Posted on 02/02/2010 11:57:01 AM PST by RED SOUTH
Let's get a feel where we are as freepers. It's not too early to be thinking about it either. The race has already begun. Judging by thier activities , so far here is a list of those running or thinking of running.
Huckabee
Romney
Palin
Pawlenty
Gingrich
Barbour
Oh, be-have. :-P
Palin
You forgot Jeb Bush.
No, she does nothing for me. I want man nominated but no Ken Doll.
*snicker*
Do you like to be one of a kind? LOL
The first one who comes out and says that social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, the Department of Education, all other entitlement programs, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and 95% of the tax code are unconstitutional.
Oh, and whoever it is must pull us out of NATO, NAFTA and the U.N.
Is it okay if I call you "doll" then? (I don't want to be sexist here for our resident hair-splitter).
First, there is no reason to be "couth" towards people who use the most absurd attacks on anybody who might be perceived as a threat to Palin in 2012, i.e. Bobby Jindal. You see, these Palinistas won't tolerate any sort of criticism of Palin - she is untouchable. Now, I could be wrong, but I assume you're a Palinista.
As for the "natural born citizen" issue - you are truly wasting your time, and you need to get some new material. The Supreme Court has never ventured out to give an exact definition of an NBC. Jindal was born in Baton Rouge to legal immigrant parents. It does not matter how long his parents were here, nor whether they were naturalized themselves.
Since there was no definition of "natural born citizen" found in the constitution, the majority adopted the common law of England: The (Supreme) court ruled:
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, and 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. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
You guys fixated on this "natural born" garbage are really making the entire conservative movement look foolish. As for Obama, until a birth certificate pops up saying he was born in Mombasa, then the issue is dead. Also, if the Supreme Court won't touch the issue of Obama's birth with a ten-foot pole, then why would Jindal, born in Louisiana, going to merit any more attention. The issue is dead, move on!
Sarah
Palin
Palin.
None of the above.
Palin
Dear Falcon,
I know you are a conservative. Are you also, I presume, a passionate supporter of the U.S.Constitution? Little by little our Constitution is being shredded, and I want that stopped.
If my assumption is correct then I know you will at least read the following.
The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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 A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents is a natural born citizen. It doesn’t matter whether they came as immigrants, only that they be citizens of the U.S. Resident foreign nationals DO NOT qualify.
Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor. Read it and weap:
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The proposition that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject”. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.
And as pointed out above, please do not come back with the same old lame references to Blackstone & English common law, we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution, that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature:
“The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ’subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ’subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.
Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.
You mean like Reagan was? In case you don't remember, RR was the most maligned, ridiculed, and generally scorned by even his own party until 1980. Heck, he was even mocked in rock n roll songs!
What got him elected? In 1980, he took his message straight to the people through half hour TV spots, featuring him in a study reviewing the constitution and our Founders intent. The people responded by making the GOP put him on the ticket, and although the Left still mocked him and tried to tell the people he was a crazy extremist with no experience in foreign affairs, etc. he won by a landslide in 1980!(Even though the media said he was trailing in the polls!)
I believe Sarah is laying the groundwork now; getting her message out through her books; getting facetime on FOX; campaigning for GOP candidates (to placate the “good ole boys”). She's going to be a Juggernaut in 2012!
Finally,
DON'T LET THE LEFTISTS TELL YOU WHO IS A VIABLE CANDIDATE!
Remember McCain, and Dole?
None of the above. Must we pick just from the listed ones? Put me down for Duncan Hunter. Or Jim Inhofe.
Jindal for me.
PALIN
Out of that group? Palin all the way.
Palin!
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.