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 ...
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
and this has never been repealed, even by the 11th Amendment. when they arrest me for refusing to fill out all those 1099's for every stinking fuel purchase, tire purchase, oil purchase, truck parts, etc, etc or refuse to buy the type of insurance they think I have to have, I'll have Article III standing
I know what Article III standing is and that is my point. It is not being followed and although those are nice explanations with court cases no older than 20 years that are nothing but opinions on civil disputes of codified law, not constitutional disputes; the Constitution still says:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
and this has never been repealed, even by the 11th Amendment. when they arrest me for refusing to fill out all those 1099’s for every stinking fuel purchase, tire purchase, oil purchase, truck parts, etc, etc or refuse to buy the type of insurance they think I have to have, I’ll have Article III standing
When judges are wrong on the law, they are overturned by higher Courts all the way up to the final arbitor, the Supreme Court of the United States. Eight appeals of Obama eligibility lawsuits have reached the Supreme Court, each and every one of them was dismissed on standing grounds by lower courts and the Supreme Court has denied Writs of Certiorari to all eight of them.
we're NOT talking bills passed by Congress that the president signs, we're talking about Article II qualifications for president that have not been met...that is auto Article III standing according to Marbury v Madison as it relates directly to law of the Constitution itself...hence the phrase
“arising under this Constitution”
what part of a bill is not part of the Constitution, but a president's qualifications to have authority to sign those bills does, do you not understand.
Located several letters between Colonel Pickering and his son John..Subject is...studying Vattel Law of Nations.
Isn't history fascinating, can't wait for the report. Hats off to you & your diligence. I wish I could be spending more time on it but this weeks dispatching is driving me nuts. Get a load, lose a load, wait for product numbers, cancel those numbers...I'm about ready to pull my hair out so your little updates are a bright spot to my days.
jamese,
we’re NOT talking bills passed by Congress that the president signs, we’re talking about Article II qualifications for president that have not been met...that is auto Article III standing according to Marbury v Madison as it relates directly to law of the Constitution itself...hence the phrase
“arising under this Constitution”
what part of a bill is not part of the Constitution, but a president’s qualifications to have authority to sign those bills does, do you not understand.
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—
Indiana Court of Appeals in dismissing Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, November 12, 2009.
This lawsuit challenged Obama’s right to receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes due to the fact that both of his parents were not American citizens.
The Development of American
Citizenship in the Revolutionary
Era (1974)
Thoughtful loyalists and patriots alike questioned the legitimacy of demanding allegiance and coercing loyalty from individuals who were unwilling participants in the struggle for independence. Few, perhaps, considered the question as carefully as did Peter Van Schaack, who retired to his New York farm in the winter of 1775-76 to reread Locke, Vattel, Montesquieu, Grotius, Beccaria, and Pufendorf before taking his stand on Independence.
(snip)
Every man must exercise his own reason, and judge for himself; “for he that appeals to Heaven, must be sure that he hasright on his side,” according to Mr. Locke. It is a question of morality and religion, in which a man cannot conscientiously take an active part, without being convinced in his own mind of the justice of the cause; for obedience while government exists being clear on the one hand, the dissolution of government must be equally so, to justify an appeal to arms.
(snip)
Van Schaack declared that allegiance to and membership in a political community was ultimately a matter of individual choice:
[A]dmitting that a man is never so clear about the dissolution of the old government, I hold it that every individual has still a right to choose the State of which he will become a member; for before he surrenders any part of his natural liberty, he has a right to know what security he will have for the enjoyment of the residue, and “men being by nature free, equal and independent,” the subjection of any one to the political power of a State, can arise only from “his own consent.” I speak of the formation of a society and of a man's initiating himself therein, so as to make himself a member of it; for I admit, that when once the society is formed, the majority of its members undoubtedly conclude the rest.[P. Van Schaack to the N.Y. Provincial Convention, Jan. 25, 1777]
Justice Spencer Roane delivering the opinion:
The people themselves who are conquered are legitimated [in the new states] by virtue of the implied compact only, and cannot claim such legitimation by the paramount title of having been, at the time of their birth inheritable in that territory under another sovereign.
Contee v. Godfrey, 6 Fed. Cas. 361 (#3140) (U.S.C.C. D.C. 1808), denied that the British-born daughter of an American antenatus who had chosen the British side could claim citizenship under the statute 7 Anne c. 5 (discussed in Kettner, Am. Citizenship, 20) which in English law had extended subjectship to the foreign-born children of subjects. In this case, the parent's choice of alienage (before the daughter's birth) clearly affected the descendant.
Read v. Read, 5 Call 160, 199 (Va. Ct. App. 1804)
Justice Spencer Roane delivering the opinion:
The people themselves who are conquered are legitimated [in the new states] by virtue of the implied compact only, and cannot claim such legitimation by the paramount title of having been, at the time of their birth inheritable in that territory under another sovereign.
Contee v. Godfrey, 6 Fed. Cas. 361 (#3140) (U.S.C.C. D.C. 1808), denied that the British-born daughter of an American antenatus who had chosen the British side could claim citizenship under the statute 7 Anne c. 5 (discussed in Kettner, Am. Citizenship, 20) which in English law had extended subjectship to the foreign-born children of subjects. In this case, the parent’s choice of alienage (before the daughter’s birth) clearly affected the descendant.
I’ve always found it curious that none of the major conservative constitutional organizations have filed amicus briefs in support of birther lawsuits.
“The American Revolution was the fruit of a struggle waged in Europe for self-government and the nation-state, which began with the Renaissance that was launched at the Council of Florence.
It would not have been possible, without the collaboration of Europe’s Leibnizian networks.
The support in Europe for the republican cause in America is exemplified by the work of Emmerich de Vattel, whose text, The Law of Nations, presented the justification for a republican overthrow of an oligarchical government, and the Leibnizian conception of ``Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’’;
American pamphleteers began using Vattel’s work almost immediately after its publication in 1758.”
Vattel used as justification for the American Revolution.
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id12.html
John Locke & Algernon Sidney also speak of the Frenchman Leibniz(July 1, 1646 - June 21, 1716) who was the famous french philosopher on laws of nature & nations. Natural law had already taken hold in France as citizenship was denied to children born to aliens/foreigners there regardless if the parents were permanent residents. De Tocqueville spoke of this in his works “Democracy in America” and stated how glorious it would have been to be born to American citizens, to be a member of that great experiment from birth.
FYI..checked with my small town post office & “Political Sovereignty: The Supreme Authority in the United States” arrived after John had begun delivery, so it will be in my box 2moro as well as another “The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870 by James Kettner”
A few days ago it was discussed..treaties and the Constitution..and supreme law of the land..not sure how it began..
A treaty dissolved England and Scotland..Ireland too.
Maybe a treaty could dissolve the United States. That would make a treaty..law of the land..
maybe you can find this reference in print:
from Rossiter’s “Seedtime of the Republic; pg 343 “The Sources of American Political Theory”
“Although many references in colonial literature to European authors were window-dressing of the most obvious sort, at least four Continental philosophers were studied with care and quoteds with confidence: Emmerich de Vattel, a name to be flung as confidently as that of Locke or Suidney...”
Virginia Gazette June 7, 1776
Could that maybe be the reason that ALL his records are "blacked" out and swept under the rug in the W.H. Remember he just got a new rug in the Oval Office???
How can a hybrid be a NBC?
Hybrid (biology), an offspring resulting from cross-breeding
Contee v. Godfrey, 6 Fed. Cas. 361 (#3140) (U.S.C.C. D.C. 1808), denied that the British-born daughter of an American antenatus who had chosen the British side could claim citizenship under the statute 7 Anne c. 5 (discussed in Kettner, Am. Citizenship, 20) which in English law had extended subjectship to the foreign-born children of subjects. In this case, the parent’s choice of alienage (before the daughter’s birth) clearly affected the descendant.
The principle the founders held to was that of a biblical one and is recorded from the beginning of time...Eve was made from Adam, from that time & I highly agree with this established fact, that when a man & woman marry, she takes her husbands name & comes under his protection, therefore she becomes a member of the society in which the husband is attached to. In the eyes of the law, “the two become one”. Justice James Wilson explains this in his works on law of 1791. That is why, from the very 1st Naturalization Act of 1790, the wife & children became citizens upon the husband/father officially becoming a citizen & is why there is no record of the wives & children's names, there was no need for it, it was established law & doctrine going back to Adam & Eve. I came across a book yesterday that shows birth announcements from the day & they all say son of such & such father, daughter of such & such father, never is the mothers name mentioned.
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.