Courts can remove ineligible chief executive - Precedent cited in appeal (certifigate)

WND ^ | 2/1/10 | Bob Unruh

[pissant]

In the United States, courts can, in fact, remove a chief executive officer of a government if that officer is found to be ineligible, according to a court precedent cited in an appeal of a California lawsuit that challenges Barack Obama's legitimacy in the White House.

A multitude of cases have been brought over the issue of Obama's eligibility. Some are by critics who have doubts about whether he was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, and others are from those who question whether the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth – from being eligible for the presidency.

The disputes revolve around the Constitution's demand that the president be a "natural born citizen."

Now in an appeal of a state court case in California that named as a defendant California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation is arguing that there already are two precedents that should be applied: one in a court case in which state officials removed from the ballot a nominee for president simply because he did not meet the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

"In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States. The then-Secretary of State, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president," the brief, being filed this week, argues.

[EnderWiggins]

"George Collins must have been one bright student to be given the honor to write for The American Law Review and later to argue in front of the Supreme Court."

Well.... writing for a "law review" that was unrelated to any law school and that you paid to get your articles into was really no great accomplishment. Neither, by the way, is losing in front of the Supreme Court. Even you and I could pull that off.

But there is no doubt he was very bright. He was certainly bright enough to get his own chapter in the book, Celebrated Criminal Cases in America.

The title of his chapter even says so: "Attorney George D. Collins, the Brilliant Attorney, Who Committed Bigamy and Perjury - A Remarkable Case."

"Finding himself afoul of the law at a later date does not take away from his past good."

Neither does becoming Secretary of the California Bar Association take away from his past bad. But you sure seemed to think that detail was important to include.

I'm just trying to keep the record complete.

Of course... the only actual substantive issue is that his arguments had their day in court, and the US Supreme Court said, "You're wrong, Brilliant Attorney George D. Collins."

Funny how that works.

[Red Steel]

So... you still can't find a single example of where anybody ever connected the phrase "natural born citizenship" with de Vattel until ten years too late.

There is no need to look. No one is buying your views here. And however, your "ten years too late" nonsense does not include the 1792 version that BP2 showed you before and is re-shown below, which is only about 1 year of the last ratification of the US Constitution by the state(s). You haven't dented The plain text or the meaning and intent behind the 'natural born citizen' clause that is written in the US Constitution.

Thanks for playing.

LoL...you're no closer to proving your points than Obama is to being a natural born citizen.

[EnderWiggins]

"There is no need to look."

That's okay. You could have looked all you wanted. You would have found nothing, because not a single framer of the Constitution ever once referred to de Vattel when defining citizenship in general or natural born in particular. Glad to see that you understand that. Madisons's contradiction of de Vattel stands unchallenged.

I love, by the way, the fact that you keep posting that 2nd Amendment & de Vattel reference. You are so certain that de Vattel was great influence on the Constitution, and yet the only example you post is one where the Framers completely rejected de Vattel's opinion on the right to bear arms and wrote something completely different into the Constitution.

I'm curious as to why you would use an example that proves de Vattel's influence on the Constitution was... not so much.

[Red Steel]

I'm curious as to why you would use an example that proves de Vattel's influence on the Constitution was... not so much.

If you want to bring up something that is besides the point from a little footnote making the point about "Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts." in the District of Columbia v. Heller, I will bring up something relevant in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

From Chief Justice FULLER .

"Before the Revolution, the views of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: 'The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is herefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.' Vatt. Law Nat. bk. 1, c. 19, 212."

These words were not lost on Justice Grey as he never considered Wong Ark a natural born citizen. And that it shows the Supreme Court of the United States believed that de Vattel's definition is the meaning and intent behind Article 2, Section 1., Clause 5, of the United States Constitution. Note the words again - " and not his country" - in the above except.

Wong Kim Ark is not or never was a natural born citizen of the United States so is NOT Barack Obama.

[STARWISE]

And I'm wondering why anyone new, who apparently doesn't appear to support the conservative values of this site as set out by the owner, and appears to be anti-religion, would have any interest in coming to the #1 conservative site on the web at all, if not to be a muckraking, verbose interloper .. especially on the eligibility issue.

Statement by Founder of Free Republic

I also love the media/Obot-sanctioned ridicule of the Tea Party movement .. LOL.

[STE=Q]

It is my contention (and the record of the historical debate backs me up) that the terms "born citizen," "native citizen," "native born citizen” and “natural born citizen" are all exactly synonymous.

Yes, I myself indicated that was your contention.

I just found it "strange" that the word NATURAL -- that the Framers used in the "Natural Born Citizen" Clause in the constitution -- would lose ALL meaning under YOUR definition.

It would appear that the word Natural would be a modifier of the word Born.

Yet, if we use YOUR "contention" -- namely, "Born Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" have the SAME meaning -- one would HAVE to conclude that the word NATURAL, in Natural born Citizen, had no meaning (as a modifier) at all!

However, your argument is that -- as Lawyers -- the Framers were copying their former sovereign's common law, such as: Natural(born)subject is commensurate with Natural (born) citizen.

Are you saying it was somehow INCUMBENT on the Framers to do that?

Would it not be far MORE reasonable to infer that the Framers were looking for guidance that would supersede -- legally and philosophically -- the confines of their former British masters?

Why do you insist it is unreasonable for us to conclude that one such guide was Vattel's LAW of Nations?

In fact, the following is the evidence in support of OUR contention:

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of VATTEL. It came to us **in good season** when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary FREQUENTLY to CONSULT the LAW OF NATIONS. Accordingly, that copy which I KEPT, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been CONTINUALLY in the HAND of the MEMBERS of our CONGRESS, now sitting, who are much PLEASED with your notes and preface, and have ENTERTAINED a HIGH and JUST ESTEEM for their author" {VATTEL}...

(Emphases mine)

We the underwritten, appointed by the American congress a committee of foreign correspondence having perused the above Letter, Written at our Request, do approve and confirm the same.

(Signed) John Dickinson

John Jay

STE=Q

[Electric Graffiti]

Great post.

[Red Steel]

Would it not be far MORE reasonable to infer that the Framers were looking for guidance that would supersede -- legally and philosophically -- the confines of their former British masters?

Any natural born citizen of the United States can become the head of state of the United States while only a subset class (royals) of British subjects could be king or queen in other words, the head of state.

[STE=Q]

Thank you!

STE=Q

[STARWISE]

Any natural born citizen of the United States can become the head of state of the United States

~~~

who’s attained 35 years of age ... ;)

[Red Steel]

...And been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

;-)

[Red Steel]

Glad to see that you understand that. Madisons's contradiction of de Vattel stands unchallenged.

BTW, because you cannot find de Vattel referenced in Madison's notes taken at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, is in noway a contradiction that you say. It's because as I contend, there was no resistance to de Vattel's natural born citizenship definition. Apparently, it was accepted by all who attended since no objections were debated.

[DaveTesla]

"1. John Bingham wrote a single sentence of the 14th Amendment, and it was not the one that had to do with citizenship.”

Not so.

Article 1 of the 14th amendment, the Citizenship and the Citizenship Clause (Defining who was a citizen of the United States) was written exclusively by John Bingham.

Except for the addition of the first sentence of Section 1, the amendment which defined citizenship weathered the Senate debate without substantial change. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

The U.S. Supreme Court justice Hugo Black called Rep. John Bingham (R-Ohio), “the Madison of the Fourteenth Amendment,”

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.^[1]

Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania proposed a similar guarantee:

All laws, state or national, shall operate impartially and equally on all persons without regard to race or color.^[2]

On Jan. 19 Connecticut Representative Henry Deming introduced a constitutional amendment similar to Bingham's that declared:

That Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every State equal protection in their rights of life, liberty, and property.^[3]

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."^[4]

A wholly separate proposed amendment would have stated, in addition to the above:

All provisions in the Constitution or laws of any State, whereby any distinction is made in political or civil rights or privileges, on account of race, creed or color, shall be inoperative and void."^[5]

The word "creed" was deleted by the full committee, perhaps to exclude atheists or Confederate sympathizers.^[6] Stevens proposed and subsequently withdrew a constitutional amendment that defined United States citizens as "all persons born in the United States, or naturalized, excepting Indians."^[7]

On January 27 the Joint Committee considered a draft of the constitutional amendment reported by the subcommittee of Bingham, Boutwell, and Rogers. It now read:

Congress shall have power to make laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure all persons in every state full protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property; and to all citizens of the United States in every State the same immunities and also equal political rights and privileges.^[8]

Johnson lost his motion to strike the privileges and immunities clause.^[9] Further consideration was postponed until the next meeting.^[10]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument^[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

In debate on S. 61, the Civil Rights Bill, some Western senators wished to exclude Indians and Chinese from citizenship. Williams of Oregon argued that if Indians were citizens, then state laws that prohibited whites from selling arms and ammunition to Indians would be void.^[12] At a time when the suppression of Indians and the seizure of their lands was proceeding in earnest, it was considered unacceptable to recognize a right of Indians to keep and bear arms. Thus, the Senate voted to define all persons born in the United States, without distinction of color, as citizens, "excluding Indians not taxed."^[13]

In the House, debate on the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, S. 60, began with a procedural ruling that delayed the offering of amendments. Nathaniel P. Banks, a former governor of Massachusetts and Union general, stated: "I shall move, if I am permitted to do so, to amend the seventh section of this bill by inserting after the word 'including' the words 'the constitutional right to bear arms'; so that it will read, 'including the constitutional right to bear arms, the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, &c.'"^[14] The section would thus have recognized "the civil rights belonging to white persons, including the constitutional right to bear arms."

The House then returned to debate on the bill. Supporting its passage, Representative Ignatius Donnelly noted that "there is an amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] which provides in effect that Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation all the guarantees of the Constitution."^[15] Once again, Bingham's draft of the Fourteenth Amendment was seen as protecting Bill of Rights guarantees.

 

 

Every law book, every case citing the 14th, every constitutional

article I have ever read cites John Bingham as the framer of the 14th.

Here is Mr. Bingham leading the debate in Congress:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=75
House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 1034

 

To save Free Republic some memory I will simply supply these search links:

John Bingham principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&q=John+Bingham+principal+framer+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment+to+the+United+States+Constitution.&start=20&sa=N

Results 21 - 30 of about 41,600

Article 1 of the 14th amendment John Bingham

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&q=Article+1+of+the+14th+amendment+john+bingham&start=20&sa=N

Results 21 - 30 of about 358,000

 

“2. John Bingham was not even born when Article II was written. As such his opinion is no more relevant than anybody else in Congress 80 years too late.”

“3. John Bingham’s opinion was not echoed by a single one of his contemporaries.”

“4. John Bingham wasn’t even talking about the Constitution in that quotation.”

John Bingham confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866

“Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

s61 was the Civil Rights bill that the 14^th amendment to the Constitution.
On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15.

 

 

“Why anybody thinks that Bingham’s comments on the Civil Rights Act have any authority over the meaning of Article II of the US Constitution is entirely beyond me."

Simple. Article 1 of the 14^th amendment defined citizenship.

http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm

Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to accomplish one purpose: End to denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens of the United States by virtue of citizenship under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution wherever they traveled within the Union. Under the original Constitution, citizens of the United States were required to be first a citizen of some State - something newly emancipated citizens could not claim. This is why it was imperative for the first section to begin with a definition of citizenship so that no State could refuse recognition of newly freed slaves as U.S. citizens by withholding the right to protection of the laws in life, liberty or property in the courts as enjoyed by white citizens.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted after the Civil War as one of the Reconstruction Amendments on July 9, 1868. The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing Constitutional rights by declaring them not to be citizens.

This is why article 1 of the 14^th amendment is called the Citizenship and the Citizenship Clause.

It had everything to do with citizenship because it defined citizenship within the constitution.

[little jeremiah]

It’s crystal clear why Wigout is here. The only point of debate is he an hourly wage type of guy or salaried.

I think he’s salaried.

[Velveeta]

Bingham's opinion not only is worthless, it was aberrant.

Dude, you need to go back and study history.

Bingham's opinion - worthless? Hahahaha.

[Velveeta]

Thanks for all the links.
The information is clear for those willing to see.

[EnderWiggins]

Dave… did you not notice that your long account of the legislative history of the 14th Amendment in the House of Representatives does not mention citizenship once?

There is a very good reason for that. There was no Citizenship Clause in the version of the Amendment that was written by Bingham and sent to the Senate. It is a simple historical fact that Bingham did not write the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. The text of the Citizenship Clause was first offered in the Senate (of which Bingham was not a member) as an amendment to Section 1 of the joint resolution as passed by the House (which Bingham wrote). The actual author of the Citizenship Clause was Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan

You are welcome to look it up yourself.

The legislative history of the 14th Amendment is recounted in J. James, The Framing of the Fourteenth Amendment (1956). See also Journal of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction (B. Kendrick, ed. 1914). The floor debates are collected in 1 Statutory History of the United States—Civil Rights 181 (B. Schwartz, ed. 1970). All of you are welcome to actually check the sources rather than blindly accept on the false narrative promoted in this thread regarding Bingham and the 14th Amendment.

[EnderWiggins]

”However, your argument is that -- as Lawyers -- the Framers were copying their former sovereign's common law, such as: Natural(born)subject is commensurate with Natural (born) citizen. Are you saying it was somehow INCUMBENT on the Framers to do that? “

Of course it was not incumbent on them to do anything. It was their conscious choice.

Had they, on the other hand, decided to attach a new and previously unknown definition to what was otherwise a well unknown and commonly used term of art, it would have been incumbent on them to announce that they were doing so and explicitly provide this innovative definition. They pointedly did not bother.

”Would it not be far MORE reasonable to infer that the Framers were looking for guidance that would supersede -- legally and philosophically -- the confines of their former British masters?”

Certainly not. Perhaps you should go back and read the earlier Declaration of Independence. In particular, pay attention to the enumerated grievances. They are on the whole a series of objections to the Crown’s violations of English common law. The Colonies did not rebel against English common law, they rebelled against King George’s violation of that law. The revolution was as much about restoring the primacy of the law over arbitrary tyranny as it was about any desire to form an independent nation.

”Why do you insist it is unreasonable for us to conclude that one such guide was Vattel's LAW of Nations?”

It is not merely unreasonable… it is impossible. De Vattel cannot be given credit for defining something he never even mentioned, referred to or wrote about.

[DaveTesla]

“Thanks for all the links.”

Your welcome.

Didn't mean to bother you but that fellow was piling an awful
lot of lies on you. Just wanted you to have some facts to
throw back at him.

He must write revisionist history books for the leftists.

[EnderWiggins]

"If you want to bring up something that is besides the point from a little footnote making the point about "Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts." in the District of Columbia v. Heller, I will bring up something relevant in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark."

I didn't bring it up, you guys did. It is not my fault that it demonstrates that the Federal Convention had no problem rejecting de Vattel's idea when they wrote the Constitution. If you think that is "irrelevant" to how influential he really was over the Constitution, well... okay.

As to your quotation from Cheif Justice Fuller, I suppose that you did not notice he was writing in the dissent? In other words, this is the opinion that lost the decision 6-2.

So, rather than showing that "the Supreme Court of the United States believed that de Vattel's definition is the meaning and intent behind Article 2, Section 1," it is instead a demonstration of what the Supreme Court, represented by the majority and the deciding law did not believe.

I hafta tell you... it is a very weird debate tactic to draw so much attention on the fact that your preferred definition didn't just lose, but lost explicitly after having been considered by the court.