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 ...
The fact that she was able to get a law license in CA suggests that, if she loses it, all she needs to do is buy boxes of Cracker Jack until she finds another one.
The cake is a lie.
I mean, where's its sooper secret long-form birth certificate?
Who knows? After the drunken orgy broke up, the four agreed never to speak of it again, and nine months later the poor infant was left on some anonymous church door.
I think most of the sane people here acknowledge his legal right to be President. What is in question is the wisdom of the voters who elected him. ;-)
I got her to take care of all three one time. When I found out that the title on my new house was defective and the neighbor won the suit to claim exclusive ownership of the driveway, I was mad enough to spit, except that my mouth hurt too bad every time I opened it.
Because I knew you would and in the process drop your IQ even further on this forum.
Although I've pointed out this dishonesty to Uncle Chip before, let me point it out for any casual readers who think UC has any interest in the truth:
Please do. Can I lend you a crayon for your mindless dissertation????
"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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Do you see the word "natural born citizen in anything that you underlined or boldfaced??? I didn't think so.
As to the class of "children born within the the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents", there are doubts that they are "citizens" -- get it -- there are doubts that they are "citizens" -- and if there are doubts as to their citizenship, then they still "aliens and foreigners". Get it. If they are doubted to be even "citizens", then there is no doubt that they are not even close to being "natural born citizens".
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
And who exactly is the "first class here? It's this class: the "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.
By law, anyone undergoing naturalization was considered an "alien and foreigner", and by that same law, children born in this country of naturalizing parents were considered also of the same status: "aliens and foreigners" -- until their father [parents] completed their naturalization. Some authorities wanted to jump the gun and assume that their parents would become citizens -- some but not many and not most -- just some.
Either way, Waite's definition of "natural born citizen", as certified by Gray and Wong Kim Ark, stands without any doubts at all:
"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 ...".
If you can't understand it, then show it to your horses and have them explain it to you. They have more sense.
If you read the rest of Minor, it actually goes on to resolve the doubts because it talks about the original naturalization acts that required fathers to be naturalized in order for their children to become citizens. Nothing in WKA disputes this. All WKA did was build a case that the children of aliens (through the 14th amendment) could be born citizens if their parents had more than just temporary allegiance in a country. The dissent disagreed on that basis because it said even ‘permanent allegiance’ wasn’t enough for the 14th amendment to override the treaty with China.
Actually, the woman has to be pretty damned smart in the intellectual sense. She is not a native English speaker but is fluent in the language, managed to get thru dental school, do law school online AND pass the CA bar, reputedly the toughest in the US. So she gets some credit for being highly intelligent. Just not smart in any practical sense. And that, to quote Frost, has made all the difference.
I saw her one time on a TV show, and she made good arguments for her case.
Another n00b scum slug making strawman accusations, trying to impugn freepers concerned over the issue of YOUR Barry the Bastard Boy allowed to keep his History hideen from We The People. Float away scum, we have enough of your stench at FR as it is!
You’re a race baiting asshat. When you’re zotted, I will raise my glass to the moderators.
You’re a no0b troll, so shut up and listen to your betters.
Your posting history makes it clear what you are. I don’t know why you’re still here.
If you think “other important stuff” should be done, why the hell are you blathering on FR hassling people? You should be out doing what you are telling other people to do.
You’re nothing but a disgusting TrLoL.
This thread is crawling with scum DU trLoLs.
This thread is crawling with scum DU trLoLs.
20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
You did in the dissent which is what I said. Pay attention.
I quoted several pages, covering the first part of their argument: that WKA was a natural born citizen, and thus a citizen.
You're imagining things. Nothing in WKA argues that WKA is a natural born citizen. It argues that the 14th amendment re-established a 'principle' of citizenship by birth for aliens from English common law, but that it was based on permanent allegiance, which is why it made a point that WKA's parents had a permanent domicile and were permanent residents of the United States. It also said that the jurisdiction of the United State overrode the jurisdiction of other countries, which was what the dissent disagreed with.
No. WKA argues that WKA was qualified as a NBC and thus was a citizen. It argues that NBC is the equivalent of natural born subject, and that it was accepted law that NBS allowed 2 alien parents. It only required the parents to be there “in amity”.
Nor did I cherry pick the dissent. The same link allows anyone to read the full dissent, which clearly understood what they majority was doing. WKA was not decided on the 14th alone, but both the 14th AND their interpretation of NBC. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to discuss NBC, since WKA was not running for President.
Tim Adams was a Senior Elections Clerk, not the CHIEF Elections Clerk.
There is a difference as anyone with a few years in the post can easily call themselves “Senior” but it takes a little extra to be called the “Chief.”
Odd, isn’t it, that MY interpretation of Minor and WKA agrees with every court case for the last 110 years, while YOURS disagrees.
The courts have not distinguished between natural born to 2 citizen parents and natural born to non-citizen parents. Not one case in the last 112 years has had any doubts. Every decision since WKA - and many before - agrees.
That is why I can find quotes supporting non-citizen parents of a natural born citizen child going back to the 1700s. And that is why every court case since WKA has used natural born and native born and simply born as equivalents. In fact, that was often true BEFORE WKA as well.
Minor did not attempt to decide if the child of an alien parent was a NBC. WKA did. Since WKA was not running for President, there was no reason at all for WKA to bring up NBC, EXCEPT to argue that since WKA was a NBC, he was also a citizen.
And every court case since has followed that lead. And NO ONE has followed Vattel. No one!
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …” - Ed Meese, AG of the US under President Reagan
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.