LTC Lakin's Appeal Denied

U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals ^ | 10/12/10 | Clerk of the Court

[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.

[butterdezillion]

It would be interesting to see the transcripts side by side, definitely.

[tired_old_conservative]

How can you people POSSIBLY be so dumb?

Or, to translate:

Don't you people understand that I'm imagining a bunch of stuff in my head! How can you possibly discount that in a legal proceeding?

I believe something like it is said in every case with a mental capacity judgment.

[butterdezillion]

Are you able to watch this clip?

http://www.cnn.com/pr/pipeline/download.html?mode=vod&video=/video/politics/2005/01/06/sot.election.objection.cnn

My computer says it can’t go there. Can you get to it? It’s supposed to be a clip of the electoral vote count from the 2004 election.

[RowdyFFC]

As every single court??? You think that makes you correct? Hahahahahahaha? Oh my, I should rest my case.

[STARWISE]

Ditto!

Butter’s gone overboard in her exhaustive
research, including communications with
the pertinent parties, and in her total
sincerity ... and for a very long time.

Relative newbies/uninformed posters should
have the decency and sense to ask questions
and verify the entirety of the issue, before
such a completely inaccurate and mean personal
attack.

Media type, huh ?

[RowdyFFC]

Just because he was sworn into office does not make him Constitutionally eligible to sit there and doesn’t mean he can’t be removed.

FRAUD IS still against the law in this country! And makes him eligible for removal.

[centurion316]

I don’t claim to be the biggest clown in the rodeo, but when I combine my own military experience with others of the same ilk, together with the opinions of those with obvious legal experience; and then square all of that with such facts as exist; I figure that I have a pretty good chance of avoiding being gored by the bull. Poor Lakin has been listening to those being carted off the arena on stretchers.

[centurion316]

Oh my, I should rest my case.

That would be my recommendation, since your case is not going anywhere. A better course of action would be to point out to the American electorate that Mr. Obama is exactly the sort of Chief Executive that they feared: loyal not to the country and our form of government, but to a foreign and international ideology that seeks to destroy our country. He can be defeated on that basis. Your tack leads to shoal waters.

[centurion316]

Just because he was sworn into office does not make him Constitutionally eligible to sit there and doesn’t mean he can’t be removed.

FRAUD IS still against the law in this country! And makes him eligible for removal.

Quite right. That's why Impeachment is a provision of the Constitution. Now all you need is the evidence that he is not eligible. No one has been able to produce that yet, but maybe you will have better luck.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yes, of course he can be removed if he’s ineigible. My point was that he won the election, he was sworn in, and is executing the office of POTUS. Those who rant and rave that he’s not president are just living in a delusional fantasy land.

[tired_old_conservative]

“Yes, of course he can be removed if he’s ineigible. My point was that he won the election, he was sworn in, and is executing the office of POTUS. Those who rant and rave that he’s not president are just living in a delusional fantasy land.”

That's exactly right.

Do we want to do what the hard core left did with Bush—whine and snivel like a bunch of losers about how he didn't really win the election?

Or do we want to do what the Democratic Party leaders did—frame issues, develop candidates, and win future elections?

I've seen the latter work lots of times in my life. The former, not so much.

[Celtic Cross]

Why do you call anybody who disagrees with you a troll?

[Red Steel]

I don't see anything in WKA that draws a distinction between natural BC and native BC. Can you point it out?

Lets look a little closer.

Justice Gray quotes Binney who makes a comparison between a jus soli citizen versus a natural born citizen.

"Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,"

We see Justice Gray is comparing a "citizen," a jus soli citizen, to a natural born citizen. Binney or Gray would not consider Obama as a natural born citizen.

Moving on what Gray said in WKA,

"The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father.

The same principle on which such children are held by us to be citizens of the United States, and to be subject to duties to this country, applies to the children of American fathers born without the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitles the country within whose jurisdiction they are born to claim them as citizen and to subject them to duties to it."

Justice Gray never comes close to saying that children born of alien parents are natural born citizens. Far from it. It further stated that the same principle applies to children born to American parents in foreign countries. The foreign state can claim them as citizens. There is no doubt that Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen, and neither is Barack Obama based on Gray's Supreme Court opinion.

From the 1771 Edition Encyclopedia Britannica. You'll see that a "NATIVE, a person considered as born in a certain place which was the proper residence of his parents." In other words, he is born in the country with citizen parents.

The proper residence of Wong Kim Arks PARENTS was China. The proper resident of Barack Obama's FATHER was Kenya. Obama in 1771 would not have been considered a native born, or would Obama have been called a natural born citizen.

Fast forward to 1952 in the Supreme Court case Kawikita v. United States:

"U.S. Supreme Court
Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)

Kawakita v. United States

At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, ..."

And

"First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan., He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97.and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country. During the war, he reached his majority in Japan, changed his registration from American to Japanese, showed sympathy with Japan and hostility to the United States,..."

Here we see SCOTUS in the modern usage of "native-born." The Supreme Court further stated that Kawakita was a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment, and I have no doubt because of the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ruling. Kawakita had duel allegiances. Would a natural born citizen have to take the oath of allegiance to the United States as Kawakita did?

[patlin]

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

“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.”

PERMIT ME TO CLARIFY THIS FOR YOU AS YOUR CUT & PASTE RESPONSES ARE OH SO DECEITFUL:

Progressive scholars and legalese of today would like us to believe that since the term ‘native-born’ was often spoken when discussing and writing about the presidential qualification, those scholars were inherently implying that the term native as adopted merely meant born and had nothing to do with allegiance.

This is the Kent citing that the very drones use adnausium.

Mr Rogers once again cut & pasted an old cite from DrConspiracy that is completely taken out of context. It is HIS motto. The cite is from 2 completely different sections in Kent’s commentaries as if the above phrase was all part of the same section; the latter part, natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States is cited from Kent’s lecture on A1, S8, C4, the power granted to Congress to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The actual text of Kent’s commentary on the qualifications for president taken from Kent’s original works, not cites from unknown sources and taken out of the original context, state something quite different.

(2.) The constitution requires that the President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot ; intrigue for the office, and the qualifications of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome… (James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Part II: Of the Government and the Jurisprudence of the United States, 1826)

Lets break it down:

As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot; intrigue for the office ( here he is speaking of the grandfather clause ( a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution),

Then he goes onto part II:

and the qualifications for birth (natural born citizen) cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war,

Kent was talking about each qualification respectively, not inclusively.

James Kent, wrote about just exactly what the term ‘native’ meant. This is the actual text of the above mention cite the progressives had you believe was under qualifications for president, when in fact it is found under immigration & naturalization.

James Kent, Commentaries 1:397–98; 2:33–63(1826-1827)

We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations. There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.

(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation.

Now, Mr Rogers. If native = natural, then please explain why Kent defined native born in his section on the law of A1 S8 C4 aka immigration & naturalization. Please explain how Kent could have defined native as an artificial class of persons created by law if US law determined it to mean the same as the natural class of persons the Kent defined in his prior section on classes of persons under the laws of nature. You also take Tucker out of context by citing Blackstone, NOT Tucker. In Appendix "J" of Tucker's commentaries on Blackstone, he(Tucker) picks apart that quote you use in order to make claim that it is the words of Tucker, when in fact it is NOT! It stymes the mind how this work has been taken so out of context. It was because of British loyalists who refused to let go of their loyalty to the Crown that Tucker felt he needed write the commentary, to expose the abuse and to refute Blackstone's ignorance of American law & jurisprudence.

[Red Steel]

You want to know why Las Vegas Ron call the Tired-CON a troll?

Because there is no doubt that he is one. Here is CONs very first post on FR.

[tired_old_conservative]

So what?

That was straight forward and honest, unlike much of your stuff.

[Mr Rogers]

This is one STUPID excuse for an argument from you.

From your own quote:

“(2.) The constitution requires that the President shall be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a NATIVE CITIZEN of the United States...”

So we see exactly what I cited him for - an equivalence between being a natural born citizen and being a native citizen, since he uses them interchangeably. There is no sequential argument, but direct equivalence:

“The constitution requires that the President shall be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution...As the President is required to be a NATIVE CITIZEN of the United States...”

He goes on to say “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot ; intrigue for the office, and the qualifications of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany...” - which is true, and does not in any way contradict what I wrote.

“Please explain how Kent could have defined native as an artificial class of persons created by law...”

What he wrote makes it clear to anyone who isn’t a dufus, so I’ll break it apart to help you see:

“Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of [husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant].

To these may be added, an examination of certain [artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations].

There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives...”

So he considers families. Then he considers CORPORATIONS, which ARE “artificial persons created by law”. You see, a native is NOT an artificial person, nor created by law, and he specifically says he is talking about corporations.

He then mentions a two fold division: “aliens and natives”.

He then repeats his definition of natives, which are also natural born: “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives;”

Let me repeat it: “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” and he also wrote, “”As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States”.

Do you get it now? Natives = natural born citizens = eligible for the Presidency.

For any other readers, I hope you can now understand why I say that one cannot be a reader and a birther both - for to be able to read is to be able to understand what is written, and birthers can only exist by refusing to understand what is plainly written.

[Red Steel]

BS Con. You are full if it.

[Red Steel]

You better look at post 753. I spell it out pretty clearly for the slow leaks.

[jamese777]

“Jus soli” citizenship is based on the land of birth and “jus sanguinis” is citizenship based on parentage. In the Supreme Court of the United States’ oral arguments on “Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS” (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).

Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

They did not want that.

They wanted natural born Americans.

[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

Here’s a link to the full transcript of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court with Justice Scalia’s comment in full context:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument