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 ...
Are you really 44 ?
It's not an open question. There was only one definition available for which there was no doubt. He doesn't say the doubt can be resolved, but there's no need because he has a definition for which there is no doubt. What you don't seem to understand or want to admit is that it should have been easy to say that the 14th amendment resolves any doubts or changes the definition. Waite says the 14th amendment is NOT needed to establish citizenship of the person in question. Why would he do this if he or anyone else on the coutr thought the 14th amendment resolved the doubts?? Certainly you understand this was the majority opinion and that one of the other justices could have stepped up to say the 14th amendment resolves these doubts. Why bother to talk about natural born citizenship at all when you have a brand spanking new Constitutional amendment that could define citizenship for your plaintiff?? It's obvious: He's and the court are rejecting this amendment as applying to natural born citizenship. IOW, the court in both Minor and WKA are saying that anyone who needs to have their citizenship defined by the 14th amendment (like Obama) CANNOT be a natural born citizen.
WKA spent pages discussing WHY a person born of alien parents met the criteria for NBC.
This is pure delusion. There aren't any pages saying this at all. None. You're trying to connect dots that simply are not connected.
I did some more digging into court cases last night & interestingly enough, ALL the latest ones on citizenship only cite from the 14th “all persons born”, they neglect to cite “subject to the jurisdiction” so what doe that say as to the credibility of our current court system? It is highly corrupt & is due for an overhaul!
“I believe that the next one is in six days.”
Indeed, and the Tea Party says it is neck & neck in AZ-8. For this week, I’m far more interested in supporting Jesse Kelly against Gabby Giffords than I am about Obama’s citizenship...
you could have highlighted “inborn” as well. “Inborn” as in born to those who are already members of the society.
There is a difference between inborn & inbred
You're kidding, right? An old Greek-English dictionary? Oh, my God! How can the Supreme Court continue to deny this?
have no idea how to highlight..natural is typed in the search block once I locate the book. Cannot recall we have located the two words together.
The Obots state the words are not the same..have no relationship.
Can someone post the French 1758 edition chapter relating to this..
Nice try..the Constitution is older than the dictionary.
Who is John Pickering..circa 1826.
“He doesn’t say the doubt can be resolved,”
Actually, he said he didn’t need to try: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. He leaves OPEN the possibility that someone will need to solve those doubts, which happened then in 1898.
“What you don’t seem to understand or want to admit is that it should have been easy to say that the 14th amendment resolves any doubts or changes the definition” - except that the question before him only needed to know if sex prevented citizenship. And it had no bearing, so he had no need to discuss either provision at length.
“Why bother to talk about natural born citizenship at all when you have a brand spanking new Constitutional amendment that could define citizenship for your plaintiff?”
Because she was already a citizen without regard for any amendment. It simply wasn’t relevant to the facts of the case.
“It’s obvious: He’s and the court are rejecting this amendment as applying to natural born citizenship.”
No, he says it is irrelevant: “The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment.”
“IOW, the court in both Minor and WKA are saying that anyone who needs to have their citizenship defined by the 14th amendment (like Obama) CANNOT be a natural born citizen. “
No. Neither says that. And while you can reject my explanation, there isn’t any doubt that the rest of the world - every Congressman, every state, every state DA, every state SecState, both political parties, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh - they ALL accept my explanation and reject yours.
Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General wrote, “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”
You can continue to reject my interpretation as I reject yours. What you haven’t been able to do is convince any court any where, or any state, or any Congressman that your interpretation is right.
“This is pure delusion. There aren’t any pages saying this at all. None. “
Good point. The first third of the WKA decision doesn’t exist. It isn’t there. The decision doesn’t start until half-way down. The rest is my imagination.
Pickering, John (?1776–1846) linguist, philologist, attorney; born in Salem, Mass. (son of Timothy Pickering). He graduated from Harvard (1796) and spent several years in Europe with the United States Diplomatic Corps. After returning to Masssachusetts, he practiced law and served in the state senate. He wrote many books and articles on language, including the first collection of American word usages (1816) and a Greek-English dictionary (1st edition, 1826). He was also a leading authority on the languages of North American Indians.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Pickering%2c+John
He was the 1st federal judge to be impeached. Was a huge scandal & a political fight ensued between the Republicans & the Federalists. The Federalists believed that Jefferson & the Republicans were up to shenanigans because the Repubs wanted to oust the insane Pickering and replace him with a more competent Republican judge.
what does the circa stand for. Does it relate to a book or something?
Greek-English Lexicon of John Pickering [printed in Boston in 1826]. [source: Kiddle, The Cyclopaedia of Education, Third Edition, p. 224).
thanks..is there a relation to the Founder John Pickering.
The definition I posted linking the two words natural and indigenous is from John Pickering.
Do we have Founder..you know what I mean.
Fine. You’ve found the smoking gun. After all, if a judge who was removed from office for “nervous disorders” wrote that he translates two English words as the same word in Greek, then Obama must not be a natural born citizen under the meaning of the Founders and the 14th Amendment. The whole Obama administration will under the weight of this new evidence and county sheriffs are going to perp walk him onto the first cargo plane to Nairobi.
John could be the son of the respective Timothy
to whom you refer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*snip*
What that, Bon Von Steuben played an instrumental role in delivering the American military victory over the British during the revolution. And it may have been during that time that Von Steuben converted Timothy Pickering to theological unitarianism.
One quote that I see in many content restricted books informs:
Timothy Pickering, began to doubt his Puritan theology when he heard General von Steuben say that he would sooner believe in an absurdity than in the Trinity.
Timothy Pickering
served in the American Revolution under George Washington, becoming adjutant general (1777 – 78) and quartermaster general (1780 – 85). He later served as U.S. postmaster general (1791 – 95), secretary of war (1795), and secretary of state (1795 – 1800). He served in the U.S. Senate from 1803 to 1811 and in the House of Representatives from 1813 to 1817.
Pickering may not have been a “key Founding Father” like the first four Presidents, but he certainly was an important 2nd or 3rd tier FF, representative of the 200 or so “other” Founders we have largely forgotten.
The following quote from Timothy Pickering to James McHenry in 1816 sheds further light on his unitarianism:
It is more than forty years, since, with strong conviction, I renounced the Calvinistic Scheme, in which I had been educated, as utterly incompatible with the perfections of the Deity.
But it was not till a later period that the doctrine of the Trinity (which I had never heard controverted in the pulpit) employed my thoughts... and induced me...to reject this dogma, liberalise the creed of Calvin. It has since been the essential article of my faith and practice, to worship only One God, who sent his son to be Savior of the World.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/12/baron-von-steuben-and-timothy-pickering.html
Bubba, think ya better look before you leap. I put that out there because it was the 1st John Pickering I came across and he died in 1805, so I needed to know what the 1826 was in reference to. FYI, many judges were removed after Pickering. Insanity was the tool of the day as is racism is today. Get the picture!
Let the political games continue......
circa is Latin..around the period..meaning “circa 1826” is around 1826. Not sure of the exact date..but close.
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.