Posted on 08/23/2017 3:47:18 AM PDT by GregNH
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, a Republican candidate for US Senate, has cast doubt on former President Barack Obama's citizenship repeatedly and as recently as December 2016, fueling the debunked "birther" movement that sought to delegitimize Obama's presidency.
Moore, who started questioning the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship back in 2008, last year told a meeting of the Constitution Party that he personally did not believe Obama was a natural-born citizen. "My opinion is, there is a big question about that," Moore said when asked how he defines natural-born citizen as it relates to qualifications for president. CNN's KFile reviewed video from the event.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Of course. What on Earth did James Madison know about the Constitution anyway? </sarcasm>
Makes you wonder what else Rawle was lying about in his book, doesn't it?
The legal term I had been trying to remember is the De Facto Officer Doctrine which says that acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title are valid, even though it is later discovered that the that person’s appointment or election to office was illegal. So anything Obama did in office stands.
You haven't made a point. You have regurgitated the common arguments of Dr Conspiracy and his collection of loons.
You have offered no primary sources but Madison, and you have either ignored or were ignorant of his subsequent actions as President which refute the claims he made in helping his ally get seated in the Congress.
Other primary sources such as Benjamin Franklin, John Marshall, James Wilson, William Lewis or Bushrod Washington, you also either ignore, or are in fact ignorant of their positions on the issue.
Than’s nothing...I don’t believe the fool traitor is a human being.
You have attempted to make such a point, but the preponderance of the evidence is against you. You have only one "authority" from the requisite time and place, and he later recants this position he advocated by his actions in approving the denial of citizenship to James McClure based on his not having been born after his father naturalized.
I not only have the people who were in the right place and right time to know what was meant, I have the very meaning of the word itself as proof that Vattel was the source of it's usage.
He knew quite a lot, but he was also not above shading the truth a bit if he decided it was in his best interests. He also recanted through his actions this statement he made in the case of William Smith.
Not me. It is sufficient to establish that he lied about the one thing. Figuring out why he did it was also satisfactory so far as I was concerned.
And to make it clear, I have very good proof that Rawle knew what was the truth, and chose to promulgate something that he knew to be untrue. This was not a "mistake." This was not a difference of "opinion." This was a case where Rawle had been clearly informed by higher authority about what was a correct interpretation of the law, and then Rawle deliberately wrote something to the contrary and had it published.
Speaking of a collection of loons, here you are again.
You have offered no primary sources but Madison, and you have either ignored or were ignorant of his subsequent actions as President which refute the claims he made in helping his ally get seated in the Congress.
Actually I've offered three: Madison, Rawle, and Kent. And I've quoted from all three. You, in turn, have claimed Rawle was lying, Madison was faking it, and Kent was apparently part of the conspiracy.
Other primary sources such as Benjamin Franklin, John Marshall, James Wilson, William Lewis or Bushrod Washington, you also either ignore, or are in fact ignorant of their positions on the issue.
Assuming you could come up with a quote from them, all you are doing is making my point for me. There was more than one definition of natural-born citizen at the time the Constitution was written. You claim that the term is self-explanatory is nonsense.
Of course you do.
Just out of curiosity, you suppose Rawle was also lying about secession?
You really don't bother reading that to which you are replying, do you? Rawle and Kent weren't delegates or members of any ratifying convention. They have no first hand knowledge of the issue.
Madison does, but he has contradicted himself on this issue, and his actions as President speak more loudly than his words as a congressman.
Assuming you could come up with a quote from them, all you are doing is making my point for me. There was more than one definition of natural-born citizen at the time the Constitution was written.
Even if some people didn't gather by the fact they changed the word from "Subject" to "Citizen" that there was a new relationship between the government and the individual, what mattered is what was the predominant position of the Constitutional Delegates in Philadelphia, and the positions of the ratifying legislatures and conventions in the states.
I can present quite a lot of proof that the Constitutional Delegates and the Ratifying legislatures and conventions took a lot more of their positions regarding how the government was to be structured from Vattel, than they did from Blackstone.
Blackstone was an authority on common law and English Statutes. Vattel was the authority on International law, of which the nature of "citizenship" is a primary part.
You claim that the term is self-explanatory is nonsense.
Not at all. In 1776, and even in 1787, there were only two nations in the world that used the word "Citizen"; Switzerland, which had by that time been a Republic for 400 years, and the US, which had just begun to be a Republic. All other Nations in the world used their own language's version of the word "Subject."
It is not an accident that we tossed the word "Subject". The fact that we did so is a clear statement as to intent.
I vaguely remember that Rawle was in favor of it, but this is no great revelation. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that people have a right to independence if they should want it. That Rawle agreed with what was a very common position does not alter it's validity, because it's validity is not based on the opinion of Rawle.
Maybe he was lying about that too?
No. That doctrine is not applicable where the deficiency is attributed to ineligibility to hold the position.
Not so. See #154 responding to #143.
Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate replete with his baby footprint as claimed by his brother is displayed in this post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3559999/posts
This is an example of what I meant when I said that I found you mostly tedious.
Rawle had no reason to lie about secession. He had a very good reason to lie about the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen."
It’s the De Facto Officer Doctrine. No court is going to allow chaos in government because of one erroneous office-holder.
And isn't that what you are talking about with Obama?
+1
Where you get the patience idk.
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.