Posted on 12/14/2011 8:52:08 AM PST by Danae
Yes lmalumprohibitum, but keep in mind, as do I whenever I see the mantra “...because it was nowhere defined in the Constitution”, that definitions are intentionally left out of the Constitution. As Madison explained (see Mark Levin's letter on page 37 of Liberty and Tyranny), to have attempted to include definitions in the Constitution would have exposed its meanings to the changes which naturally occur in language. That is why Chief Justice Waite so carefully stated “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.”
SvenMagnussen's point is interesting. It is repugnant to realize that our legal institutions, most all officers of the court, can know that our laws are being misrepresented and refuse to acknowledge the crime, presumably hiding behind procedural arguments. Personally, I think the crimes are being concealed by all those whose careers and incomes can be constrained should they chose or threaten the wrong tribe, for financial reasons.
To understand the context see the lecture “Lawyers and Access to the Law” sponsored Soros’ Chief Information Officer, Carl Malamud's Public.Resource.Org at UC Berkeley's Boalt Law School. The Law.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahbrOxC3N8 The host is Carl Malamud and Tim Stanley asks the leading question in the Q&A. Professor of Legal Informatics Robert Berring explains the risk, citing exactly the crime Malamud and Stanley have already committed (the talk was in the Spring of 2010. Stanley had scrubbed or mangled the citations to Minor v. Happersett in the Summer of 2008. Malamud was working with Cornell Law and scrubbed the citation to Minor in Re: Lockwood. Apparently, this latest McCarthy v. Briscoe was Stanley's work. Professor Berring explained, and warned the attendees, including Stanley and Malamud, that he assignees his students - half of Boalt law students take his course - the task of comparing citations from the free on-line archives including Stanley's Justia.com and Freelaw.com with the fee-for-service sites Lexis and Westlaw. He asks “would you want to risk your career on a citation from one of the free sites?” While Bob Bauer was apparently not concerned, I contend that Berring and most of his students already knew the answer, which is probably why Twitter Chief Legal Council Alexander Macgillivray, also on the panel, immediately deferred to Professor Berring.
Thanks Lucy! :)
And Malamud led to Soros.
Ah, the company they keep.
Justia has not scrubbed Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
Case Preview http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/
Full text of case http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html
Relative quote from the opinion:
Page 377 U. S. 166
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted,
“becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”
Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 231 U. S. 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U. S. 605, 283 U. S. 624; Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654, 328 U. S. 658.
Schneider v Rusk (quoting Osborne) is the case cited by Craig v U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which opined no individual has a right to be classified as a Natural born citizen.
Consequently, you can file a complaint stating Obama is not a Natural born citizen and it will be dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
You can file a complaint stating Obama is a Naturalized US Citizen and he is not eligible to be POTUS or VP and your case will be adjudicated.
None of the cases are scrubbed now Sven. Thats the point. They fixed it when we first published it, then took the entire Supreme Court Servers off the Wayback Machine so no one could go back and check.
They are hiding the scrubbing.
What did I do wrong? Was I somehow not clear enough on what they are doing? All those words...... dang.
Thanks for the ping, Lucy, and for your hard work, Danae.
Thank God for brick and mortar libraries and dead tree books!
You’re welcome Danae.
Keep up the good work!
Sven, most of us have waded through the subtleties, and learned that a native born citizen of the US, the term Obama used for his own status, is a 14th Amendment naturalized citizen, and distinct from the earlier common-language “Native,” which Morrison Waite equated to a natural born citizen. “Natives” as noted by Marshall where, in The Venus, he cited Vattel, are “born on the soil of parents who are citizens.” So there is no argument: native born citizens are synonymous coextensive - with naturalized citizens.
Why is it significant that “no individual has a right to be classified as a natural born citizen?” Of course there is no “right.” One is either born on our soil of citizen parents, or not. A right implies adjudication. Even when Marie Elg was taken from the US as a little girl, and returned to Sweden where her parents were born, the court, Charles Evans Hughes, determined that she could not repudiate her having been born on our soil of citizen parents, even when her parents did repudiate their US citizenship to return to Swedan. The court said she could become president if she wished, after living in the US for 14 years and reaching 35 years of age. Nature assured her status as a natural born citizen. The court simply affirmed that status in Perkins v. Elg
While I believe there legal class has shown its disdain for the meaning of The Constitution, and will use sophistry to avoid a controversial position, Minor v. Happersett is unequivocal in affirming the definition of a natural born citizen. Obama has told us on “Fight The Smears” that he is a naturalized citizen - “A native born citizen of the US” - where he also admitted to having been born a subject of the British Commonwealth (and probably a natural born subject, since Stanley was naturalized by marriage to a NBS, Barack Sr.). Every legislator knew. Every judge knew. Why is that less direct approach more likely to succeed?
YEAH! for paper! LOL
Wait... thats not funny. It’s sad. You really can’t trust anything anymore.
“We know his custodian, headquartered in Connecticut, filed for his SSN with the SSA in 1976,77 and he qualified for the SSN as a Permanent Resident Alien of the U.S.”
How do we know this? What evidence is there, and where is it?
Justia.com was, of course, started by Obama supporter Tim Stanley. After claiming that the 'scrubbing' of Minor v. Happersett and the 25 cases citing it was due to a coding error, Stanley said that other cases had been affected; however, he gave no examples of any other cases.
Up until that point Justia.com could be searched with the Wayback Machine. In fact, those complaining of the scrubbing used screenshots from the Wayback Machine to show that the 'natural born citizen' case, Minor v. Happersett, had existed on Justia.com before the Obama controversy, and that it was cited in the 25 cases. It was only at the time that the controversy arose that Minor disappeared, along with all cites to it.
However, once Stanley said that other cases had been affected by the code, Justia.com added the robots.txt file to all of its cases, not only preventing the Wayback Machine from taking any new screenshots of its pages, but wiping out all previous screenshots of Justia.org from the Wayback Machine. Suddenly Stanley could claim that other cases had been affected and nobody could prove him a liar, because nobody could look at screenshots of other cases. And poor Tim Stanley can't prove he was telling the truth because he can't produce any screenshots of the other cases that he claims were affected. He destroyed any evidence to support his own defense (don't you hate it when that happens?).
Anyway, I'm pulling together information on this - not to prove anything substantively about 'natural born citizen,' but to show how an Obama supporter was willing to sway the public discussion of it despite running a website purporting to show the full content of U.S. Supreme Court opinions.
That particular rabbit hole goes pretty deep. Stanley also tried (in CNET of all places) to say it was a REGEX code error. That is utter bs, Regex could only have done what Leo and I found if it was used DELIBERATELY and with intent. I busted Stanley on that. I have a lot of research, not to mention screenshots of what Justia did before they scrubbed it, and Leo and I accurately predicted that they would do the Robots.txt the moment they learned of the discovery, and of course that’s what they did, right on cue. Anyway take a look at my about page, there are article links there and if you visit Donofrio’s site you can find all the original screenshots etc.
The REGEX code error doesn't explain the citation issues, much less the "People of" deletion.
Then we hit the rabbit hole issues of Lawrence B. Solum's law review article, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause - as you know, he published a second version of it under the same title, to change the "whose parents are citizens of the United States" language to a single parent. His explanation does not carry water, given all of the references to 'parents', plural, in the original article (which I found interesting).
As I said, I'm digesting all of this and do not understand the lack of attention to it. Academicians generally believe in academic purity. You do NOT tamper with reference sources for any reason, and certainly not for political purposes. Yet there is no uproar over this although Justia didn't just leave fingerprints, it left DNA and bodies, voiceprints and video, signed confessions and station wagons full of witnessing nuns.
Academia has been taken over for a long time my friend.
Which article are you missing? I know I published it at Examiner.... it should be there if no where else... Maybe I missed a link... (scratches head)
You published JustiaGate: The Cover-Up Continues at Examiner and I read it yesterday (and bookmarked it and added it with a summary to the list of pertinent articles on this issue that I started). However, it hasn't been posted at FR. I didn't post it yesterday because of the October publication date. I had intended to link it on a vanity briefly summarizing the various articles on this subject - the overwhelming majority of which have not been posted on FR.
Academia has been taken over for a long time my friend.
You sing; I'm the choir. I've spent 36 of the past 38 years with at least one foot in academia. I'll send a FReemail to introduce myself. Among other things, I was at Harvard more than a decade before Barack Obama and followed the tenure issues in the HLS faculty in real time. As you likely know, they began before the 1991-92 academic year which is now receiving attention. I also studied under Charles Allen Wright (and it is true, the man had an actual, literal, honest-to-pete photographic memory) and know what representing a Republican can do for the Supreme Court possibilities of America's all-time leading Constitutional scholar.
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.