Replies

jamese777,

Here's my rebuttal to your Post 12, broken down by Subpoint:

1) Stop being a douchebag.

2) The Hughes SCOTUS Court was NOT talking about the Constitutional definition of “natural-born Citizen” as it pertains to the President and CinC. NO OTHER OFFICE IN THE LAND as specified in the Constitution or elsewhere has the UNIQUE “natural-born Citizen” requirement in Art II, § 1, Clause 5. Deconstruction of the Constitutional definition of “natural-born Citizen” was NOT the charge of the Hughes Court in Perkins v. Elg (1939), and you know it.

3) The Hughes Court gave us all kinds of crappy rulings, INCLUDING the poorly-written US v. Heller (1939) opinion ... which gave us nearly 70 years of bad Local, State and Federal laws relating to "to keep and bear arms", until it was overturned by the DC v. Heller opinion (2008).

4) As Minor v. Happersett (1874) CLEARLY instructs: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
This Court STANDARD of deducing ANY Constitutional-meaning and definition refers to the texts used by the Framers at the time in 1787. In this case, it would refer to Vattel's Law of Nations, Blackstone's Commentaries and perhaps Locke ... NEITHER a 1869 Naturalization Treaty with Sweden, NOR a smattering of various 20th Century Immigration Laws.

If you're lost on any of these four major arguments, just refer back to Subpoint 1 as it addresses the impetus of your confusion and motivation on this issue.

Here’s my rebuttal to your Post 12, broken down by Subpoint:

1) Stop being a douchebag.

2) The Hughes SCOTUS Court was NOT talking about the Constitutional definition of “natural-born Citizen” as it pertains to the President and CinC. NO OTHER OFFICE IN THE LAND as specified in the Constitution or elsewhere has the UNIQUE “natural-born Citizen” requirement in Art II, § 1, Clause 5. Deconstruction of the Constitutional definition of “natural-born Citizen” was NOT the charge of the Hughes Court in Perkins v. Elg (1939), and you know it.

3) The Hughes Court gave us all kinds of crappy rulings, INCLUDING the poorly-written US v. Heller (1939) opinion ... which gave us nearly 70 years of bad Local, State and Federal laws relating to “to keep and bear arms”, until it was overturned by the DC v. Heller opinion (2008).

4) As Minor v. Happersett (1874) CLEARLY instructs: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”
This Court STANDARD of deducing ANY Constitutional-meaning and definition refers to the texts used by the Framers at the time in 1787. In this case, it would refer to Vattel’s Law of Nations, Blackstone’s Commentaries and perhaps Locke ... NEITHER a 1869 Naturalization Treaty with Sweden, NOR a smattering of various 20th Century Immigration Laws.

If you’re lost on any of these four major arguments, just refer back to Subpoint 1 as it addresses the impetus of your confusion and motivation on this issue.

BP2, here’s my rebuttal to your post number 34, broken down by subpoint.
1) Yes sir or madam, I promise.
Points 2, 3 and 4) Barack Hussein Obama II is the duly elected 44th President of the United States and has been since January of 2009. His Electoral College votes were certified by Vice President of the United States Richard Cheney at a joint session of Congress with no objections and he was sworn in on Inauguration Day by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The person whose electoral college votes are certified and who is sworn in is the president and that person can only be removed from the presidency by death, resignation or conviction under a bill of impeachment.

If you’re lost on any of these facts, I can’t help you.

Chief US District Judge for the District of Columbia Royce Lamberth in rejecting Orly Taitz’s quo warranto suit in “Taitz v Obama:” “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”
—April 14, 2010