Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
Gentlemen—The States are sovereign, or they are not We prove the affirmative by the Declaration of Independence, and the articles of confederation— let the Federal party prove the negative if they can. If a state is sovereign, it can do any thing—it can nullify any act of Congress or secede; is subject only to the law of nature and nations, which it is bound to respect.
This exercise of its sovereign power has nothing to do with the Constitution, much less with revolution—it is above the Constitution, hecause it has the law of nations for its Constitution,
not sure if we ever saw this before...
http://standupamericaus.com/obama-fit-mentally:39588
...
WMR has learned from a reliable intelligence source that the CIA has secretly contracted with a retired top CIA official who was a principal actor in the Iran-contra scandal, to uncover any information that could be damaging to Obama from his past. On the table are any documents and information on Obama’s place of birth, his paternal parentage, and his past employment activities. By contracting outside the CIA’s normal channels, the agency is seeking ”plausible deniability” should documents or information damaging to Obama be uncovered and subsequently leaked to the media.
"with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers"
Mr Rogers, YOU put these words in bold, NOT me. Thank you for qualifying my position that the 14th EXCLUDES children born to any foreigner, whether a minister of the govt of that foreign nation or not.
Do YOU not know how to read? It doesn't say "children of foreigners." It says "children of foreign sovereigns."
A "sovereign," in case you're unfamiliar with the word, is a ruler. A monarch, a king, etc. Not any ordinary resident alien. Hence "their ministers." The ministers of the sovereign.
This is made further clear by the clause immediately prior that Rogers quoted, but you cut out, where it affirms birth citizenship "including all children here born of resident aliens."
The American Journal of Legal History, Vol 18
Americans inherited a complex set of ideas relating to membership, community, and allegiance along with their status as English subjects, and they would adjust, affirm, or repudiate elements of the intellectual whole at different times and in response to varying practical and theoretical concerns. From piecemeal changes and partial modifications, however, a clear line of development emerged as Americans first experienced, then sought to articulate the meaning of their transformation from subjects to citizens.
Responding to the controversies and confusion that surrounded the accession of James I to the English throne, Sir Edward Coke in 1608 in Calvin's Case propounded an explicit set of principles and formulations respecting the nature of membership and community that would dominate English law for the next several centuries. His central conclusion was that subjectship involved a personal relationship with the king, a relationship rooted in the laws of nature and hence perpetual and immutable. The conceptual analogue of the subject-king relationship was the natural bond between parent and child.
The intellectual premises from which Coke derived his conclusions were those of a man standing midway between the eras historians categorize as “medieval” and “modern,” and those premises were destined to fade before the century was out. New conceptions emerged that saw society and government as the product of individual consent and compact, and Coke's quasimedieval ideas that social and governmental organization grew out of natural principles of hierarchy and subordination became increasingly anachronistic.
Americans responded to the problem of conflicting loyalties by developing the doctrine of the right of election. The states by no means moved in unison, but all would eventually agree with one lawyer's conclusion that, “In revolutions, every man had a right to take his part. He is excusable, if not bound in duty to take that which in his conscience he approved.’”40 The personal choice of allegiance had to be made within a “reasonable” period of time, and once the decision was made it could be considered binding. But the initial concession was clear. Citizenship in the new republics was to begin with individual consent.
The status of “American citizen” was the creation of the Revolution. The imperial crisis of the pre-war years and the separation from the mother country formalized in 1776 stimulated the articulation of at least some of the major principles that were to shape and define the new status. Despite some initial confusion, Americans came to see that citizenship must begin with an act of individual choice. Every man had to have the right to decide whether to be a citizen or an alien. His power to make this choice was clearly acknowledged to be a matter of right, not of grace, for the American republics were to be legitimate governments firmly grounded on consent, not authoritarian states that ruled by force and fiat over involuntary and unwilling subjects.
Americans acknowledged the right of the state to dictate the timing of election, to establish the rules governing its exercise, and to determine its consequences. But the individual alone was responsible for making the choice between subjectship and citizenship.
No worry about the delay, but that link doesn’t answer the question at all. Nowhere in it does it put forth any evidence that Hawaii routinely gave domestic birth certificates to foreign-born kids in the 1960s. I don’t even see where the author makes the assertion that such was routine.
So again, what’s your source and your evidence that Hawaii routinely gave out domestic birth certificates to foreign-born kids? Not speculation, not rumor or imagination, but actual sources and evidence supporting your specific factual claim. If you’re actually basing the claim on *real* evidence, this is not a difficult question.
The toner transfer shown in Danae’s pictures were created by pressure and possibly humidity rather than “wet” toner, unless the paper or toner itself was simply poor quality but even then I’d expect to see significant smudging and blurred markings. The uniformity and evenness of the marks themselves would make me lean toward pressure having caused them. And as for the orientation of the markings themselves, it looks like Ha Ha’s scenario is accurate.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 1793 , Chief Justice John Jay:
[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…]
Care to refute the Supreme Court? Where do you suppose the government derives its power from if it is not from the sovereign people who formed the states and who then formed the nation. Or are you so ignorant that you think it happenned the other way around.
Should read: transfer marks ... were created ...
The American Journal of Legal History, Vol 18 (1974)
Nice quote mining by Binney & Gray, the original text of the Calvin case wherein they take that quote reads as follows:
Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori[52. Ed.: so much the more so.] he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.[53. Ed.: local allegiance is something mean and small, and extremely uncertain.] And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,[54. Ed.: neither the climate (lit. sky) nor the soil.] neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf0462-01_footnote_nt_446
Interesting that the qoute from WKA was taken from Coke's explanation of what Ligeantia localis (local allegiance) is, not that of what a natural born is. Just more obsfucating of common law & thus the reason Gray & the court never declared WKA to be a natural born.
“is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen” . . . but NOT a natural born.
Born under English common law did NOT necessarily refer to the actual birth of a person, as it was NOT the soil that made the person a natural born subject, but his obedience to the King. And it was that birth of obedience that Gray & Binney quoted, not the actual birth of the child.
Coke was talking about a man who was born a Frenchman.
read something the other day..a subject in England is the same as property to the King.
During the congressional debates in 1866...a Senator stated a subject in the US has always been negroes, slaves or former slaves.
Based on this do not see how a citizen can be the same as a subject. A natural born citizen cannot be the same as a natural born subject.
If the 14th Amendment did not make negroes natural born citizens....John Bingham said it did not. Eleven states were barred in the ratification process, the debates and voting in Congress.
We have a flawed, illegal President that may destroy our Constitution..he certainly is in the beginning process to dismantle it.
Caesar said..with money I can obtain men...(stimulas) and with men I can obtain money.
To Miss Tickly:
I agree; you have zero proof that Danae is lying and to call her a liar in such a open forum without supporting evidence is just wrong.
I have personally received correspondence from the HDoH Vital Statistics, and they do not use envelopes with “windows” so it is quite plausible that the toner transferred from the receipt if it was place behind the copy of the long form b/c. It is also quite plasible that the photocopy was made on a copier, and the receipt for the fee charged was pinted on a laser printer. This could account in the differences in the paper weight you as a graphic designer can allegedly detect.
Especially the UPS shipments are hot at delivery from riding around in their trucks. Now I live in South Florida - hot - so I don't know if riding around in a hot postal carrier that the temperature would make this happen???
Well he just coughed up $200(?) so he/she/it feels paid to continue muddying the water with Alinsky tactics!!!
Just look it up in a dictionary. The word “sovereign” can also mean a British gold coin, but in this context, it means a monarch. (And that’s monarch as in king, not as in butterfly, in case you’re confused.)
Also, just look back at the quote itself:
“the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers,”
If you include “all children here born of resident aliens” and then exclude all children of foreigners, what possible sense does that make? None. Because “foreign sovereigns” means foreign rulers. This is not an obscure legal point.
Now with all good intentions of so called Tea Party candidates, I'm pretty sure when they arrive to Washington D.C. - District of Corruption - they are immediately called into the "speakers" offices and told: "Either you do it our way, or else...." Then soon after the lobbyist leaches "attacks" them, and we getting status quo???
Danae,
The documents are folded to allow the address to show through the window of the envelope. Folding it into equal thirds would allow the bottom line of the address to slip below the viewable area.
Are your COLB receipts folded in the same manner? Please hold on to those two receipts. I’ll explain later.
The printing and postmark on your envelope are consistent with mine. I believe that your documents are valid.
No Constitutional Amendment comes into effect by ‘act of Congress’. Congress formulates the wording and sends it to the states. The states then vote on the amendment. If the states do not approve by the required majority, the ‘act of Congress’ has no legal force. A constitutional amendment is an act of the states, which alone have authority to approve and accept it.
Yes Danae, there are many meanings for the word “act”. There are NOT many meanings for the legal phrase “act of Congress”.
So when Justice Scalia contrasts citizenship conferred by the Constitution vs by acts of Congress, the 14th Amendment is “Constitution”, not an act of Congress. When ratified by the states, it is part of the Constitution, not public law.
And if you three do not understand the difference between the Constitution and “acts of Congress”, then you are to a legal discussion like a dog watching TV. When FReepers say the 14th Amendment of the Constitution is an act of Congress and not the Constitution, it is embarrassing.
Whether he does or does not, does NOT change anything about his NBC ineligibility status. Running FReeper post by Hawaii is like playing into the enemy camp for more fodder against us. I wonder if that would make Jim Robinson happy???
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.