Posted on 06/19/2012 12:04:11 PM PDT by STARWISE
The arguement is not that he needed american born parents but that they had to be citizens, and his father definitely was not.
kjcanon | June 17, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
Gianni, jbjd is right (literally about everything), but specifically about my role in this effort. I was determined four long frustrating years aog that some how, some way, I was going to find a way to keep ANY ineligible candidate off our ballot here in Texas. She’s been right all along on several aspects of this issue. Namely: THE BALLOT. But she is also right about our laws in the Lone Star State. Follow her blog, as she has not only been guiding our every step, but also chronicling our journey at every pivotal turn. (and there’s been quite a few) Thanks to jbjd’s incredible talent for sniffing out fraud, together we’ve been able to peel ALL of the layers of this onion. I can’t believe we can finally say “we have ‘em”! The Texas Democratic party thought they could get away with side-stepping our laws by conveniently OMITTING constitutional eligibility language in the ONE document they “claim” to have used as their “basis for certifying” their candidates for the Primary election. They must have thought we were all asleep at the wheel, and tried to sneak one past us. Read her article again. Let it soak in. Then read it again! This is going to blow the lid off their little sham sky-high! But really gets me is that they have (for YEARS) been insulting our collective intelligence. That angers me. Never anger a true Texan.
http://jbjd.org/2012/06/17/will-tx-agabbott-prosecute-tdp/
And then listen to the blogtalk show we did just yesterday:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lonestarteaparty/2012/06/16/deploy-the-troops
Buckle your seat belts… it’s gonna get bumpy!
PS: We need everyone who knows ANYONE in Texas to go to jbjd’s blog and get on board.
I wouldn’t get too excited over this. jbjd is the epitome of a blog pimp and the only thing that has been accomplished is an overgloried freedom of information type of release. jbjd drafted a letter for the Texas elections people and they couldn’t understand what she was asking for. jbjd’s biggest concern seems to be establishing herself as a self-declared expert and that she gets some donations on her blog.
“Those statements conflict with the United States Supreme Court opinions, as well as other opinions of other courts who have considered this issue,” Herron said."
Here are the legal centurions at work. The first clue is Herron’s resort to the fact that so few understand, and which was new to me until I read page 37 of Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, quoting James Madison. The Constitution does not include definitions for a very good but subtle reason. The framers were creating what they hoped and believed would remain as an eternal foundation of our republic, eternal because it was based upon a very popular body of legal philosophy after the enlightenment called “The Law of Nature”, or natural law. From the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, explaining the need to separate from the British monarchy: “...to assume among the Powers of the Earth and the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Naturea and of Nature's God entitle them....” The Constitution was written assuming the definitions familiar to its framers, common law based upon Natual Law. There were not definitions in the Constitution. Time changes the definitions of words. To leave those interpretations to Congress or the judiciary would certainly mean the corruption of the intentions and principles contained in the Constitution, just as politicians are now doing with "natural born citizen."
When Herron claims that “...statements conflict with Supreme Court Opinions, as well as other opinions of other Courts...” those, and STARWISE could probably quote a dozen from memory, Herron doesn't specify majority or minority opinions. No court has decided against the opinion, based upon the common-law, of our greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, who cited Vattel in the 1814 citizenship case, The Venus, and differentiated “citizens” from “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” “Natives” and “indigenes” were made equivalent by Marshall and “Natives” made legally equivalent to “natural born citizens” in Minor v. Happersett. Herron is simply following the script so that judges can cite the idiotic Indiana court Ankeny decision, which used Leo Donofrio’s 2008 discovery of Chester Arthur's father's lack of citizenship to claim that the public didn't disqualify Arthur in the 1880s so we should assume alien fathers were now common law. In truth, Arthur carefully concealed his father's naturalization papers, and burned his own personal papers just before he died to conceal his ineligibility.
The important decision, one used to confuse the naive, is Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim was born in San Francisco to parents who probably would have naturalized if China didn't forbid it. But Wong Kim was mad a citizen, and not a natural born citizen. That was the decision. The Justice deciding the case mucked up the decision, possible to conceal his patron's ineligibility. Justice Gray talked on and on about English common law but cited Minor v. Happersett and made Wong Kim a citizen, a very important decision because it resulted in the creation of anchor babies, but did nothing to change the definition of, or to affect the definition of natural born citizens in any way.
This complexity is what the legal guardians of the left depend upon. But the statement in Minor v. Happersett, as Klayman asserts, is unequivocal and has never been controverted. Every US Senator signed Senate Resolution 511 in which they all agree, in April of 2008, that a natural born citizen is born to citizen parents. Congress is depending upon the misdirection being generated by the media will keep them from having to face their prior dishonesty. You can go down the list of Congressman who tried to pass amendments to Article II Section 1, such as Oren Hatch and John Conyers, between 2002 and 2007, to see that they all knew. Why were they silent? Because McCain was ineligible too, but for the reason of alien birthplace, not alien parents. For just the presidency our founders and framers required both birth on the soil and citizen parents.
Exactly!
Absolutely!
I continue to be amazed at the number of people who think it is enough enough just to be born in the USA to qualify as a natural born US Citizen, let alone the number of people who take no interest in the current President’s pedigree, credentials, and history.
Very astute anoldafvet. I missed your point the first time through. Herron is intentionally conflating jus soli citizns, those born on our soil and made citizens by the 14th Amendment with natural born citizen, those born on our soil to citizen parents. He counts upon few having actually read the 14th Amendment in which the clause "natural born citizen" never appears. Few will have read 14th Amendment author Judge and Congressman John Bingham's clear affirmation of the Marshall/Vattel/Jay/Washington/Monroe/.... definition in Bingham's two speeches to the House in 1866 where he was explaining the 14th Amendment to those who would need to ratify the amendment.
Obama was probably born on our soil but McCain wasn't, so Obama and McCaskill tried to pass Senate Bill 2678, to make McCain a natural born citizen because his parents were citizens. Why would Obama and his campaign chairperson Clare McCaskill sponsor a bill in February of 2008 to make McCain eligible to be his opposition for the presidency? It all seems so obvious now. It forced Republicans to share in the enormous cover-up of the meaning of Article II Section 1. With the Democrats and Republicans, along with Obama’s media and the justice department, they calculated, correctly, that they could manage the big lie.
S 2678, Obama/McCaskill’s ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’, did not pass, and would have violated the Supreme Court's sole authority to interpret the Constitution, so McCaskill and Obama tried again in April 2008, with a resolution, SR 511, which has no force of law, but provided talking points to the press. Can any rational person assume they didn't fully understand Chief Justices John Marshall, or Morrison Waite, or Charles Evans Hughes, or Congressman John Bingham? This is about The Emperor’s New Cloths. Everyone knows the truth, and all but a few have lied.
Herron is right...natural born citizen doesn’t mean your parents have to be born here. Look how he twisted it to mean more...the parents have to be Citizens...doesn’t matter where they were born...
These are people who are trying to destroy the understanding of natural born citizenship by first destroying the understanding of citizenship.
If you are absolutely certain of who a citizen is, you will have no problem recognizing who a natural born citizen is.
I also noticed that the OBot lawyers did not cite any legal case authority to back up that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen since they were previously told to do so by the presiding judge.
Ignorance is bliss to ...OBots and their lawyers. But this "misstep" may come back to haunt them. ;-)
The MSM is trying to pound it into people’s heads that “born on American soil” is the ONLY WAY someone can become an American citizen.
No naturalized citizenship.
No statutory citizenship.
No conscious choice of citizenship by anyone or anyone’s parents or grandparents.
Just passive, being “dropped” here on U.S. soil 14th Amendment (and it has been said the 14th has been misinterpreted to create anchor babies) citizenship.
Citizenship with no conscious choice, therefore no value.
Anchor babies hate this country because their parents hated it and didn’t become citizens first.
If you are insinuating that Herron is lying, then explain to me where exactly in the Constitution DOES it say that?
Klayman misspoke when he said the parents must be NBC’s as well. Let’s hope he corrects it.
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.