Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
I know how you think the system failed last time. I've heard all the complaints. What I'm trying to find out is what you want to replace it with. So (1) you want the USSC to define NBC. (Of course, as Mr Rogers points out, lower courts are acting as though they already have; and since the current Court hasn't accepted any cases, they seem to think they already have too.) And (2) you want the various Secretaries of State to ask for birth certificates from every presidential candidate. That seems like a perfectly fine idea going forward, but it doesn't get Col. Lakin off the hook this time.
Just FWIW: I’d favor a federal or state law requiring anyone who ran for President to waive their privacy rights concerning birth certificates, schools, medical and tax records. I’ve written my legislature in Arizona about it, but no bill has gone very far.
It seems to me that voters ought to be able to review records that might influence their choice. But I’m a minority view on that, it seems. Certainly the POLITICIANS don’t want to go there!
“Never said or meant any such thing.”
__
And that was my point, wasn’t it? That when you said that “[t]he person running for office is responsible to prove eligibility to everyone,” you didn’t actually mean that the person running for office is responsible to prove eligibility to everyone? It’s an absurd statement, as I pointed out.
The candidate is required to convince many decision-makers of his or her eligibility (voters, Congress, etc.), and in this case, Pres. Obama has clearly done that. He hasn’t convinced you, but there will always be some who remain unconvinced.
So, I ask again, in a case like this, where the candidate has convinced all of the Constitutionally relevant decision-makers to their satisfaction albeit not to yours, what mechanism would you like to see in place to override their decision? Do you want the People’s choice to be thrown out by judges with lifetime appointments? By the military?
You haven’t answered that one at all.
Here’s something to think about. Some posters—including some *very* active posters—on FR, agree 100 percent w the extreme-liberal, conservative-loathing, Obama-loving, repulsive [referring not to them as human beings but to the filth, hatred and overall nastiness they routinely spew] posters at Fogbow.
Do Fogbowers ever agree w conservatives on anything? Do they advertise their agreement (w conservatives) on the Fogbow site, and attack their fellow liberals who disagree w conservatives (on at least the points in question)? Do Fogbowers trash, mock and demean their fellow liberals for not towing the conservative line [in at least certain cases]?
Or is this a one-way street? I.e.: is it the case that on FR conservatives who disagree w the Fogbow take on Obama eligibility get berated, misconstrued and generally put down, but no similar phenonmenon occurs on Fogbow?
Here’s a related question. If the extreme liberals on Fogbow are right about questions related to Obama’s eligibility, what else are they right about? Could it be they are right across the board, at least in the eyes of those FR posters who agree w them on other major issues? Maybe the aforementioned FR posters [i.e.: the ones who agree so strongly w Fogbowers on matters of eligibility) need to examine the rest of the progressive platform. They may find themselvs agreeing w large swaths of it.
Just something to think about.
[For the record, I fall into the category of those who strongly disagree w the very rigid Fogbower orthodoxy re: eligibility. Their ideological blinders led them to a fundamentally flawed conclusion, but they will cling to it with a death grip till their last gasp. To do otherwise would lead to actually disccussing issues and questions related to Obama’s legitimacy, and that a Fogbower simply cannot do and survive.]
One can come to the conclusion that the Birther analysis is mistaken without any reference whatsoever to DUmmies, The Fogbow or any other leftist site.
Or one can also come to the conclusion that rigid Fogbow orthodoxy on this issue is mistaken. One cannot do that on Fogbow, however, and survive. Increasingly it’s impossible to do so on FR as well. Disagreeing w the Fogbow analysis and conclusion will these days get a conservative hounded, berated and mocked/snarked on till hell freezes over.
Answer this one question. Why would any conservative continue to post on a conservative site where their choice is to either tow the Fogbow line or be relentlessly attacked and/or ridiculed?
I’ve only visited Fogbow once and that was at least a couple of years ago. The place doesn’t interest me. They have nothing to say that I think I could engage with. From my brief visit, I would say they are mistaken on many, many issues but more importantly, they’re not relevant. Not to me anyway although it sounds like the same can’t be said about yourself.
If you decide that the honest and scholarly opinion of Mr Rogers who, as I understand it, has several decades of experience as a military lawyer and is a old-time freeper of good standing is wrong merely because it co-incides with opinions expressed by a bunch of other people that you’ve got issues with and not on the merits of his arguments then you’re not thinking straight.
Sorry, but this simply is NOT an accurate characertization. They talked about the plaintiffs' argument although the court lied and contradicted themselves. They did not discuss Obama's specific eligibility.
Everything that follows is in reference to Obama.
No it's not. If it was, his name would have been mentioned. And I've already given the direct quote which showed the only legal pronouncement which was that they perceived a disagreement between the plaintiffs sources and the Supreme Court statements on NBC, and concluded it was enough they didn't have to "accept" the plaintiffs argument as true. This decision NEVER says Obama is eligible for office. They only ruled that the governor of Indiana could not be held liable to vet eligibility of candidates. READ THE DECISION and what it actually says.
The plaintiffs had stipulated in the original jurisdiction lawsuit that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. This lawsuit was based on the legal theory that Barack Obama Senior’s birth in Kenya, East Africa rendered his son ineligible under Emerrich de Vatell’s Law of Nations position on natural born citizens.
The decision says nothing about Obama being born in Hawaii.
The Ankeny ruling has been used as precedent in many subsequent eligibility decisions.
It has been used, but incorrectly and inaccurately. There's NOTHING in the Ankeny decision that makes Obama eligible for office.
“In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, 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.”
I've already shown by footnote that the Ankeny court contradicted this statement and said the Wong Kim Ark decision does NOT make anyone a natural-born citizen in accordance with Article II. It also noted that the Supreme Court said that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. There's is NO legal precedent in Ankeny to make Obama a natural-born citizen. The other courts you have mentioned are trying to rely on dicta form a state appeals court, but they are ignoring that the Supreme Court itself unanimously cited Minor on Article II eligibility as all children born in the country to citizen parents.
The WKA didn't go into great detail about the meaning of NBC at all. NBC is only mentioned about 5 or 6 times and the last time it is mentioned is when the court affirmed the Minor definition of NBC: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Then, thanks to YOU, we learned that the Supreme Court affirmed in 1913 in Luria v. United States that Minor and NOT WKA was the legal precedent for Art. II eligibiliity.
I have had disagreements and discussions w both liberals and conservatives. In my experience a true conservative can, w rare exceptions, disagree w a fellow conservative w’out attacking or mocking that individual. Maybe a liberal can too, but I’ve seldom seen it. Mockery, snark and implied motives [i.e.: claiming to know another person’s motives when you don’t] are the default ‘debate’ tactics of liberals.
It’s impossible to have a productive discussion w anyone, liberal or conservative, who ‘debates’ that way. Why these tactics should be practiced or encouraged on FR is not a question I can answer.
I’m not a former military lawyer. I was a WSO/EWO, flying in F-4s and various F-4s. I had never read a court case prior to getting involved in discussing Lakin. I spent most of my career deployed 5-6 months each year, and I found it offensive that someone would take the military’s pay, but not deploy.
Thank you for your service.
“The WKA didn’t go into great detail about the meaning of NBC at all. NBC is only mentioned about 5 or 6 times and the last time it is mentioned is when the court affirmed the Minor definition of NBC: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.”
Which is proof you are nuts. No sane person reads WKA and concludes they didn’t address the meaning of NBC. Nor will any court ever descend to that level of nuttiness.
Here is a link to the NBC decision, so anyone who wants to read it for themselves can:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Also see:
page 382
And the Appellant’s brief to the Supreme Court:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
Luria:
“The case was heard upon an agreed statement and some accompanying papers, from all of which it indubitably appeared that Luria was born in Wilna, Russia, in 1865 or 1868,
and came to New York in 1888; that he entered a medical college of that city the next year and was graduated therefrom in 1893;
that he applied for and procured the certificate of citizenship in July, 1894;
that, in the following month, he sought and obtained a passport from the Department of State, and in November left the United States for the Transvaal, South Africa, arriving in December; that from that time to the date of the hearing, in December, 1910, he resided and practiced his profession in South Africa; that he joined the South African Medical Association and served in the Boer war;
that his only return to the United States was for four or five months in 1907, for the temporary purpose of taking a postgraduate course in a medical school in New York, and that, when entering that school, he gave as his address, Johannesburg, South Africa.”
That has nothing to do with Obama or birthers.
They only cite Minor to say:
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
No thanks needed. I loved it and would dearly love to go back in and start flying again...but they think I’m getting OLD! Can you imagine that?
Sigh...
Grey hair and bifocals suck.
Pilots are a breed apart. I do not and never did have the nerves for it. Put me in a high stress, high tension situation that requires quick, cool-headed decision making and, the best I can do is offered a fevered prayer to God for help. Not the reflexive response you want in a good pilot at all. ;)
Terrazas renounced his U.S. Citizenship by statements made to Mexican authorities to keep from being expelled from a Mexican university. The U.S. SoS issued a CLN to Terrazas even though he told U.S. authorities he had not intention of giving up his U.S. citizenship and he told Mexican authorities whatever he had to keep from being expelled.
Obama was issued a CLN after his mother notified the State Department her son had acquired Indonesian Nationality and she planned to stay in Indonesia indefinitely. Obama was given the opportunity to recapture his U.S Citizenship until 6 months after his 18th birthday.
If a dual citzen minor cannot be issued a CLN, why does the U.S. State Department issue a notification letter to minors who have been issued a CLN informing them they have 6 months to recapture their U.S. Citizenship?
IRREVOCABILITY OF RENUNCIATION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP
Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20.
“Obama was issued a CLN after his mother notified the State Department her son had acquired Indonesian Nationality...”
__
You are aware, I trust, that the State Department is on record saying that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia?
Having a possibility under law that someone could reject their citizenship before 18 years of age isn’t proof that it has ever been done.
For example:
“There are also special provisions for persons who are deemed to have renounced citizenship for purposes of avoiding U.S. taxation (which is, in some cases, applicable on certain income for up to ten years after the official loss of citizenship, Internal Revenue Code, section 877), which in theory can result in loss of right to entry into the United States. However, the loss of right of entry (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E)[38]) has never been enforced by the Attorney General since its enactment in 1996. Further, since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, the Attorney General (Department of Justice) would no longer be empowered to bar a former U.S. citizen from entering the United States.
No new legislation has modified 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E) to enable the DHS Secretary to bar a former U.S. citizen from entering the United States. Lastly, IRC section 877 and Revenue Rulings was modified in 2004 to discontinue the practice of the Internal Revenue Service issuing rulings to determine if a former U.S. citizen had a tax-related motive in renouncing U.S. citizenship. Instead, IRC section 877 establishes an objective test to determine if the section 877 regime will apply.
If the former U.S. citizen fails one of these objective tests, for ten years after the individual’s expatriation they are subject to the 877 regime. In practice, given the various modifications since the enactment of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E), that the U.S. government has never enforced 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E) since its inception in 1996, a former U.S. citizen may freely travel to the U.S. subject to normal visa restrictions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law
None of this applies to someone who returned to the USA at age 10 and has lived here ever since as an accepted US citizen. There is no indication his US citizenship has been ever challenged. Even birthers generally agree he is a US citizen by birth, if born in the USA. I disagree with birthers about the meaning of NBC, but there is no evidence Obama moved back to the USA at age 10 using a visa on his Indonesian passport.
You claim he was naturalized in 1983. Offer PROOF, or stop lying.
You're proving my point that you can't read, Rogers. I didn't say WKA did NOT address the meaning of NBC. I said it did NOT go into GREAT DETAIL as YOU claimed. It mentioned NBC 5 or 6 times and THEN it affirmed the Minor definition of NBC. The rest is NOT about NBC and you know it.
They only cite Minor to say:
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
Thanks for proving my point for me yet again. I'm pretty sure you and other Obots like to claim that Minor doesn't have anything to do with presidential eligibility, but this citation proves that it does indeed serve as the legal PRECEDENT on Art. II. Second, this part of this that DESTROYS your arguments is the conspicuous absence of WKA in the Luria Citation. Let's look at the rest of the paragraph, shall we???
Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
Now, in the list of citations, notice there is NO MENTION of WKA. And the ONLY refernce to "native citizen" in Minor is under this definition:
all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natives, or natural-born citizens ....
And we have YOU to thank Rogers, because YOU were dumb enough to bring up this Supreme Court citation that proves Minor and NOT WKA is THE legal precedent on defining NBC as birth to citizen parents. Thanks!!
And BTW, the epitome of insanity is to refer to yourself on a discussion site with a name like "MrRogers." That IS insane indeed.
Joe Montgomery was already taken.
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.