Posted on 08/02/2009 4:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
And then one of our moderators spotted this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate
It has several clues, but also there's this question:
Who is E. F. Lavender?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth+friendly+lavender&aq=f&oq=&aqi
Earth Friendly Lavender detergent?
Like a number of others here, you are confusing citizenship with Natural Born citizenship.
The case you cite only dealt with citizenship, not Natural Born citizenship.
[[ In fact, the Supreme Court ruled a very long time ago in Marbury v. Madison that it is quite impossible for the term “citizen” as it is used in Amendment XIV to have the same meaning as “natural born citizen” phrase was used in Article 2 of the Constitution (Leo Donofrio and sister).
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
Constructing the word “citizen” in Amendment XIV to render the “natural born citizen” phrase without effect for the purpose intended by the Founding Fathers as it was written into the Constitution and actually effected to the present day is in the words of Justice Marshall “inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
For thousands of years, virtually every society and government within the tradition of our present Law of Nations has observed a custom of using allegiance by birth and allegiance by oath as a means of establishing citizenship in a society and nation. The Founding Fathers relied upon this universal principle of allegiance and citizenship when including the phrase “natural born citizen” to indicate a person born with allegiance only to the United States of America was a requirement for eligibility to the Office of the President.
Now we have a gang of people who have failed many attempts in very recent years to obtain an Amendment to the Constitution which would make Barack Hussein Obama Jr. eligible for the Office of the President. Having failed to lawfully obtain the required Amendment to the Constitution before the presidential campaign, they instead resorted to simply brazening it out in disregard of the Constitution. Now they seek to exploit legal loopholes, pettifoggery, and false propaganda as a means of obfuscating the obvious fact the Founding Fathers by word and deed denied the Office of the President to any person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign and government.
Freeper 'Whiskey X' on a concurrently running thread.]]
I agree especially from that era. Modern day the full stops would be omitted as most letters are now open punctuation.
I normlly sign my letters - E J Hills unless I am more familiar with the person I am sending the correspondence to and then I would sign them Eleanor J Hills.
I would never put EJ HIlls there would always be a space beteen the first and second letter but as stated above no longer the full stops.
You should've at least glossed over United States v. Wong Kim Ark before you characterized my post as "obamanoid crap."
In that case, Justice Gray wrote, "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: 'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167."
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite wrote, "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Going back to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray wrote, "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."
QED. You lose.
[[ Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause - and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings - leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny the acts of Congress in attempt to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine in this country at the expense of rendering unethical and legally unsound rulings.
NOTE: The Wong Kim Ark ruling left undisturbed the uniform judicial doctrine since 1885 that said when residence is permanent the child born here of permanent residents should be considered a citizen of the United States. Although not a constitutional controversy under the words or interpretation the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment provided, current federal judicial understanding could be said unsettled under Wong Kim Ark in terms of temporary or illegal residents. [[ http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html ]]
I did read what you offered me, and it is clear that you did not understand much of what you quoted from WhiskeyX.
I never said that the phrase "natural born" in Article II is without meaning. Why do you think I quoted those portions of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett that specifically addressed that phrase?
You can't have your cake and eat it, too, bud. You can either accept your "For thousands of years,..." quote from WhiskeyX, or you can accept your Federalist Blog rant against English common law, but you can't take both. It's plainly obvious to anyone who is literate in our language that the Constitution does not define "natural born." Since that is the case, the two cases I quoted from analyzed English common law and clarified the meaning of "natural born."
Clearly, you do not like their conclusions. That is fine. Like the author from the Federalist Blog, you are welcome to say that United States v. Wong Kim Ark is "as worthless as a three-dollar bill." You are also welcome to ignore that "natural born" has been previously clarified by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and Minor, and that it makes plain that Obama is a "natural born citizen," but it only shows how deceived you have been. My sincerest condolences.
LOL, nice try. BTW, loosen those kneepads and switch FR names for a while. And what cheese would you like with your whine? Would you like a perkins or an Elg, and we might be able to quote a Venus for you as well. Your condescending faux expertise is wearing thin, in every persona with which you present it at FR. Have a pleasant evening ... did you think the name you’re using now would get you extra chances for negatives, troll?
I reciprocate your courtesy and wish you a pleasant evening, as well.
Your arrogance betrays your persona. You have not explained how the 14th A can stand as you interpret it without negating the use of natural born citizen for presidential eligibility as an exclusive clause. That is precisely what Wisky X’s owrds call to your attention yet you try to be devious and smarmy to avoid the clear conflct with your specious assertions. As before, have an evening. You aren’t the expert you imagine yourself to be.
Nope. The the issue being decided in case you cite only dealt with citizenship, not Natural Born citizenship.
Reading the quotes you included in your reply, and applying the same logic you are using, it would appear you are saying the Court in Wong Kim Ark actually decided the definition of ‘natural-born subjects’ in the U. S.
Do you really mean to conclude that many of us here are SUBJECTS of the United States? Anathema! Traitorous!
We are sovereigns, not subjects.
So, take your QED and introduce it to a place where the sun don’t shine.
I remind you that in Minor, Chief Justice Waite wrote, "...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens...were natives, or natural-born citizens..." (emphasis mine). Justice Gray referred to this in the Court's opinion in Wong Kim Ark, and Justice Gray came to the same conclusion regarding the meaning of "natural-born." Since you have no other substantive arguments, you chose to create a red herring and focus on the wholly irrelevant "subjects" instead of the highly relevant "natural-born."
Answer one simple question: Was the Court, in Wong Kim Ark, ruling on citizenship or natural born citizenship? Only one is correct.
I'll say it one more time: the term "natural-born" is not defined in our Constitution. Consequently, "natural-born" does not simply mean what you want it to mean.
For problems like these, we have a Supreme Court to intepret our Constitution. Even though neither Minor v. Happersett nor United States v. Wong Kim Ark explicitly dealt with the question of what "natural-born" means, the question was nevertheless answered because it was so closely related to the explicit issues at hand. You can disagree with the conclusions of Chief Justice Waite and Justice Gray. You can even dismiss them as garbage judicial activism if you like. But you can't pretend that they never made any judgments on the meaning of "natural-born."
You know what I just realized? Neither you nor MHGinTN has cited a definition of "natural-born." Could it be because you know that jurisprudence is not in your favor?
These posters don't deal in truth, they deal in deceit, ever seeking to make their purposed, calculate lies, 'plausible' to those who want to believe lies rather than find the truth. Such deceit requires a mindset so twisted that truth really doesn't matter, winning and empowerment for their lies is what matters to them.
We have two or three spittling on this thread for just such obvious purpose. They are schooled in Alinskyesque methodology, relying on ridicule, condescension, and outright lies to do their dirty service to their father ...
You might also not that once a deceiver gets registered in a court ruling (Gray was appoiinted by Arthur and had a vested interest in twisting the meaning of the Constitution to lend credibility to his illegitimate appointer), the professional liars resort to that deceit as the basis for their faux truth.
I'm serious. Buy Deus Ex and play it. I guarantee that you'll love it.
Non-responsive. It was a choice-of-two question. Pick one or the other.
BTW, the Constitution doesn’t define Bill of Attainder or ex post facto either. Why is that? Serious question, and the answer is obvious.
Despite readily emphasizing the importance of "natural-born," you are oddly silent on its definition. For the sake of advancing the discussion, please cite a definition, preferably one backed by a SCOTUS case.
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.