No wonder Liberals love courts. Liberals simply want to re-establish government by Monarchy\Aristocracy, and imagine themselves as the ruling authorities. That "equality" stuff is just for the "peasants." *THEY* expect to be among the ruling class.
Posted on 05/06/2013 9:44:33 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
You do not get to cite irrelevant verbiage as a rebuttal and expect to get away with it. I cannot make you address the point. I can merely point out that YOU ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE POINT.
I have put my finger on something which you cannot answer without admitting you are wrong. As a result, you attempt these verbal forays into the bushes so as to avoid having to deal with the point.
Once again, How does a "natural born citizen" get stripped of citizenship through inaction?
“I regard your persistence in citing modern day cases as nothing but provocation. I have no respect for modern courts. Utterly NONE. They are clown proceedings with no underlying principle or legitimacy. They are the creaking of the hull plates as this massive ship slowly twists before sinking.
It is pretty much accepted amongst conservatives that the courts are political tools, and do not accurately reflect what is the law, but rather the opinion of the people who are nominated to them. Court decisions are the darling of Liberals, Conservatives tend to loath them because too often have we been the victim of foolhardy and ridiculous pronouncements from the courts.
Why do you persist in citing institutions of which conservatives have precious little respect, and often down right hatred? What sort of conservative hides beneath the black robes of the despised liberal courts?”
And 205: “You have this backwards. Any court which is stupid and corrupt, I will disagree with.
Do you agree with Kelo v New London? Do you agree with Larrance v Texas? Do you agree with Wickard v Fillburn? Do you agree with Roe v Wade, or Plessy v Ferguson? How about Dred Scott v Sanford?
Tell us conservatives who have learned to detest the biased and corrupt court system how you agree with all these despised decisions because the courts “say so.”
If you believe the basis of our laws should be “because the courts say so”, then you are at complete odds with my understanding of Moral principle, and would no doubt have defended the decisions of the Volksgerichtshof as they stole the money and property from the Jews.
The Courts are not GOD.”
These are two of the best posts ever posted to any thread at any time. We have a sm cadre of vocal liberals who do a reasonable job of not looking overly liberal...UNTIL the matter of courts comes up. Then they act like the total leftists they are.
Conservatives learned a long time ago to expect nothing from the courts. Well, nothing but periodic slaps in the face & kicks in the teeth. To say we lost faith in judges is too much an understatement. We realized that judges enjoy abusing their power to promote liberalism & undercut conservatism. We see this every single day.
Still you have posters, on this site no less, citing the judiciary as if it’s a moral authority. It’s an active battalion in the liberal army. There is no sentient, politically active conservative who doesn’t know this.
Still I appreciate your pointing it out so eloquently. Maybe if we post similar comments 10,000 more times, the liberals in our midst will start to catch on.
“Failure to report for induction”(Bellei) is not inaction, it is an action. That is what got Mario Bellei in trouble.
However the system eventually worked as Congress repealed the statute under which Bellei had lost his citizenship.
I intend to continue to cite what has been the landmark Supreme Court decision on citizenship and foreign born parents for the last 115 years. a decision which has been cited in scores of Obama eligibility lawsuits, always successfully.
Judges have referenced Wong in their decisions. Judges have not cited Minor v. Happersett, save one: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
So if *I* had failed to report for induction, I would have lost my citizenship?
“How does a “natural born citizen” get stripped of citizenship through inaction?”
Interesting question. Assuming that Obama’s birth narrative is roughly what has been reported - birth in Hawaii, mother and father as reported on the LFBC pdf.
Could he be stripped of his citizenship by inaction? How about by the actions of his relatives (parents, step-father, etc.)? How about Senator Rubio or Governor Jindal or Senator Santorum?
Can someone who acquires citizenship by birth in the United States be stripped of their citizenship by inaction?
No wonder Liberals love courts. Liberals simply want to re-establish government by Monarchy\Aristocracy, and imagine themselves as the ruling authorities. That "equality" stuff is just for the "peasants." *THEY* expect to be among the ruling class.
Anther home run, DL. That is the element I tend to overlook. The fetishism of courts by liberals relates to the authoritarian nature of the former. So many times when they fail at the ballet box, they attempt and often succeed at imposing their will via the courts. It is the liberal version of nirvana/Shangri-La. A single liberal in a black robe can impose his/her will on a multitude of unwilling ‘subjects’, & five of them can do likewise to the entire country.
Makes you wonder if the libs have to wipe the drool from their chins as they rhapsodize about their judicial tyrants. The pleasure they take in watching these Kelo- type decisions destroy the country borders on the obscene.
ballet = ballot
As I have pointed out countless times, the Soviet Union was not Communism, it was Monarchy/Aristocracy. The Premier, (Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev, etc.) were Kings. They could have anyone executed, they lived in Palaces, they ate the finest food and controlled the public treasury, the country did their bidding.
The Party apparatchiks were the Aristocracy, from the "Dukes" (Politburo Members) down to the squires. (Local party bosses and their families.)
A Joke I recall was that when Lenin first showed his wife the palace they would be living in with all the spacious accommodations and luxury, he asked her what she thought of it. She Replied, "But Darling, what do we do if the Communists come back? "
That is a fascinating take, especially re: the USSR. I have been reading up on Stalin lately. He was a sociopath’s sociopath. As ruthless & bloodthirsty as any man in history. Still some liberals vigorously idolize him. I know one of them. She is a DU addict, & vaunts an embarrassing passion for Uncle Joe.
Your remarks reminded me of an article I read on AmericanThinker. It’s about a book by Jamie Glazov, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror (2009.) Here’s a quote:
“[Obama] is a leftist ideologue and no-holds-barred political fighter whose practice has consistently been to demonize the American equivalents of the hated kulaks (farmers) and petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) persecuted in the Soviet Union. Obama’s enemies include those “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as well as the presumably benighted bigots who fail to realize that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” With his anti-American, neo-Marxist outlook shaped by mentors and heroes such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, Obama is naturally inclined to be suspicious of freedom and to feel sympathy for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/loving_the_enemy.html#ixzz2SjvMxv5s
Liberals as a whole are no less suspicious of freedom than Obama. & how best to curb freedom in America? Via judicial tyranny, of course.
(A little off topic, but here is my favorite Stalin joke:
A group of Georgians come and talk to Stalin, then they leave heading off down the Kremlin’s corridors. Stalin starts looking for his pipe. He can’t find it. He calls in Beria, the dreaded head of his secret police.
“Go after the delegation, and find out which one took my pipe,” he says.
Beria scuttles off down the corridor.
Five minutes later Stalin finds his pipe under a pile of papers. He calls Beria:
“Look, I’ve found my pipe.”
“Too late,” Beria says, “half the delegation admitted they took your pipe, and the other half died during questioning.”)
Mr. Rogers did more than offer a few bon mots. He cited historic legal precedent as well as the five year run of current court cases. Of course it may be a belief that by attacking Cruz’z Canadian birth, that will offer a backdoor to removing Obama if Kenyan birth can be proved. Dunham was still an American citizen by birth as was Cruz’z mother and it seems that is all that is required. One parent.
“Dunham was still an American citizen by birth as was Cruz’z mother and it seems that is all that is required. One parent.”
That’s what it “seems” to a lot of people.
In a world where black is white, up is down, forward is backward, it “seems” that “natural born” can mean anything you want it to, regardless of what it was understood to mean by the people who included it in the Constitution.
I would hope that those interested in the defense of the country would take the most conservative interpretation. Taking the most liberal interpretation of Constitutional terms (or changing their definition entirely) is doing nothing but taking the country down the tube to extinction.
The liberal interpretation has given us 0bama. If this is where you think the country should be going, then by all means proselytize anything but two citizen parents and born in the US.
One interpretation is right, one interpretation is wrong, and the end result of using the wrong interpretation is the destruction of America.
Well said.
One quibble. One interpretation is right, all others are wrong.
“One quibble. One interpretation is right, all others are wrong.”
Quibble taken in the spirit it was given.
I was addressing the single parent interpretation of the poster, but you are correct. One interpretation of “natural born” is correct - all others are not.
Not true. U.S. Secretaries of State have ruled otherwise.
In 1883, Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, in 1885, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Born in the U.S. but NOT even citizens let alone natural born citizens.
Seems U.S. Secretaries of State knew A LOT more about it than you. You're trying awfully hard to float a bogus theory.
Again, as I've already posted, U.S. Secretaries of State HAVE ruled that those born in the U.S. to an alien father are not even U.S. citizens at all, let alone natural born citizens.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark set the legal precedent for children born to alien parents.
And in fact, didn’t other Federal Courts prior to Wong Kim Ark rule the same way?
“In the courts of the United States in the Ninth Circuit, it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford, and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States. In re Look Tin Sing (1884), 10 Sawyer 358; Ex parte Chin King (1888), 13 Sawyer 333; In re Yung Sing Hee (1888) 13 Sawyer 482; In re Wy Shing (1888), 13 Sawyer 530; Gee Fook Sing v. United States (1892), 7 U.S.App. 7; In re Wong Kim Arm (1896), 71 Fed.Rep. 38. And we are not aware of any judicial decision to the contrary.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html
SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark set the legal precedent for children born in the U.S. to alien parents who were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.
Obama's father WASN'T permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth. He was in the U.S. on a "temporary stay" that was set to expire on August 9, 1961. There is a public record document that shows he applied for a one year extension of his "temporary stay," requesting a new expiration date of August 9, 1962.
And in ROGERS v. BELLEI, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) the court ruled that the under the 1952 Immigration Act a child born abroad to an alien father and a citizen mother is a US citizen.
Under that same act, Obama born in Hawaii to an alien father and a citizen mother is a native-born US citizen.
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.