in as much as the Congress DOES have the power to interpret the Constitution. James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” was implored Congress, in a speech, to further define the rules of Citizenship, both Natural Born and Naturalized.
That is a non-sequitur. You suggest that the Congress has the judicial power to interpret the Constitution and as proof of it you cite James Madison giving a speech calling upon Congress to pass legislation further clarifying the naturalization process. This is not a judicial act interpreting the law, this is a legislative act defining law.
The point you argue here does not prove Congress has the power to judicially interpret the Constitution, it shows only that James Madison believed Congress had the power to legislate concerning the naturalization process and the definitions of legal terms, either through statute or constitutional amendment. A point that no one disputes. The power to legislate is explicitly given to Congress and is not, in the technical sense, an exercise of judicial power over the Constitution; it is an exercise of a legislative power explicitly delegated to Congress in Article I.
Also, you are wrong in as much as the Congress DOES have the power to interpret the Constitution.
Another straw man, I never said that Congress does not have any power to interpret the Constitution, I said it depends on what you mean by the phrase "power to interpret." All branches must interpret the constitution to some extent in order to exercise their functions, but Congress cannot exercise final judicial authority over the meaning of the constitution. Congress can only act within the legislative powers assigned to it.
Congress may change the interpretation of simple statutes by passing other simple statutes to clarify and further define the law. However, Congress may NOT alter the definitions of terms in the Constitution via simple statute, because that is effectively amending the Constitution. When Congress wishes to clarify or further define provisions within the Constitution, it MUST do it through the amendment process. If Congress could change the Constitution through simple statute, there would be no point to having a constitution or an amendment process. Why bother to amend the Constitution if you can simply remove all restraints on your power by passing a simple statute? To allow such a thing is to essentially make a farce out of the idea of a limited government. Why not just have an all powerful parliament, like Britain?
Many of your views are unsound politically and legally.
Though I agree that our courts need to be reined in from their abuse of power and bad legal judgement. Your statements concerning the American constitutional system of separation of powers are unfounded legally, politically, and even historically. A quick recourse to the words of the Founders themselves and the Federalist papers will quickly reveal that. I recommend reading Federalist 78, 47, 48, and 51 concerning the separation of powers. These documents give the basic logic behind the role of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
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.