Posted on 08/04/2009 3:21:40 AM PDT by Zakeet
Becaise they are getting convinced that sumthin ain’t right with the boy marxist, and are covering the bases.
Yes.
That is why the Army withdrew Major Cook's deployment order. Otherwise, he was in a position to bring the house of cards down.
Yes.
That is why the Army withdrew Major Cook's deployment order. Otherwise, he was in a position to bring the house of cards down.
Yes.
That is why the Army withdrew Major Cook's deployment order. Otherwise, he was in a position to bring the house of cards down.
Maybe, but I would think that "rich" people who were disproportionally impacted by his policy would be able to bring suit as a class (class action suit). Of course, "rich" is just about down to anyone who has a job...
Chisholm was cited due to the recognition of citizen sovreignty put forth by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay. Citizen sovreignty is important due to the stark comparison with sovreigns under forms of government other than a Constitutional Republic, such as a monarchy. Under a Constitutional Republic, with sovereignty having devolved upon the citizens due to the absence of any lord or king to pledge one's liege or allegiance, such allegiance is to the citizenry as the people themselves, "We, the people." This is important in context, in understanding where John Jay was coming from, in having the "natural-born citizen" requirement inserted into the Constitution prior to ratification. That term, "natural-born citizen," did not come to John Jay in a dream, he didn't invent it himself ... he read it in The Law Of Nations, by Vattel. Vattel's definition of the term that Vattel coined, is two citizen parents and born of the soil.
Marbury was cited due to the limitations upon amendment recognized therein, as well as the proper role of the judiciary and the Constitutional limitations upon the judiciary itself, when dealing with issues pertaining to the judiciary under the Constitution.
The author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, was mentioned because he so clearly stated that:
" ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents (plural, meaning two) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."
as you noted. Bingham is stating that the truth of the term "natural-born citizen" is self-evident, and we do hold these truths to be self-evident, do we not? Please also note, that Bingham is also quoted as warning, in the Spring of 1868, that:
"May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth!...I ask you to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of half a million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution and the laws, and who, by their sublime example, have taught us all to obey the law; that none are above the law..."
Immigration and naturalization do not deal with anyone being a natural-born citizen. That Congress has not successfully enacted any statute law dealing with the status or the term itself, since repealing The Naturalization Act Of 1790, should tell you something, if you're willing to understand.
If he is not really president, then he is not entitled to Secret Service protection, nor is he qualified to live in the residence of the President of the United States.
Would you want to provide services for a guy who can't sign the ticket?
Maybe an eviction notice would suffice.
What? You can't multitask? My condolences.
Why do you think arms and ammo sales have been through the roof?
Either we stand up for what is right and Constitutional or we lose it.
If there are those who would prefer violence to justice and the Constitution, then we deal with that insurrection by whatever means available in order to uphold the Constitution.
Allowing fear of brigands to cause our laws to be ignored is the abandonment of principle over a mere threat.
Our ancestors would be ashamed of us.
I haven’t misconstrued anything. You have intentionally tried to cloud the issue. You continually cite John Bingham who was writing about things almost 80 years after the Constitution was written, yet have a problem with a law that was passed by the people that actually wrote the Constitution.
Oh, and nothing Bingham states is against what was said previously. That is that a child born outside the U.S. to two American parents is born an American citizen and is qualified to be President of the U.S. You cite Bingham but fail to mention that the 14th amendment never even uses the word Natural born citizen, does it? It uses the same language “citizens of the United States” as the many laws that have been enacted to clarify what a natural born citizen is.
To summarize. The constitution gives the qualification of a President (natural born citizen) but does not define it. Vattel is not constitutional authority. They left the definition of it up to the States, Congress, Courts etc. If not, they would have defined the term right in the constitution. The first Congress defined that as a child born to two U.S. citizens outside the U.S. is a natural born citizen. Subsequent Congresses have defined these children as citizens of the United States. The same term used in the 14th amendment which you use to justify people born here to be natural born.
We have had many Presidential candidates (Romney, Goldwater) who were born outside the U.S. and no one had a problem with them. It was understood because of existing laws. Defining natural born does not violate anything in the Constitution. The only reason Obama’s citizenship is in question is because he is thought to be born outside the U.S. and one of his parents was not an American citizen.
Question, if John McCain was not born a citizen of the United States, to which country was he born to? Panama? Is he actually Panamanian and someone didn’t tell us?
...and therein lies Øbozo's real problem: one parent was a Kenyan national and a subject of England -- not an American Citizen...
And Id; be pretty happy with that. If everything about the guy is a LIE, and proven as such, I think even the libs would have trouble re-electing him.
I have little doubt that there something very dangerous to Obambi in his past. Not necessarily his place of birth, but something that is closely enough connected to it to make this a big threat.
Otherwise, why fire up the propaganda ministry to deflect it?
This would be the narrowest of narrow paths to undo at some point what has been ddone. If he was never POTUS, everything he ever signed is confetti.
I've provided specific cites for precedent and given background on the Supreme Court Justices and Senators, respectively, responsible for, one, the natural-born citizen requirement in the Constitution itself, and two, the reasoning behind the subsequent lack of statute or Congressional Acts dealing with this Constitutional requirement in any way, shape or form. Far from clouding the issue, I've brought clarity. Your cites have been consistently misconstrued by you, or even misquoted outright.
You continually cite John Bingham who was writing about things almost 80 years after the Constitution was written, yet have a problem with a law that was passed by the people that actually wrote the Constitution.
I'm obviously not the only one who has or had a problem with The Nationality Act Of 1790, since it was repealed and replaced with statutory language that did not make reference to "natural-born citizen" at all. This repeal is correct per the powers enumerated to the Legislative by the Constitution, but you refuse to acknowledge this.
Oh, and nothing Bingham states is against what was said previously. That is that a child born outside the U.S. to two American parents is born an American citizen and is qualified to be President of the U.S
I've provided Bingham's statement regarding the Amendment that he, himself authored, the 14th Amendment, wherein he says of his S 61 Bill: " ... I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." I don't know how Bingham could have made himself any clearer about his intention for his Bill, which became the 14th Amendment.
You cite Bingham but fail to mention that the 14th amendment never even uses the word Natural born citizen, does it? It uses the same language “citizens of the United States” as the many laws that have been enacted to clarify what a natural born citizen is.
I've not only mentioned, repeatedly, that the 14th Amendment never even uses the term "natural-born citizen," but I have provided you with the reason why: the Constitution cannot be changed by statute or by an Act of Congress. I agree with the author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham on this, who in turn agreed with judicial precedent going all the way back to the very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, and even before ratification of the Constitution. For the life of me, I cannot seem to grasp why you think this would support your misguided interpretation, of the word "citizen" meaning more than "citizen" means, especially in a legal document of any kind, let alone the Constitution of the United States.
To summarize. The constitution gives the qualification of a President (natural born citizen) but does not define it.
Would you like a list of other, self-evident terms of art from the Constitution, Old Teufel Hunden? There are quite a few.
Vattel is not constitutional authority.
The influence of Emmerich de Vattel and The Law Of Nations cannot be emphasized enough. It was in the possession of the Framers at the time the Constitution was being written, it's quoted by Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, every early Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ... what on earth are you talking about, here?
They left the definition of it up to the States, Congress, Courts etc.
Wrong. The Constitution enumerated power to the Legislative over naturalization and immigration matters. The principle of judical review was established by Marbury v. Madison, and no statute nor any Act of Congress can alter language in the Constitution. That requires a Constitutional Amendment.
If not, they would have defined the term right in the constitution.
If you get anything out of this exchange, between you and me, it will be memorizing the words of the author of the 14th Amendment, specifically referencing his own bill. These words of John Bingham are even in this reply, so you don't have to wander too far afield to find it.
The first Congress defined that as a child born to two U.S. citizens outside the U.S. is a natural born citizen.
I can only marvel at your dependence upon revoked law, here. What next, citing Roger Taney in Dred Scott? That has as much relevance as the repealed Naturalization Act Of 1790, so have at it. Citing such will get you just about nowhere, legally.
Subsequent Congresses have defined these children as citizens of the United States.
Yes, some have. And, this is within powers enumerated to Congress by the Constitution. Note what's missing - the key phrase in question: "natural-born citizen."
The same term used in the 14th amendment which you use to justify people born here to be natural born.
Huh? The only term that means "natural-born citizen" under the Constitution is "natural-born citizen." What are you going on about now, lol?
We have had many Presidential candidates (Romney, Goldwater) who were born outside the U.S. and no one had a problem with them.
There were controversies about the Constitutional eligiblity of every one of those former Presidential candidates. Would you like me to provide links for you, or would you like to give web search a spin? It's really neat!
It was understood because of existing laws.
Oh? How so? Where does any extant or applicable statute specifically address the Constitutional natural-born citizen requirement for the office of President? This, I've got to see.
Defining natural born does not violate anything in the Constitution.
Amazing, then, that no one seems to have done so in 220 years. Our lovely Congresstraitors have been conniving to remove the natural-born citizen requirement for over a decade. If it were so simple a process as voila! sneaking a bill into some session of Congress ... you really don't believe what you're writing here, do you? It's just too ridiculous.
The only reason Obama’s citizenship is in question is because he is thought to be born outside the U.S. and one of his parents was not an American citizen.
Well, I'll be darned. My breath hasn't been wasted, after all. Thanks for coming around to the Constitutional originalist point of view, that I've been expounding, here.
Question, if John McCain was not born a citizen of the United States, to which country was he born to? Panama? Is he actually Panamanian and someone didn’t tell us?
John McCain's US citizenship was in murky territory, right up until his 16th birthday, in 1952. He was made citizen via statute. McCain was not born stateless, as some hapless individuals periodically are, so you marinate on that for a bit, and see which country you think had any legal right to claim him at birth.
And it could set him up for some serious fraud charges -- something like "defrauding the electorate" or some such.
It is difficult to see how he could get re-elected -- or even stay in office if even the tiny bit he has revealed about himself is proven to be bogus, too.
~~~~~~~~
O course, it would just break my ol' pea-pickin' heart to see him crash mightily... '-)
You've claimed, several times, that "natural-born citizen" has never been defined, and then turned right around, sometimes in the very same sentence, and claimed that it has been, as exemplified by:
You refuse to admit that the same wording used in the 14th Amendment is the same wording used in all laws after the 1790 laws that defined what a natural born citizen is.
McCain was not born stateless, as I noted in the reply of mine in question; the statute from 1937, which is the year after he was born, did not grant him anything but citizenship by the plain wording of the statute, and that plain wording left a certain degree of murkiness about even that, which was not addressed until 1952, making John McCain unquestionably a citizen, at age 16.
Are you claiming that John McCain was born after the passage of this 1952 statute? As confused and deliberately confusing as your commentary to this thread has been, I have managed to decipher that you are not claiming this. But yet, you claim that he's a natural-born citizen, even though he was born in 1936. Not 1937, and certainly not 1952.
Are you honestly incapable of seeing the contradictions in your various claims? They're painfully apparent to me, and I daresay they're readily apparent for any lurkers who have suffered through them right along with me.
Here are a few sources, not even web sources but print media, that discuss McCain's widely acknowledged Constitutional problems, for your enlightenment:
Hulse, Carl. "Senate Says McCain Is Qualified."
The New York Times. 1 May 2008.
Hulse, Carl. "McCain's Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out."
The New York Times. 28 February 2008.
Liptak, Adam. "A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue."
The New York Times. 11 July 2008.
Associated Press. "McCain: My Citizenship Not an Issue."
USA Today. 29 February 2008.
Associated Press. "McCain Says Citizenship Issue Settled 44 Years Ago."
USA Today. 29 February 2008 (p. A6).
The Denver Post. "McCain Says His Birthplace Isn't an Issue."
USA Today. 29 February 2008 (p. A6).
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.