Telling of what, exactly?
When Obama falls, he will be brought down by the Constitution.
I merely point out that the safeguards erected by the founders have failed, in this case, to prevent an undesired outcome.
Creating an extraconstitutional remedy moves us further away from the endgame.
When Obama falls, he will be brought down by the Constitution.
I wholeheartedly agree. Starting with Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
I merely point out that the safeguards erected by the founders have failed, in this case, to prevent an undesired outcome.
You've made an assertion. That's all.
Creating an extraconstitutional remedy moves us further away from the endgame.
There is no need for an extraconstitutional remedy.
One of the UCONN’s Undead Revolution responds to Red State
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On February 14, 2010 at 10:59 pm undeadrevolution Said:
I was going to post this comment over at RedState after someone had sent me their latest article. But I can’t be bothered with registering, so I’m just going to post it here.
I had a lot more research I wanted to add, but we agreed to save that for our own additions.
This is his article http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/02/14/my-final-thought-on-the-birther-issue/
And this is just the beginning of my decimation of these ignorant, intimidated, scared rabbits who seem to be afraid of crazy name-calling that has no basis in fact, and thereby, throw out the law for fear of being ostracized:
—————————–
There seems to be a lot of historical groundwork you haven’t taken into account here as to citizenship in this country.
In fact, by your logic, we have returned to the monarch structure of England whereby birth makes one a subject of the king, irregardless of parentage per International Law and the domicile clarification clause per Justice Joseph Story’s Conflict of Laws – so cited in these Supreme Court cases, albeit heavily discarded here and in many similar elementary interpretations across the internet.
My question to you would be how do you justify this interpretation against scholared jurisprudence of the day? They do not coincide with your interpretation at all, so how did you arrive there?
If the Founding Fathers disavowed birth allegiance alone, and they did, how do you justify your interpretation of Article II with Wong Kim Ark as it relates to ascending to the presidency?
It is one thing to call a think-tank crazy, but it is quite another to dismiss the background of the law which upon its face, would question Obama’s legitimacy and has a place to be answered, regardless if he thinks he shouldn’t be questioned as his recent comments reveal.
However, that place is not here and is not to be adjudged in your article and certainly not because Obama said so.
With all due respect, that place of judgment belongs to the United States Supreme Court under a republic form of government this site alludes to protect.
I’m afraid this is a matter of law, not your opinion. We are not a banana republic. You also seem to be lacking in historical knowledge of that law and at odds with the republic’s history you purport to celebrate.
But allow me to educate you in a snippet of that review in law, regarding Wong Kim Ark, which seems to escape the superficial interpretations out there and apparently now, embraced in your own article.
“At some stage the Fourteenth Amendment not only permits them to become citizens, but declares them to be so, in such sense that no act of legislature or Congress can deprive them of that right. When does that time arrive? Upon principle and authority, it should arrive when national domicile and intent on the part of the father concur with the place of birth of the child to fix its status.
That the facts may in some cases be difficult of determination, is unimportant. That is often true in any question of domicile.” Ide, 1896, summarizing International Law and Justice Story’s conclusions in conjunction with the Founding Fathers’ intent.
So as with the above testament to the Founder’s ideals, so it is with Obama when one is asked a simple question of birth allegiance.
When one answers that his birth allegiance is one of dual-nationality, the public does not have a right to inquire as to the legality of that notion?
I’m afraid George Washington himself would accuse that messenger of being no patriot at all.
Notwithstanding, this argument is a constitutional one and if the Tea Party does not embrace questions against the Constitution, then it is a political party unto themselves, which I don’t believe they intended to be.
With that said, a mere showing of a birth certificate does not suffice when answering the question behind the intention of Article II, which proclaims that none but a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the signing of the Constitution, may ascend to the presidency. That determination of facts belongs to the Supreme Court, but the right to ask it, is so stated in the Constitution. For even Bill Clinton stated:
“The Constitution decides who is eligible to be President. And THEN the people decide among which candidate they prefer.”
In other words, the Constitution declares who is eligible, not the people by way of opinion, and certainly not in articles such as yours. And there is a history to that Constitution, whereby subsequent laws have been made and enforced, that has largely been ignored here and elsewhere.
Do you label Mark Levin a birther too when he said, “Obama should not be able to hide it”, when speaking about documents that would prove that Obama was constitutionally eligible?
I submit you wouldn’t smear him, a constitutional lawyer with a profound regard for the Founding Fathers and yet, not a birther. Levin is smart enough to separate the media’s label of those who emphatically believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii with the eligibility requirements under the Constitution. It’s not one and the same.
I dare say on both sides of this modern-day argument, lie some pretty obsessed people, lawyers included, with pitchforks in hand, and most of them are embarrassing our Constitution, including you.
I have no doubt that they probably make guys like Mark Levin cringe and rightly so.
However, just because you disagree with the motives of some of the insane lawyers we’ve seen take up the cross of this subject, doesn’t mean that some of us intend to be intimidated by the fallout of their actions.
YOU seem to be very much intimidated by the antics that have gone on and therefore, instead of clarifying the problem, you elect to distance yourself from the Constitution completely and embrace the left in their living-Constitution a/k/a “anything goes” interpretations.
Congratulations on taking that bait.
I think I’ll think for myself and do the required study of the Founders before I reach one of the many elementary school opinions out there, like yours, who didn’t do much studying at all.
Steve
UCONN – UR
http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/