Posted on 12/29/2011 4:22:24 PM PST by Smokeyblue
Newt Gingrich routinely fields questions during his campaign stops and during the event showcasing Art Laffer's endorsement, a woman who had been sititing on stage behind him asked Gingrich for clarification about President Obama's country of birth.
SNIP
"All I can report is the state of Hawaii has certified that he was born there," Gingrich continued.
Gesturing to his wife beside him, he said, "We both were with a taxi driver one day who showed us the hospital. There is every reason to believe he is a citizen of the United States. The fact that he's already a terrible president, we don't have to go beyond that and try to find something beyond that."
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.blogs.foxnews.com ...
As Mark Levin noted in Liberty and Tyranny, p37, citing and quoting James Madison, and Chief Justice Waite noted clearly in his precedential decision confirming the common-law sited by Chief Justice John Marshall, “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted ...” you would have to look very carefully to find a single definition in The Constitution. The Constitution doesn't contain definitions - by design. The meanings of words are are always changing. The mechanism to try to insure that the ideas upon which our republic would be based remained invariant was, as Justice Waite explained, to assume the natural language and common-law familiar to the framers as the language of The Constitution. As Justice Marshall made perfectly clear, his preferred source, as a founder, framer, and perhaps our greatest Chief Justice, was Vattel. Minor didn't mention Vattel when specifying the same definition, because he was turning common law into positive law, since without the definition of our most common form of citizenship in Article II Section 1, there was, before 1868, no constitutional definition of who were citizens. Vattel was by no means the only source for the meaning of natural born citizen, or "natives". Elizabeth Minor was born on our soil of citizen parents, and thus was defined as a member of the class of natural born citizens.
Many cases, including Wong Kim Ark, assert the fact that there are just two classes of citizen, natural, and naturalized. Until Wong Kim Ark, in which the very first citation, depending upon whether the reader got an abridged version of WKA from one of the Soros sponsored censors of our historical Supreme Court Cases, such as those at the top of the queue provided by Google at Justia.com, which had Minor v. Happersett citations expurgated in 2008, the very first citation By Justice Gray is to Minor v. Happersett. Wong Kim was described by Justice Gray, with unanimous agreement by his court, as “a native-born citizen of the US,” and never a “natural born citizen of the US” because the child of an alien cannot be naturally born a citizen. Justice Marshall gave us the common-law and Justice Waite the positive law.
Barack Obama told us, on his web site fightthesmears.com, that he was born a subject of the British Commonwealth, and was a “Native-born citizen of the US.” Obama is of the same class of citizen as Wong Kim Ark, and all anchor babies. But with trillions of dollars at stake, with the full support of the media, with millions of government bureaucrats whose families depend upon the largess of an ever more powerful central government, and with a Republican party which didn't resist the trap of running John McCain, whom many competent Democrat attorneys had shown to be ineligible, albeit due to an unfortunate legal oversight (no sovereignty law signed until 1938 over the Canal Zone, if McCain was even born in The Zone), no one whose job is at stake will talk truth.
To presume that an Supreme Court Justice would discuss eligibility when he/she might have to hear the case is the usual sophistry, rather like “because it was not defined in the Constitution.”
What we have all come to see is the extent to which so many are willing to let the media and politicians interpret The Constitution. Levin doesn't dare talk directly, and this writer has never heard a cogent explanation from him. However one must assume he has read his book, Liberty and Tyranny, though he wouldn't be the first not to have done so. He went through a bankruptcy not long ago. He has two children in college. Look what a crooked justice department, a justice department under GW Bush, was allowed to do to Scooter Libby. Again, trillions of dollars are at stake. The power players will not tread lightly on anyone they perceive as a real threat.
Read Minor v. Happersett yourself. While you can still read the important case, Ex Parte Lockwood with a whole paragraph excised by Soros’ CIO Carl Malamud (Chief Information Officer at Center for American Progress) at the Cornell Law Center web site, his partner, and founder of both Findlaw and Justia.com, Tim Stanley, has now returned the twenty six or so cases in which citations to Minor v. Happersett were removed, to presumed conformance with the archived text. Progressives, or Marxists, or political opportunists, hid from the common people the legal trail to constitutional interpretation. We are not a republic of laws; as in English jurisprudence, we have a caste of legal mandarins whose first allegiance is to protect their king. Key cases from our Supreme Court Archives are being abridged, with the knowledge of our legal institutions, to protect political interests.
Read the three Congressional Research Service papers the first two originally kept from the public, written to provide talking points for legislators. For sport, see how much self contradiction those papers contain. Leo Donofrio has written about it, but anyone interested in the truth can see, without much difficulty, the lies and suggestions to legislators of how to dismiss eligibility questions. You will note that nowhere in the CRS reports will you find mention of our greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, or of Chief Justice Waite, who wrote Minor v. Happersett. We have a propaganda ministry in Congress whose purpose is to prepare legislators to evade tough questions - the truth.
Here are just a few of the tactics, since the shibboleth that “because it was never defined in the Constitution” means natural born citizenship was not perfectly understood. Only one term was revised in the Constitution. Other than that, every term used in the Constitution came from our common-law, and in the instance of natural born citizens, Vattel, our nations first law book, specified such at our first law school, William and Mary in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, who designed the course, among whose students were John Marshall. Vattel was used extensively as Washington's and Hamilton's most trusted source for laws of use to nations - Law of Nations. Many who prefer monarchy or oligarchy would prefer that we forget our history. But Vattel was always a key part of our history, with Ben Franklin distributing copies, and the Adams cousins, Samuel and John, quoting from Law of Nations again and again.
Don't be confused by the claim that because Minor v. Happersett was not about presidential eligibility, that the definition is “dictum.” The reason for Article II Section 1 was to define for the new nation the one citizen too important to leave to the states, the most common class of citizen, the natural born citizen. Washington had faced the issue during the war when he ordered his staff to make only citizens of the former colonies field grade officers. There were opportunists - soldiers of fortune - whose allegiances were back in their home countries, though many were enormously important to the war effort. As the author of the 14th Amendment John Bingham reiterated when he explained to the house that “...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…,” it is about allegiance. Elizabeth Minor was one of that class of citizen, the majority, and without Article II Section 1, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to decide a case about a citizen. Justice Waite constructed his case upon the truth that because Elizabeth Minor was a natural born citizen, she was a citizen. It seems a long way around, but necessary to logical coherence. Justice Waite's decision depended upon Mrs. Minor's privileges before the passage of the 14th Amendment. Obots attempt to confuse the issue. Just read Minor v. Happersett.
So it isn't so hard to see why Newt, or anyone else avoids the eligibility issue. Until the court grants standing, and that may never happen with Sotomayor and Kagan protecting Obama, the media will do what they have always done, use Rules for Radical’s 5th law, about the power of ridicule, for political advantage. Eventually, if there are enough who believe the Constitution should be treated as our framers intended, judges can and should be impeached. There is an old notion called “misprision of felony” wherein an officer of the court has an obligation to report violations to someone with jurisdiction. The concensus is that not reporting a crime is no longer applied to citizens. Whether or not it applies to officers of the court, it should. And Congress has the authority to impeach judges - and judges (one of Rick Perry's better points, along with limiting congressional sessions).
All the discussions about birth certificates are certainly interesting, but the citizenry was “played.” It was clear from the remarkable thoroughness of the concealment, including the murder of the employee of Obama’s quiet former CIA Deputy Director, John Brennan, who “cauterized” Obama’s State Department files in the Spring of 2008, and the prosecution of Testing Service Employees who might have something to reveal about Obama’s school status and records, that we will probably never know Obama’s past.
The latest conjecture about having been raised by Sukarno as Malcolm X's illegitimate son are titillating, but irrelevant. Our law makes the son of an alien ineligible to the presidency. It is that simple. The cases are there, and there can only be one definition; it is found in Minor v. Happersett. As Bill Clinton told us, “it depends upon what is is.” Chief Justice Waite told us what a natural born citizen is, whether or not he or she runs for president. Only a reinterpretation can change that definition, and twenty five attempt have been made, nine in the years between 2000 and 2007. Three of those who filed amendments now can't recall the definition, and one those was Republican Orrin Hatch, who wanted to make Schwarzenegger eligible. John Conyers was probably filing in anticipation of Obama’s candidacy. When amendments failed two Senate actions, both by Obama election committee members, were attempted, SB2678 in Feb 2008 and SR511 in April 2008. The bill filed by Obama and McCaslill to make McCain eligible failed and the Resolution, by McCaskill and Leahy passed, but is not actionable, a resolution - we think it's a good idea! We must not forget what happens when the Constitution is usurped. It is still unclear whether we can return it to primacy as the foundation for our legal system.
This guy grew up in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen. His formative years define his understanding of government and economics. Islam is his core.
You have nailed him. He is a lie. A walking talking lie.
He has taken pride that all people see all things in him that they want to see. At an early age, we learn you cant be all things to all people. Its called living a Lie. And he takes pride in this!
The more people see, the better.
And for his ability to not speak like a ghetto rat, he can thank that "typical white woman" who also helped raise him...his grandmother.
You are one of the noobs that post on nothing but birther threads. You seem obsessed with the conspiracy...and heavily invested in keeping it going...for whatever reason.
Only someone wearing birther conspiracy goggles can't see that Serrano saying he's been trying unsuccessfully to get an answer for ten years means the justices have been evading it for ten years.
Who knows...Maybe I'll start pinging you to some other threads to get your opinions on the Iowa caucus, or Ron Paul, or Fast and Furious, or gay marriage, or Newt's 3rd wife, or Ed Rollins, or the Santorum surge, or Holder's assault on the new voter ID laws...y’know...the stuff that will actually matter come November?
Run Ron Run! Why a 3rd Party Run by Ron Paul could help the GOP. (Vanity)
Wadya think, edge? Good idea? Bad idea? A Ron Paul fan? Ya' think he's nuts? 3rd party help the GOP?
Amnesty, sure, but do you really think swing voters out there are interested in these NBC theories?
Anybody who is won't vote for Obama, but most of the country doesn't care. Get outside the bubble for a while.
It's just so disingenuous.
What is? Your theory? Even in 1789, it was a dubious reading of the Constitution, and it's even less credible today. No court is going to throw out the results of a presidential election, especially when another election is right around the corner.
At what other website is this issue being discussed? I would certainly like more opportunities to whip up on the Obama legitimacy trolls.
And that is the nail being hit upon the head. This is not about what is true, it is about people not wanting to deal with an issue because they frankly don't want to be bothered with the trouble it would cause.
You'll get lots of “likes” for your NBC brilliance.
“No court is going to throw out the results of a presidential election, especially when another election is right around the corner.”
Oh good. Cuz, that’s what I’m paying for. I like my Supreme Court ignore the Constitution. Evade, ignore, enable. Whatever.
I like it when a usurper can illegally seat two new justices that we will all have to live with until they die. I look forward to more illegalities and more cowardess from that bunch. Especially, when one of those illegally seated justices (Kagan) was involved in corrupting the process in which NBC cases were attempting to be heard at the Supreme Court. I also enjoyed her fine work regarding Obama-scare (another unconsititutional effort). It’s nice to be the fox watching the hen house.
I like my representatives to call me a kook for asking that they follow the law. I guess being called a “birther” isn’t all that bad. It could be worse, they could call me a “teabagger.”
I like it when a usurper can just disregard Congress and write executive orders. Who needs checks and balances. It’s so archaic.
By the way got Kinetic Military Action?
I like it when a usurper can take over a private car company and award dealerships to political friends (Democrats).
As of 2008 we officially became a banana republic. We are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of men; particularly politically correct men, and protected classes. The antithesis of the Consitituion.
The military caved to the usurper. The courts caved to the usurper. The congress caved to the usurper.
You realize that every safeguard here failed, don’t you?
But that’s ok because now Rubio, Jindal, or Schwarzenegger can be president.
And you might be right. Maybe I gave Newt too much credit, maybe he doesn’t know what NATURAL BORN CITIZEN means. I don’t accept your premise that “even in 1789, it was a dubious reading of the Constitution.”
I feel very comfortable that were it you and I presenting our cases before the founding fathers who they would side with and I could almost guarentee you that it’s wouldn’t be with those supporting the Indonesian-Kenyan with the fake birth certificate(s).
You are a frog in a pot that is enjoying the heat. It’s scalding hot. If the actions of the past four years haven’t alerted you then I don’t know what else to say to you.
Maybe someone can think of a derogatory name for those who want the usurper to be held accountable for Fast and Furious.
“At what other website is this issue being discussed? I would certainly like more opportunities to whip up on the Obama legitimacy trolls.”
The longest I saw was on Hot Air, but I saw threads on the subject at Real Clear Politics and also at CBS, I believe. Just search for the Romney Team Birther Gaffe and you should find a number of them. If you locate that same story on Yahoo News you should find a target rich environment.
Where were Thomas’ comments about evading the issue before 2008? I seem to have missed that.
When have they had an actual case to evade? How many times have they evaded taking an actual case on Presidential eligibility in the last 10 years, outside of the 2008 election?
At Yahoo especially however, be prepared for a lot of what one Hot Air commenter astutely referred to as intellectually incurious vitriol.
Nurse, bring the next head trauma case in please. This one is too far gone.
Right. You know everything, such as what other people are thinking, which is why you automatically presumed what Clarence Thomas was or wasn't thinking. Are you trying to say you're open-minded?? If so, then you have to admit that your assumption about Thomas could be wrong. But there's not even a hint. And you're ignoring that I asked to see what the reaction was to Serrano's comments. You apparently would rather act like a drama queen.
You are one of the noobs that post on nothing but birther threads. You seem obsessed with the conspiracy...and heavily invested in keeping it going...for whatever reason.
I haven't said ANYTHING about a conspiracy. This is YOU trying to do my thinking for me ... AGAIN.
Only someone wearing birther conspiracy goggles can't see that Serrano saying he's been trying unsuccessfully to get an answer for ten years means the justices have been evading it for ten years.
If Serrano said they were evading it, then you might actually have a point, but he didn't. Since Thomas was actually the one who said it, then you need to show that it fits HIS pattern of comments.
Who knows...Maybe I'll start pinging you to some other threads to get your opinions on the Iowa caucus, or Ron Paul, or Fast and Furious, or gay marriage, or Newt's 3rd wife, or Ed Rollins, or the Santorum surge, or Holder's assault on the new voter ID laws...y’know...the stuff that will actually matter come November?
Right, so the Constitution doesn't matter. Are you sure you're not a Democrat?? You're acting like a jackass.
Obamaphysics 101: For every criticism of Obama there’s an opposite and unequal overreaction.
You guys can’t know how timely your encouragement is, and how much it means to me.
I was with my extended family today and though I only made a couple cryptic comments about this issue, it was not well-received. We’ve always been a close family, all of us conservative. But they don’t research beyond what they hear on Fox, and there is such a chasm between what they know and what I know that they just can’t even open themselves to what the research is already showing.
Maybe they just think it’s a waste of time because the political class has circled the wagons around the issue. And maybe that’s true. But if that is the case - and this has been my point all along - then this country is willing to accept utter lawlessness, and that’s exactly what we’re getting.
I was telling my parents about Fast & Furious this morning; they listen to Fox all the time and knew nothing about it. I hate to trouble them, and I was both glad that it looked like they understood that I’m documenting the connections between the eligibility issue and the lawlessness of Fast & Furious and the way the DOJ and DHS are treating Sheriff Joe.... and sad that they understood because especially my Dad is in weak health and very, very troubled about the prospects for America.
Even conservatives don’t really want to know how bad it is. Maybe it would be a kindness to let the boa’s final squeeze come as a total surprise to everyone. I just keep thinking that there’s still time to get loose from the boa before that happens. I alternate between hope and despair for America.
I keep coming back to Theoden’s response to the comment that too few had come to defeat Mordor. He said, “No, we cannot defeat them. But we will meet them in battle nonetheless.”
Those who trust Fox are being deceived about how bad things really are. They may think we’re crazy right now, and try to distance themselves from us - like we’ve seen here on FR, and on this thread even. When the orcs are at their throats they will come around. I will do my level-best to see that it never comes to that, if possible. To any ridicule that they might give in the meantime, I think Jesus’ words are appropriate: “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.”
All too soon they will probably be like Frodo when he realized that Gollum had set up Sam in order to divide Frodo from Sam, to keep Sam from being able to protect Frodo.
Ouch. You nailed it on that one.
There are few heroes with real careers. Courage to stand up to what becomes an established social convention is exceedingly rare among those with established sinecures. The mainstream media today STILL defines what is established social convention, even after 14 years of Free Republic and all the other alternative media.
We are like Wycliffe and Hus and their times. We have the platform, the active cohort and even the content to communicate to all our brothers and sisters dedicated to Liberty and ideals of Natural Law, yet becoming the "ideals" leaders -- the ones who set normative social conventions in a whole nation or set of allied nations rarely takes less than a few generations.
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.