Tyrant’s Gun-Walking Attorney General vs. the Law:
”It matters not.
He is now YOUR King
... even if it was by trick.
And on the morrow,
you will be audited
and then removed as units."
Posted on 11/30/2011 4:54:22 AM PST by Natufian
Something to copy and paste and to send to tour local electors?
OK, I’ll try it again, how about a condensed version on the side of 40’ tractor trailers?
Driven around each states capitols?
A nationwide effort to “educate” the people?
Prime time commercials?
Tyrant’s Gun-Walking Attorney General vs. the Law:
”It matters not.
He is now YOUR King
... even if it was by trick.
And on the morrow,
you will be audited
and then removed as units."
This is a paper that says it doesn't matter if your parents are aliens and discounts any Vattel influence.
“There is no provision in the Constitution and no controllingAmerican case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs theeligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President”
“There is no provision in the Constitution and no controllingAmerican case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs theeligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President”
One would think this would be the end of it. But the hard core birthers will be along to pick holes in it.
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen wouldmean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born“in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being bornabroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.””
It looks like someone got a grant to bury Vattel. He ignored, intentionally I’m sure, Washington’s reliance on Vattel on how to conduct himself in office.
Oh, that's right. Your responses, on a variety of threads, have typically been that of a statist.
Never mind.
I never read articles at the links.
I guess I should have?
To me a NBC is from American citizens, if either parent is from another country then said person fails to qualify, period.
Sorry to mislead anyone, my rule is to not go to a link, if its not in the header it shouldn’t be posted.
If it can mislead one it can mislead many.
One must read Leo Donofrio’s site.
Yes I am and I will. This guy, whoever he is, what makes him the authority?, confuses “Native” born with “Natural” born.
THIS is what NBC is:
http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/logic.htm
Hard to pick holes in a document that is so well sourced and so completely presented. But no doubt it won't be beyond your ken.
Oh, that's right. Your responses, on a variety of threads, have typically been that of a statist.
If the definition of a 'statist' is a non-birther then there are a whole lot of statists out there.
Hard to pick holes in a document that is so well sourced and so completely presented. But no doubt it won't be beyond your ken.
Oh, that's right. Your responses, on a variety of threads, have typically been that of a statist.
If the definition of a 'statist' is a non-birther then there are a whole lot of statists out there.
I'm not sure he's the one who is confused.
To me a NBC is from American citizens, if either parent is from another country then said person fails to qualify,period.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is exactly how it is.Bottom line, hook and sinker.
From Leo Donofrio’s Natural Born Citizen Blog :
RECAP JUSTIAGATE
My second report on JustiaGate exposed the surgical scrubbing of Minor v. Happersett from 25 cases – at Justia’s Supreme Court Center – which cited the vital Supreme Court decision which classifies those born in the country to parents who are citizens as “natural-born citizens”, such classification excluding Obama from eligibility:
“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 154 U.S. 116, 167 (1874).
Because Minor v. Happersett directly implies that Obama is not eligible – even assuming he was born in the US – the case has been the subject of an intense disinformation campaign across the web. And until JustiaGate’s revelations, Obama supporters were more able to levy false attacks upon Minor, claiming it was a voting rights precedent, not a citizenship precedent, and that Minor was “disgraced” and overruled by the 19th Amendment. But none of that was even remotely true.
The whole time, the Supreme Court opinions which directly cite Minor as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship – and as a continuing precedent on voting rights despite the adoption of the 19th Amendment – were “mangled” at Justia (apparently Stanley’s choice of words via his admission in the CNET interview) – the favored legal research engine by Google.
And the war against Minor’s relevance was somewhat successful. But all the while, hidden below the surface of fragged Google analytics and Justia subterfuge was a complete body of case-law spanning 100 years… all of which bears out the respect given to Minor v Happersett by many subsequent Supreme Court opinions.
Excerpt. Read more at :
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Interesting that the CRS did not seem to consider Minor v. Happersett.
That is a Strange omission that indicates a bias, or poor research.
The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, in ruling in 1875 that women did not have the constitutional right to vote in federal or state elections (as a privilege or immunity of citizenship), raised and discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that“some authorities” hold so.
This is an out and out lie. That dog won't hunt any longer. The opinion, not the dicta, lays out the answer.
This is even proven further in the article...
In dicta, that is, in a discussion not directly relevant to or part of the holding in the case, the Court explained:
Yet, as one can plainly see, the opinion isn't dicta.
Minor v. Happersett
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
And low and behold, the very quote from above is from the opinion, not the dicta.
Is that hole big enough? Seems like a tanker truck could roll right through that hole of a conclusion.
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.