You wanted another, Mr Rogers, and you got it...but good.
(snicker)
Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
Please attend hearing if you can.
No. As evidenced by the Scalia quotes, these justices don't seem to be fully prepped on the Court's own precedence in defining natural-born citizen.
Roberts could have resigned. Could have refused to administer the oath - he is untouchable.
Roberts isn't the one who should resign because Obama is ineligible. That would be stupid. And as far as administering the oath, we all know how it was botched. But it's moot anyway. Had he not done it, then someone else would have. It's not the Chief Justice's position to arbitrarily decide not to swear in an electee. Again, if you think this is a Constitutionally prescribed part of the process, then let's see some evidence to back this up.
(snicker)
And the WKA court held that NBC = NBS = 14th Amendment. But the comments made in the dicta are not binding, just as the WKA court rejected the Slaughterhouse decision’s comments.
Here is what WKA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html) says:
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
Let’s go thru that:
It says there is a principle “citizenship by birth within the country”. It says the exceptions to that rule are:
“the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”.
It says their discussion has shown that those exceptions were driven “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - referring to the common law NBS, and the US NBC.
It says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is intended “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words” those exceptions discussed, that were true in the colonies as NBS, and in the US prior to the 14th as NBC.
Thus you have A & B, where the set of all A is identical to the set of all B, thus A = B. Or in this case, A = B = C:
“citizenship by birth within the country”, excepting “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”, and that was true in the colonies under NBS, true after the Constitution under NBC, and true under the 14th by intent of the writers in saying “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”.
Some here make a big deal about slaves not being citizens, but slaves were considered property under Dred Scott, and thus not capable of being citizens. And since so many people thought the Dred Scott case was an obscene rejection of “citizenship by birth within the country”, Congress and the states passed an amendment declaring, inescapably, what they believed had always been true under the NBC clause:
“citizenship by birth within the country”.
If anyone wants to know why birthers get laughed out of court every single time, I suggest they review posts 142 & 143 for what passes as reason by a birther.
So the top conservative legal minds in America are merely ignorant. Got it.
Perhaps Leo should invite them over for some poker and a lesson in Constitutional law. Because there is no doubt that Leo is the go to guy on this issue.
Wrong. This is only a matter of YOU playing an errant game of connect the dots.
But the comments made in the dicta are not binding, just as the WKA court rejected the Slaughterhouse decision’s comments.
Technically a holding is not binding because it can be rejected or overruled by a later SCOTUS decision. The only thing the WKA court rejected from Slaughterhouse was whether consuls were an exclusion from the subject clause.
It says there is a principle “citizenship by birth within the country”. It says the exceptions to that rule are:
Yes, as specifically pertains to the 14th amendment. The court already noted earlier in the decision that NBCs are excluded from the 14th amendment. And there was NO rejection of this exclusion by the Minor court. If you believe otherwise, find the specific passage where the court says it rejects or disagrees with the Minor definition of NBC or its holding.
It says their discussion has shown that those exceptions were driven “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - referring to the common law NBS, and the US NBC.
You haven't shown anything that connects this with "the US NBC." The rest of your post fails without a direct citation making this connection. It's simply not there.
You punted the challenge to find anything in the Constitution that gives a Chief Justice the individual authority to remove a president or deny the swearing-in of an electee. All your whining about Leo and the so-called "top conservative legal minds" is a pathetic deflection. Since you have failed to deal with the actual legal arugments, this is akin to a full concession on the argument.
I think the honorable thing would have been for Roberts to resign, if as you say, through a legal technicality he was forced to swear in a man known by everyone to not be eligible.
I mean, with all the legal minds in America already clamoring about Obama’ s eligibility, he would have plenty of support. Oh wait .....
So are you going to hang your hat on the “Roberts and Scalia were ignorant of law” and “Roberts was forced to swear in an ineligible president” arguments? You think that is a winning hand?
So what happened? It is 48 hrs since your post and 24 hrs since the hearing allegedly started. I would have to assume this is a hoax!
You’re still whining about Roberts, which proves nothing.
From the decision in Minor v Happersett
From the syllabus...
Only in your mind does it not do so. Another fail for you.
He is the guy that will ultimately slap down the birthers - if any cases make that far.
This presumes that they have a correct understanding of the term "natural born citizen." It has been my observation that anyone trained in law worships at the alter of "precedent" rather than "original Intent." It is a disease that has spread throughout our legal system, and Justice Roberts may very well be a victim of it.
What you are saying is that Roberts, Scalia and Thomas have no honor. That they would knowingly violate their oaths to protect the Constitution.
Were such one dimensional thinkers not so loud and persistent, it wouldn't be worth the time to deal with you. I have presented an obvious alternative explanation. Of course, for someone that cannot keep two ideas in his head at the same time, this is most likely futile.
Perhaps pictures will help? You can understand pictures, right?
So you are in the “Roberts and Scalia are ignorant of the law” camp.
Do you think Leo has a better understanding of the issue then they do?
Mr. Rogers is pretty much a waste of time. Occasionally he will concede a point just a little bit, but then he later goes on to just keep repeating the same nonsense.
If we found a document, signed by every member of the Constitutional Convention attesting that their intentions in using the term "natural born citizen" were to require American citizen Parents and birth on the soil, he would accuse them all of lying, or not knowing what they are talking about. :)
No, Mr. Anchor baby, i'm mentally prepared for the Courts to do another "Roe v Wade." Incompetent courts make incompetent rulings. What kind of fool expects good fruit from a diseased tree?
Dr. Erler testified before the House of Representatives in 1997 regarding the basis of United States citizenship. He most emphatically disagrees that it was based on English Common law.
Just another piece of contradictory evidence for your theory/thinking.
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.