Posted on 03/17/2010 7:18:45 PM PDT by thecodont
03-17) 16:59 PDT Santa Ana, Calif. (AP) --
A California attorney who leads a movement challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship plans to run for secretary of state in November.
Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley said Wednesday that Orly Taitz, a leader of the so-called birther movement, has qualified as a candidate.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/17/state/n165903D92.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0iUTY3TFi
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Hasn't voted in a dozen years yet all of a sudden he registers, switches parties, and hauls himself off the couch to cast a vote. Yep, sure, that instills confidence in elected officials.
I'm sure Orly Taitz knows herself that she's constitutionally ineligible to be president because of her foreign birth. She knows something that Obama apparently does not.
So let's see...he registers as a (R) on March 17, 2009...then in November 2009, announces his candidacy to run as an (R) for SoS. That's what, 9 months...right?
According to Taitz, §8001(a)(2) says he could not be affiliated with any other party for 12 months prior to his official declaration of candidacy.
So, are you saying that the 9 month period in which he was a registered (R), and then announced his candidacy qualifies him per the rules? That checks out?
Unless of course, the allegation is that he wasn’t registered to any party for the 12 month proceeding period. Is that the allegation?
Yes. He only had to a Republican within the last three months; he’s been one for nine months.
He has not been registered to any other party since 2005, which is outside the 12-month window.
He’s good.
I saw his campaign video. He’s an impressive dude.
I would enjoy a debate between the two.
“Let me finish! Let me finish!”
“At least she had enough sense to realize she is not qualified to be the Attorney General...”
Oh, didn’t you know? The GOP candidate for attorney general is an undercover birther.
http://drbotherum.blogspot.com/
parsy, who can’t believe California. . .
Got it.
As I said earlier I don’t know the facts nor the laws of CA. But from what I’ve read Dunn was not registered with any party after his regristration was dropped in FL in mid 05. He was unregistered. He apparently registered in CA as a GOP member in early 09 and then voted in the election held in May 09. So if that is the facts I don’t see any conflict with CA law as is being asserted by Orly. I think the SOS of CA has accepted his filing.
Do you think "birthright" citizenship should be looked at? Or, is that topic off limits because it just fine the way it is and if anyone does dare take a stance against it, be they labeled with the oh so dreaded "birther" label?
However..."I think the SOS of CA has accepted his filing."
Does that hold any credibility with you? It means nothing to me. After-all, the CA SoS allowed someone on the ballot for POTUS who had admitted to having been born the subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England.
Wrong is one thing. What she went on to say about Dunn is among the most offensive and disgusting things I've read lately:
In January, she had this to say about Dunn, a real estate entrepreneur and former Stanford football star:
"The only reason he was endorsed so far, is because he is an African American and Republicans want to have an African American to show diversity. He admits to having no knowledge or experience with law, elections or election law"
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/repub-secretary-of-state-candi/
Damon Dunn is a graduate of Stanford University (poli-sci, iirc), a former athlete, and has a successful real estate business man. If that's not successful, I don't know what is.
That Orly Taitz would choose to slam him by saying that he's "only" there because he's African American is beyond vile. He's educated and successful in his own right, but he's there because he's black? Can that possibly be more offensive?
That she would say he isn't qualified because he isn't experienced with the law (i.e., a lawyer) is ludicrous.
George Washington and Ronald Reagan weren't lawyers, along with 17 other presidents, and they all seemed to do okay.
I cannot talk about birthers or their movement. As far as anchor babies, those I can talk about. Note in the Eastman article where he talks about “Fuller”-—Fuller wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark. One can not rationally read Wong without coming to the conclusion that the settle law is:
1. jus soli applies 2. those born here, and not subject to the exceptions, are natural born citizens as opposed to “naturalized” citizens. Period. Real simple.
The fact that Eastman likes to cite the dissent in Wong, is obvious. If he relies on the majority opinion, then the law is certain and it will take 1. a constitutional amendment to overturn it. 2. A decision by SCOTUS to overturn it.
Eastman does like either option.
1.A “conservative” court is going to affirm Wong, because it will rely on the intent of the framers which is clear, despite the efforts of certain unnamed persons to obfuscate the issue.
2.A “liberal” court isn’t going to deprive anchor babies of their citizenship. So, here, even if you have a “liberal, activist” court, they are going to affirm Wong based on the intent of the framers.
3. A constitutional amendment will be difficult to get, and take years. Any amendment which attempts to over turn the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and a SCOTUS decision, while attacking the core of the Democratic party is going to have an uphill battle.
What Eastman needs is an “activist conservative” Court, and IMHO, they do not make such things.
Plus, to overturn the law, and pass an Amendment, you first have to admit that Wong is the law and it says what it says. Which don’t seem to be happening at the moment. Do you agree “birthright” citizen means that if one is born here, then one is a citizen, and a natural born citizen?
As far as the immigration problem, there is a real easy answer. Build the durn fence and enforce the law. Its what should have been done long ago.
parsy, who says “Read Wong all the way thru a couple of times.”
parsy
There's your answer then. I would happen to agree there.
Oh, and b.t.w., you know full well that the Wong court found him (born in country to alien parents), to be a "citizen."
I hate to start cutting and pasting because others, who don’t have a clue to analyze a legal opinion, will start cutting and pasting stuff from the dissent in Wong, or from the Wong Court’s discussion of the gov’t’s case in Wong, and then this little thread will get big and dumb about things other than anchor babies and Wong, but:
I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
also declares that
no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that
the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
So, you see, while the Wong Court set out on the Wong issue, to get there it had to determine what these terms meant. And it did. So all the “I don’t like anchor babies” people have to find a way to wiggle around Wong.
parsy, who hopes this helps.
Yes. That is why you have an “anchor baby” problem. Two illegal Mexican parents can swim the Rio Grande at midnite. Momma can have a baby right there on the Texas side, 1 minute after getting here, and WHAM—that baby is an American citizen and a natural born citizen, and can grow up to be President some day. Period.
Build the durn fence. Enforce the laws.
parsy, who can’t believe the muddle some people make of this.
A “citizen” by way of the 14th, perhaps. But no way could an anchor baby be considered a Natural Born Citizen. See Bingham’s remarks on the issue as well as both Vattel and even Blackstone.
Ah seems to recall that the sherrif told you to keep out of these here parts of town, stranger.
{dramatically stubs out a cigarette}
I reckon that yer jus’ passin’ through?
{cue haunting woodwind music}
But anchor babies ARE natural born citizens. That is what all the fuss is about. From Wong:
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.
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.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
And he [Chancellor Kent]elsewhere says:
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
So there you have it read the Wong decision because the Wong Court goes over this chain of reasoning in even more detail. Anybody who knows anything about the law, knows this is what the Wong Court reasoned en route to its decision. People have a choice whether to believe some clowns on the internet or their own “lying” eyes. Sadly, so many choose to believe the clowns.
If you want to address the anchor baby issue, you have to first know what the law says.
Here’s a link to the Wong decision.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
parsy, who chooses to believe his own lying eyes.
I am still being good. This is about immigration and anchor babies, not the other stuff.
parsy, who is a law ‘biding natural bornt citizen who behaves hisself and already checked his guns in at yor office, Sheriff. . .
I understand you not wanting to go there. Heavy malware risk, as I recall
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.