I know .. it’s beyond absurd ..
Like, we have to pass the bill to see
what is in it .... DUH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Fighting to recapture the magic of his history-making 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama on Saturday laid out his fullest-yet case for reelection, pleading with struggling Americans to “keep believing in me” and hitting out at presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
“If people ask you what this campaign is about, you tell them ‘it’s still about hope.’ You tell them ‘it’s still about change,’” he told a cheering mass of supporters at Ohio State University in Columbus, six months and one day before the election. “I still believe in you. And I’m asking you to keep believing in me.”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-pleads-rally-m-asking-keep-believing-192210483.html
“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.