Check out # 713 , # 714 , and # 716 for comments by David and Mr Rogers.
[Thanks to both for the pings.]
Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
You miss my point. I’m not concerned with the reason Steinkauler was an NBC. I’m only saying that Ulysses S. Grant’s Attorney General apparently saw no difference between “native-born” and “natural born” when it came to presidential eligibility. This contradicts the longstanding effort by many on these threads to claim otherwise.
a. Having come from the broadcast industry, I guess I have a different concept of what constitutes legitimate "research" and "evidence". But, on the whole, if you force me to comment, I found her writing to be the obsessed ramblings of a delusional fringe conspiracy theorist, IMPO. No offense you understand, but she appears to fit the profile.
b. I originally thought that some wit might entice a few stragglers back to their senses. I was wrong and apologise; I see now that it's impossible.
c. Are you serious? I am a dedicated right-wing conservative Canadian citizen, living in an obscure town in Ontario. What possible motive or credentials would I have to want to volunteer for American political commentary? And exactly who would actually pay a foreigner to hang out here and waste their money arguing over the most minute shreds of fabricated nonsense? Do you have any control over how nutty you have allowed yourselves to become?
No, no, no, I'm NOT a Troll, NOT a volunteer, NOT a Democrat, and NOT a Republican. I simply drop by to visit the "citizenship crowd" occasionally .....strictly for the laughs. So, have fun, keep up the great stories, and best of luck in the midterms!
In modern usage, all natural born are native born however, not all native born are natural born.
If one looks hard enough he will see the United States was formed based on the Law of Nations. The Right to Self (2nd Amendment) Defense comes from the Law of Nations. Natural Born Citizen comes from the Law of Nations.
How many of us have read it as the Founders did..I say none of us.
Okay, so you didn’t read her reserach, just focused on religious beliefs you don’t share, and made judegements about a computer virus that objectively you can know nothing about, and call her insane.
So much for your rational thinking skills.
So you call yourself a “dedicated right-wing conservative Canadian citizen”, eh?
On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.
You may claim many things. But your unwarranted, irrational snd nasty attack on butterdezillion shows that at the very least, you make snap, emotion-driven (and an ugly emotion at that), personal attaacks at a good freeper who does tireless research that even a non-mentally unhinged opponent would admit are extremely well done with tireless attention to detail, just to either provide amusement for yourself and perhaps others here who are noted trolls and some are no doubt administration hirelings, or to tacitly support 0thugga.
Many trolls claim they’re “just trying to set the record straight” or “enlighten the fools” - which latter is your claim.
By your angry, irrational and slimey personal attack on her, you have revealed with crystal clarity who is the fool, and an ugly one at that.
So long as those orders are in the course of your normal military duties yes.
Is it therefore reasonable to assume that because the order wasn’t destroying what was officially listed as evidence it was a legal order?
Without knowing all the facts of the matter it's hard to say. But destruction of evidence is a criminal act. On the fact of it the soldier could have refused to comply.
“Mr. Roger, are you there? Are you feeling well?”
Some of us have lives. We don’t live for Internet exchanges.
Dual citizenship has NOTHING to do with running for President. US law knows it exists, but it has nothing to do with US citizenship. If Kenya declared all US citizens to be citizens of Kenya, what would change? Nothing.
Now, if you can find a sworn statement by Obama Jr saying he knowingly rejects US citizenship, you will have something. Until then, all you have is the hate in which you stew.
And you’ll go on making up theories and whining because no one cares about your rantings, and you cannot get anyone with standing (or two or more brain cells) to submit your ‘case’ to a court.
What is the difference between a ‘native citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’?
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants, declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.
PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U. S. 325 (1939)
You’re nothing if not completely predictable and incompetent. Instead of finding a specific part of the citation that directly supports your earlier claim, you simply pull a lame c&p of the WHOLE thing and pretend that does the job for you, ignoring that I already quoted from this same section parts that contradicted your claim. Do you not understand how to debate and support an argument?? Log off and find a reputable institution where you can get educated.
The answer permeates the post, but it DOES require reading more than one or two sentences. You actually have to follow the argument through an entire page.
Sorry that your thinking skills can only handle out of context sentences - but that explains why you are a birther.
Well, you’re a step ahead of your friends.
Right now the “broadcast industry” doesn’t have a lot of credibility with the majority of the American public, precisely because their investigative standards are so pathetic.
And if you read what I wrote you will see that the inaccurate and negligent media is actually in my cross-hairs. Did you read the post regarding The Hutch News’ editor refusing to correct what he acknowledged was factually incorrect? I decided to include that example because it is typical of what I have seen from the “news media”, although most just ignore the information they don’t like so there is no proof that they know they’re lying through their teeth.
I suppose if I wanted to dig up the e-mails from McAfee I could prove that I’ve been hit with viruses, or if I wanted to show you the logs from AVG. Is that what you want? I could probably even show the log from hijackthis. But it’s not a radical claim to say you’ve been hit with a virus, although I’m the only one in my family who gets hit with them, and I get hit regardless of which computer I use, as long as I’m still talking about these issues. For people who have been investigating these things, the virus risk is almost ho-hum because our experience has taught us to expect it.
As to whether my e-mails are being monitored, I have consulted with a computer professor at a local college to see if what I have observed could be explained by glitches. He said some things could be but there is at least one thing that has to be occurring at either the IP level or via the government.
As to my religious beliefs, if it is radical to believe that God answers prayers and that an all-knowing, eternal God has foreseen the end of the world, then I guess I’m a radical as charged - as are huge chunks of the Christian world. If that’s what it takes to believe in the Jesus who saved me, then it is a very, very small price that I gladly accept.
But, if correct, I believe that is not the end of the story. At that point, he has the right to a collateral attack as long as his counsel in the military proceeding has preserved his position.
It has been many years since I have looked at this question--in law school Crim Law to be exact; but at the end of the military tribunal game, he then gets to the legal system.
And there he ought to have available a broad range of issues: The Courts Martial was without authority as well as the order itself.
The only thing is that is going to take some time to get to fruition.
But once he gets there, he now has a bunch of documentary evidence that supports his position and that he should not need discovery to reach. The Smith Birth Certificate is one piece; the other photocopy birth certificate from the divorce file is another; the variation in the certificates of eligibility is another telling blow (particularly the Hawaii certificate).
Nope. I’m saying the original intent of the Founders in writing that the President must be a “natural born citizen” is met by Obama if he was born in Hawaii. There is no doubt that under English common law, Obama would qualify as a ‘natural born subject’, and that is the concept the Founders were thinking of when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
Original intent. Not mine, but theirs.
I am not so sure you are correct--I think there may have been a reasonable position based on the Law of Nations document and the correspondence among the drafters of the Constitution that something else might be required.
But at least the conventional wisdom in the Constitutional Bar is that argument disappeared with adoption of the 14th Amendment--the Amendment gave everyone born in the USA all of the conceivable rights of a citizen including the right to claim natural born.
However the overwhelming weight of secondary and tertiary evidence is pretty clear that Barrack Hussein Obama Jr. (if that is who he is) was born in the Coastal General Hospital in Mombasa.
Yes, there are lots of responses to that evidence--but what there is that you can put in the record is sufficient to force the responder to make the case that he was born in the US. And that kind of showing and argument will open the door to discovery that will produce sufficient persuasive and admissible evidence that he was in fact born in Kenya.
Now if what you are saying is that to the extent the Lakin proceeding is founded solely on the proposition that even if Obama was born in the US, natural born requires something else, you are correct--any lawyer who took this argument on any basis other than born in Kenya is probably not qualified to be in court.
>But destruction of evidence is a criminal act. On the fact of it the soldier could have refused to comply.
Only if he knew that footage was “evidence,” but furthermore you admit that [according to your citation] if there is any doubt on behalf of the soldier [of the legality of his orders] that he is to assume that they are valid and legal.... doesn’t this mean that ANY soldier seeking legal assistance [regarding orders] which are not blatantly obvious criminal actions is guilty of insubordination?
Also, is your citation of lesser, greater, or equal weight as the portion of the document [Art 62, IIRC] someone posted earlier regarding discovery within the military legal system?
“I am not so sure you are correct—I think there may have been a reasonable position based on the Law of Nations document and the correspondence among the drafters of the Constitution that something else might be required.”
I think the dissent in WKA has a stronger case based on reason. Based on original intent, I think the decision is pretty strong. I think the Founders probably had varying ideas of what they meant, and you could have collected 3 or 4 answers if you had polled them.
But as a matter of law, now, I don’t see the Supreme Court rejecting the arguments in WKA and instead trying to overturn the popular election of a now-sitting President based on Vattel or others. Particularly when it was well known and uncontested in the election that Obama Sr was Kenyan.
IF Obama Jr was not born in the USA, then he needs to be removed immediately. However, I don’t know how you could find convincing proof without Obama simply confessing on national TV. So unless someone programs his teleprompter...
I don't see anything in WKA that draws a distinction between natural BC and native BC. Can you point it out?
In looking, though, I did stumble across this interesting tidbit:
[The Levy v. McCartee decision] treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that, "if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons areindigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm..."I note that Lord Coke used (in Latin) the same term Vattel used (in French) that some insist must apply to the definition of NBC. It looks to me like Coke says someone born in the country of an alien father is nonetheless a "subject born," and that the Supreme Court justice took that to mean the sam as "natural born subject." Again, this strikes me as contradicting what the "birther" side usually claims about what Vattel meant. Do you think Vattel knew of Lord Coke's writings?
John Jay letter to George Washington, 25 July 1787
New-York, 25th July, 1787.
Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay.
http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=joj
____________________________________________________________
Madison Debates
July 25, 1787
*snip*
Col. MASON approved the idea. It had the sanction of experience in the instance of Congs. and some of the Executives of the States. It rendered the Executive as effectually independent, as an ineligibility after his first election, and opened the way at the same time for the advantage of his future services.
He preferred on the whole the election by the Nati. Legislature: Tho’ Candor obliged him to admit, that there was great danger of foreign influence, as had been suggested.
This was the most serious objection with him that had been urged.
Mr. BUTLER. The two great evils to be avoided are cabal at home, & influence from abroad.
It will be difficult to avoid either if the Election be made by the Natl. Legislature. On the other hand: The Govt. should not be made so complex & unwieldy as to disgust the States. This would be the case, if the election shd. be referred to the people. He liked best an election by Electors chosen by the Legislatures of the States.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_725.asp
How any reasonable, informed person could actually believe that our very deliberative and wise Founding Fathers would ever entertain as prudent a CIC/POTUS of foreign parentage, since they’d just endured years of horrendous blood, death, deprivation, uncommon sacrifice and suffering in the crushing battles for total freedom from the Crown of Great Britain, boggles the mind. It’s like saying 2+2 no longer equal 4.
Check out # 713 , # 714 , and # 716 for comments by David and Mr Rogers.
[Thanks to both for the pings.]
And with that, I think it’s time for a Coke break!
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.