Posted on 01/26/2012 5:55:04 AM PST by RaceBannon
Article II SUPERPAC streaming live video and audio at this link
Since you view the argument of ineligibility on the grounds of citizenship of zero's father as without merit Can you tell me why or what basis you are using to declare a father's citizenship without merit??
One more time, OK?
The level of sophistication here on the subject of how the Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues is pretty low. And that is one of the initial considerations in looking at this kind of question.
There is no controlling authority on the issue. The quotation from Minor v. Heppersett is simply what the court and the lawyers would describe as "dicta" (loose language from the court--the question of parentage was not at issue in the case so the holding doesn't address the parentage question).
In the case of Minor, that problem is particularly applicable. The issue of "natural born citizen" has only a single application in our law and that is to Article II of the Constitution and the qualification of a person to serve as President. But lawyers who are not looking at that technical question; many immigration lawyers; refer to the question of statutory citizenship of a person who becomes a citizen (in the case of birth outside the US for example) at birth and as a consequence of circumstances of birth, as "natural born" even though they are not looking at the Article II question. So in a citizenship case not addressing the Article II issue, the Court and the lawyers are going to see references to the term as being inapplicable to the case at hand.
There is no doubt that the founder's considered material from Law of Nations in framing the term "Natural Born Citizen" from the concept of "Natural Born Subject". Law of Nations is just another legal text and not authority and the Supreme Court has historically been spotty in terms of the weight, if any, it gives to legislative history.
If you are arguing a federal tax case, the history of the provision is very important because the court doesn't understand and has difficulty articulating explanations for complex tax provisions. But where you are looking for the answer to an issue which is essentially a simple political issue, where the guiding words and concepts are subject to interpretation, the Court will tell you what the answer is, often even in a case where the history of the issue is to the contrary.
And in the case at hand, although the fact that the founder's considered Law of Nations, the precise issue to be addressed is not all that clear. The best argument is that they too were addressing only the issue of place of birth and for the reasons I describe below.
There is also a strong view among the Constitutional Bar and the scholars that adoption of the 14th Amendment eliminated any quality of citizenship test other than place of birth with respect to person's born in the US. Yes, I understand that there are lots of arguments made here that should not be the case and while I agree with the policy arguments (personally I wouldn't come to that conclusion either, not only on this issue but on several others such as anchor babies) there is a relatively strong prevailing academic view to the contrary.
As to the dual citizenship question which might result from a parent who is a citizen of another country, a substantial part of the citizenry of the US are in that position. Under the law of many of the Euro Countries, citizenship extends to persons born outside the Country to the second generation. If you have a grandparent, or at least a grandfather who was a citizen of one of those countries, you are a citizen there whether you know it or not. We have had many many presidents who would have labored under that burden. The Court isn't going to apply a test of dual citizenship to exclude a candidate in that circumstance.
There is a strong reason to apply a different test to person's born outside the US. The state of the place of birth has absolute legal sovereignty over person's born under its authority. For example, US law makes all person's born here citizens, even if they are only here for a few minutes born passing through. And US law attaches to those citizens, just like all others, US Federal Income tax on all of their income throughout their life. So as late as sixty years later, a person born under those circumstances who returns to the US on business from the Country of his primary citizenship is faced with the Internal Revenue Service argument that he owes millions of dollars of back tax liabilities plus penalties and interest.
Historically, other countries had similar kinds of burdens. We don't want a person under that kind of constraint acting as Chief Executive of the United States.
The Constitutional Bar generally doesn't like the Natural Born test in Article II; it particularly doesn't like the test when the discussion would apply it to a Liberal candidate. And the bar, the professors, and the Courts, are predominantly politically very Liberal.
There is an excellent legal opinion published by the Congressional Research Service, which with a single exception, sets out the law as I have summarized it and as I would expect the Supreme Court of the United States to come down on the question if a case reaches the Court.
The author of the opinion comes down to the contrary on the question of birth outside the United States. My view of the probable outcome on those facts is based on substantive legal considerations the author of the opinion does not address and I would expect my view to prevail on those facts.
So in this political context, given the opportunity to apply a distinction based on place of birth outside the US for substantive reasons, the idea that the Court might hold a person born in the United States and elected President with a significant majority vote ineligible is just not realistic. It is just not going to happen--anyone with a contrary view is living in a dream world; or at a minimum hasn't argued or studied very many Constitutional Law cases.
And the argument has the further negative implication that it might obstruct consideration of an argument that could reach positive issues.
There is in fact admissible evidence of Zero's place of birth. He has gone around for years, telling people in a wide variety of settings that he was born in Kenya. Those statements are, what lawyers call evidence--admissions against interest. Affidavits to this affect were in a number of the court files of cases on the issue and Orly and other lawyers would have access to copies of those affidavits even if the court files in which they were originally filed have been sealed.
There is also still out there, a birth certificate showing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, II in Kenya. No, not the Smith certificate; not showing a date of August 4, 1961 either.
Putting a case at issue on evidence would, at worst, put Zero in a position of responding on the merits to these issues.
“The level of sophistication here on the subject of how the Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues is pretty low.”
Oh Please. We more than get it. Constitutional law is their last priority. Whims, political correctness, graft, ego, corruption, obfuscation, contortions, twists, etc.
If only we had an elite body of ambulance chasers to translate what the founding fathers meant we might actually be able to determine what the meaning of “is” is.
“Requiring two citizen parents leads to all sorts of absurdities. Some of these we brought up when Mark Hatfield was on RC Radio. What about children adopted from birth? Does the citizenship of the biological mother and father determine or the adopting parents? What about cases where the father is not known? Are those citizens eligible? In suppose in the same category would be in vitro fertilization with anonymous donors. Surrogate mothers? The list goes on and on. The paperwork showing naturalization dates for parents may be difficult to obtain. Birthers would rule them all ineligible.”
This is like the “When does life begin?” issue and the “Is using an IUD murder?” issue. SCOTUS seems to believe that right to life only begins in the third trimester. I'm not sure how that would apply to the NBC issue.
Until an actual NBC case on point is decided by SCOTUS on each of these issues, we will not know. Let's hope that they start with Obama's fact situation.
While the Bar may be liberal, five out of nine justices are not. Remember that second amendment gun rights were affirmed in a decision that “overturned a century of precedent decisions” in spite of the screams and derision of the liberal Bar!
“There is also still out there, a birth certificate showing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, II in Kenya. No, not the Smith certificate; not showing a date of August 4, 1961 either.”
These are interesting claims you are making, and the first time that I have seen them. Why this alleged evidence would remain hidden while Obama ruins the country perplexes me. If this evidence is “sealed,” how is it that you are so confident that it exists and is genuine? Links please?
Fogbower Loren (Zotted LorenC):
“Here's one: what about when the father dies before the child is born? Does that satisfy being born to two citizen parents? You're not a citizen if you're dead. If the deceased father was NOT an American citizen, does the child inherit some amorphous ‘allegiance’ by virtue of carrying the genetic material of someone who was not a US citizen when he was conceived? Doesn't that imply that conception, not birth, is the critical moment of concern?
“What if the father was a non-citizen when the child was conceived, but had naturalized before he died? Better yet, what if he was GOING to be naturalized before his child's birth, but died before taking the oath?”
Another Fogbower:
Ooh, that is a good one! As it stands, if a child is born to a deceased parent, doesn't US law still recognize the deceased parent as the child's parent for purposes of inheritance or other benefits designated for descendants (social security, for example)? Of course, you could still be required to prove that you are descended from the deceased, which means that your parentage is established after birth and not before. I would think, then, that after birth, you or the court would have to prove that the dead guy was your father (not too many kids born to a dead mother, though it has happened) after you were born for purposes of determining your citizenship.
Seizethecarp:”The Foggy Fogbowers are really getting into contemplating the implications of the MvH definition of NBC.”
It’s predictable that these lawyer-types would get hung up on all the hypothetical “possibilities”. We can always find examples of odd situations that put laws into question. For example, if a baby survives a horrible accident to his parents in a foreign country just prior to delivery, does the child still inherit the parent’s nationality? Or the nationality of the birth location?
This is exactly why we have judges and courts of law. We don’t necessarily need to codify every jot and tittle of random possibilities. We interpret laws based on the spirit of the intent. Though it may not be extremely clear to all what the NBC clause means in every obscure situation, we can certainly define it for most all situations.
In Obama’s case, asuming BHO Sr. truly was his genetic father (still TBD), he doesn’t appear to meet the basic definition intended by the founders of our country.
The actions and attitudes of our sitting President confirms the founding father’s doubt in a person with dual (or multiple) allegiance.
“Two reasons the GOP gaffed the Constitution and ignored what they knew to be Obama’s ineligibility:
(1) Marco Rubio
(2) Bobby Jindal
Reason three has materialized since 2008:
(3) Nickki Haley”
Good theory. I’ve heard rumblings of some wanting Rubio to run as VP. If his parents didn’t become citizens until after he was born, if this is in fact the case, then he is not eligible.
The same rule applies to Jindal and Haley.
The rule of law is what it is. How many times have we heard, “ well, if you don’t like the law, then change it?”
Course this one would require an amendment to the Constitution.
In the Founders time Natural and Kind had the same meaning.
When Shakespeare writes in Henry the V, “were all thy children kind and natural?” What do you think the poet means by natural children?
Does it mean children born from the same Kind? The same nationality? The same country?
“It seems clear to me the thought in mind when the framers of the constitution were hammering out the wordage, concerning the qualifications to be president, Benedict Arnold was a definite factor. Eliminate, to the extent possible, divided loyalties.”
Clear to me too. Today we have a prime example why they put the NBC clause in there. To protect and defend us from usurpers like the marxist currently #occupying the Whitehouse.
It is a good quote, but I would ask something of our legal beagles here. Obama has chosen not to play, as per the letter to Beck and the Defendant's follow-through of not showing up at the hearing. Rumor has it Defendant will want to become Plaintiff against the GA SoS's anticipated ruling. My strong guess is that Team Obama will expect not to have to produce the documentation demanded by Malihi's subpoena, while still being heard on his anticipated complaint against Beck.
What's the legal connection between the evidence submitted to Malihi and the anticipated action from Obama against Beck? Is the new process all de novo such that the judge in an Obama -> Beck complaint may not give such evidence any legal weight, or could that judge (even) look at the evidence, irrespective of Beck's entering it into evidence? Would Beck first have to enter it into evidence? Surely Beck could choose to enter such evidence and counter-sue!
Couldn't Beck counter-sue for Obama's production of materials central to Beck's job that by that time he will have had to rule upon sans Soetoro's cooperation? I would think the judge would be very inclined to renew Malihi's subpoena (perhaps loading it even more production demands, irrespective of whether Obama continued or tried to vacate his intiated action. Could he do that? I would think this will be reflected in dozens of states, especially if their courts have official access to the Malihi's courts entered evidence.
If such actions were to take place, I would think Obama's relationship with all the courts and all the states that in any way have provision to confirm his eligibility would immediately grind to a halt. Apuzzo indicated SCOTUS would officially know of the record of Malihi's 1/26 hearing. Can all other states become officially aware, and give it "full faith and credit" that the Fogblowers so gleefully wanted HIDOH (LF)BCs to be given?
If so, such a stalemate could at least move forward at the level of all the states (without recourse for lack of Obama's standing in Federal Court(s)) for the states' confirmation (or not) of his eligibility, any continuation on his part would surely be met with demands for his resignation. State courts could put warrants out for his arrest, e.g., Arpaio, for contempt of their courts any time Obama might enter their state.
Barry might well make some Constitution-burying move that would force the House to impeach him. In case the Senate didn't convict, one could easily imagine some ruse for martial law being imposed and Obama attempting to take over all government functions unto the executive. That circumstance obviously wouldn't fly with scores of millions of patriots who would make reference to a Constitutional charge "to alter or abolish," with the situation likely "going hot" in less than 60 seconds.
HF
Ping me if you get an replies.
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.