Posted on 09/28/2009 7:59:14 PM PDT by Elderberry
BTTT
Our Constitution mandates a public review of his circumstances of birth.
This is not a big deal unless he is not qualified.
"The court has been explicit in explaining that anyone born in the United States is a "natural born" citizen."
"There are no SCOTUS decisions that make that explicit determination or explanation."
But there are. One of them has been quoted here many times. I'm sure you've seen it:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.""III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
There is simply no reasonable way to say that is not explicit. The only complaint can be that it doesn't use the exact words "natural born citizen", but as I said, that's just being pedantic.
Under the "same rule", prior to independence what was a "natural born subject" becomes a "natural born citizen". That's the only way the "same rule" can continue "in the United States afterwards" and continue "to prevail under the Constitution".
The Wong decision goes into great detail, for pages, not just this short passage, about the history and common law. That information is not going to change. It is what it is, whether it was the Wong court or a future court. The rule is, and has been for centuries, someone born in the country is a "natural born citizen/subject".
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
Done. That's exactly what that passage from Wong is talking about. The elsewhere is the Common Law and Wong explains what it is.
"So if in interpreting the law, the Court believed that not every native-born citizen (and they were specifically addressing Minor as having been born in the U.S. to citizen parents) had an inherent right to vote, then it is logical to conclude that they would also rule that not every native-born citizen has a right to be President - under the law."
Only if they believed that "natural born citizen" had a meaning that allowed someone not to have the right. But the court has said what it means. It's not an open question. It is not unsettled.
"The DOJ, in their motion to dismiss Orly Taitz's lawsuit, disagrees with your assessment as to where the responsibility lies in determining eligibility."
I don't think so, not that I care if they disagree. We're talking apples and oranges. I agree with the DOJ's argument that in the present case it was up to the electors and Congress to make the determination. That's not what I was talking about in my prior post.
"Voters depend upon election authorities to certify the candidates on the ballot. It is not reasonable to argue that a majority vote for Obama resolved the question of his eligibility. That concept is supported by the Constitution where it stipulates what must take place if a President-Elect fails to qualify. One cannot become President-Elect without having been approved by the voters, yet a President-Elect can be declared/held ineligible."
You're losing the context. Yes, if there is a clear cut eligibility violation it can overrule a choice of the voters. Nobody said otherwise.
What we are talking about is the hypothetical case where eligibility is not clearly violated, but, as you believe, it is "undefined". It is in THAT case I make my point. The choice of the voters, the people, who are the ultimate sovereigns, will have provided the clarification. If it were truly undefined, then they would have provided the answer that they considered him eligible. No court could possibly have grounds to overturn that determination by the voters.
Yes, I've read that portion of Wong Kim Ark. I disagree with your assessment of the decision. I owe you an explanatory response and will provide it as soon as time allows.
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.