Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter (re: Hollister vs. Soetoro)

www.wnd.com ^ | 11/26/2010 | Bob Unruh

[AmericanVictory]

Yes, indeed; people like to read about the exposure of fraud and deceit in high places.

[AmericanVictory]

Yes, indeed; people like to read about the exposure of fraud and deceit in high places.

[SunkenCiv]

"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!"

[Jack Black]

If this goes to the Supreme Court will Kagen and Sotomayer recuse themselves? No, I don’t think they will.

[Jack Black]

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.

[Jack Black]

Both the wise Latina and the dumb polack

Kagen isn't a 'dumb polack', she's a Jew.

[AmericanVictory]

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?

[AmericanVictory]

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?

[bushpilot1]

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;

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=3ae6b50610&skip=&query=Sierra%20Leone%20Citizenship%20Act%201973

[bushpilot1]

” 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

[bushpilot1]

Muslim 60%, Christian 10%, indigenous beliefs 30%

Sierra Leone CIA Factbook

[FrdmLvr]

"I thought you said your dog didn't bite!"

"That's not my dog!"

[patlin]

...would they not have to examine the framers’ intention in choosing the phrase?

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

[bushpilot1]

“Because a Constitutional crisis is just what this nation needs right now”

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/11/vattel.html

[Future Useless Eater]

Since Hollister's petition was filed Monday the 22nd, and docketed Tuesday the 23rd...

...isn't it likely that one or more Supremes considered Hollister's arguments while deciding Mario's petition on the 23rd?

[Hotlanta Mike]

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.

[AmericanVictory]

Only if they first decided to give leeway in that case to get past the standing issue. The big point about the Hollister case is that in it, contrary to all the others which have been put before SCOTUS, the judge below found that he had "jurisdiction" because of the statute involved (the federal interpleader act) and a finding of jurisdiction concedes, necessarily, standing. If you examine the questions presented in the Kerchner case you will see a concern with standing. By contrast in Hollister the questions presented go directly to a failure to examine the merits as required by a judge whose bias is quite evident.

[AmericanVictory]

Very good, indeed! And precisely why in Hollister the Rule 28(j) letter in the appeals court cited Tucker's Blackstone. Tucker, it points out, not only fought in the Revolution on our side after emigrating from Bermuda before the war, he then married the widowed mother of John Randolph of Roanoke, by whom he had two children, so he was quite acquainted with founders and knew whereof he spoke.

[Lady Jag]