Rage at Government for Doing Too Much and Not Enough [RINOs try to hijack, rebuffed by Tea Parties]

You are spreading disinformation on this site. Most likely, through a lack of thorough knowledge of this nation’s founding.

The first 4 Federalist Papers were written on the subject of “Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence.”

It is noteworthy that during the debates of the constitutional conventions Madison and Hamilton did not initially show a whole lot of concern for the NBC issue as they had not yet decided to place the power of the commander-in-chief of our armed forces (army then) in the executive branch. The debate continued on who would be the commander-in-chief and that’s when John Jay wrote to George Washington and declared:

“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

[Jay underlined the word “born” for emphasis.]

Soon it was decided that they would place the commander-in-chief in the executive branch and Madison then directed that the Committee of Eleven (one member from each state) to decide upon the qualifications for the president. The Committee delivered their proposed qualifications in September 1787 which contained the Natural Born Citizen requirement which was forever thereafter retained in Article II. The nation’s security was the chief reason for that decision as exemplified in the decision of who would be commander-in-chief as laid out in the Jay letter.

So, the NBC eligibility issue is not some archaic notion that ought to be cast aside as who really cares in this day and age. No more so that the constitutional right to freedom of speech and the right to bare arms.

There is a plethora of information concerning ‘natural born Citizen’ and its meaning found in the private family papers of the Lee Family of Virginia and the Adams descendents in Massachusetts. They will both be forthcoming publicly concerning this issue to lay the argument to rest. People like Laurence Tribe and his insistence that the 14th Amendment should decide natural born citizenship is flat-out wrong.

I’ve seen dozens of quotes from the Wong Kim Ark decision taken out of context on Free Republic, so your statement means squat. That SCOTUS decision was specifically about a child born in San Francisco to parents who were subjects of a Chinese Emperor, bound to him by a quirky treaty stating that the Emperor’s subjects could not become naturalized U.S.citizens. Wong Kim Ark was declared to be a citizen [by birth on U.S. territory] but the decision specifically stated that he was not a natural born citizen.

Oh, the irony!

YOU are spreading disinformation on this site. Most likely, through a lack of thorough knowledge of this nation’s founding, the law, and what the Supreme Court has been saying for 200 years. Or perhaps you have decided what the Constitution/ courts *should* say and are determined to claim thats what it does say - a conservative judicial activism, if you will.

It wont fly. Ever.

I quoted from a Supreme Court ruling that DIRECTLY contradicts what you claimed earlier about common law having nothing to do with Constitution... dozens of legal quotes, rulings etc. completely debunk and demolish your statement. This is just ONE:

“It [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly known to
the framers of the Constitution. The language of the
Constitution could not be understood without reference to
the Common Law.” U.S. v. Wong Kim. Ark. 169 U.S. 649.18 S.
Ct. 456.

Instead of debating this key reality, you personally attack me.

As for:
“I’ve seen dozens of quotes from the Wong Kim Ark decision taken out of context on Free Republic, so your statement means squat.” Then everyone YOU quote MEANS SQUAT TOO because none of them were specifically ruling on this current issue either.You try to have it both ways, engaging in sophistry while accusing others of it.
Quotes from someone private papers has no force in law, but only serve to illuminate what the law says. Well, guess what - SO DOES THAT ABOVE KEY QUOTE. It illuminates that the Blackstone common law definition serves to undergird what ‘natural born’ means, and ‘natural born’ means ‘citizen from birth’. Wong Kim Ark is key - born in US = citizen at birth. That’s what SCOTUS rules. When you look at the common-law understanding the conclusion is clear: People born in the USA are ‘natural born US citizens’.

NOBODY is arguing against “the NBC eligibility issue” so all your verbiage about the importance of NBC is not the issue. The issue is that Obama, according to the commonly-understood meaning of a ‘natural-born citizen’, is indeed a ‘natural-born citizen’, due to his birth in Hawaii and birth to a US citizen mother.

“Wong Kim Ark was declared to be a citizen [by birth on U.S. territory] but the decision specifically stated that he was not a natural born citizen.”
This is false. It stated no such thing. Again, you show that you have not read these rulings and/or misunderstand what is stated in them.

In the end, you dont have to convince me. I’m not the problem. The problem is that few if any federal court Judges would agree with these half-baked claims based on cherry-picked quotes and misunderstandings of the law as interpreted by Supreme Court. This is why these Birther lawsuits are going nowhere.

“insane Democrat power grabs”

“What do you call McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform”?”
A RINO-Democrat coalition passed that. Opposed by most Republicans in Congress.
Democrat power grab.

“Or McCain-Lieberman-Warner cap and tax?”
Democrat written bill in the House ... Almost 218 Democrats in the House voted FOR cap and tax in June, and only 7 Republican voted for. 95% of Republicans in Congress voted NO. Democrat power grab.

“Or McCain-Kennedy amnesty?”
This was STOPPED in 2007 by conservative Republicans in the Senate and enough scared Democrats. Democrat power grab.

“Or the Bush-Paulson bailouts?”
Passed by the Pelosi/Reid Congress, using legislative language written by Rep barney frank. Democrat power grab.

“Or No Child Left Behind?”
Bush went ‘bipartisan’ and let Kennedy write this bill.
Kennedy eliminated school choice from it and turned it into a Democrat power grab.

Some drink more heavilty than others.

“Grail of Big Government, and now that they have tasted power, and grown addicted to it, neither group wants to give it up.” The real problem is when the PEOPLE are addicted to Big Govt. Then those in power stay in power.

RE “TWO YEARS WHEN DEMOCRATS RAN THE CONGRESS. You must have slept through the 2006 elections - we have had Speaker Pelosi since January 2007.”

You mean the speaker that worked with GWB on so many bills like amnesty? and bailouts? and the stimulus? and green energy? Who did you think would get the blame for these GWB-Pelosi bills gone wrong? did you think SHE WOULD???

Not the mention the fact that GWB inherited a small majority in congress with R governorships and lost it all. Yes, I blame him for 2006 too. He had a historic chance to showcase conservatism,

“You mean the speaker [PELOSI] that worked ... on so many bills like amnesty? and bailouts? and the stimulus? and green energy? “

Yes, that liberal Democrat Speaker. Pelosi. There since 2007.

Go ahead, blame GWB for losing in 2006. he was first to admit it at the time. “We got thumped.”

And the fact that Republicans get blamed for what Democrats do or did ... tell me something we dont know already.

My point was more about who was ACTUALLY in charge of the Congress. The argument that Republicans in Congress dont deserve a comeback in 2010 because the Pelosi Congress did some bad stuff in 2007 through 2009 is ... a curiously self-defeating argument.

The way I see it, the GOP has already paid for their mistakes. And the country is suffereing for it now, with the terrible policies of Pelosi/Reid/Obama.

You are right to say that the GOP doesnt deserve to win solely because the Democrat deserve to lose (WHICH THEY DO), but based on their own agenda. I suggest you judge the GOP on their agenda for tomorrow not the Bush mistakes of yesteryear. Bush is retired.

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.