Posted on 02/01/2010 8:02:17 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“It’s because they are not true “
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see who’s right.
I’d call this an anti-Christian statement ..:
**”rather than even acknowledge 2000 years of Christian European ant-Semitism.”
~ ~ ~ ~
**”More importantly though, it strikes me as weird that disagreeing on two issues that are not even “conservative” issues should “tweak your antennae.”
You ACTUALLY don’t accept the Constitutional eligibility of our CIC is a conservative issue ??
~ ~ ~
(”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.
Perhaps you should re-read this from the owner .... special emphasis on the last sentence.
>>>
“As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.
We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people.
We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.”
>>>
What exactly do the words ‘defending our borders, our Constitution and our national sovereignty’ mean to you?
And you state you believe an illegal alien’s child, born in the USA .. an anchor baby .. would be Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS or that Hugo Chavez could father a child who was born here .. and be the same ?? Horse pucky! And stunningly, sickeningly outrageous for a West Point grad and former military officer.
Like I said: thank you for your service. And if you’re now not engaged in our miitary, Guard or Reserves as a voice for younger troops, I’m honestly much relieved.
~ ~ ~
***”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.”
~ ~
To which I replied that I laugh at your ridicule of the Tea Parties and look at Corzine, Deeds and Coakley for starters .. and you responded with confusion with my response .. as if YOU had never mentioned the Tea Parties.
***You keep saying that. Are you sure you don’t have me confused with somebody else?
The Tea Parties aren’t split in their goals to oust this rampant radical government from our midst .. and the movement and mission are growing. There’s a gal originally from HI, now running for office in OK .. who’s proudly displaying her long form birth certificate .. and asking that tired, old question again. She got a standing ovation at the Tea Party convention over the weekend.
I know .... it’s hard to keep up with all your reams of advocacy for dangerous and unstable governance for the USA, while demonstrating your total lack of Constitutional wisdom, perspective, insight or rightful logic.
As I said, the pursuit for truth will continue, whether you agree with it or not. You’ve shown your stripes.
You should specifically show us where the Miller Supreme Court was wrong two years later. Enlighten us.
Uuuuh. He never made any allusion to "a court." He said "the court" and was referring specifically to the court that decided the Slaughterhouse Cases. I have no idea how anybody could have missed that or found it unlear.
You're as clear as muck. Show us how " 'the court' to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment"
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment. "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."
Of course the children were excluded in becoming US citizens because they were born to foreign citizens with their allegiance is to other nations as the Slaughterhouse cases Supreme Court opinion said. Or is it that Justice GrAy is saying they were included in the above first sentence of the 14th Amend. like US Citizens of the United States? Oh Wiggy, explain yoooou know all....
You say Minor v. Happersett.
Show us where in Happerstett...where the issue was about suffrage for women that effected or overturns the decision made in the Supreme Court Slaughterhouse cases, specifically, that deals with this underlined part of the opinion of the court. See below:
"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 first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion.
It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
Here's your chance to shine - show us!
You're delusional. He speaks of 'subjects' to the crown. You know the Royals. That subset class of subjects who ran the Empire who were the only ones in line to be king or queen. You do remember the Declaration of Independence don't you? We did fight a war to break away from being subjects to the crown. Make that 2 wars against the Empire. Again nope, our 'natural born citizen' clause that is written in the US Constitution is different from Blackstone.
Ummmmmmmm we adopted the common law system and how cases get decided from England not the laws from England. Yeah, we do have common laws as the same as England. It's against the law to commit murder or robbery or thievery... as in both countries - you get the picture right. We don't share the same laws but we do have laws in common with just about any nations like I said.
However, our laws are separate by national jurisdiction. Our laws end at the border unless we get the cooperation from a foreign nation, and so are the laws of England as they also stop at their border.
Our Supreme Court use precedence set by previous court cases. We don't go to France or England or the World Court to look for what was decided before in foreign lands. We have developed our own common laws.
However, if you are Arlen Specter, he looks to Scottish law to guide him. I see that you do too.
Of course it does but it translates to 'natural' in English, and I'm sure it did the same in 1758. De Vattel still used the word in his original 'Law of Nations' edition. As I've always told you, the Vattel definition is still the meaning and intent behind Article 2, Section 1, clause 5, the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution.
Nope, he didn't. Go look again.
Oh yes he does. Justice Marshall states a good part of Vattel's citizen definition in Venus alright.
When you actually prove or even show us some real evidence that the natural born citizen clause means 'jus soli' at birth; where any alien giving birth to a child on US soil can legally become president - don't hold back. I'm sure you won't....
You’ve actually never read Wong Kim Ark. Have you?
Justice GrAy wrote half a ream of dictum about history where people reading it always have to wonder what point is he making and why is this relevant? Even after reading all the muck in Wong Kim Ark, the jibba jabba GrAy wrote can't remake Ark into a natural born citizen.
I have.
Marshall wrote the definition of a natural born citizen, and why it was important. Oh, I won't throw it up again as anyone can look up the thread to see it.
But now you're stuck with the fact that de Vattel's definition of citizen directly contradicts the explicit Constitution rather than just the imaginary implicit "Constitution" you've been promoting all this time.
I'm not stuck in anything and nothing is in contradiction.
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.