Skip to comments.JUDGE ORDERS OBAMA to APPEAR to Testify
Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
click here to read article
The court AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
It really just gets too tiresome to explain to people like you about Wong Kim Ark which is why I rarely get involved.
Do you even understand that the 14th Amendment DID NOT INTEND FOR IT TO INCLUDE PEIOPLE LIKE ARK. Read what the writers had to say about their intent of 14th Amendment. There is plenty of historical references to show you the intent.. SCOTUS REFUSED the evidence because they knew it would blow their decision out of the water.
If you are honest about the law , if you really understand it, the cases that were CONTROLLING on the lower court talked about Natural Born Citizen. Ark was a natural born Citizen according to the CONTROLLING CASES.
The lower court indicated that they thought Law of Nations might be better suited BUT the controlling legal authority would not let them use it. The had to go with CONTROLLING legal authority. That should be an even bigger slap in your face about this decision. SCOTUS affirmed the decision that is NOT BASED ON THE LAW OF NATIONS.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA said that the ruling was that Ark was a natural born citizen but they felt it was an error.
SCOTUS did not agree and AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
Why you would want to laud Ark is beyond me...especially when you know that they REJECTED VATTEL as did the lower court.
it is mind boggling that so many VATTEL supporters support ARK when it REJECTS your whole idea.
Wrongly decided or not it is the controlling law.
There is info out there that indicates even Scalia would not be prone to overturn it.
I will just have to disagree with you. The decision was AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
The dissent knew exactly what the majority was holding and you can see it in his dissent...and that is...Ark was eligible to run for President.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it was known that the ruling was that Ark was a natural born citizen as outlined in the brief-which would have been argued before the court - and the decision is flat out in response to that question before the court.
It had to be.
Here is the question. What is the answer.
Lower court AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
Did you see any exception written??? NO.
They answered The United States of America. Ark is a natural born citizen.
It’s too bad that there isn’t a readily available record of the oral argument.
There is a possibility that is quite within reason given the mess of this decision. They intentionally had to twist and turn even their own decision in Elk to get to the outcome.
Perhaps this was one of the times they wanted to keep the whole matter confusing - or perhaps they didn’t think it was necessary since the question was already stated before them and everyone knew what it was about - or perhaps the reeason is they were inept...or any myriad of other reasons.
We don’t know. All we know is:
There is no doubt that the question before them was whether Ark was a natural born citizen as per the lower court decision.
The lower court discussed the CONTROLLING law that make Ark A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and SCOTUS affirmed.
Here is something that might be easier to get my point across.
Is the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment but a declaratory of the common-law doctrine?
Controlling authority over the lower court said YES in those words.
Now go back and look at the extensive discussion of the common law doctrine as it pertains to NATURAL BORN CITIZEN by Justice Gray.
So basically the various courts reject Vattel and say that the 14th Amendment as it pertains to citizenship is just common law doctrine. The lower court might have entertained Vattel but said they could not because CONTROLLING authority said they could not. They left it open for SCOTUS to come in and change everything.
They had the opportunity to embrace Vattel BUT REJECTED IT.
So , what does the common law doctrine discussed by the various sources in the lower court case and by SCOTUS SAY????
Ark is a natural born citizen.
If a lower court deems Ark a Natural Born Citizen and SCOTUS affirms the decision without exception - what does that mean?
That clearly did not happen. In Justice Gray’s own words in the intro to WKA summing up the appellant court’s ruling: “The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382.” The lower court deemed Ark was a citizen, NOT NBC, according to the SCOTUS majority.
“he displayed his LFBC on the floor of the Senate.”
Odd how this never actually happened but almost four years later people keep saying that it did.
The amount of misinformation on this issue that keeps getting repeated is staggering.
If anything I pity her.
Just like I feel pity for all the Birthers who are psyching themselves up and seem to think that this is going to work out like they want it to. But in all likelihood it will result in the 478th Birther face plant to be explained away as yet another sell-out judge betraying the Constitution because Eric Holder threatened to kill his entire family and this is proved by the fact that his 4th cousin who lives in Detroit got mugged last Tuesday while Holder was in Flagstaff.
Due to unusual busyness, I have only a brief Befoggedbow report. I offer it for entertainment purposes only.
The few posts I had time to read fairly reeked of nail-biting, high-tension anxiety.
Why are the foggers so nervous?
They are getting a “vibe” that Malihi is a ‘birfer’. [You have to spell it that way to be a fogger. It’s more cool, hip and ‘snarky’ than the other spelling.]
What is their evidence?
I’m not sure they need any. GA is a red Southern state in which some of the citizens [quelle horreur!] own guns. Therefore the befogged expect the worst—culminating in a courthouse shootout. [Reality not being their strong suit.]
Apart from anti-Southern bigotry, they are amusing as always. Malihi, by doing nothing more than scheduling a hearing, kicked a hole in their insular little anthill. Now they’re running around in a hand-wringing cold-sweat, hoping he doesn’t kick them again. Lol. I may or may not find time to read more, but I hope I can; they’re always good for a giggle.
articulate why a man ostensibly so devoted to the Constitution won't address the question of "Obama"'s eligibility vis a vis the NBC definition found in Minor vs Happersett.
My best guesses would be:
1. He can't handle the controversy. Already has to deal with the IMF and the Fed. He has to much on his plate.
2. No Senator in the 111th Congress would have backed an objection to the election certification, so it is moot institutionally.
3. He doesn't want to alienate independents who voted for Obama in 2008. You can't tell potential voters your 2008 vote was not just mistaken but actually treasonous. Too off-putting.
4. He suspects Frank Marshall Davis is the real father and thus the issue is moot.
El Sordo: “Just like I feel pity for all the Birthers who are psyching themselves up and seem to think that this is going to work out like they want it to.”
But even you, Sordo, must admit that this is the first instance where Obama has been supoenaed for proof of elgibity. And I believe this is also the most media attention that any court-based NBC issue has garnered. Though the birthers are still maligned as kooks and conspiracy theorist in the media, this sort of activity begins to legitimize their case. Even if Obama “wins” this battle, the way in which he wins could have a huge effect on how it’s perceived by the public.
You must agree that progress has been made and the trend is not in Obama’s favor.
If you want to feel pity drop in on thefogbow [where your old buddy BladeBryan is a member in good standing]. The anxiety, hand-wringing, name-calling, anger, angst and overall craziness surely warrants a modicum of pity. No need to spend all of it in one place, after all.
Finally decided to stick your head out of the ground, resident Orly hater?
Sorry, but you ARE arguing with YOURSELF. I showed you where Gray noted specifically that Minor was found to be a citizen because she was born to citizens of the case, and you said:
The excerpt is stating what the facts were for Minor.
How can the Wong Kim Ark be stating a "fact" that you said was only "implied"??? It leads back to the same question. Why does Gray emphasize that Minor was born to citizen parents?? He's not going to waste his time on something that's not relevant to the holding of the case, so let's drop the stupid excuses and deflections. Focus, chick, focus.
And you are repeatedly wrong, because there was a dispute as to HOW she became a citizen. Read and learn. You seem to have missed huge sections of the decision, starting in the SECOND PARAGAPH:
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
The bolded part is the citizen clause from the 14th amendment. The Minor court DISPUTED this argument.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
The court went on to explain different ways of becoming a citizen, which is when it volunteered the definition of natural-born citizenship, which was sufficient for rejecting Minor's 14th amendment citizenship argument. And to make sure this is CLEAR to you:
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.
Read that last sentence and let it sink in. Minor's argument of being a citizen via the 14th amendment was rejected. Because she was an NBC, the 14th amendment did NOT confer citizenship on her. The Wong Kim Ark decision affirms the principle by noting that:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.""
Gray says that by following Minor, the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Then he explains this same principle in another fashion, by saying through the unanimous decision in Minor, that the Supreme Court was:
committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment
Now, keeping all this in mind, it should start being very obvious why Gray EMPHASIZED that Minor was born to citizen parents, even though it was never stated directly in Minor.
This isn't entirely true. Gray relied on the Law of Nations to take issue with part of the Slaughterhouse ruling where it combined consuls and foreign ministers as falling under exceptions to the subject clause of the 14th amendment. The Law of Nations is troublesome for Gray in reaching his final conclusion, but he certainly had no trouble using it when it was convenient to his point:
This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.
Absolutely. And it should have happened in 2008. There are serious flaws in how candidate eligibility is handled on the federal level. I am optimistic that when BHO is out of office and the knee jerk emotions are removed from the equation, proper structures will be implemented.
That said, I just cannot see this latest hearing working out in the Birther’s favor. Each time they get what they think they want(COLB, Newspaper announcements, LFBC, etc.) they just move the goalposts or insist that the evidence is forged. BHO’s lawyers could waltz on in with the same COLB that was scanned back in 2008 and that will be that. Screams of “Forgery!” or “Look at this court case from the 1800’s that said women can't vote!” only make the Birthers look kooky to the general public who doesn't get emotionally enmeshed in these things.
Just to add, I mean a general ‘they’. I do not mean each and every Birther.
“You must agree that progress has been made and the trend is not in Obamas favor.”
I am not so sure about that. It seems to me that the net effect would be how many folks would not vote vote BHO who otherwise would have. And with a contrasting look at how many people would have voted for a GOP candidate that didn't because of perceived ties to Birther ideology. (I wanted to write ‘Conservative, but it doesn't look like that's gonna happen...)
Well, on Friday it will be more clear as to what will transpire.
I honestly have no desire to go there. I am sure they have their own level of idiocy and I really don’t want to see it.
I do things other than browse FR.
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.