Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
One of the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency is that he be a "natural born citizen." This was put into place by the founders to keep foreigners or persons who do not bear a non-questionable allegiance to the US Constitution out. Obviously, and admittedly Barack Hussein Obama was born to a foreign citizen and is not 100% American. He's half-American, half-African and all Marxist. He obviously bears no allegiance whatsoever to the US Constitution and is working overtime to destroy it. He's a usurper and should be removed from office. He is exactly the kind of fraud/usurper the founders feared.
I note you’ve purported to agree with the interpretation of NBC put forth by those of us you stoop to characterize with the derivative “birthers,” but you’re opposed to every application of semantic originalism that would possibly support such an agreement.
Name the case that has been “lost” by “birthers,” by the way. I’m under the impression that they’ve been dismissed due to lack of standing, or in this instance, failing to state a claim.
Name the case that has been “won” by those in opposition to “birthers.” You can’t. The matter remains unsettled, despite your Johnny-Come-Lately efforts, ill informed though they may be.
Ober dicta
“In the third meaning, an obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court’s opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court’s decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words “introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument.”[1] Unlike the rationes decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive.
An example of an instance where a court opinion may include obiter dicta is where a court rules that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a case or dismisses the case on a technicality. If the court in such a case offers opinions on the merits of the case, such opinions may constitute obiter dicta. Less clear-cut instances of obiter dicta occur where a judge makes a side comment in an opinion to provide context for other parts of the opinion, or makes a thorough exploration of a relevant area of law. Another example would be where the judge, in explaining his ruling, provides a hypothetical set of facts and explains how he or she believes the law would apply to those facts.
In reaching decisions, courts sometimes quote passages of obiter dicta found in the texts of the opinions from prior cases, with or without acknowledging the quoted passage’s status as obiter dicta. A quoted passage of obiter dicta may become part of the holding or ruling in a subsequent case, depending on what the latter court actually decided and how that court treated the principle embodied in the quoted passage.
Obiter dicta can be influential. One example in United States Supreme Court history is the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. A passing remark from Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, recorded by the court reporter before oral argument, now forms the basis for the doctrine that juristic persons are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether or not Chief Justice Waite’s remark constitutes binding precedent is arguable, but subsequent rulings treat it as such.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum
I dunno...maybe it is standard procedure for most of a written decision to be “ober dicta” and thus ignored by follow on courts...except the “ober dicta” in WKA has been quite influential for over 100 years.
“Name the case that has been “lost” by “birthers,” by the way. I’m under the impression that they’ve been dismissed due to lack of standing, or in this instance, failing to state a claim.”
Hmmm... when you leave court without anything gained, it sure seems like losing. When a court refuses to listen to your case, that isn’t exactly winning. And Obama was seated as President, and is performing as President right now.
I’m not a lawyer. I’m ex-military. A campaign that ends with lives lost but no ground gained is a loss, not a victory. And when someone like Judge Lambert mocks you in court, and your opponents get to do anything they wish...well, you can call that a victory.
But as a matter of practical living, it is a loss!
Eligibility to the Executive Branch is the only distinction made under the Constitution, as far as natural born. Conflating native birth to foreign parents with Constitutional natural born citizenship negates the clear concerns of several Founders. Semantic originalism matters. Original intent matters.
You're caught up in statute law, as if the status can be legislated, and not just our statute law but that of England. It's really not that elaborate and goldplated of a concept, that such flapdoodle and puffery is required to understand it.
Do you REALLY think the US Supreme Court, knowing about Obama’s father, refused to take a case because...it was trivial? Uninteresting?
Why do you think no member of Congress - not ONE! - has objected that Obama is ineligible?
Why do you think Rush and Malkin & Coulter refuse to make the claim - too politically correct? Cowards? Traitors?
Why do you think no state AG, no state legislature, McCain and Palin all refuse to object?
It's been a long uphill battle and the birthers have taken a lot of abuse and ridicule right here on good ol FR.
Very nice to see this is now the official position.
Very nice indeed.
God bless you Sir.
I think SCOTUS declined because of the explosive nature of the matter, combined with a suspicion that it is a political question.
I think Congress is largely a bunch of self-serving, go along to get along collegial types, and even those who aren’t are largely ignorant of Constitutional law.
I think Rush declines to make the overt claim, but continues to hint around about it, because he is a businessman and does not see sufficient upside to going all in. Coulter, gotta love her snarky wit and ability to completely gut opposition in debate, but she’s a northeastern clubber Republican at heart and thinks the whole thing is too lowbrow. Malkin I cannot say, she’s winged off on a few genuinely tenuous issues in the past, I suspect she’s afraid of being labeled a heretic ... I mean communist ... errr, I mean racist. All of the above are afraid of that career ending slander.
I don’t think anyone at the state level was fully aware of the controversy, and to the extent that they were, they mistakenly believed the Senate Resolution, SR 511, to have covered them. A majority of Secretaries of State are Democrat. State legislatures have a mix of liberal and conservative, and not even all conservatives were on board and still aren’t.
And, again, there’s the fear of being labeled racist, and the dark hints and rumors of rioting that were prevalent at the time. People in positions of responsibility were cowed.
That’s why.
Now, let’s turn to you. You purport to agree with the so-called “birther” definition of NBC, and yet you attack it at every turn. Explain yourself.
In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
The government agency responsible for investigating citizenship claims and issuing passports to U.S. citizens recognizes that there is no definitive ruling or law on the meaning of "natural born citizen" as it applies to the Constitution.
The only citizens whose status as Constitutional natural born citizens is absolutely unquestionable are those born here to two citizen parents. Every other citizen's status is subject to interpretation.
“The Indiana decision is obviously binding only on Indiana. However, the LOGIC they use is mainstream, and likely to be repeated anywhere.”
Natural born subject (NBS) is what it is and the WKA court explicitly declined to say what it “teaches us” about what NBC meant to the founders. There is some commonality between NBS and citizen, but there is no parallel between NBC and the common law NBS.
For there to be commonality with the founder's NBC, the common law NBS would have to address what extraordinary qualifications of a subject would be needed to prevent the subject from coming under foreign influence as king.
This is obviously irrelevant to the hereditary selection of British kings, but to the founders this concept of excluding foreign upbringing influence would have clearly made sense of and they actually did cite the issue as a future concern given the horrible consequences that foreign influence of certain kings caused British subjects.
If some FReepers are questioning your sincerity and wondering whether you are part of a DOJ/DIA psyops group it might be because of your refusal to acknowledge repeated postings to you of clear writings from numerous founding fathers regarding exactly why NBS did not equal NBC and why exclusion of foreign influence for the CIC, specifically a foreign father was exactly what they wanted to exclude from NBC.
Flawed rulings are not mainstream. The IN appeals court ruling repeats obviously false claims regarding WKA and makes the false claim that Chester Arthur's deliberate hiding of his likely ineligibility set a precedent even though it was unknown at the time! No competent court will uphold WKA, IMHO. Anyone who continues to defend the IN ruling when he/she has been exposed to its obvious deficiencies and tries to claim it has some kind of value as precedent or influence outside IN also becomes suspect IMO. I sincerely hope that any such suspicions are unwarranted.
That paraphrases the words of Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite in Minor v. Happersett, as well as numerous, prior Supreme Court Justices and several Founders themselves. It can't possibly be more clear, but here we sit going round and round with people who think statute law governs the birth status of the natural born.
Lawyers argue statute law, legal precedent and such, but the the inferior statutory law doesn't make a natural born citizen, the superior Constitutional law does; Natural Law is the basis of that Constitution, and God is the basis of Natural Law.
Can't go admitting that, now, can we, lol? It's against the fictional atheism of the separation of church and state. The Founders precluded a State church, such as the Church of England, that is what they did with the so-called "establisment clause." They did not countenance State-enforced atheism. Public, individual professions of a religious nature were common and widespread at the highest levels of government. The Mosaic Law was proudly and prominently displayed in a majority of courthouses, and still is.
This, combined with the likely preclusion of unfettered immigration by a correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment, provides us with the reasons for such a frenzied, irrational, spaghetti-against-the-wall propaganda front by those who would undo the Republic. They want the Republic absorbed into some thing more amenable to their ends.
The Constitution properly understood stands in their way. And, it's not all that inaccessible nor is it all that difficult to understand. Those who make it complex, difficult to understand and intricately detailed are those who seek to circumvent the plain meaning. The devil is in those details.
“If some FReepers are questioning your sincerity and wondering whether you are part of a DOJ/DIA psyops group it might be because of your refusal to acknowledge repeated postings to you of clear writings from numerous founding fathers regarding exactly why NBS did not equal NBC and why exclusion of foreign influence for the CIC, specifically a foreign father was exactly what they wanted to exclude from NBC.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yep, I’ve been posting here for 11 years as part of a deep cover DOJ psyops group! That sort of tin foil paranoia does NOTHING to advance your case!
“because of your refusal to acknowledge repeated postings to you of clear writings from numerous founding fathers regarding exactly why NBS did not equal NBC...”
Actually, I find the WKA decision convincing in that NBS illuminates what NBC meant to the Founders. I find the idea that the founders took one sentence in Vittel as scriptural ridiculous, and cannot help but notice Vittel wasn’t writing a legal dictionary.
I disagree with WKA’s reasoning because I think modern times sees a greater variety of people passing through a country. You didn’t get a lot of pregnant women making the sea voyage to the USA for a 3 day visit, but we have a lot of folks coming to America, often illegally, to have an anchor baby.
I think someone with foreign parents should be thought of as analogous to the Indian tribes - not fully under the jurisdiction of the USA. I think it would be more reasonable to ask, “Do they fall under tax law? Do they fall under draft laws?” If the answer is no, then in modern usage (not 1600s English use), they are NOT under any real obligation to the USA.
I posted a thread on Perkins v Elg. Again, I find the court’s argument unconvincing - that a girl born in America of immigrant parents who then leave the US and return to Sweden and raise her as a Swede IAW national treaties is still a US citizen by birth.
But legally, my opinion is just that, and isn’t worth squat. If someone wants to challenge Obama in court, then they need to face the fact that a Supreme Court that wouldn’t hear the case BEFORE Obama took office is not going to hear it now that he has been in office and appointed a SC judge.
And they need to face how WKA was decided and how it has influenced the courts for 100 years.
AS I’ve said, there is a reason folks like Coulter, Malkin and every GOP Congressman & Palin have refused to say Obama is ineligible for office based on the known fact of his father’s citizenship - and it is NOT because they are all my fellow DOJ/DIA psyop-ers!
The ASSUMPTION birthers make that it is settled law that 2 citizen parents are required is a false assumption. And the belief that Obama is a loyal subject of the UK is not only false, but stupid.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
The IN plaintiffs did not find recently discovered eighteenth century contemporaneous quotes by the founding fathers themselves (and numerous quotes by the founders in the early nineteenth century as well) explicitly citing Vattel’s NBC over Blackstone's NBS.
Any future litigation before SCOTUS would be much more extensively researched that the case brought into the IN courts.
These new quotes from the founders have been posted to you, and the fact that this newly discovered evidence was unavailable to the IN court is known to you, yet you continue to ignore the quotes and still cite the deficient case brought by the IN plaintiffs and the erroneous logic of the IN courts (an unknown fact of Arthur's ineligibility established precedent).
“people who think statute law governs the birth status of the natural born.”
Speaking for myself, I think the common law of England in the 1700s IS relevant to what the Framers intended. Original intent needs to be found somewhere, and I don’t think one sentence in Vittel suffices.
“You purport to agree with the so-called “birther” definition of NBC, and yet you attack it at every turn. Explain yourself.”
I have, on multiple threads including this one. See post 313 on this thread.
It's obvious you were planted just like the 1961 birth announcements. /s
Absolutely. That's exactly why my position is that we need a SCOTUS ruling.
“the fact that this newly discovered evidence was unavailable to the IN court is known to you”
Put up or shut up. WHAT new found quotes are relevant, and why?
Vattel had one sentence, and it didn’t translate as ‘natural born citizen’ until AFTER the Constitution was written. From the French, it still does not.
“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens” is translated “The natives or indigenous people are those who are born in the country of Parent citizens.” The 1760 & 1787 translations into English had “The natives, or indegenes, are those...”
I agree with what Vattel says, but it isn’t a legal description of NBC.
I still think the SCOTUS should have taken the case in Dec 2008 and issued a written ruling. I think they didn’t because the majority felt it was already established law.
I’m not big on calling folks cowards or traitors, not unless there is no other motive that could fit the facts. But I suspect they could have written a ruling in a day...
He still wouldn’t be “natural-born.” It would be the same as “naturalized.”
Since you're still entranced by Blackstone and feudalism, I want you to consider the hereditary nature of the British monarchy. I also want you to consider again that first, great Constitutional question taken up by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall, in Chisholm v. Georgia.
Justice Marshall famously determined that sovereignty of necessity devolves upon The People in the absence of a monarch. Yet, you have a clear parallel in the Presidency, so there was still an ultimate leader, an Executive, in the republic as constituted.
Return to heredity. How can the sovereign, which is The People, remain sovereign under a powerful Executive? The Executive himself must acquire sovereignty via heredity.
How, again, is sovereignty determined in a constitutional republic? By being indisputably born to The People. So, by law and heredity, one sovereign citizen may lead a sovereign people.
By the law of the land, jus soli. By blood, jus sanguinis. There you have the rationale for the natural born citizen requirement in order to be eligible to lead The People and the military as Commander-in-Chief, under the law and by heredity, with popular sovereignty as first defined by the first great Constitutional question heard, and with accomodation of problems created by the "missing" English monarch via precedent for determination of that monarch applied to the new sovereign.
I guess you haven't heard...Saudi billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has purchased a controlling interest in SCOTUS and has forbidden them from ruling on any Obama eligibility cases....Justice Thomas confessed to evading the issue. Try to keep up.
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.