Posted on 05/14/2015 8:44:18 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Really? And what piece of information convinced you otherwise? You must have seen something different that I haven't yet seen. I would like to know what it is, because all my research has yielded the opposite result.
I agree. You don't toss out a slap to people's faces then run away and hide from the storm you created.
When the "damaging" information relates to constitutional eligibility to hold office, it is no longer just a matter for the opposing candidates, it becomes the duty of all US Citizens to resolve the issue, and most especially state officials who's duty it is, or ought to be. (The courts are wrong on this one, but they often are.)
In the case of Obama, all 50 state officials simply wanted this cup to pass before them because they didn't want to be the schmuck who messed up the chances for the first "Black" President to get elected.
They didn't want to be the bad guy because too many people were idolizing him by this point.
And what document is that?
I think you are just dancing around the point. I don't think the Wong Kim Ark court would have regarded him as a resident. Certainly Chief Justice John Marshall wouldn't have agreed that he was a resident.
The state of Hawaii prepared Certified Letters of Verification for two states’
Chief Election Officials, the Secretaries of State in Arizona and Kansas. An additional Certified Letter of Verification was prepared for a federal judge in Mississippi and all nine judges of the Alabama Supreme Court received a copy of the Mississippi federal court letter.
At any point in time, in order to implement the constitutional imperative, any Committee of Congress could issue a congressional subpoena for the original birth certificate and require past and present Hawaii officials to answer questions under oath. Congressional subpoenas have the force of court orders.
Finally it only takes one Senator and one Representative to challenge the electors in any state by a written objection. Congress could have refused to certify Obama’s electors in enough states to take him below the 270 threshold until Congress was convinced of his birth certificate’s authenticity.
Of course with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell running the congresdional loyal opposition, that was unlikely to happen.
“The state of Hawaii says that the President was born there. That’s good enough for me.””— John Boehner on Meet The Press
Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China and never again returned to the United States.
It is like suggesting congress has the power to define "arms" or "speech."
If the Constitution granted Congress the power to establish rules for keeping and bearing arms or speaking freely, I might ask those questions, but it doesn't. The Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from establishing rules that infringe upon those rights.
Whereas, the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, which means not only that Congress has the power to say who must naturalize but also that Congress has the power to say who does not need to naturalize.
As Justice Gray wrote, there has never been any doubt that children born in a country of citizen parents are natural-born citizens. There have, however, been doubts as to all others. Thus the need for a uniform rule of naturalization.
Congress did not pass a measure regarding McCain. They passed a resolution which had no legally binding power.
None of this constitutes proof. The letters only affirm that the information is in their records. It does not establish whether that this is the ORIGINAL information in the records, or whether it was placed there at a later time.
Again, there are a lot of false equivalences allowed by Hawaiian law that other people would not allow if they were aware of them.
Being born anywhere will get you a Hawaiian birth certificate. Showing your child to a physician up to a year after he is born will get that physician's signature on the Hawaiian birth certificate. No actual birth in Hawaii is necessary.
Both of these things are contrary to people's instinctive understanding. They do not actually comply with the normal understanding of "born there", but Hawaii grants them the false equivalence of meaning the same thing under Hawaiian law.
Again, we are only interested in real meanings under Constitutional law, not fake, made up meanings under Hawaiian law. Hawaiian officials attesting to lose meanings allowed under Hawaiian law are not valid proof of anything.
“The state of Hawaii says that the President was born there. That’s good enough for me.””— John Boehner on Meet The Press
Did I mention that I thought John Boehner is an unethical idiot who isn't concerned with compliance to the rule of law?
“The Democrat ALWAYS gets that same percentage of the Asian and Latino vote, and while we’re at it, the same percentage of the Jewish and Black vote as well. It rarely changes more than a few points one way or the other. This is the norm.”
The Black vote for Republican Presidential candidates 1936-2012
1936: 28%
1940: 32%
1944: 32%
1948: 23%
1952: 24%
1956: 39%
1960: 32%
1964: 6%
1968: 15%
1972: 13%
1976: 15%
1980: 12%
1984: 9%
1988: 10%
1992: 11%
1996: 12%
2000: 8%
2004: 12%
2008: 4%
2012: 6%
I don't think John Marshall would have found in favor of Wong Kim Ark either. The Wong decisions was pretty much a case of Republicans against the Democrats, with the Republicans being in the majority, though one Democrat did vote with the majority. He was from Louisiana which had a very different culture from the rest of the country.
“Congress did not pass a measure regarding McCain. They passed a resolution which had no legally binding power.”
And why did they do that? Your statement does not obviate the rest of what I stated.
“None of this constitutes proof. The letters only affirm that the information is in their records. It does not establish whether that this is the ORIGINAL information in the records, or whether it was placed there at a later time.”
It may not constitute proof to you but it did constitute proof to two elected Secretaries of State, to a federal district court judge and to the Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court.
The Letter prepared for the Secretary of state in Arizona specifically verified 12 different specific data points on the birth certificate at the request of the Scretary of State.
The law under which Certified Letters of Verification are authorized states:
“A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”
You don't think the right to be an American citizen is a right which can be infringed? Have you not noticed the massive populations of "anchor babies" which have been created?
They are here illegally, and are therefore taking away from Americans the right to decide whether or not to include them in our national character. The same thing with "birth tourists."
It is as if by sneaking into our house to be born, they could claim our family name.
Yes, the right to be an American Citizen *CAN* and *IS* being infringed, by others who are claiming a right to which they are not entitled.
Then a few years ago, all the stuff from Emerich de Vattel was baloney?
John Marshall was an activist justice. He invented the concept of judicial review in Marbury v Madison which gave his Supreme Court huge new powers and the concept of judicial review of bills passed by the legislative branch is nowhere in the Constitution.
There’s no telling how John Marshall might have ruled after the passage of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. John Marshall was a slaveholder but he had also argued cases for emancipation as an attorney.
There’s been 117 years to reverse the Wong ruling with lots of Supreme Courts composed of lots of different configurations. It still stands “stare decisis.”
.
The Average since 1964 (When Lyndon Johnson cleverly flipped most newly registered black voters to Democrat) is 10%.
Top is 15, bottom is 4. A variation of +/- 5 or 6.
Barack Obama spiked the average down. (because "YAY! MY TEAM!") but when he's gone it will go back closer to 10%.
You take out that first year under Johnson and those last two numbers (Barack) and the average becomes 11.7 with a variation of +/- 3.5 which is D@mn close to my statement of a "few points."
So what's the point? If you are arguing we need to make inroads into the Black community, I agree. I've been arguing since 1994 that we should have picked a black candidate to run against Clinton and so on.
I *KNEW* he would get a massive increase from black voters, (and racist white voters who want to feel good about themselves for voting for someone because of the color of their skin) and I also knew the media would be afraid to hammer him the way they would a white candidate.
It was a guaranteed slam dunk win for conservatism. We could have a historic first, as well as a man who could enact a conservative agenda and we would have ended up routing Liberalism for decades.
All we had to do was run a black candidate and we would have garnered all that support and idolization that the Democrats grabbed by making that choice.
Sure, it's against our principles to judge people by the color of their skin, but in this case it would have served a higher purpose. It would have resulted in a greater good.
Above all else, it would have been a pragmatic solution which would have eventually yielded a principled one.
Sometimes the right man for the Job is one who has the ability to Unify. If skin color is the characteristic that would have rallied the people, we should have recognized this and used it.
But we are the STUPID party.
Anchor babies is another subject entirely and one on which we agree.
Applying the test that you do (for finding Ted Cruz to be a natural Born Citizen of the United States), I don't find Cruz's father's immigration status to be relevant or material.
Just saying, you can dispense with this condition of qualifying for citizenship at birth. The relevant statute assigns citizenship regardless of the "other" parent's immigration status, provided the citizen parent meets the US residency conditions prescribed in the statute.
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.