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

Question:

What exactly do the words ‘defending our borders, our Constitution and our national sovereignty’ mean to you?

I (we) would like a direct answer and not the evasive tap-dance you gave STARWISE, as follows:

“They certainly do not mean trying to informally rewrite the Constitution to try and get rid of a President you don't like.”

I take this issue VERY seriously!

The above question is arguably the MOST important question of our time... and I(we)would like a genuine and complete answer to the question.

Your answer may rest within the bounds of the constitution and the laws on the books.

There is no need for you to make sarcastic remarks about "rewriting" the constitution.

Thank You!

STE=Q

"I (we) would like a direct answer and not the evasive tap-dance you gave STARWISE"

Okay. The question was:

"What exactly do the words ‘defending our borders, our Constitution and our national sovereignty’ mean to you?"

"Defending our borders." A border is the line between our country and either another country or international waters. Defend means "to ward off attack; guard against assault or injury." So... defending our borders means to ward off attack; guard against assault or injury across those borders.

"Defending our Constitution." Our Constitution is the system of fundamental principles according to which the United States of America is governed. Defend means "to ward off attack; guard against assault or injury." So... defending our Constitution means to ward off attack; guard against assault or injury to the system of fundamental principles according to which the United States of America is governed.

"Defending our national sovereignty." Sovereignty is the supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community. Defend means "to ward off attack; guard against assault or injury." So... defending our national sovereignty means to ward off attack; guard against assault or injury to the supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by the United States of America.

"There is no need for you to make sarcastic remarks about "rewriting" the constitution."

It was not sarcastic. It was deadly serious. I actually respect the US Constitution and have taken an oath to defend it. I believe that the Birther movement thinks that you must destroy the Constitution in order to save it. I call BS on that.

“Defending our borders.” A border is the line between our country and either another country or international waters. Defend means “to ward off attack; guard against assault or injury.” So... defending our borders means to ward off attack; guard against assault or injury across those borders.

~~~

I can’t believe what I’m reading!

And by what logic do you totally discard illegal penetration of our sovereign borders by persons barred by law from doing so ?

I see .. common sense, fundamental enforcement of our laws and basic defensive national protection are completely excluded from your warped reasoning. I now shudder at the mere thought that any military troop ever came under your command, if you were indeed ever in the military or, God forbid, presently are.

I believe that the Birther movement thinks that you must destroy the Constitution in order to save it. I call BS on that.”

You can believe anything you want to believe.

Like many concerned citizens — including former presidential candidate, and constitutional scholar, Alan Keyes — I have serious and grave concerns as to the eligibility of Obama to serve as POTUS, stemming from the fact that his father was a foreign national at his(Obama’s)birth.

We also, at this time, cannot be completely sure Obama was really born in Hawaii, as he has refused to release his ORIGINAL “long form” B.C. and other solid evidence that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii.

The same set of rules would also go for Jindal (R)— if he so chooses to run for POTUS — or ANYONE else who would not meet the requirement of natural Born Citizen under the constitution.

Obama is a piece of crap African Colonial.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html

I would like nothing more than to see him shipped to Britain where I’m sure he would feel more at home.

However, if the SCOTUS were to rule on the “Natural Born” issue and it turned out that Obama was illegible to serve as POTUS — under the courts ruling — than I would have no recourse but to abandon the “birther” issue.

Of course, if it could be shown, by evidence, that there was widespread fraud in putting him in office, I would be on board for any, and all, legal proceedings that could be brought against the offending parties (including Obama) involved.

Having said all that I (we) call BS on YOUR BS!

STE=Q

"Like many concerned citizens — including former presidential candidate, and constitutional scholar, Alan Keyes — I have serious and grave concerns as to the eligibility of Obama to serve as POTUS, stemming from the fact that his father was a foreign national at his(Obama’s)birth."

I am fully aware that you do. The problem is that no matter how serious your concerns, there is nothing in the United States Constitution or any American Law that validates your concerns. If you wish to create a new eligibility requirement for the Presidency, then you must start the process of pursuing a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution cannot and will not be changed by mere statute or a judicial redefinition of "natural born citizen."

The Constitution does not mean what it does not say. If you want it to say something different, then you must change it.

"Obama is a piece of crap African Colonial."

He can be anything under the sun. But the Constitution only requires him to be three things: a natural born citizen, 35 years old and a resident of the US for 14 years. Any piece of crap African Colonial who meets those three criteria is eligible to be President of the United States. This is the Constitution that our Framers gave us. If you think it flawed, then you are welcome to try and fix it.

"However, if the SCOTUS were to rule on the “Natural Born” issue and it turned out that Obama was illegible to serve as POTUS — under the courts ruling — than I would have no recourse but to abandon the “birther” issue."

The Supreme Court has already had at least five opportunities to do so. They said, no. What's your plan B?

It is always fun to watch how in the face of clear and explicit assertions of the meaning of natural born citizen, your only response is to point to ambiguous tangential comments and insist they mean a specific one of several different possible meanings.

I've given you more than a preponderance of evidence while your illogical arguments are just silly as in 'it was ten years after' or you can't find where it says exactly 'natural' born citizen. I've shown you the Vattel's definition; I've shown you where Vattel used the French word "naturel" in his definition to describe citizens and you turn around and say that is 'not natural' in English or is it in the US Constitution. You're a clown. However, there is next nothing that backs you up that 'jus soli' is the definition for what you say is a natural born citizen. You cite Blackstone as the true meaning behind the natural born citizen clause but he spoke of "subjects" instead of 'citizens" - you see any hypocrisy in your silly argument? And besides Blackstone covered English law ,while de Vattel is non-specific to any nation where he gives us a definition what constitutes a natural born citizen. Our fledgling nation embraced de Vattel's words that are the true meaning and intent behind the natural born citizen clause.

Here's more for you to chew on...

"Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (repeating Vattel's definition and stating in referring to his definition: "The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. . . This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law,[US law] in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case. . . ."); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (citing and quoting the same Ex parte Reynolds references to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor and its recitation of Vattel's definition of "citizen" and "natural born citizen")." The source

Well, I for one don't need to to play the equivocation game, because I actually can point to multiple comments that are completely unequivocal. So, no, I'll leave the quibbling to you guys.

Furthermore, You have not shown us what court decision that Justice GrAy wrote about in his opinion, which you say is Minor vs. Happersett that overturns previous Supreme Court opinion(s). Since you know, show us specifically in Minor v. Happersett that turns over the opinion in the Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases. Give us a good explanation while you're at it. We are all ears here. And don't give us any of your quibbling which is an honor violation...West Point Grad.

What's your plan B?

Ha!Ha!Ha!

Been on plan "B" for over a year now!

Hint: Why do you think hired Obot trolls have been swarming in a dither all over the INTERNET of late doing damage control in order to keep their masters boat afloat?

I'm WAY!... WAY!... WAY!... Ahead of you Wig!

The question is when are YOU guys going to go to a plan that works?

The bamboozling hustler is going down and I predict that the next POTUS will be a Natural born Citizen -- born in USA to citizen parents!

Most Americans know what a Natural Born Citizen is and more importantly, they know that an American hating hustler, born of a foreign national for father, who believes that the constitution is "fundamentally" flawed, is NOT the sort of man they would have wanted in our country, let alone our government.

Whether you or I believe he is qualified to serve or not, more and more Americans -- seeing Obama's true face of deceit-- will reject him and those like him, in the future.

His numbers are going down and so is he!

Thanks for playing.

STE=Q

That’s funny .. you said here that illegal aliens
.. those who willfully break our laws and puncture
the sovereignty integrity of our national borders ..
could birth a child here who could Constitutionally
qualify to be POTUS.

~ ~ ~

To: DaveTesla
“So you arguing that the Constitution calls for making natural born citizens from the anchor babies of illegal immigrants?”

That is the law. Yes.
584 posted on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:08:08 PM by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2442381/posts?page=584#584

In your fantasy, the illegal alien parents are not criminals, and the objects of capture, charging and deportation by our law enforcement, Border Patrol ..
even though they are?

Yet you insist their child could qualify Constitutionally to be POTUS?

You’re talking in circles ...

"That’s funny .. you said here that illegal aliens .. those who willfully break our laws and puncture the sovereignty integrity of our national borders .. could birth a child here who could Constitutionally qualify to be POTUS."

Yes, I did. They are.

"In your fantasy, the illegal alien parents are not criminals, and the objects of capture, charging and deportation by our law enforcement, Border Patrol .. even though they are?"

Now you're just making stuff up. I've never said anything close. Illegal aliens absolutely are criminals, the objects of capture, charging and deportation.

But according to US law starting with the Constitution, their children born here are not.

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.