Replies

Catechism Class:,

Student: Sister Mary, does God answer prayers?

Sister Mary: Yes, my child. But often the answer is “NO!”

I feel the same way about the courts in regard to the eligibility controversy. Now, as far as this interesting question, “How was he registered at Occidental?”:

Occidental says he was registered the whole time as Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. I know. I asked. The citizenship he claimed is private, as are his records, and financial aid details. End of that trail. I do know that he was mentored there by a queer communist who passed him along to “Bomber” Bill Ayers. End of that trail, too.

The reliability of Hawaiian Birth Certificates, was definitely of course an open question for many years. One trusts that as time has gone by, they are at least as reliable as Hawaiian Automobile and Boat Titles, or Honolulu Dog Licenses and Rabies Certificates. But as far as these things go, if an Hawaiian person of my vintage, of Japanese, Chinese, or Philippino ancestry were to present his Hawaiian birth certificate of the type claiming a “home birth,” witnessed by Uncle Wan Hoong Low, it would at least merit an ironic smile and a raised eyebrow from this cynical New Englander, who takes all people from “away,” with a dose of salts anyway, as long as their checks don’t bounce.

Now about this, “Province of the Congress, not the Courts.” Poor answer. Of course the damned courts can’t remove the President, your Honor. But the courts can damn well establish what the hell a Natural Born Citizen is and tell the Congress if someone complies with the Constitution or not. The Congress of course, may choose to act upon the ruling or not. Surprisingly, Jamese, the courts do not agree with me.

Besides, By saying that the removal of the President is “not the province of the courts,” to be deconstructionally logical, the Judge is intimating that the guy is ineligible but that he can’t do anything about it. That’s not helpful to the POTUS or the peasants who shall soon gather on the WH Lawn with pitchforks and scythes.

It’s OK. I’ll wait. Tricky business doing this with a particular SOB in mind. Sounder legally to wait until he leaves.

Jamese777, our questions about Obama will be answered. But as Sister Mary was wont to say,

“Perhaps not in this lifetime, my child.”

Dwight David Eisenhower was also a home birth in Denison, Texas. There was no official record of his birth until Ike was 62 years old and his brother, Arthur had a birth record created for him on the word of his wife Mamie and the attestation of Arthur Eisenhower before a notary public.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions and demanding answers.

The Supreme Court of the United States established what a natural born citizen is back in 1898. The case was US v Wong Kim Ark. It is “stare decisis” and has been used as a precedent in more than 1,000 subsequent cases over the 113 years.

The lawyers representing the United States before the Supreme Court were very explicit in their briefs as to what the issues were in Wong Kim Ark. They wrote (and I quote)
“The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen.”

The attorneys representiting United States government went on to ask: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

If Justice Horace Gray, who wrote the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark could be brought back to life and could be interviewed on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, here is what he would say, using verbatim quotations from his opinion, in which he was joined by five other Justices:

Here are pertinent excerpts from Justice Gray’s opinion in Q&A form for those who have not read it:

Question: Justice Gray, tell us, what does the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment mean?

Justice Gray: It “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, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

Question: How do you know that?

Justice Gray: Well, “the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption.” Hence it is “declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed.”

Question: Why would they adopt an Amendment that meant the same thing as existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: “Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”

Question: So in order to define the meaning of the 14th Amendment, we need to first define the existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: Yes, that is what “declaratory” means.

Question: So what was existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: Well, “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.” However,”[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words.” Hence, “[i]t must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution….” as “[t]he interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Question: So how were these terms defined under the English common law?

Justice Gray: The English common law rule was “any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” Such rule was “in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

Question: But doesn’t the Constitution use the term “citizen” rather than “subject?”

Justice Gray: “The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

Question: So generally, anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen?

Justice Gray: Yes, the natural born citizenship clause “assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

Question: So the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment mean the same thing?

Justice Gray: Not sure how much clearer I can make it.

Not one of the current nine Justices on the Supreme Court has ever asked for Obama’s attorneys or attorneys representing the Justice Department on Obama’s behalf to respond with a brief defending Obama’s eligibility for any of the 13 appeals that have reached the High Court concerning Obama’s natural born citizenship status.

In my humble opinion, there is just no way that the Supreme Court is going to undo the electoral will of 69,456,897 voters.