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 ...
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
John’s father Timothy was one of the most respected of the revolution:
In 1754, Washington appeared as an author in the publication at Williamsburg, Virginia, and in London, of his Journal of his proceeding “ to and from the French of the Ohio,” a brief tract, which he hastily wrote from the rough minutes taken on his expedition.
The Letters of Washington early attracted attention, and several publications of them were made in 1777, in 1795 and ‘6, in the perusal of which the reader should be on his guard to note the authenticity, a number of these compositions being spurious. Washington's respect for his character led him to prepare a careful list of the fabrications, which he transmitted in a letter to Timothy Pickering, then Secretary of State
Seems John who wrote the dictionary in 1826 had a very patriotic & very well learned father who taught him well.
I doubt anyone denies that natural and indigenous are synonyms. So is aboriginal, according to dictionary.com.
However, the writers of the Constitution didn’t right natural or indigenous. If they had, the case for their thinking of Vattel would be far stronger.
They wrote “natural born citizen”, which has reasonably been construed by the Supreme Court as the Americanized version of “natural born subject” - a legal term with a legal meaning discussed at length in WKA. And while I think the dissent has a more accurate argument, pretending the first third of the WKA decision doesn’t exist is legally foolish - because any court that ever hears a case will READ and consider those pages.
And since a natural born subject could have TWO alien parents...
“John Pickering was a member of the Conventions of 1779 and 1781, in both of which he took a prominent part.* Of the latter there is reason to think that be was the most active ami influential member.”
Any relation to other John Pickering and Timothy Pickering?
The honourable John Pickering, LL D. died on Thursday the 13th day of April, in the sixty-eighth year of his age. Mr. Pickering was born at Newington, and was fitted for College by the Rev. Joseph Adams, minister of that place. He was graduated at Harvard College in 1761, and at first, turned his attention to divinity; but afterwards applied himself to the study of law. He was admitted to the bar and opened an office at Greenland, but shortly after removed to this town, and soon distinguished himself as an advocate and counsellor. In his early age he became a professor of religion, ‘and was remarkably exemplary in all the walks of private, social, and public life.’ The wardens and vestry of Trinity Church in Boston, invited him to settle there as a colleague with the Rev. Doctor Walter, but he declined accepting the invitation; preferring the profession of the law, in which he was already established. He supposed it would afford him as ample a field for the exercise of his talents, and give him as good an opportunity of promoting the cause of justice and humanity, as he should have in the ministry. He was candid and liberal in his practice, and faithful to his clients. He never refused to espouse the cause of the injured, notwithstanding in many instances, he had no prospect of pecuniary reward. Always endeavouring to promote the cause of Justice, he was considered an ornament to the bar. Conscious of the rectitude of his own intentions, he was slow to suspect others of being influenced by improper motives. ‘His temper was placid, his manners gentle, his dispositions kind and benevolent, his habits, social. In conversation he was pleasant, instructive, and entertaining, and in his expressions remarkably chaste and elegant.’ Although abounding in wit, he never indulged it to excite any unpleasant sensations in the bosoms of his friends. He was an honorary member of the Massachusetts Humane Society, and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; and the Government of Dartmouth College conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Laws.
The Confidence, placed in him by his fellow citizens, appears by their frequently electing him to some of the most important offices in their power to bestow. He was a delegate from this town to the convention for forming the State Constitution, which was adopted in 1783; and was a very influential member. The public are indepted to him for many important articles in that instrument.
He was likewise a delegate to the convention of this State, which adopted the Constitution of the United States, in 1788. His eloquence, and powers of reasoning probably had great effect, in procuring its adoption. For several years, he held a seat in the Legislature of the state, either as a representative of this town, a counsellor for the county, or senator for the district: In each of these offices, his only object was to promote the public good, and his skill in jurisprudence, enabled him to discern it. After the adoption of the Federal Constitution, Governor Langdon, who was elected a senator of the United States, resigned his office of Chief Magistrate of the state; Mr. Pickering as senior senator, presided the remainder of the year. In 1790, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature, which office he held until the year 1795, when he was appointed Judge of the District Court of New Hampshire.
PICKERING, Timothy, a Senator and a Representative from Massachusetts; born in Salem, Mass., July 17, 1745.....John Pickering (22 September 1737 – 11 April 1805) Born in Newington, New Hampshire...at best maybe cousins. The Pickering name goes back to the original colonists of America
This is speaking of the New Hampshire state Conventions for the adoption of the State Constitution. A quick search of the Journals of the Continental Congress brings nothing for a John Pickering, however there are 100 references for T. Pickering or Timothy Pickering who was a Col early & liaison for Washington and who's son John Pickering wrote the greek-english lexicon you posted earlier. Timothy's appearance in the Journals dates back to 1777 & it looks as though he was the 1st US SOS. (Judge)John Pickering of NH never served in the US Congress for any purposes, only in the NH state conventions.
Journal of the executive proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1805
TUESDAY,January 6, 1795.
Link to date-related documents.
The papers respecting the negotiation of a. treaty of peace, by Timothy Pickering, on behalf of the United States, with the Six Nations of Indians, referred to ia the message of the President of the United States, of the 2d instant, were read.
Ordered, That they lie for consideration.
KEWL! I believe we have determined why John Pickering, the son of T. Pickering would have had a great knowledge of language. Actually, all of Timothy’s children were revered in the literary world.
We have the son..whose father was a Colonel in Washington’s Army, a delegate to ratifiy the Constitution.
The son..John Pickering..visited his father on the battlefield..
The son...indigenous, natural, natives, inborn, to be born are the same..
The 1797 Edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations chapter XIX
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens,
those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation;
and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
We know the 1797 is an exact translation of the 1758 edition.
Obama is merely a perpetual inhabitant... “a kind of citizen of an inferior order”
The words of Vattel are important..a warning..
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens”
That says it all! The corrupt system has to fall back on some 20th century rule that is not codified as law to keep it from seeing the light of a courtroom. You are so pathetic, I almost feel sorry for you.
You have said exactly what the losers of court decisions always say: “THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT!” Whenever they lose.
Haven’t you noticed that not a single one of the major conservative, originalist constitutional law firms in this country who argue conservative causes before the Supreme Court has gone anywhere near any birther lawsuit?
I’m talking about conservative constitutional law firms that have argued against abortion, partial birth abortion, affirmative action, and in support of gun rights, religious freedom, and the free market.
Not one of those firms or well-known independent conservative constitutional attorneys has gone anywhere near any birther lawsuit. Where’s Ted Olson and where’s Judge Robert Bork? Where’s any conservative that might get the attention of the Supreme Court that this is a serious issue?
No conservative state attorney general has pursued election fraud against Obama or the Democratic Party either.
My suggestion is that you save your “feeling sorry” for the man in the mirror whenever the next birther lawsuit is summarily dismissed.
Please show me where is “standing” codified because I can’t find it?
Please show me where is “standing” codified because I can’t find it?
Nowhere in any law ever passed by Congress and nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court granted the power of Judicial Review. The first Chief Justice, John Marshall invented the concept in 1803 with his opinion in Marbury v Madison and it has been judicial precedent ever since.
In eventing the concept of judicial review, Marshall gave the Supreme Court powers that were never envisioned by the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson, for one was furious that Marshall had engaged in that power grab for the judiciary.
Standing is similar but any judge who wants to ignore precedent and grant standing to any particular plaintiff is free to do so.
Hey, you quoted me & I was talking about standing, now where is it codofied? When did Congress pass a law that says what we have standing on & what we don’t because quite frankly I’m confused as the Constitution says all legal suits regarding constitutional matters are to be addressed & this was set in SCOTUS case law precedent over 200 years ago.
Who died & made them king? NO ONE & its high time it stopped!
Mr Rogers:
“Minor wrote: The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwords adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more...”
Please also note that Minor, like WKA, considered subject and citizen to be words addressing the same condition, only under different forms of government.
A subject and citizen may share in common that they enjoy “membership of a nation,” However, the phrase: “and nothing more” is misleading.
A citizen may be subject to the jurisdiction of the nation he is a “member” of, but he has a freedom that an English Subject never had —
The “natural right” of expatriating himself!
Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth:
... “And in order to preserve to the citizens of this commonwealth, that natural right, which all men have of relinquishing the country, in which birth, or other accident may have thrown them, and, seeking subsistence and happiness wheresoever they may be able, or may hope to find them: And to declare unequivocably what circumstances shall be deemed evidence of an intention in any citizen to exercise that right, it is enacted and declared, that whensoever any citizen of this commonwealth, shall by word of mouth in the presence of the court of the county, wherein he resides, or of the General Court, or by deed in writing, under his hand and seal, executed in the presence of three witnesses, and by them proved in either of the said courts, openly declare to the same court, that he relinquishes the character of a citizen, and shall depart the commonwealth; or whensoever he shall without such declaration depart the commonwealth and enter into the service of any other state, not in enmity with this, or any other of the United States of America, or do any act whereby he shall become a subject or citizen of such state, such person shall be considered as having exercised his natural right of expatriating himself, and shall be deemed no citizen of this commonwealth from the time of his departure...”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html
Notice the word “NATURAL” in “natural right.” (Vattel?)
The CITIZEN had leave to break his “membership” with his’ Nation and live in another nation. (subject to certain exceptions)
Whereas, if one were born, a SUBJECT of the British Crown; one died, a Subject of the British Crown.
To say that a Subject and a Citizen convey “the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more,” is like saying a “slave” and his “master” (a freeman)convey the idea of members on a plantation, “and nothing more.”
The Idea of “Natural Law,” of which Vattel was an exponent, underpins the declaration of independance... and lead to the founding of our nation.
“Subject” and “Citizen” are NOT words “addressing the same CONDITION, only different forms of government”
“MEMBERSHIP” in a monarchy is Subject(no pun)to different “CONDITIONS” than MEMBERSHIP” in a Republic.
The “CONDITIONS” are NOT the SAME under different “memberships” (different forms of government)
A “membership”(in a nation) that one is forced to endure, is NOT the same CONDITION as a “membership”(in a nation) that one may relinquish.
STE=Q
Who died & made them king? NO ONE & its high time it stopped!
Remember the words of President Andrew Jackson when the Supreme Court ruled against him on his opposition to the Bank of the United States: “They have made their decision, now let them enforce it!” Jackson simply ignored the high court.
In any event, there are no issues of standing on the criminal side of the judicial system. Obama’s eligibility can be investigated by any prosecuting attorney in the US who convenes a Grand Jury and looks at whether there is enough evidence for an indictment.
Civil lawsuits don’t usually adversely impact the presidency. If a president loses a lawsuit, his attorneys file appeals and it drags on for years. Indictments and the filing of criminal charges DO impact the presidency, either by forcing a resignation (Nixon) or by providing the grounds for impeachment (Clinton).
Hey, you quoted me & I was talking about standing, now where is it codofied? When did Congress pass a law that says what we have standing on & what we don’t because quite frankly I’m confused as the Constitution says all legal suits regarding constitutional matters are to be addressed & this was set in SCOTUS case law precedent over 200 years ago.
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.