Posted on 11/27/2010 2:40:03 AM PST by rxsid
"Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter
Case questioning eligibility says facts don't support Obama story
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.
The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.
...
The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," states the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued. "
Continued: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=233177
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Yes, indeed; people like to read about the exposure of fraud and deceit in high places.
Yes, indeed; people like to read about the exposure of fraud and deceit in high places.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," states the pleading. "Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.That *could* explain why his major domestic policy initiatives have been unconstitutional on their face. Thanks rxsid.
"Constititution? I don't neeed no steeekeeeng Constitution!"
If this goes to the Supreme Court will Kagen and Sotomayer recuse themselves? No, I don’t think they will.
Just to re-state the obvious (and the article does a pretty good job of it).
You are supporting what the article has termed the Vattel Theory.
The SC could take the case and determine that the Vattel Theory is not the governing law, but something else is.
They could, for instance, decide that Natural Born means any citizen who is a citizen at birth, as opposed to one
who gains citizenship via immigration and naturalization.
Such an interpretation would mwan that if Obama was born in Hawaii then he is legally president.
I say this because the term Natural Born has not been well defined in law up to this point.
I’m a bit surprised that the 110th Congress didn’t pass a law stipulating what Natural Born meant.
I still strongly believe the SC doesn’t want to touch this with a 10 foot poll. I think the best (only) way for birthers to make progress on their project is by putting eligibility tests into law in the several states.
But, because this is such a fringe issue there has been no progress on that, and it looks like Obama will have a second term, illegal or not, and never be forced to prove ANYTHING.
Kagen isn't a 'dumb polack', she's a Jew.
If they took the case and examined the theory that Vattel’s concept of what it is to be a “natural born citizen” would they not have to examine the framers’ intention in choosing the phrase?
If they took the case and examined the theory that Vattel’s concept of what it is to be a “natural born citizen” would they not have to examine the framers’ intention in choosing the phrase?
PART II - CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH
2. Citizenship by birth
Every person who, having been born in Sierra Leone before the nineteenth day of April, 1971, or who was resident in Sierra Leone on the eighteenth day of April, 1971, and not the subject of any other State shall, on the nineteenth day of April, 1971, be deemed tobe a citizen of Sierra Leone by birth:
Provided that-
(a)his father or his grandfather was born in Sierra Leone; and
(b)he is a person of negro African descent;
We know that countries are more likely to prosper when they encourage entrepreneurship; when they invest in their infrastructure; and when they expand trade and welcome investment. So we will partner with countries like Sierra Leone to create business environments that attract investment. not scare it away. We will work to break down barriers to regional trade and urge nations to open their markets to developing countries. Obama
http://www.cocorioko.net/?p=2826
Muslim 60%, Christian 10%, indigenous beliefs 30%
Sierra Leone CIA Factbook
"That's not my dog!"
Would, should, could. There are 2 encompassing protocols for determining original intent, the meaning that even the lowliest uneducated lay person could understand and also the intent of those that wrote the law. Every justice on the SCOTUS knows this, but right do we peons have to insist that they actually follow it? Every right according to Story. Joseph Story:
§ 181. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties...if a literal meaning would involve a manifest absurdity, it ought not to be adopted; and that the reason and spirit of the law, or the causes, which led to its enactment, are often the best exponents of the words, and limit their application...§ 210. XV. In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.
Minor v Hapersett:
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.
John Bingham, framer of the 14th(39th Congress):
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen
Now take a look at the words of Vattel:
Book One, Chapter 19 § 212. Citizens and natives
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
English common law prior to the Calvin case(1608). Clark's (Oxford, England) Discourse on political & social dynamics: “In the Savoy”, 1738; “State Trials, Vol 2”, London 1809 & Clive Perry, “British Nationality”, London 1951
“English nationality was acquired, indelibly, by birth within the realm to parents who were themselves subjects”
The mistake many make is thinking that feudal law subjectship is the same as common law of nature passed down & unchanged from the time of Adam & Eve. Feudal law is postive law(Jura Coronae) implemented at the perogative of a oligarchical king. The US never adopted any form of feudal law. St. George Tucker (from his works: Tucker's Blackstone)
by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled...that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively
“Because a Constitutional crisis is just what this nation needs right now”
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/11/vattel.html
We’ll see on Monday, when a decision is to be made regarding Mario’s writ. With all of these cases now arriving (and perhaps fortuitously) at SCOTUS round the same time, maybe they will be emboldened to not shirk their responsibility any further. Otherwise a constitutional crisis may be unavoidable.
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.