Posted on 08/16/2010 9:34:44 AM PDT by LonelyCon
The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obama's citizenship.
The high court on Monday refused to block a federal judge's October 2009 ruling that required California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz to pay the $20,000 fine for filing a "frivolous" litigation. The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Taitz sued in Georgia federal court on behalf of Army Capt. Connie Rhodes. Rhodes sought to avoid deployment to Iraq by claiming Obama wasn't born in the United States.
Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitz's second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
As I replied to you in email, the idea that a poor translation of Vattel made years AFTER the Constitution was written is the SOURCE of the Constitution’s phrasing is...well, unusual.
Isn’t it?
Apparently the evidence the Cornbury was a transvestite is extremely weak.
It was a simple question.
Is the son of Bin Laden/Adolph/Stalin/Mao, eligible?
Thanks for playing.
<>In WKA, the Supreme Court advanced 2 reasons for concluding WKA was a citizen. The first was that he met the qualification for a natural born citizen, and thus must be a citizen.<>
Baloney. Show me the words from the court. They are non-existent. Instead Justice Gray cites Justice Waite and his definition of “natural born citizen” by writing:
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
And this is what Justice Gray was referring to as to what Justice Waite proceeded to say:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
There it is — right in front of you. Right out of Wong Kim Ark and Gray’s words themselves. Justice Gray acknowledges and recognizes the definition of “natural born citizen” passed down through the Court from natural law in these words:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens...”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Get your lies straight —
bookmarked
It's an odd attempt to characterize someone as those four individuals advocated mutually exclusive political philosophies.
I provided the link. Most birthers are birthers because they cannot read, so I don’t expect to convince them - or you.
But the Court didn’t discuss the meaning of NBC at length for no reason, and they concluded that NBC was completely analogous to natural born subject. And since WKA met the qualifications for NBS, he thus met the qualifications for NBC, and thus was a citizen.
Hate to break it to you, but if you are going to read legal decisions, you need to learn to read paragraphs, and maybe even pages. You cannot read a half sentence and then run out proclaiming you’ve digested the decision!
?????
What is your ruling?
Afraid to commit hyperbolicide?
You know well what is being spoken of. You are afraid to admit it in the light of reason.
El Pollo is a more suited name for you.
‘I mean the woman is a really good-looking in a kind of old-fashioned curvy sorta way!’
She is Hot?? This explains a lot of the support I’ve read around here! I’m surprised Laz isn’t one of her supporters!
Thanks. Guess I’ve been away from this for far too long and haven’t really been keeping up; I don’t recognize most of those names. Thanks for that. I’ve got some reading to do...
Maybe you were the 1000th caller on the same topic.
He never mentioned where the money went, who started the run, who investigated why it was started,or what they did other than shut it down.
To my knowledge no one went to jail no one was punished and not one name was revealed as to who organised and ran this thing.
Now someone tell me why there was no investigation?? Why wasn’t there any arrests.? Why is whoever started this run still loose to do it again.
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
[Yes or No]
And these are the words from Minor v. Happersett and Justice Waite that the Court and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark cited from, are they not:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
[Yes or No]
Is Justice Gray and the Wong Court in their own words accepting or rejecting Justice Waite and the Minor Court's definition of "natural born citizen"???
I don't know what army you served in, or what constitution you took an oath to, but we here in the States are under our Constitution and are American citizens -- not British subjects.
Try the facts and the truth for once.
You’re absolutely correct, and Alito did it that way so this lunatic wouldn’t be able to pester the other judges one by one and waste their time. There are more important things for them to do than waste their time on this nutcase who got her law degree in some cheesy online program.
What do the next two sentences say?
That what you wanted?
They may have danced with their dicta in their opinion but they never made the connection and you have no words therein to point to.
But the Court, on the other hand, did acknowledge as fact this definition of "natural born citizen" taken from Minor v. Happersett:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
How do you know Biden is Constitutionally qualified? Because he’s white? Have you seen his birth certificate or are you just assuming he’s a “natural born citizen” because he’s white?
Post them -- if you wish.
“You’re absolutely correct, and Alito did it that way so this lunatic wouldn’t be able to pester the other judges one by one and waste their time. There are more important things for them to do than waste their time on this nutcase who got her law degree in some cheesy online program.”
She can do your dentistry, your real estate deals, and perhaps throw in your lawyer deals as a package.
Watch for quality issues, however.
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.