Posted on 08/02/2009 1:35:53 AM PDT by rxsid
Edited on 08/06/2009 12:10:02 AM PDT by John Robinson. [history]
Attorney Taitz filed a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Expedite authentication, MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for authenticity of Kenyan birth certificate filed by Plaintiff Alan Keyes PhD.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ (site has been the target of hackers, proceed with caution — John)
Interesting article and background piece
before Alito’s hearings. And it’s all
still true today of the Dems’ vicious
tactics and lies.
______________________
Cultural divide visible in Judge Alito hearings
http://www.sunjournal.com/node/76740
***Lancelot Jones has figured out a way to post alongside a cool Knight-in-Shining-Armor. That’s exciting, so I thought I’d go ahead and ping you & bump the thread.
I am a relic from days of old.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine; In memoria æterna erit justus, ab auditione mala non timebit.
Beauseant!
I bet you’re popular at Renfests.
“If not me, would you believe what a recent opinion of Appeals Court Justices that Native Born Citizens are distinct from Natural Born Citizens as far as the US Constitution states. Agreed?”
Sure, I’d like to see it. In the citizenship cases I’ve read from the Supreme Court, native born, natural born, and citizen at birth have been used interchangeably within the decision. I have seen only allusions to their not being the same in one decision, and I’m not sure if it was in the holding or in the dissent. It was just a passing phrase that conveyed that the writer wasn’t giving an opinion on whether what he said should be applied to Article II, Section 1.
I am.
From Obama’s book “Dreams of my Father”
BTW, Obama narrates the audio book, very creepy.
“I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance pullets.”
Obama takes the guess work out of his view on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
Obama in a public radio interview in 2001
“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers and the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted.
Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”
I have seen only allusions to their not being the same in one decision, and I’m not sure if it was in the holding or in the dissent.
They never did. SCOTUS over the years did not use native born and natural born in the same context. They always have made a distinction between the two...and you are lying. In all Supreme Court cases they never called 'native born' of foreign born citizens and 'natural born' to US citizens born on US soil as the same. They don't mix them up and they never have. I'm being redundant but you can read some more redundancy below.
The 10th Court of Appeals opinion, as of about 2 days, have said in unequivocal words that you are wrong.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf
Excerpted the key statement -- “[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”
Shall I interpret for you? ... Let see if you can get it right.
Thanks.........
Thank you, Red. Please read what I’ve written carefully, and let’s discuss our differences amicably, regardless of how much we disagree. Okay with you? Thanks.
I will comment on the text you posted to me at the end of my post. That text comes at the end of text in the footnote that I want to discuss first.
The following is in footnote 2 on page 6 (he’s quoting from Osborn v. Bank of U.S.):
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.”
TE says: Above, the writer is naming two types of citizens. Is that right? Those two are: “the native born and of the naturalized person.” Agreed?
“The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
TE says: The writer now uses the word “difference,” saying, “The only difference drawn by the Constitution is,” which indicates he is referring to a “difference” between the two previously named types of citzens, the “native born and of the naturalized person.” Is that right?
TE continues: Thus, the writer’s complete statement is that the only difference between the “native born and of the naturalized person” is “is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
TE further states: But look what he’s done: He’s brought in a third type of citizen, hasn’t he? Instead of saying “is that only the ‘native’ citizen is eligible to be President.” Right? But ... But ... Wasn’t he beginning a sentence that told us the difference between the following two types of citizens, which he had originally named (see the first paragraph quoted above): “the native born and of the naturalized person”?? Wasn’t he doing that?
TE concludes: Thus, his statement makes no sense at all unless, to him, “native born” and “natural born” mean the same thing. Isn’t that right?
Now to the text of footnote 2 that you quoted: “ “[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”
TE says: That text is a further quote from Osborn that comes after the text I quoted above from Osborn. This text, in effect, summarizes or presents the thrust of the text I quoted above.
TE says now: Thus, your text example, and the text that I quoted above, appears to support my position that “native” and “natural born” in fact *do* mean the same thing. That is, Circuit Judges Kelly, Briscoe, and Holmes appear to agree with my interpretation.
It comes down to this.
All Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens. This is where you get confused or you just obfuscate the issue.
It’s not a “problem” for anyone who understands the clear language and intent of the Framers.
“All Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens. This is where you get confused or you just obfuscate the issue.”
How can that be the case? Did you find fault with my logic and my conclusion that the court in Osborn equated “native” and “natural born”?
If you found no fault in my logic and my conclusion, then you agree that the court in Osborn was saying that “native” and “natural born” are the same and that the two of them are different from “naturalized citizen” in that only the “natural born” (which the court is saying means the same thing as “native”) is eligible to be president.
So how can you now say that “all Natural Born citizens are Native Born citizens, BUT not all Native Born citizens are Natural Born citizens”?
I gotta to to bed, but I’ll check back tomorrow.
I am open to being mistaken about what I conclude; I have no problem with abandoning a position if I am proved to be in error. So if I am missing something, I really would appreciate your explaining it. Good night!
Someone posted it to me at America’s Debate. I thought it looked interesting.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showforum=97
What the freep is your problem?
I don’t recall seeing you around here.
troll alert
Osborn v. Bank Of The U.S. dealt specifically with whether the right to sue was the same for naturalized citizens as native citizens. There are numerous cites from this that negate your attempt to specifically enumerate and therefore restrict allowable, Constitutional types of citizen to language used in Legislative Acts. You conflate enumerated powers of the Legislative, in determining a uniform law of naturalization, and the attendant forms of citizenship governed by Legislative Acts, with Constitutional citizenship that is not governed by Legislative Acts.
A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.
So, the Constitution makes the distinction. What distinction does the Constitution make, regarding citizenship and eligibility for the office of President?
You know the answer to this, and false equivalence does not evade the specific language. It's been made clear to you, that the native, indigenous and natural born share a trait, that being born of the soil, jus soli.
And yet, there is the specific term of art utilized, under the Constitution, not due to an act of legislation, to make a finer point of distinction, for those who would be President, as the Constitution prescribes. That term of art is natural born citizen. Yes, natural born citizens are indigenous, and are natives. A square is a rectangle, too, but a rectangle is not always a square. This is the logical fallacy to which you've either fallen prey, or have cynically chosen to espouse, in order to confuse the issue.
I've seen enough of your efforts here, to come down squarely on the side of your having cynically chosen to espouse fallacious interpretations in order to confuse the issue.
The key statement. "From the Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it"
So the Senate says McCain born to US citizens [that's plural] and born under the jurisdiction of the United States in the Panama Canal zone.
In other words 2 US citizens who are under US jurisdiction by law.
And the Panama Canal Zone under US jurisdiction.
You see, even Lib Leahy who introduced Res. 511 sees it. McCain was not under the jurisdiction of another country by birth or soil. Although there is some dispute if McCain was born within the jurisdiction of the country of Panama.
As pointed out by this Senate Resolution, 2 US citizens on US soil.
You can't say in a Senate resolution saying you are NBC being born to 2 US citizens and under the jurisdiction of a US military base [soil]. And then turn around by arguing out the other side of your mouth saying that a citizen born on US soil and who has 2 foreign nationals as parents or even one parent who passes on his foreign citizenship be taken seriously saying that citizen is also an NBC.
It's not the same; a contradiction.
Say hello to former trolls Michael Michael and Koyaan for me sometimes I miss their posts...Nah, but say hello.
RegulatorCountry gives the answer why this is so.
A link for your convenience or look a few posts above. I don't want you to miss it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=8377#8377
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.