Posted on 09/19/2011 4:29:58 AM PDT by maggief
The battle for the Republican presidential nomination is just heating up. But the choice of running mate is as good as settled, at least if the Beltway buzz is to be believed.
Many party insiders feel that the attractions of Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) for the second spot on the ticket are irresistible.
“Right now, he is head and shouders above everybody else,” Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson told The Hill. (Wilson supported Rubio during his 2010 Senate bid, but did not work for the campaign.)
Garlands have been hurled Rubio’s way with conspicuous frequency in the past few weeks.
“Rubio has the most important ingredient of any leader: vision,” conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote.
Former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen last week contrasted the “depressing” performance of the Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy with that of Rubio. The Floridian recently “stepped forward to do what the other candidates should have: lay out a clear foreign policy vision,” Thiessen wrote on his Washington Post blog.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
“[...] Leo Donofrio, Esq.
I hope this clarifies the issue for you.”
It was already clear that Donofrio is the source of most of the crank scholarship here. What not clear is why. Most people prefer legal theories that *win* in court. Donofrio has lost every single time.
His latest eligibility-related case, the matter of Old Carco (related because Donofrio spun one of his twisted theories of an eventual quo warranto claim) was such a disaster for Donfrio and his partner that he vowed never again to go willingly to court. How much their self-administered fleecing will cost them remains to be seen; the firm that beat them summed it up to $128,762.50.
Does it not occur to people that lawyers who face-plant in court every single time might not be your best source of legal analysis?
You better read it again and LISTEN to the oral arguments in Nguyen. The way the Constitution is WORDED..taken literally as WRITTEN, it meant AT THE TIME of the adoption of the Constitution. Scholars know this. That is why the Justice said it...he was making an observation.
Maybe if you pay attention to the Supreme Court you will learn something.
Commas make a difference.
And as noted during that oral argument - there is a DEBATE about the meaning of the words Natural Born Citizen - ergo NOT SETTLED IN LAW.
You have egg on your face. You better do some reading up on the LITERAL wording of the Constitution since I suppose you don’t know how to read EXACTLY what the Constitution says.
In the law - Commas change meaning of the legal construct.
Doesn’t matter.
His folks were stationed in the Canal Zone.
NO, that is not necessarily the ONLY meaning and SCOTUS admits it is not settled law during an oral argument.
It MIGHT be the only meaning or it MIGHT NOT be the only meaning. If you listen to the oral argument I have suggested everyone who posts on this topic should listen to..you will see the Justices have differing opinions as to the requirements.
You lie!
That case says no such thing. The Chief Justice SPECIFICALLY said they were not going to address whether there was more than one definition because it wasn’t necessary for the case.
More crap from the goose.
They conveniently just gloss over very specific wording. How hard is it really to understand these two sentences:
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “
It ISN’T very hard, and either a reasonably smart or reasonably honest person would simply ask themselves if “Gee, I wonder if another court later on WOULD find it necessary to solve any doubts???” Which would lead them to that Won Kim Ark thingy. But the Vattle Birthers DON’T, which is why I say they are either dishonest or really really dumb.
I understand your frustration. But clarity is available and the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is known.
There is only one meaning, and it is national law.
SCOTUS can openly argue about anything but that doesn’t make the arguments national law, and the syllabus in Minor vs. Happersett exists and IS national law. The citizenship issue was determined by that Supreme Court directly construing the “natural born Citizen” clause from Article 2, Section 1. This is the only US Supreme Court case to have directly construed the clause. As such, it remains as law and precedent which means Obama occupies the White House in direct contradiction to standing US law, and he knows it.
BHO2 has NEVER claimed to be a natural born citizen, only “born in the United States”. He knows he is not eligible.
That’s right - because she already met their definition of a natural born citizen it wasn’t productive nor necessary to look at other aspects of the case. Get over it...
JC
Did you also send this childish response to the other half dozen posters who think you’re full of it also, eh?
JC
Sorry, but I don’t buy your interpretation, because it would have been totally illogical (and stupid) to pen a stipulation that none of the currently alive colonials were eligible for the presidency of the new republic. There was also a strong bias (well deserved) against anyone with dual allegiances becoming commander in chief because he could never be completely trusted, as we now see with our current regime!
JC
AGAIN, read it EXACTLY as written and that is EXACTLY what it says. AGAIN, commas are everything in the law.
But then again, you aren’t a Justice on the Supreme Court so maybe you can’t figure that out.
“That’s right - because she already met their definition of a natural born citizen it wasn’t productive nor necessary to look at other aspects of the case. Get over it”
The Chief Justice ADMITTED , in writing, that they were not going to resolve that issue. In essence, they punted because it wasn’t germaine to the case.
A discussion by the people who decide the law does not necessarily make it law.
However, it does show there are differing opinions. It does show they admit it is open to debate.
And the idiots who keep claiming there is a national law on that look ridiculous when Minor flat out states they aren’t going to rule on that aspect.
Keep on pontificating....
I’m not pontificating. And you’re correct; they said that deciding on natural born citizen was not what they intended but the definition is in the syllabus and that makes it national law.
You are either incredibly naive or are just being dishonest.
The case flat out states they decline to address the issue because it is not germane to the case.
Here are the pertinent sections from Minor vs. Happersett:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
[The next section is most important, particularly the last line quoted.]
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens...”
And that last line, my dear RummyChick, is the definition of natural born citizen.
I won't be insulted if you disagree, but saying that they declined to discuss the issue is, well, disingenuous. They certainly did discuss it, as this quote is from the Opinion of the Court as delivered by the Chief Justice. The above quote from Minor vs. Happersett is thanks to the Legal Informtion Institute: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
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.