Posted on 04/24/2010 9:18:10 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
Here are Alinsky’s Rules for those who haven’t seen them lately:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.
3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
4. Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
Hmmmmm.....
First, I'm not beating anyone up, nor am I questioning anyone's intellect. If the subject matter was engineering, or probably any number of other subject, I would defer to you and/or other's professional experience and training. But, those aren't' the subject(s) - the law is the subject, and specifically the practical application of law. If you want a relevant practical legal opinion, you should seek out the advice of a practicing attorney.
"So your a lawyer, and an economist? Is that right? You see what is happening. I presume your are of a certain age because of your moniker, so... tell us...what do you think we can do?"
I'm not an economist. I have an education with an emphasis on economics, but I've never put that education to any kind of professional use. I was an active-duty JAG officer for almost 25 years. One of the reasons I retired was that I did not wish to work for one, Barack Obama.
"With all your eloquence, and knowledge, in the end, you seem distant. As a jurist, you seem unconcerned. "
I've never heard anyone characterize me as "distant", or "eloquent", for that matter. But, I believe - like many others - that law should be applied absent emotion. If that makes me sound "distant", so be it.
"When did the job stop being “of the people, for the people”, for surely it is no longer by the people."
A representative republic is not "mob" rule. We expect our legislative representatives to establish laws and regulations. We expect our judiciary to review those laws and the Executive's application of those laws for constitutional infirmities. And most importantly, we expect the individual branches of government to respect their own limitations, and the authority of their co-equal counterparts.
If the laws regarding the inspection of a presidential candidate's credentials for office eligibility are deficient, then we should expect the legislative branch to remedy those deficiencies. If they refuse, or refuse to apply existing law, then we should replace them. It's as simple as that.
The Court has established that some problems or defects cannot be remedied by the Court. That is a sound principle. This (Obama's current term) happens to be one of those "things".
I have said from the beginning that individual states have the right to establish safeguards so that people who claim to be eligible for office, are indeed eligible. Currently, most if not all states, have provisions that demand such candidates affirm under penalty of perjury, that they are indeed eligible. I can find nothing unconstitutional, or in violation of federal law in a state investigating and authenticating the candidate's claims. This is the route that should be taken, and supported by concerned citizens. It is too late to do anything about Obama's current term, but it is not too late to do anything about the term her aspires to.
Not according to the law.
'And yet none of them, even Nancy Pelosi, have ever declared that he is a "natural born citizen" and thus qualified to be President"
Can you point out for me in the US Code, or the US Constitution where it's the responsibility of the US Speaker of the House to declare anyone "eligible" for the office of President or Vice President?
"That's your presumption but it still doesn't make him a natural born citizen or qualified for the office that he sits in, does it??? "
No, that is the opinion of every judge in every case that has heard the birther, claims. If it's my opinion, it seems that it has been supported by a large number of Judges, including those currently sitting on the US Supreme Court. How about that?
"You mean "failed" or "refused" to do so."
Argumentative.
according to the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Can you point out for me in the US Code, or the US Constitution where it's the responsibility of the US Speaker of the House to declare anyone "eligible" for the office of President or Vice President?
I think you need to direct that question to a whole lot of state Secretaries of States who accepted Pelosi's affidavits at face value.
No, that is the opinion of every judge in every case that has heard the birther, claims. If it's my opinion, it seems that it has been supported by a large number of Judges, including those currently sitting on the US Supreme Court.
Did any of those justices hear the case on the merits or declare Obama to be a natural born citizen and thus qualified under Article II???
By your own words, the best you have is a Presumed President, presuming of course your definition of "natural born citizen" that differs from the traditional historical one handed down to us through the writings of the Founders, and scholars, and lawyers, and Justices of the Supreme Court in words easily understood by engineers, businessmen, farmers, doctors, janitors, cleaning ladies, and yes, even by lawyers and professors who are all collecting their public pensions.
I have said from the beginning that individual states have the right to establish safeguards so that people who claim to be eligible for office, are indeed eligible. Currently, most if not all states, have provisions that demand such candidates affirm under penalty of perjury, that they are indeed eligible. I can find nothing unconstitutional, or in violation of federal law in a state investigating and authenticating the candidate’s claims. This is the route that should be taken, and supported by concerned citizens. It is too late to do anything about Obama’s current term, but it is not too late to do anything about the term her aspires to.
Ah yes, the great internet meme about Pelosi's affidavit to the states about Obama's eligibility. Don't believe it.
It is perhaps possible that some states accept a pro forma affidavit from the major parties attesting that their candidate is eligible for the office they aspire to. But, the two states that I'm most familiar with - Ohio and Florida - require the appropriate party representative (or candidate themselves) to complete and sign under penalty of perjury the state's propriety form. Neither state accepts a pro forma affidavit as a "Deceleration of Candidacy"
With respect to Ohio specifically, you can find photocopies on-line "Deceleration of Candidacy" that is signed by former presidential candidates, and have been posted by historians who have researched particular individuals - John Glenn's form - signed by Glenn himself - is available.
That Canada Free Press story was bunk.
So, for Florida and Ohio, it sounds like you verified that Obama signed a Declarationof Candidacy affidavit, which, if fraudulent, is perjury. What is the states redress, and how can they confirm that he has indeed purjured himself, if they cannot see his proof of citizenship, or in this case, birth certificate to prove that he is indeed “Natural Born”, since were on the subject, in the eyes of the states, what constitutes “natural born status”???
They resort to changing the words of the question, or trying to deny the legal historical traditional meaning of the phrase, and yet have none other to replace it.
Or they just try to discredit anyone who reminds them of the absolute meaning of the phrase from historical writings, even when those writings come down to us from jurists, scholars, lawyers, and historians that the pompous claim to be solely qualified to speak on the issue.
Here are Alinsky’s Rules for those who haven’t seen them lately:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.
3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
4. Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
If any of the state's Attorneys General (who were in receipt of a Obama singed "Deceleration of Candidacy") had reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred, they each could subpoena whatever information they needed. Such is the power of a grand jury. You need to find an AG who is friendly to your argument.
Are you satisfied that Obama is qualified? The reason I repeat the question, is that you rarely give straight answers.
You tend to allude, or let others draw conclusions that can be later found to be their own interpretation of what they thought you said.
So, yes or no, is Obama qualified to be POTUS, based on your education and experience.
I think I answered that question on this very thread. But, to reiterate, if Obama was born where he says he was born, then he's a natural-born citizen, according to my understanding of the law as it exists today.
You gave an if/then response, not a yes or no answer.
A bit more info from another post:
What many people do not understand is that a person to be considered a Natural Born Citizen, must first be a native born citizen.
There are only three types of citizenship and all have equal rights: native born citizenship; naturalized citizenship; and, citizenship-by-statute. Note: Natural Born Citizenship IS NOT a type of citizenship. It is only a circumstance of birth required for eligibility to be President of the United States.
Native born citizenship (jus solis) was created by the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Wong Kim Ark was the son of two resident Chinese aliens, (who were unable to attain citizenship due to a treaty with the Emperor of China), and who claimed U.S. Citizenship because of his birth on U.S. soil. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. (jus solis) under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.) but it DID NOT extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
Naturalized citizenship is granted to those born in a foreign land who become U.S.citizens, such as Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger, for example.
Citizenship-by-statute is granted to those born overseas to U.S. citizens (jus sanquinas). There is a whole array of legal statutes covering this, but this type of citizenship has the same rights as the other two types.
Since there is NO RIGHT to be President, the eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegience for any President of the United States.
It is the only answer that I can give. I'm not clairvoyant, possessing supernatural power of omniscience.
Both her parents were citizens at the time of her birth. She was born in the US. There is no comparison between her and Bozo. Your whole premise falls apart if Bozo was born in Kenya. The law is clear that he would not be a US citizen at the time of his birth by the fact he had only one US citizen parent.
If Bozo was born in HI then yes, he is a Natural Born citizen. If he wasn't then he isn't. Simple as that. There is a reason he doesn't show his BC or any of his records. That reason is yet to be determined but the fact he spends so much money in keeping this case out of court speaks to the strong possibility he wasn't born in HI.
I'd be 'happy' if you'd move to North Korea or Cuba.
“If Bozo was born in HI then yes, he is a Natural Born citizen. If he wasn’t then he isn’t.”
Agreed.
nonsense, this is what I asked;
Are you satisfied that Obama is qualified, is based on now known facts. You seem to be good at disqualifying others facts. But, I am asking for your opinion, based on your professional experience, and knowledge.
YES or NO, are the only acceptable answers. You ask it often enough in court, surely you can answer it here.
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.