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.

[STARWISE]

Aah yes ..

[EnderWiggins]

I am not the slightest anti-religious. I am a very religious man. I am just not a Christian.

[EnderWiggins]

Neither de Vattel nor his “definition” is mentioned once in the debates.

[STARWISE]

In considering that ..

so all those rogues in the Senate who tried to change
the potus eligibility requirements so many times over
the years must think we’re stupid enough to accept the
extra 6 years (to 20 yrs of residency) as faint
consolation, and that eliminating the pertinent
requirements would soothe any doubts we might have
about the Constitution’s (and the Founders’) true
intent about dual national allegiance in that office.

Right ! ;)

[STARWISE]

Are you a conservative politically ?

[DaveTesla]

“There is a very good reason for that. There was no Citizenship Clause in the version of the Amendment that was written by Bingham”

Revisionist history.
Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
The Citizenship Clause

“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The John Bingham 39th Congress proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause.

Unless you go along with the idea that Blacks in the USA should not have the right to bear arms.

ON MISREADING JOHN BINGHAM AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Copyright © 1993 by the Yale Law Journal Company

John Bingham, the principal author of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. Bingham had repeatedly stated his belief that the Fourteenth Amendment would enforce the Bill of Rights against the states.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/aynes_14th.htm

See CONG. GLOBE, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. app. at 84 (Mar. 31, 1871); CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 2d Sess. 811 (Jan. 28, 1867); CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2541-42 (May 10, 1866); Id. at 1291-92 (Mar. 9, 1866); Id. at 1089-90 (Feb. 28, 1866); Id. at 1034 (Feb. 26, 1866).

[EnderWiggins]

I am absolutely a fiscal and defense conservative. I am socially a libertarian. I am not a religious conservative, as my religious beliefs are not mainstream.

I formally became an Independent after more than 30 years as a registered Republican, primarily out of regret for having voted for W in 2004.

[EnderWiggins]

The author of the Citizenship Clause was not Representative John Bingham of Ohio. It was Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan.

Bingham wrote the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses.

This is simple historical fact.

[STARWISE]

In reading some of your posts, I don’t know
nor really care what religion, that’s your
private matter .. but you obviously expend
time expressing some anti-Christian sentiments.

FYI: that won’t sit well on this site very long, if
you’re truly interested in being part of this
conservative and patriotic community.

And you’re awfully engaged and ready with pertinent
references for a noobie.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:enderwiggins/index?brevity=full;tab=comments

Did you read the Statement of the Founder of this
I posted?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts

Does that statement mostly comport with your views ?

Your profile page says you’re a graduate of West Point ..
have you served in our military ?

FR is very supportive of our troops and welcoming to conservative and patriotic folks, and those who stray afield from the policies of the owner and members get
zotted sooner or later. So, we shall see.

For now, my antennae remained tweaked.

[DaveTesla]

“The author of the Citizenship Clause was not Representative John Bingham of Ohio. It was Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan. Bingham wrote the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses.This is simple historical fact.”

Wrong again! Jacob M. Howard merely changed the first sentence.

During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Howard said:

[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session
Page 2890 of 3840

So guess what?
Howard basically said the same thing Bingham did.

So how does that apply to your friend Mr. Obama?

[DaveTesla]

Center column 5 paragraphs up:

The 14th amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who
belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but
will include every other class of person.

Senitor Jacob M. Howard Congressional Globe,Senate, 39th Congress, Page 2890, 1st Session May 30th 1866

[DaveTesla]

Center column 5 paragraphs up:

The 14th amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who
belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but
will include every other class of person.

Senitor Jacob M. Howard Congressional Globe,Senate, 39th Congress, Page 2890, 1st Session May 30th 1866

[DaveTesla]

See above post 572

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2442381/posts?page=572#572

[Red Steel]

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.

The original point was that it was de Vattel's 'Law of Nations' published in 1792 since you were making the ten years [1797] after the 1787 Constitutional Convention silliness and then it was clarified for you in subsequent posts.

They "rejected de Vattel's idea"? Hahaa... of course the Law of Nations was not. Benjamin Franklin didn't reject it as a signatory to the US Constitution.

To refresh your memory again, here is Benjamin Franklin's own words to Charles Dumas.

"I am much obliged by the kink 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 hands 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...."

Franklin brought back 3 copies of the Law of Nations from France to the new continent. It was "continually in the hands of members" of Congress? And those same Founding Fathers praised de Vattel speaking about him in "high and just esteemed"? Oh yeah, it was 'rejected' in your words - LoL!

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.

You didn't notice - again. Take a look at the post again to you that I said that these words were not lost of Justice Grey who wrote the majority opinion for the court. As Grey did not say in the majority court's judgment that Wong Ark was a natural born citizen which is the point. Without the minority opinion of the court who reminded and let facts be known to the majority, the majority could have made an even larger egregious error in their opinion.

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.

It's well explained in the above post to you, and the point being made did not lose in court - Ark and Obama are not natural born citizens. Furthermore, what's weird is your misdirection,...then again on second thought, I expect it.

[EnderWiggins]

"In reading some of your posts, I don’t know nor really care what religion, that’s your private matter .. but you obviously expend time expressing some anti-Christian sentiments."

If you read the entire thread, you would have noticed that I did no such thing. I defended my beliefs from an intolerant attack by a Christian who blamed the Nazi-Holocaust on Darwinism, rather than even acknowledge 2000 years of Christian European ant-Semitism.

Certainly, you would not suggest that only Christians are allowed to respond to attacks in this forum.

"And you’re awfully engaged and ready with pertinent references for a noobie""

How hard is it to use google? This is a topic that has been sliced and diced on the Internet for going on two years. There is no reason any reasonably proficient Web denizen can't find "pertinent references" for anything.

More importantly though, it strikes me as weird that disagreeing on two issues that are not even "conservative" issues should "tweak your antennae." Perhaps it's just me, but I do not come here to preach to the choir. You certainly don't expect me to argue with people that agree with me on issues like funding defense, the war on terror, or reigning in government spending?

I argue where I dsagree, not where I don't.

Birthism was started by the PUMAs and founded by feminist left wing Democrats who wanted Hillary Clinton to be President. Heck, the lady who talked Phil Berg into filing the first case was the same lady who helped fake the Killian memo's that IIRC were exposed as frauds right here on this very forum.

It's already been used to split the Tea Parties. It has become a punchline for anybody who wants to make fun of the right wing. And it deserves that status. Like Glen Beck said, it is a gift to the Obama administration.

"Did you read the Statement of the Founder of this I posted? Does that statement mostly comport with your views ?"

Probably about 80-90%. It could not be 100% since I am a social libertarian.

"Your profile page says you’re a graduate of West Point .. have you served in our military ?"

It is almost impossible to graduate from a real Service Academy (as opposed to state schools like VMI or the Citadel) and not serve in the Military. There is a minimum 5 year obligation after graduation. I was commissioned in the Field Artillery, am an Airborne Ranger, and commanded a battery in the 82nd Airborne Division Artillery. I served 9 years.

[EnderWiggins]

”The original point was that it was de Vattel's 'Law of Nations' published in 1792 since you were making the ten years [1797] after the 1787 Constitutional Convention silliness and then it was clarified for you in subsequent posts.”

Then as far as I can tell you were actually making no point at all. The 1792 Edition does not even contain the phrase “natural born citizen.” Here again is what that edition says:



If you can find the phrase “natural born citizen” there, I’ll completely stop posting on this issue.

”They "rejected de Vattel's idea"?

In that example you keep giving, you bet they did. De Vattel was opposed to the right of citizens to bear arms. And we instead have the 2nd Amendment. You can’t reject de vattel any more forcefully than that.

”Franklin brought back 3 copies of the Law of Nations from France to the new continent. It was "continually in the hands of members" of Congress? And those same Founding Fathers praised de Vattel speaking about him in "high and just esteemed"? Oh yeah, it was 'rejected' in your words - LoL! “

Franklin did not bring them back. They were sent as gifts by their publisher in Amsterdam. And you , again, seem to completely miss the point. No matter how high their esteem, they still rejected his opinion on the right to bear arms. And since he offered no opinion on the definition of “natural born citizen” they didn’t even have to actually reject that. You can't really reject something that doesn't exist.

As to your continued convoluted effort to pretend Wong Kim Ark says the opposite of what it actually says, it does not matter how you interpret it, or how I interpret it. It only matters how other courts interpret it. We have had just such an interpretation handed down to us just a few months ago in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. Referring directly to both Article II of the Constitution and to Wong Kim Ark, the Judicial Panel wrote:

”Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

These are not just two anonymous guys arguing on an Internet Forum, Red. This is a panel of real judges doing the real job of interpreting the real law.

[EnderWiggins]

Thank you, Dave, for helping prove my point that John Bingham did not write the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

You quoted the real author's comment, "The 14th amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

And yes, it has always been understood that children of ambassadors or foreign ministers are "foreigners, aliens," i.e. not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And they are the only "class of person" excluded by that comment.

"Every other class of person" includes the children of aliens who are not ambassadors or foreign ministers.

[DaveTesla]

“Thank you, Dave, for helping prove my point that John Bingham did not write the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.”

I take it you have a vision problem?

Jacob M. Howard merely changed the first sentence.

During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

OK, pay attention:
This is section 1:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The bold part is the part Mr. Howard added.
The rest is what John Bingham wrote.
You catching up with me?
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

A grammar one as well?

who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

The comma is used in many contexts and languages, principally for separating things. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word comma comes directly from the Greek êüììá which means something cut off or short

Take for example,
Those who have $5 dollars, $10 dollars, $15 dollars or $20 dollars, but will include every other bill or coin.

So to you the above is not 4 distinct people but someone with $50 dollars?

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp

Not to worry, we made a wager that you were going to say exactly
what you did.
At least your predictable.

[DaveTesla]

“If you read the entire thread, you would have noticed that I did no such thing. I defended my beliefs from an intolerant attack by a Christian who blamed the Nazi-Holocaust on Darwinism, rather than even acknowledge 2000 years of Christian European antisemitism.”

“Certainly, you would not suggest that only Christians are allowed to respond to attacks in this forum.”

You said that????
Are you saying your a Darwinist who believes the holocaust was caused by 2000 years of Christian European antisemitism?
Hmmmm....
That is not good.

[EnderWiggins]

"Jacob M. Howard merely changed the first sentence."

Better a vision problem than a comprehension problem. The first sentence is the Citizenship Clause. It did not exist prior to his addition of it.

Read your own reference, Dave. It is the play-by-play description of the moment that Senator Howard inserted that clause into the Amendment. It is the absolutely official and incontrovertible proof that Bingham did not write it.

"During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Oooohhh, yes, you have a serious comprehension problem. Go back and read your own reference. Read it carefully. Pay attention to specifically what the words are that Senator Howard asked to be inserted, and where he asked for them to be inserted.

Q: What was inserted?

A: The entire sentence, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Q: Where was it inserted?

A: After the words, "Section One."

Squirm as you might, Dave, the record there is clear. Senator Howard wrote and inserted the entire Citizenship Clause, not just the little part you think he did. Your own reference, which is the official record of the proceedings, proves it. It's right there in black an white.

Now... to your bastardization of English grammar:

Think for a second about the whole comment by Senator Howard. All "four distinct people" you assert he is talking about are being discussed at the moment of birth. It was this:

"The 14th amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

If (as you contend) he is talking about "four distinct people," then you must be also be saying that:

1. You must be claiming that "foreigners" and "aliens" are two different things. But they're not. They are perfect synonyms as any thesaurus will show you. So we already know that he using at least that one comma to separate two synonyms for the same kind of person, not two different kinds of people.

2. You must be claiming that "foreign ministers" can be born already being foreign ministers. Because the fourth "distinct person" found here is "foreign ministers," not "the families of foreign ministers."

Now as amusing as the image of a three day old foreign minister might be, I'm pretty sure that's not what the Senator had in mind.

So, we know here that the "or" is not separating two different kinds of people, it is operating two different kinds of families; i.e. those of ambassadors and those of foreign ministers including them together with the conjunction "or." There are not four anything here. There are three: aliens, foreigners and families of foreign diplomats.

So, knowing that foreigners and aliens (separated by a comma) mean the same thing, and knowing that the third thing (families of foreign diplomats) is also only seperated by a comma and not a conjunction there is only one grammatically correct way to understand his statement.

Foreigners=aliens=families of foreign diplomats.

And this is (by the way) exactly how every court since has explicitly understood "under the jurisdiction" to mean.

So, to be correct your example should be:

Those who have 1 dollar, 4 quarters, 100 cents or pennies, but will include every other number of cents.