Posted on 08/03/2010 3:23:40 PM PDT by bushpilot1
We do live in a Republic, and not a Judicial Oligarchy, and for that reason , jamese777, you are quite wrong.
What you are calling “a judicial oligarchy” is what the Founding Fathers called Article Three of the Constitution of the United States.
At the federal level, judges are appointed to their positions by the Executive branch and they must be confirmed by Congress. An individual federal judge’s decision can be overturned by a panel of judges at the Circuit Court of Appeals; a panel of judges can be reversed by a full panel of Circuit Court of Appeals judges and a full Circuit Court of Appeals can be overturned by the vote of five justices at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can and does sometimes reverse itself in a different appeal.
If that’s your idea of an “oligarchy, so be it, I guess you’re right, for you.
Re Natural Born Citizen, as a term of law.
Citizen De Vattel defined it, Citizens at the Constitutional Convention adopted it. At not time did a Judge define it. It is NOT for a judge to define the terms of law. That is due to the citizens under common law, and to those who write the law, the legislators. The legislators draw their definitions from what is established in the commons of the time.
This process is not in reality found to be perfect. For example terms change meaning over time. Reference must then be made to what the term meant when the law was drafted and adopted.
For another example there is a legislative folly sometimes found where common terms are redefined in a section of law. While it may be fine to define a child in one section of law anyone under 12, and in another under 18, or even perhaps as high an age as 21, all of these for particular understandable reasons, scopes known and used in the commons. But to define a child as any under 30 is to go beyond that age is a perversion of terminology of the sort that fosters disrespect for law.
Yesterday a Federal Judge of the JUDICIAL OLIGARCHY sort redefined a term of law and human society that has been well established for THOUSANDS of years. That term is marriage. He boldly redefined it by tyrannical dictat.
He is wrong, of course, and we all the worse for such horribly destructive rulings, and horribly destructive judicial arrogance ... but what does jamese777 think of his ruling?
Is it his authority do make such a ruling?
I believe that would be the federal courts,since they have jurisdiction over all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. Now each branch can make their own interpretation when passed laws or governing, but in the end it the Court that decide if others do not agree with their interpretation.
But one Federal District Court case does not precedence make.
Didn't say it did, I said the Supreme Court has ruled.... But while you are at it, the term Natural Born Citizen isn't in the code either.
“In respect to the citizenship of children of American parentage, wherever born, the principle of ius sanguinis seems to be the American principle; that is to say, the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance, is recognized, which is modern, as distinguished from the ancient, and at one time, common-law principle of jus soli.”
Alexander Morse
“in respect to eligibility for the office of president, let us inquire what was the obvious purpose and intent of the limitation? Plainly, it was inserted in order to exclude “aliens” by birth and blood from that high office”
Alexander Morse
By blood Obama is an alien.
“in respect to eligibility for the office of president, let us inquire what was the obvious purpose and intent of the limitation? Plainly, it was inserted in order to exclude “aliens” by birth and blood from that high office”
Alexander Morse
By blood Obama is an alien.
The primary author of the Constitution, James Madison disagreed with the quotation above. Madison said: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
“The Founders’ Constitution:” http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
This doesn't make everyone born in the United States a natural born citizen. You forget that they quoted the Minor V. Happersett definition of natural born citizen that said its definition is NOT found in the Constitution. "Citizenship by birth" is defined by the 14th amendment (or in the Constitution as it says above), but natural born citizen is not (which is reinforced by quoting the Minor case). You really don't understand what you're quoting.
Technically this might be true, because the citizenship of the child is purely determined by the citizenship of the father alone. Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen.
Half-United States citizen isn't enough to be a natural born citizen. Besides, wives are naturally presumed to follow the citizenship of the husband.
Hey jamese, why don't you finish that quote of Madison's which actually disproves your allegation. The final sentence of Madison there is:
"Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Mr Smith was a natural born citizen of South Carolina by virtue of place and parentage. The place of his birth was where his ancestors were the first settlers.
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.