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 ...
correction, in a few cases, the mother was mentioned, sorry for the misinformation.
Chapter II: THE STRUCTURE OF ANCIENT SOCIETY.
The Roman Family.—When we begin to study Roman history, no matter what the period, we are soon confronted by an institution which is quite foreign to anything existing at the present day. This is the patria potestas, or the peculiar power which a Roman father had over the members of his family. In the last years of the empire traces of it are still to be found, and at the outset it is the most conspicuous feature of the city's social system. A man's family, in this sense, consisted of all his descendants to the remotest generations, provided their relationship with him could be traced through males. Marriage was a religious ceremony (confarreatio), and, when his sons took wives, they brought them by means of it under his control. All their children, then, to the farthest limit, were also included in the same body. His daughters, on the other hand, became free as to him by their marriage, because they passed into the membership of another family. The relatives they thus acquired, and their own children, were counted as no kin of their father's family, because, in general, there was no such thing as relationship through women.
That's the whole point. Obama is NOT a citizen without regard for any amendment, therefore he cannot be a natural born citizen.
I notice you like to quote Judge Lamberth in his dismissal of Orly Taitz, when he writes, “This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.” Can you tell us what specific legal principle this is referencing??
Actually, WKA argues that WKA met the requirements for a NBC based on what the Founders thought the phrase meant.
Nice try of again obsfucating Meese’s standing on this issue. Here is his current standing as recorded with SCOTUS in the Hamdi v Rumfeld case:
Brief of Amicus Curiae The Claremont Institute
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
In Support of Respondents
Edwin Meese III
214 Massachusetts Ave. N.E.
Washington D.C. 20002
As noted above, Hamdi was indisputably born in the United States, so the issue in this case is whether he was also at the time subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The widely-held, though erroneous, view today is that he clearly was.
Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it renders the entire “subject to the jurisdiction” clause redundant. Anyone who is “born” in the United States is, under this interpretation, necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Yet it is a well established doctrine of legal interpretation that legal texts, including the Constitution, are not to be interpreted to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to absurd results. See, e.g., Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995) (“this Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant”)
The “subject to the jurisdiction” provision must therefore require something in addition to mere birth on U.S. soil. The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides the key to its meaning. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” 14 Stat. 27, ch. 31 (April 9, 1866). As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child’s parents remained a citizen or subject of the parents’ home country, was not entitled to claim the birthright citizenship provided by the 1866 Act.
The jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is somewhat different from the jurisdiction clause of the 1866 Act, of course. The positively-phrased “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States might easily have been intended to describe a broader grant of citizenship than the negatively-phrased language from the 1866 Act, one more in line with the modern understanding accepted unquestioningly by Professor Dorf and others that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient for citizenship. But the relatively sparse debate we have regarding this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment does not support such a reading.
The Overly-Broad Reading of this Court’s Decision in Won Kim Ark Needs to be Narrowed to Conform to the Original Understanding of the Citizenship Clause.
http://www.claremont.org/repository/doclib/hamdimeritsbrieffinal.pdf
I notice you like to quote Judge Lamberth in his dismissal of Orly Taitz, when he writes, “This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.” Can you tell us what specific legal principle this is referencing??
Following the statement mentioned above, Judge Lamberth goes through a detailed explanation of the requirements for standing.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
I didn’t ask you about the rest of The Court’s decision, but about his specific statement you quoted. If you want to quote actual legal principles from the decision, that makes sense, but what you quoted about tilting at windmills makes the judge look like he’s biased and partial, or maybe just an idiot. Is that what you intended??
Nonsense. WKA said the requirements for being an NBC based on what the Founders thought the phrase meant was to be born in the country to citizen parents. Justice Gray cited this definition from Justice Waite verbatim. WKA did not fit that definition. That's why Gray tried to create a common-law justification for the 14th amendment applying to the child of persons who weren't citizens and who weren't legally allowed to be citizens.
Here is the critical part:
“The jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is somewhat different from the jurisdiction clause of the 1866 Act...”
The Supreme Court has already ruled on what the phrase means. If the Congress wanted, they could have inserted the same phrase from the 1866 Civil Rights Act for ratification, but they didn’t.
The court is responsible for reading what was written and ratified, not what was written at a previous time and apparently rejected for insertion into the Constitution. It would be judicial activism of the first order for the Court to substitute the 1866 CRA for the 14th Amendment.
“Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it renders the entire “subject to the jurisdiction” clause redundant. Anyone who is “born” in the United States is, under this interpretation, necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.”
Meese errs. As the court has already ruled, an ambassador is not, and neither is the member of an invading army. I would also argue that illegal aliens are essentially an invading army, here in violation of the will of the government and thus NOT “under the jurisdiction”.
Now, in the case you cite to support yourself, was Hamdi recognized as a citizen by the Court? Including the dissents?
Here is Scalia’s dissent: “Several limitations give my views in this matter a relatively narrow compass. They apply only to citizens, accused of being enemy combatants, who are detained within the territorial jurisdiction of a federal court. This is not likely to be a numerous group; currently we know of only two, Hamdi and Jose Padilla.”
From the decision itself “At this difficult time in our Nation’s history, we are called upon to consider the legality of the Government’s detention of a United States citizen on United States soil as an “enemy combatant”
I skimmed Thomas’s dissent, and cannot find any indication he rejects Hamdi as a citizen. As best I can tell, it was 9-0 that Hamdi IS a citizen of the USA.
“WKA said the requirements for being an NBC based on what the Founders thought the phrase meant was to be born in the country to citizen parents.”
No, it did not. But I will never convince you of that, and I have neither the time nor inclination to argue it with you forever.
Suffice it to say, no court has ever upheld your position, while every court to date, and every state, and every Congressman and a plurality of the voters have held otherwise.
I can provide full quotes using the exact words that support my position. You, OTOH, have to cite unconnected phrases that do NOT use the exact words that you BELIEVE were said, but not connected in the decision. You have a great imagination but poor reading comprehension.
You've got that precisely backward. You've just described exactly your own problem.
I didn’t ask you about the rest of The Court’s decision, but about his specific statement you quoted. If you want to quote actual legal principles from the decision, that makes sense, but what you quoted about tilting at windmills makes the judge look like he’s biased and partial, or maybe just an idiot. Is that what you intended??
Another federal judge said of Orly Taitz in his dismissal of a different Obama eligibility suit: “Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore the mandates of the Constitution, to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution, and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the people.”—over sixty nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution, which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”—US Federal District Judge David O. Carter in his Opinion dismissing Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.—October 29, 2009
If Judge Lamberth’s statement shows bias, then the plaintiff has grounds for an appeal. Taitz v Obama has not been appealed.
Orly Taitz has a unique ability to piss judges off.
Furthermore, just because the court relied on English law that was used in WKA, does not make it right & true as to the original meaning thereof in the Constitution and of the framers who wrote the 14th that is clearly recorded. Meese used congressional records that Grey also used in his deciding opinion in Elk. In WKA, Grey overturned his own decision as the 9th curcuit just did in the AZ voter registration case in which there, the Chief Justice also wrote a scathing dissent.
Courts overturn themselves ALL the time these days depending on the political philosophy of the judges & the make-up of the court. If our Constitution is a living breathing document, then we have no Constitution or supreme Law because the law is always subject to change based on the opinions of a few and in 1898, there was plenty of congressional record & case law as well as Acts of Congress as to who were the “born” citizens. There was absolutely no reason for Gray to have to refer to English law.
The entire crux of the definition goes to its origins, a subject is a member of society by conference and does not always include political rights, a citizen is a member of society by consent, either direct or tacit and an alien parent does not have the authority of law to consent for their children to be members of a society in which they are not members as they hold no political rights. Also, according to English law, a naturalized subject becomes a natural born thus if English law IS the law, then by right, every naturalized citizen of the US became natural born and thus they should be eligible for president.
This is what you are saying...do you not know how absolutely absurd you sound when you consistently rely on the liberal progressive theology feudal law that has no foundation in "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"? The Declaration is listed as the 1st law of the land, the Articles of Confederation 2nd, & the Constitution 3rd and English Law is not mentioned in any of them as our foundation, but the Laws of Nature are.
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.
JEFFRIS V. EAST OMAHA LAND CO., 134 U. S. 178
In the Roman law. it was said in the Institutes of Gaius, Book II, § 70: “
Alluvion is an addition of soil to land by a river so gradual that in short ...
http://supreme.justia.com/us/134/178/case.html
KER & CO. V. COUDEN, 223 U. S. 268
Justinian’s Institutes, 2, 1, 20 (Gaius, II. 70), followed by the Partidas, 3,
28, 26, give the alluvial increase of river banks to. Page 223 U. S. 276 ...
http://supreme.justia.com/us/223/268/case.html
James Wilson Of the Natural Rights of Individuals
Date: 1792
The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person... Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.
Joseph Story
Marriage is treated by all civilized societies as a peculiar and favored contract. It is in its origin a contract of natural law…It is the parent, and not the child of society; the source of civility and a sort of seminary of the republic
James Wilson
[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good
Stephen Field
Date: 1885
No legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth…than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement
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.