Posted on 07/18/2015 12:53:28 PM PDT by spacejunkie2001
The silly bastard thinks he bested Mario Apuzzo. Delusion is his stock in trade.
Why would it not match if Granny Dunham put down that information on an at home birth affidavit?
Is what a 'no?' My parents were citizens at my birth; their parents were each citizens at their births.
And your children? The most obvious answer appears to be conspicuously absent from your response.
My critique of your "out in the looney fringe, "2-citizen parent" theory is purely historical and legal.
Except that it isn't. It explains history far better than your theory ever did. Your theory has so many exceptions that it might as well be the rule. British Loyalists (of which William Rawle was) was an exception. Indians were an Exception. Slaves were an exception.
There are many millions of exceptions to your theory right there.
Citizenship being a matter of domestic (municipal) law; not international law? I've killed you on that one.
While it made me laugh pretty hard, I don't think it reaches the level of "killed". It's not the funniest thing you ever said, but it is in the top ten. Citizenship only exists because there are other nations. Were there no other nations, there would be no need for this thing called "citizenship" because all would be members of the same nation anyway.
The very concept of "citizen" requires other Nations, and therefore is not a consequence of "domestic law", but of International law; That is the legal recognition of the sovereignty over citizens of those other nations.
Gray being wrong about the legislative history of the 14th Amendment? I've killed you on that one, too.
I do have to admit that claim was pretty funny. You are arguing that our citizenship law is jus soli and has always been jus soli, so we have to pass a jus soli law because we don't need one. It's even funnier when you take umbrage at supporting "anchor babies" which is a direct consequence of your claim.
The "grandfather clause" being for Hamilton and other foreign born, not the native born like Washington, etc.,? I've given multiple historical and legal commentaries all to that effect.
If you've given any from a contemporary delegate, I haven't noticed, and I put no credibility into the commentary of people long afterward and who were not there.
That you lack any coherent explanation for how Bingham was supposedly (in your view) at odds with his "learned friend" Wilson, yet neither they nor anyone gave the slightest indication of disagreement?
Given the utter botch that the 14th has subsequently turned out to be, I should not find it at all surprising that the various proponents did not know what the other guys believed, but thought themselves in agreement.
It's axiomatic that they intended to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves, but I very much doubt that most of them had any intentions of creating "anchor babies" when they wrote it. That is just a result of the "law of unintended consequences."
You're good at calling names; you're inept at giving explanations to the problems I point out in your positions.
No one cares what a fool thinks. You may be a legend in your own mind, but here in the world of objective reality you are just a willfully ignorant loud mouth that makes up for in vehemence what he lacks in clarity of understanding.
And this is just a sampling of the errors I've found in your "6 years of historical research."M
This line also makes it into your top ten funniest prattlings.
Well I can't imagine why any airline stewardess, upon seeing a tiny infant all wrapped in a blanket and clasped next to his mother's bosom, would ask anyone how old their infant was. Why they would have absolutely no reason whatsoever to ask a mother how old was their infant child. None at all.
You really are funny sometimes. I know you don't mean to be, but I expect you can't really help it. :)
No doubt true. Though the Dunhams by all accounts maintained a good relationship with both their daughter and their grandson.
Eventually they came to accept him. But even given the official history which you no doubt endorse, one does not leave your family two weeks after your child is born and fly single and alone to a distant city to raise the child there by yourself if all is happy and serene at the parent's home. Stanley Ann was previously attending the University of Hawaii, and it would have made more sense for her to remain in Hawaii where she had some support, and finish her education there.
This leaving and going to Seattle appears to be some sort of familial break at a time when Stanley Ann needed familial support to take care of her newborn.
Couple that with the revelation that Madelyn Dunham's co-workers were completely in the dark about her having a grandchild until forty years later, and it paints a different picture than people have been led to believe.
All written by people who weren't there. What's funny is you don't seem to have anything from people that were. I do, but you have no interest in seeing them. You'd rather just keep popping off with subsequent book writers and lawyers that don't know what the H3ll they are talking about.
He wasn't born then!
And a person that cannot understand the connection between Obama who was not born then, and that bit of history, shouldn't be lecturing other people about history. You demonstrate with such words that you don't comprehend the concept of history.
Seriously, that is another funny statement from you. The topic of Natural Born Citizen has nothing to do with Obama because "He wasn't born then!" I would agree the topic of "natural born citizen" has nothing to do with Obama, but that's because he isn't one, and has little to do with when he was born.
But, being the daft person you are, you can't see how Obama has nothing to do with any of that.
And once more, I have to agree with you about Obama having nothing to do with any of that, but not for the reasons you think. Obama and "natural born citizen" are definitely concepts that are mutually exclusive to each other.
He is about the most "unnatural" sort of citizen of which you can conceive.
The founders regarded such examples as a class object. They did not need to address specific iterations, the whole group was covered as a class. Just as "Arms" is a none specific members of a class of objects known as weapons, it is not necessary to iterate every example.
The Founders did not contemplate a populace so stupid as to follow this path you advocate.
I habitually ignore it regarding you. I do not regard you as worthy of any respect, and so I have no inclination to give you any. I suspect you engender that same feeling in others who likewise feel no urge to show you any respect.
She does seem to disappear there for awhile, but I don't know if anything much can be made of it. It is only because of the scrutiny of her as a result of Barack Obama that we even know much at all about her.
Many people go through life and don't leave much of a documented trace, so gaps in people's history are not necessarily conclusive of anything.
Ironically it was the small group of conservative law students on the Harvard Law Review staff who put Obama over the top for the President of Volume position.
Their reasoning was that he was the least leftist radical of the people who were up for the position.
The following was written by a law school and Law Review classmate of Obama’s who went on to become Associate White House Counsel for President George W. Bush;
Bradford Berenson Harvard Law, class of ‘91; associate White House counsel, 2001-’03
“The law school generally at that time was riven ideologically, and not just in terms of Republican/Democrat partisan politics, but there were contending schools of legal thought at the time, represented on the faculty, that really polarized both the faculty and the student body. There was a far-left group of professors who adhered to what was known as critical legal studies, and then there were a handful of conservative professors, like Charles Fried, who had served in the Reagan administration. There were intense debates over affirmative action and race issues. This is, after all, just a few years after the end of the Reagan presidency. ...
That doesn’t mean that, day to day, people weren’t friendly to one another, but the classroom was very politicized. The debates and discussions of the law and of cases frequently pit conservatives in our class against liberals in our class, and the discussions often got quite heated. I would say the environment at Harvard Law School back then was political in a borderline unhealthy way. It was quite intense.
... Interestingly, race was at the forefront of the agenda. There were intense debates over affirmative action that sometimes got expressed through fights over tenure decisions relating to junior faculty at the law school. There were women professors and minority professors who either had come up for tenure or were coming up for tenure, and there were big fights, on the faculty and in the law school at large, over whether they should receive tenure, whether the quality of their scholarship merited that. ...
[A]fter [Obama] became president of the Review, he was under a lot of pressure to participate and lend his voice to those debates. And he did, I think, to some degree. But I would not have described him as a campus radical or a campus political leader. He was the president of the Harvard Law Review, the leader of that organization. But, in that role, his job was to manage, in essence, a publication, and the editors who brought it forth and to do a lot of close editing of academic legal articles. …
You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability. Barack was at the very top of his class in terms of legal ability. He had a first-class legal mind and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review entirely on his merits.
... I never regarded him as kind of a racial special pleader, or a person looking for race-based benefits, either for himself or others. I think as a policy matter, he supported affirmative action and believed in the arguments for it. But unlike many people on the left, he was also willing to acknowledge that it had costs, and he could at least appreciate the arguments on the other side. ...
Interviewer’s Question: “Just in a political sense, what kind of a person were you looking for [to serve as president]? ...”
The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation’s top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left.
But there were a number of people that would have met that criterion. There were at least a large handful who probably had the intellectual and personal characteristics to be good leaders of the Review. From among those, the conservatives were eager to have somebody who would treat them fairly, who would listen to what they had to say, who would not abuse the powers of the office to favor his ideological soul mates and punish those who had different views. Somebody who would basically play it straight, I think was really what we were looking for.
Interviewer’s Question: “Was that hard to find?”
It was very hard to find. And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. ...
We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category. ...
[After Obama is selected,] he does a very able job as president. Puts out what I think was a very good volume of the Review. Does a great job managing the difficult and complicated interpersonal dynamics on the Review. And manages somehow, in an extremely fractious group, to keep everybody almost happy.
Some of the people who are not as happy as others, I think much to their surprise, are some of the African American people who believe that now it’s their turn.
Absolutely right, absolutely right. I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there’s an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it’s our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.
And Barack was reluctant to do that. It’s not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that. ...
He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn’t wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn’t do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.
He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. ...
It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.
Ironically it was the small group of conservative law students on the Harvard Law Review staff who put Obama over the top for the President of Volume position. Their reasoning was that he was the least leftist radical of the people who were up for the position.
I have seen conservatives who are as much or more sensitive to the issue of race as are Liberals, they just won't come out and say so. When one does so, and has an "Honest discussion on the issue of race", they invariably catch H3ll from people for whom the issue is terrifying.
John Derbyshire comes to mind. He was sacked for his observations, because a lot of them were very Politically Incorrect.
I suspect a lot of the Harvard "conservatives" (as if that even makes sense) were supporting Obama for this position simply because such support for him shields them from that sort of criticism, but they will not say so because it's embarrassing. Also I can believe he was good at not appearing as radical as the various left wing nuts who make the Universities their habitats, but in fact he was likely even more radical.
He even admits that throughout this period of time, his friends were the more radical members of the left. He admits to hanging with every left wing kook and violence group that he can find everywhere except when he was in New York.
For some reason he won't talk about that period of his life's History. As near as can be told, he was at ground zero for the grand conjunction of the Black Liberation Army and the Weather Underground with even one of his Cousins involved in the events of that time, yet he says he just minded his own business and mentions no association with radicals during this period.
Zombietime did some great work chasing down a lot of the details of Obama's time in New York. Very interesting circumstantial conjecture on Zombie's part. For some reason Barack Obama felt the need to be in Pakistan right after all that stuff went bad, and we still don't know how he got that serious scar on his head and that very bad compartment wound on his leg.
I’d be interested in a link to a quote from Obama or anyone else at Harvard who said that he was a mediocre student at Harvard Law. Mediocre students don’t graduate with high Latin Honors and run the Law Review.
Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Ted Cruz also graduated from Harvard Law Magna Cum Laude.
“Obama Left His Mark on HLS”
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/1/19/obama-left-mark-on-hls-days/
Not white ones anyway. Obama "earned" those honors the same way he "earned" the Nobel Prize. For being black and making Liberals feel good about themselves for supporting a guy who is black.
Do you think he deserved that Nobel Prize?
“But that favorite student wouldn’t be Barack. It’d be Michelle R. Obama, his wife.”
“I suspect a lot of the Harvard “conservatives” (as if that even makes sense) were supporting Obama for this position simply because such support for him shields them from that sort of criticism, but they will not say so because it’s embarrassing. Also I can believe he was good at not appearing as radical as the various left wing nuts who make the Universities their habitats, but in fact he was likely even more radical.”
Yes, I found that interesting.
I have no idea about Obama’s scholarly ability. I’ll take the word of fellow students and his professors.
I will say that anyone who can put together a team that can raise three quarters of a billion dollars in campaign donations, twice, is no one to be trifled with.
As for the Nobel Prize, I think the 5 member Norwegian Committee fell under the Obama spell that was sweeping the globe in 2008 that had 200,000 people showing up for his speech in Berlin.
Not sure if you noticed but they're mostly old. They are more or less from the William F. Buckley succeeding Generation when Harvard wasn't quite so douchey.
I suppose there might be some actual conservatives that went to Harvard in Obama's day, but I would expect them to be greatly outnumbered by the Liberals.
Put the multi-billion dollar News and Entertainment Industry behind you orgasming themselves over your "blackness" and it's not all that much of an accomplishment.
I remember when they were orgasming about his speech at the 2004 Democrat convention. I gave it a listen and said "meh." It was apparent to me at the time, his speech was only considered marvelous because he was a Black Democrat, not because it was particularly good.
That's when the media started boosting him. Had they decided to be his enemy, he would have been a greasy spot, and no one would now know his name.
If you looked at Obama's finances before he got elected to anything, you could tell right away this man can't even manage his own household finances, let alone 3/4ths of a billion dollar campaign. That was managed for him.
Obama was deeply in debt and facing foreclosure till he got elected, then all his money problems just magically disappeared.
Yeah, he's a real genius alright.
And you think any of his other unearned accomplishments are exceptions? That is exactly how he became President. The media pushed him as a "Savior" relentlessly. People painted on his blank canvas what they wanted to see. And he Lied. A Lot.
We even find out his campaign faked the publicity that revived his dead campaign. "Obama Girl" was a hired actress which at the time was passed off as an adoring fan. The media deliberately viralized her video and single handedly revived Obama's *DEAD* campaign.
There are fresh young conservative faces out of Harvard Law clerking for conservative U.S. Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Justices every year.
For example, being the editor-in-chief of a top law review will take you far. Rachel Miller-Ziegler, who will be clerking for Chief Justice Roberts in October Term 2016, currently is President of Volume of the Harvard Law Review. Her career in the law is set with those credentials.
Justice Scalia has hired Harvard Law Grads Michael Kenneally and Sean Mirski; Justice Thomas has Sarah Harris; Justice Alito has Clarence Walker; Justice Kennedy has Alex Harris; and Justice Roberts has Katherine Booth Wellington and the aforementioned Rachel Miller-Ziegler.
These are all names to watch for the future.
Why would anyone expect the liberal mainstream media not to push for who they wanted to win?
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.