"A just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want." ~Barack Obama
Please support Free Republic
click the pic
Posted on 07/24/2011 5:58:31 PM PDT by skimbell
Yes someone else’s turn to fall on the perjury sword this time around. LOL!!
Spaulding wrote: “Colonel Sellin is certainly correct, though I always wonder why people asserting ineligibility use the likelihood of a phony document when, if we still place credibility in our laws, Obama’s ineligibility has been thoroughly confirmed by our greatest constitutional scholars, as well as our current complicit senate”
In case you have not noticed, this crank legal theory gets even less traction than the born-in-Kenya theory, and would require an even bigger conspiracy. That native-born citizens qualify as natural-born was clear and settled long ago. There are no constitutional scholars questioning it, just pretenders such as we see here.
What’s more, none of the wanna-be constitutional scholars advanced this theory until they needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president. If I’m wrong on that, please cite. None of them were writing essays arguing that /Black’s Law Dictionary/ had the definition of “natural born citizen” wrong. There were no rebuttal’s to: “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).
I can respect contrarians, but not people who start telling the rules different when they don’t like who is winning. But again, if I’m wrong put that on you, just cite yourself advancing this two-citizen-parent theory before Barack Obama ran for president.
The imposter needs a poster and I made one up but can’t figure out how to upload it. I took the ‘catch me in you can’ movie poster, put a nose in the air pic of b.o. where decaprio was and a regular looking joe from the 50’s where hank was. the original sub title is perfect “The true story of a real fake” and then I added at the bottom “He isn’t a natural born citizen. But he is a natural born liar.” Turned out perfect and is correct. Except the guy in the original story really was pretty smart and figured things out on his own. b.o. has handlers doing all that for him and lies with no gravi toss or finesse.
But the Democratic Party is too corrupt, too wealthy and too powerful to disappear.
I have within the last year been apprised of a notion which I had never considered previously. It is that "Socialism" is a mask which Monarchy uses to reassert it's self into power. The American War of Independence created a new form of government which had never existed before and was a complete break with the Monarchist/Nobility form of government, (which was the rule prior to the Creation of America) and the "elites" have struggled ever since to reassert the previous system.
Consider Socialism/Communism in practice. It consists of a Premier (King) supported by a large body of Party Members and commissars. (Nobles.) Everyone else is a poor peasant. (Peasant) The party members enjoy special privileges as befits their access to party officials, and the Premier exercises life and death power over everyone else.
In our system, we may posses Nouveau elites and the Glitterati, but they nevertheless have the instinctual human desire to rule over others, and they utilize their money and influence to assure their position as a member of the New Nobility. Democrats are courtesans of both the modern ruling court and the Wealthy elite, trading their influence among the ignorant peasantry and those members of the middle class who are foolish enough to believe their assertions, for influence in the government.
The whole system will have the eventual effect of creating a Monarchy and Nobility with a poor peasant class, the normal status of Human affairs since the Dawn of Humanity. The American experiment of self rule will be over if they succeed. What is being stopped is upward mobility, and that is the entire point.
All well and good for now. Meanwhile they are successfully Droneitizing the army with unmanned Robots. Some of our best kills are using predator drones nowadays. Mechanized walking robots are coming, rest assured. Then what?
The "rise of the machines" but controlled by Dictators.
That people would challenge your notion of a "Geocentric" Universe and refuse to respect your Robed Clergy, ought to be clue enough for you that Your false, albeit established religious dogma is on a collision course with reality.
The Law will obey the people, and as we educate the people, the "Law" will eventually follow.
I love reading Col. Sellin’s stuff, but it’s starting to get repetitive with all the “arm yourself for the coming conflict” stuff. I wonder if he’s saving his best stuff for the Birther Summit. Is he going on before or after Rev. David Manning Ph.D.?
Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature… If the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
..I would admit, however, that if the army started "outsourcing" the drone pilot function to some other country group I would have to say that pistols against the army would become necessary.
"A just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want." ~Barack Obama
Please support Free Republic
click the pic
Again, that is a "for now" proposition. Subject Americans to enough indoctrination and cherry pick the resulting cadre of socialized Obots, and it wouldn't surprise me that they would violate Posse Comitatus in an instant.
..I would admit, however, that if the army started "outsourcing" the drone pilot function to some other country group I would have to say that pistols against the army would become necessary.
As the "mechanized" ranks increase in number and capability, it will require fewer and fewer "meat world" controllers. A smaller group of people is easier to co-opt than a larger group of people. In terms of American Freedom, we have safety in numbers. Robots are reducing the numbers.
Try the "pistol" method on a robot guard, you will instantly make every other guard in the vicinity know exactly where you are and what you look like. With speed no human can possibly match, they will be racing to your position with infrared and other advanced sensors to kill you immediately, and that is if you can take out the first Robot guard with a pistol shot. The tools we use currently to hunt down insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan may someday be used on patriots here in America.
I'm afraid this game is best described by the movie "War Games." "The only winning move is not to play. "
Hopefully, everyone has been talking with their traditionally-voting dem friends about the demise of their former party. This article would make a great email attachment.
Actually, come to think about it,...it has already happened, twice that I can think of right away. The first time was when the Weavers were attacked and some of them killed by govt agents and the second time was in '92 when the Branch Davidians were assulted by army tanks, their "compound was burned to the ground and more than 80 people were burned...most of them were children....
...it will be necessary therefore to develop a way to take the robots out.
If they can be built, they can be destroyed....
I guess you are comparing the commonly-held definition of "natural born citizen" with the old, pre-Copernican, earth-centered model of the universe.
That gets at the difference between hard science and interpretive activities.
You can overturn a scientific theory through more accurate observation and carefully crafted experiments.
But with interpretative activities (you can't really call them "sciences") unless you can bring to light some long-unknown document you don't get the same kind of refutations.
It looks like what you're doing is trying to make one set of wills prevail over another set of wills, and that's not what happened with Copernicus and his scientific revolution.
If they can be built, they can be destroyed....
Sure. All you have to do is match funding and research talent with the US Government.
Only commonly held among the ignorant, and yes, it is just like the belief that the Sun orbits the Earth. At first glance it appears to be true, but deeper investigation reveals it is utter rubbish.
That gets at the difference between hard science and interpretive activities.
Science relies on interpretation of hard facts. This is no different, but for the lawyers penchant to worship "Precedent," thereby placing them in the role of "bad" or even worse "Non" scientists. They do not argue from "First Principles" rather they argue from the fallacy of Authority.
You can overturn a scientific theory through more accurate observation and carefully crafted experiments.
You can overturn a bad misunderstanding of History the same way, but for the obtuseness of people who refuse to accept the evidence presented to them.
But with interpretative activities (you can't really call them "sciences") unless you can bring to light some long-unknown document you don't get the same kind of refutations.
They didn't find a "Document" to discover the Neutron. It was a careful series of observations regarding the behavior of radioactive particles in experiments. By the same token, the behavior of the founders ought to offer another clue as to what their intentions were.
It looks like what you're doing is trying to make one set of wills prevail over another set of wills, and that's not what happened with Copernicus and his scientific revolution.
That is what you ASSERT I am doing, but the reality is more like Galileo v. the Church. Contemporary writings and statements of the founders demonstrate their intent to a reasonable degree of scientific rigor , and that intent is completely incompatible with Split nationality/divided allegiance. That there are those who refuse to comprehend the evidence which demonstrates this, and continuously cite as a substitute for proof, what other dogma spouters in robes have previously proclaimed, is evidence that they have taken on the role of supporters of the Church, Which was Unanimous, Ubiquitous, powerful, and WRONG.
We are constantly asked to believe, without the slightest bit of evidence mind you, that the founders would be okay with the Son of a Non-American (British even) as our Chief Executive Officer. We are constantly told that the Church of the Holy "precedent" proclaims that cases not even related to Article II eligibility somehow have revoked it in its original meaning. Sorry, I'm just not of the body of "Landru."
Like Michael Bay in Pearl Harbor you completely missed the point. Obviously, they didn't find a new "document to discover the neutron. Physics isn't an interpretative activity, so you can conduct experiments and discover the truth. You can't do that in constitutional interpretation. Unless you can find an as yet undiscovered document that decisively proves your hypothesis, you won't have a Copernican revolution in constitutional interpretation.
That's clear enough. Now go ahead and mangle it.
Contemporary writings and statements of the founders demonstrate their intent to a reasonable degree of scientific rigor , and that intent is completely incompatible with Split nationality/divided allegiance.
All of the founders were eligible for British citizenship/subjecthood had they chosen to retain it. They were no strangers to divided loyalties. None of them had been born American citizens. They all knew people of similar backgrounds to their own in whom loyalty to Britain had won out.
Some of their great leaders had been born abroad: John Paul Jones, Lafayette, Pulaski, Kościuszko, Steuben, de Kalb. Not to mention Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, John Witherspoon, James Wilson. Others were the children of those who were born abroad.
It's clear that they didn't want non-citizens or those who weren't citizens from birth to be elected president. It's also clear that they didn't demand that the parents or grandparents of a prospective president be American-born. Did they require that a president's parents be US citizens at the time of the president's birth? I don't think you can maintain that with any degree of certainty.
My point is that there isn't some principle of hostility and mistrust towards those whose parents weren't citizens that comes before the actual words of the Constitution. You can't reduce the Constitution to some principle that you like. You have to go by the actual wording and the understanding of those words, and they don't give you the certainty that you want and believe you have.
Those who read the propagandists like BladeBryan and are confused should analyze the responses, and trust that if we trust our abilities to reason, and the words of our framers, founders, and supreme court justices, more than the complicit mainstream media and various political allies of the statists, we will recover out legal foundation.
Note that the criticism by BladeBryan completely avoided any response to the words of two Chief Justices of the Supreme court (and I could have cited two more as well as numerous other justices), the author of the 14th Amendment which Obama supporters claim makes a “native born citizen” a natural born citizen - John Bingham who was elegantly explicity that the opposite is true, and Mr. or Ms Blade ignores the quotation from Senate Resolution 511, April 30 2008, signed by every US Senator.
People who know the truth are afraid because they know the left is fully capable of really imposing the dictatorship “of the proletarian” they believe in. We may some day find out why the “pundits” won't talk about it, but ask yourself why Beck, Levin, Limbaugh, Coulter,... assiduously avoid the words of Chief Justice Marshall, or Chief Justice Waite, or Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, or why justia.com, founded by Obama’s legal ally and campaign contributor, a Harvard Law classmate sanitized supreme court cases to eliminate references to Minor v. Happersett? They are trying to rewite history.
The “Pundits” are doing what they can by never letting the name John Marshall, or Morrison Waite, or David Ramsay, or by Benjamin Franklin, and envoy to France, who distributed our first law book to his colleagues in The Colonies in 1762, long before the revolution, Vattel’s “Law of Nations”. To dictators the truth is subservient to the objective, and history is an enemy.
Another technique of the Obots, many of whom are being paid by the group run by Anita Dunn (she may no longer be managing it since her husband, Obama’s left-wing White House Council Bob Bauer resigned his position), is to bury the naive with irrelevant citations of politically motivated presumed legal briefs. I've read most of them, and it can be illuminating to ferret the mode of deception, but you don't need to. That is why we have such a concise summary of our founding ideas in a Constitution, a Constitution written not in legal terms, but in the language of the common man at the time it was written, using terms defined in our common language and by our common-law, as Mark Levin noted in Liberty and Tyranny, and quoting a letter by James Madison to Henry Lee in 1824. To allow reinterpretation of our Constitution as language changes would render it meaningless, so use of the language of our framers, as Justice Morrison Waite noted, was quite deliberate, and designed to preserve original meaning. Try to find any words defined in the Constitution. There are a few, but very few, such as "treason." The meaning of natural born citizen was common language, and clearly defined in our most cited legal reference as a new nation, "Law of Nations."
The realm of our common law is muddled by opinions by those who, like Obama, Kagan, Sotomayor, and virtually all of the left, believe they should be allowed to reinterpret the intent of our founders and framers. One of our framers, justice James Wilson, and one of greatest legal scholars on the Court wrote extensively on the meaning of common law, not Blackstone's, but the common law of all nations, explains it in his Lectures on the Law delivered at the College of Philidelphia in 1792, Vol II.
Ignore the left-wing bar, unless you have the time. They don't count. But I'll leave with one more quote, by a left-wing attorney, who happened to be Barack Obama’s Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard, and who would not sink to lying about the history of our foundations - a credit to some integrity in this man, Larry Tribe, who has always wanted, since he began his studies to be a mathematician, to be known for rigor and intellectual honesty. Larry was joined by Ted Olson, whose wife would certainly have been horrified had she survived 9/11, in submitting a brief clarifying the meaning of natural born citizenship.
The following statement was written to support the candidacy of John McCain, and can be found in the Senate Archives for April 30, 2008 under Senate Resolution 511, sponsored by McCaskill, co-sponsored by Leahy, Obama, Clinton, Webb, and Coburn - all cronies. McCain's eligibility had been challenged by some very good, and clearly liberal, law professors, and was the subject of a half dozen Congressional eligibility hearings and three law suits. The most thorough explanation of McCain's ineligibility can be found at U of Arizona's Rogers Law School, Prof. Gabriel Chin, in July of 2008, and reported extensively in the liberal press, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship."
Suddenly, having McCain's alleged ineligibility to silence questions about Obama’s eligibility made him a darling of the left, and with almost total control of the media, they set out to repatriate him. Tribe was on Obama’s campaign committee, but that doesn't mean he would sacrifice his reputation for veracity by lying about the law:
We have analyzed whether Senator John McCain Is eligible for the U.S. Presidency, in light of the requirement under Article II of the U.S. Constitution that only “natural born Citizen[s] ... shall be eligible to the Office of President.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. We conclude that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain's birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.
The operative words are “...by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents.” The qualifier “...who were serving their country on a U.S. military base” has no context in the Constitution, though Larry tries to imply that it does. As Justice Marshall asserted, (paraphrase) every word in the Constitution must be assumed to have meaning. Larry and Ted waved their hands at the 1790 Nationality Act, which made children born abroad of two citizen parents “reputed” natural born citizens, but failed to note that the 1790 Act was corrected in 1795, completely removing any reference to natural born citizens. There is no other reference to natural born citizen in all of the US Code. There cannot be, since precedence is clear, we have a separation of powers and the legislature cannot amend the Constitution except by amendment or a Constitutional Convention.
That reveals the political mission of the Tribe/Olson letter to the Pat Leahy/Claire McCaskill SR511 hearings. Tribe played legal and syntactical games with his essay. That is the difference between lawyers and mathematicians, who cannot play syntactical games because a mathematicians get credit for finding logical or conceptual reason in published work; Larry would probably not have been a good mathematician. But his statement retains the integrity of the integrity, while distracting with a political wish. There were eight attempts to amend Article II section 1 during the five years before Obama became a candidate, by such as John Conyers (twice) and Claire McCaskill, both clearly working to insure Obama's presidency. There were some 25 other attempts to amend Article II Section 1 and none came close even to passing out of the House.
My opinion is that John McCain was willing, for a last shot at becoming president, to run interference for Obama’s patent ineligibility. No one needs to read the dozens of political legal essays, some of which, like Sarah Herlihy’s of Kirkland Ellis, working for Kirkland's Christopher Landau, partner with Bruce Ettelson, on the Obama and Dick Durban campaign committees, and partner with Jack Levin who received Obamas “Lifetime Achievement Award for service to the equity and venture capital community.”
This is crony capitalism paying respect to the Constitution only when it doesn't prevent them from running their political machine. Obama was never eligible and every congressman knows it. The only politician to raise the issue and act on it (Jim DeMint talked briefly, but wouldn't act) Congressman Nathan Deal, was a poster boy for what happens to those who raise the issue, he immediately faced ethics charges. As Scooter Libby showed, truth has nothing to do with political ambition and the power to direct money conferred by political power. Deal resigned and was subsequently elected Governor of Georgia; those of us who pay attention won't forget, just like we won't forget LtCol/Dr. Terry Lakin, who had too much integrity not to ask for verification of Obama’s eligibility before accepting the veracity of another deployment, as officers swear to do when the source of the orders is in doubt. Men and women's lives are at risk and they must trust their commanders with lives. Lakin was denied the presumed right to defend himself, present evidence, or even to present witnesses. Our nation is not now a constitutional republic, but we will return the precedence of our Constitution by whatever means necessary.
Just ignore the Obots unless they address the words of our Justices and Constitution. They are idiologues, and good at redirecting issues when the truth is a threat.
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.
