Posted on 01/02/2011 1:00:02 PM PST by opentalk
I got that from your great summary—i.e.: that he was addressing the anchor baby mess and, as you put it, jus sanguinis citizenship. I would imagine, though, that he used ‘find’ to see if ‘Levine’ was mentioned more than once. I would have...but maybe I’m more vain than Le Grande Fromage of Constitutional scholars. ;)
You can download the show right here.
The starts time is 39:51
“01/06 The Mark Levin Show”
http://marklevinshow.com/article.asp?id=2069341&spid=32630
I was right the first time. he did say “later” not earlier. LoL
An excerpt of Elrer
From the article
American Jackpot: The Remaking of America by Birthright Citizenship
"Dr. Edward J. Erler, a political science professor at Cal State San Bernardino, has spoken out against the political malaise and the popular misconception that has blossomed around the continued awarding of citizenship to virtually anyone born in the country. Echoing the sentiments of Eastman, Erler points out that the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to reassure the Congress in 1868 that the citizenship provisions did not cover—nor were they crafted with the intent to grant—citizenship to the children of foreign nationals born in the United States. Specifically, the myriad of Native American tribes were not covered under the citizenship clause because they clearly owed allegiance to their tribes and therefore were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government—a clear indication Erler says that jurisdiction is indeed contingent on exclusive allegiance. And a child’s allegiance must follow that of its parents during its years as a minor."
Thanks for the down-loadable link! I won’t be able to listen until tomorrow, but I can’t wait.
The quote in your later post is even better—worth its weight in gold. I needed it earlier today, when that loose canon Chin was spewing nonsense. I’ll plan to ping him to it tomorrow.
Thanks again, Red Steel. Wow—what a day. It’s like taking a course on the Constitution, only better. :)
One more for the evening. Here is an exact quote since I downloaded it.
Levin - “...There is no legislative history whatsoever supporting the absurd proposition, that the 14th Amendment, was intended to empower illegal alien parents to confer American citizenship on their own babies, merely as a result of their birth in the United States illegally. “
I truly don't understand what "truth" has to do with that question at all. But after thinking about it, I'm now not so sure I really oppose the child of a U.S. citizen born in the U.S. becoming President. I do think that someone born in the U.S. of two non-citizen parents should not be eligible to become President. I still don't think that's consistent with the 14th Amendment, though. Which is why an Amendment is probably in order.
What does concern me is the scenario I described where a U.S. serviceman marries a foreign gal, and they have a child born in the U.S. before the wife's naturalization is finalized. I'm reluctant to say that child should not be considered a citizen at birth, because I have some former Marine buddies who did marry foreign brides and have children here.
Are you a believer in this republic, or are you a cultural marxist seeking to destroy our republic? Stand for something, clearly, Bruce. Put your cards on the table.
Wow. You suspect I'm a "cultural marxist" because my legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment is different from yours, despite everything I've said about Obama here and in other threads? I would say that's surprising, but unfortunately, it's not.
You know, it is people who share your activist view of Constitutional law, who are willing to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution to suit their own political ideology, who have done the most damage to this country. You're on the same side as Lawrence Tribe, Sonya Sotamayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and their ilk. You're just not well-read enough to know it.
Have a...day.
Is your argument so bad that you must resort to outright lies? Well, at least your screenname is well-chosen.
I do not believe that any citizen is eligible to be POTUS, and have stated that more times than I can count. Either you are too thick to understand that, or just enjoy deliberately misrepresenting other people's posts. Naturalized citizens, which includes anyone who only became a citizen after birth by being naturalized, are not eligible to become POTUS. The 14th Amendment itself expressly recognizes the different status of people who are born citizens versus those who are naturalized.
I've read a lot of poorly reasoned legal arguments, but I have to say you're in the running for the worst with that post. But this might get fun, so I'm willing to follow this particular rabbit down the hole anyway.
But first, to make it clear, you're saying that the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment only applies to those individuals who have "total allegience" to the United States? And by that, do you mean that both of their parents must be citizens?
I saw you posting on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2652559/posts
Just about every Freeper on it contradicted your crackpot interpretation of eligibility and the 14th Amendment. Did you ‘correct’ any of them? No, in a cowardly act you corrected not a single one. You know if you posted your crackpot theory in an active thread you’d be ridiculed off of FR. So you wait till a thread dies and then spew your nonsense. (A seven yo would be ashamed to interpret the Constitution as inanely as you do. A decent 7 yo would be ashamed of your tactics too. They are pathetic.)
Your stupid interpretation has been debunked—and held up to ridicule—a thousand times on FR. Take it to DU; I’m sure they’ll buy it there.
So long, Bruce. I have no more time for you. Best wishes, etc.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the laws of other nations, but you might want to consider a few facts. Not all other countries have the same citizenship laws as the United States. Some do it by blood, some by if you were born there, etc. For example, in Japan, you are considered a citizen of Japan if you are born in that country, without any restrictions.
My brother was born in a U.S. military hospital to a father serving his country and my mom, a born and bred American. That makes him an American citizen even according to your own arguments.
However, under Japanese law, he was born a citizen of Japan as well. And under your interpretation of the Slaughterhouse cases, the fact that he was also a citizen under the laws of another country would make him ineligible to be President. Right?
You know if you posted your crackpot theory in an active thread you’d be ridiculed off of FR.
Is there a birther thread more active than this one? I've posted in a few of them, I think. And the people who opposed you guys usually figured out quite quickly that some of your arguments are nutty, and so decided not to waste time on it. You're the majority in the same sense that the socialists are a majority in the Progressive Caucus -- self-selection.
I do think there is a legitimate factual dispute over where Obama was born. I don't think it's a productive issue at this point to push politically, but I think it's reasonable to disagree on it. But those who argue that it doesn't matter even if he was born in Hawaii, well, I think you're nuts.
Bruce - But after thinking about it...I do think...I still don’t think...
Daisy - Glad to see you are thinking! :)
Bruce - Wow. You suspect I’m a “cultural marxist” because my legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment is different from yours...
Daisy - I didn’t say I suspect, I said clarify yourself...now you have. Good.
Bruce - despite everything I’ve said about Obama here and in other threads?
Daisy - Sorry, I haven’t been avidly following all your comments on all the threads. Only context I have of you is this thread. You have made negative inferences on this thread about Obama, yes -while at the same time!- calling those who question the birth certificate BIRTHERS. Seems like if you wanted people on this thread to respect your ideas you’d use non-descriptive terms for them. Just sayin’.
Bruce - You know, it is people who share your activist view of Constitutional law...
Daisy - My activist view? I wish you actually knew me. You’d get a real kick out of that statement. I have not claimed to be a lawyer, to know law, to be well acquainted with a lawyer, or to have read law books...I have read pros and cons on this subject since it’s first discovery, and have over time come to believe what I believe. The only activism I am interested in is preserving this republic to whatever extent I may be able to help, admittedly limited.
Bruce - You’re just not well-read enough to know it.
Daisy - :) You’re on to me! No, I am not well-read on legal matters or how to debate legal matters. Congratulations! You win! So I guess then you know, being the incredibly well educated person that you are, that there is a big difference between a “not well-read” person and a person “willing to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution to suit their own political ideology.”
I didn’t realize that caring about this country and not wanting it to be subverted by the likes of those who would seek to give Obama an out by “plainly interpreting” the constitution without taking into consideration the context in which the “plain interpretation” appears (ie. historical context and understanding that persons of the time surrounding the text in question had of it) were political ideologues.
My grandmother always said, “there’s more than one way to skin a cat!” This -common- phrase may be too colloquial for you, but I am SURE by your posts on this thread you know how to practice its meaning.
Bruce - Have a...day.
Daisy - You wish me one added day to my life? How generous of you! Thank you! I’ll go one better, Mr. Bruce! Have a GREAT day!
Oh come now. you're "argument" is a disingenuous one. It is about as good as Anderson Coopers and snake head James Carville from CNN feeding their ignorant audience of mushrooms. Your "argument" would fly with the radical leftist activists who sit on the bench, but not with jurists who apply the intent and meaning of laws to their opinions.
The funny thing is that I've gotten into pretty heated arguments with some lefties on that issue in other forums. The case for Obama being a Marxist might be even stronger than you think.
Obama went to Harvard Law School in the 80's. During that time, the trendy, almost dominant school of legal on that campus was "Critical Legal Studies". I learned about it in law school myself, read about it, have friends who were there then, etc. Anyway, it is a core marxist theory of law.
There is no way you could have been at Harvard during that period and not been familiar with the "Crits". Given the predominant sentiment there at that time, and given what I know from folks who were there then, Obama was pretty tight with those folks. And, he managed to get elected President of the law review, which was not going to happen there at that time if you were opposed by the Crits. Before I even knew about Wright and Ayers, I had Senator Obama tagged as Crit, or at least a crit sympathizer. And if you look at everything he's done his whole life, from his books, to his political career, to various statements he's made, to all his radical associates, I think it is impossible for a reasonable person not to conclude that he is either a Marxist, or is strongly sympathetic to Marxist ideas.
You have made negative inferences on this thread about Obama, yes -while at the same time!- calling those who question the birth certificate BIRTHERS. Seems like if you wanted people on this thread to respect your ideas you’d use non-descriptive terms for them. Just sayin’.
Fair point. I was using that as a shorthand for a point of view, and didn't mean it to be offensive.
You’re on to me! No, I am not well-read on legal matters or how to debate legal matters. Congratulations! You win! So I guess then you know, being the incredibly well educated person that you are, that there is a big difference between a “not well-read” person and a person “willing to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution to suit their own political ideology.”
Well, my apologies then. I just have a difficult time understanding why people who admittedly don't know the law that well make dogmatic legal assertions. "Activists" are folks who are results-oriented. They look at a case, figure out what they want to have happen, and then come up with a theory to support it. That's what happened with the horrible commerce clause decision of Wickard v. Filburn, and Roe v. Wade. I think that's what a lot of folks here are doing. The problem is that twisting the law to suit ends, even if you believe those ends to be noble, is that it eliminates the protections to Constitution is supposed to provide us.
By the way, Bobby Jindal is popular among a lot of conservatives. I love the guy. But under the laws of India, because he was born of an Indian father after 1950, India considers him an Indian citizen, and under the arguments advanced here, he's not eligible to be President either.
I hate Obama. I crossed party lines and voted for Hillary in the primary because I wanted to be able to vote against this marxist twit twice. Ronald Reagan was my Commander in Cheif, and this guy has the exact opposite view of the U.S that I do.
But that still doesn't mean I'm willing to make a crappy legal argument just because I would like the result. As a lawyer -- and one that has represented individual rights and other conservative organizations for free in court -- a bad legal argument leaves a rotten taste in my mouth even if I like the result. Of course, in those pro bono cases, I've had both the law and the moral right on my side, which is always fun.
And again, apologies for rudeness. You have a great day too.
My only sin is reading and applying the plain text of the 14th Amendment as written. Maybe you can argue that's wrong, but it is hardly disingenuous. My personal opinion is that the 14th Amendent wasn't drafted that well, and needs to be amended.
The thing about legal arguments is that to be correct, they must be consistent. One horrible problem with the parental citizenship issue, or the idea that you can't be a natural born citizen of the U.S. if you're also considered a citizen under the laws of another country, is that it gives other countries a veto power over who may become President. All they have to do is adopt some screwy citizenship law to disqualify a particular candidate.
Now, I think one way around that is that the U.S. would only consider someone to be a citizen of another nation if the U.S. laws of citizenship as applied to that situation would make someone a citizen of that country. I think under that test, so-called dual-citizenship would be rare, and couldn't be manipulated by other countries trying to screw with our elections. Right now, that isn't the law here, and U.S. law is incredibly silent upon the meaning/effect of a U.S. citizen also being considered a citizen of another country.
Personally, I think obtaining a passport in the name of another country, which is a pretty good measurement of citizenship, should operate to divest someone of U.S. citizenship. But that's a bit of a different issue.
.... best tactic birthers can take is to shut up completely about Obama's birth place.
If you knew anything about history, female daughters followed the allegiance of their fathers until the got married, and at that point they took on the allegiance or citizenship of their husbands. This about covered the females allegiance to the country until the day they died. You can see this in the first Naturalization Acts of Congress. If a father of a family took the oath of allegiance to the United States after he qualified, his whole family became citizens of the United States. And the naturalized father further renounced his foreign citizenship to include the renunciation of his family and wife. It must have been a very very rare case (to the point of non-existence) if an unattached female from the early 20th century and down through the ages had a different allegiance from her father or later her husband.
Changes to our laws and culture, as should know, begin to happen after when women's suffrage became law winning the right vote. And in 1922, which followed women's right to vote, Congress detached citizenship from her husband, but not to the point if an American women married a foreigner, she would still lose her American citizenship upon marriage to a foreign national. This law lasted about a decade until 1932 when the law was overturned. Super liberal Supreme Court jurist and former ACLU lawyer acclaimed them to be the "Bad old days" where the female citizenship was completely connected to her father and husband. Since women are now liberated and on their own, the two parentS being of the same citizenship (being NBC) is even more relevant today than in yesteryear, since a foreign wife can now bring an inherited foreign and a split allegiances to the children she bears for the family.
The 1872 Supreme Court did not have trouble understanding Congressman Bingham or Senator Howard, or did Justice Gray in 1898 for that matter. He just flippantly said it was irrelevant in his Wong Kim Ark opinion. They had no problem understanding the meaning and intent of the clause "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof." written in the 14th Amendment.
It wasn't simply because they owed allegience to their tribes by blood. It was because those tribes had lands that were granted a degree of sovereignity under treaty. So even though those lands were located within the U.S., the U.S. did not have full jurisdiction over those lands.
And a child’s allegiance must follow that of its parents during its years as a minor."
So if a child is born of parents, one of whom is a citizen of the U.S. and one who is not, he's not a citizen of any nation? Or an American man married a Native American woman, married her, then took her to NYC to raise a family, none of those children are American citizens? Do you really think that's what anyone actually intended?
There are a great many immigrants who came to this country in the late 1880's and early 1900's who did not, themselves, ever become citizens. Or at least, both parents didn't complete naturalization before having at least some children. No big deal because we've always assumed that their children became citizens because they were born here.
But just consider for a moment if your argument is correct. You are going to have to go back and unwind everyone's ancestors, going all the way back to the boats, to see if the ancestor was naturalized before giving birth. Because by the logic that has been advanced here, unless both immigrant parents completed naturalization before their children were born, those children were not citizens either. Which means that unless they were later naturalized -- and why would they be, since they always assumed they were citizens by birth-- none of their children would be U.S. citizens either. And they essentially have contaminated anyone they've married because their offspring would not have two parents who were citizens either.
So exactly how many tens of millions of Americans are there who are completely unaware that they're not actually American citizens, despite having had family in this country for more than 100 years?
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.