Posted on 02/04/2012 3:17:29 PM PST by rxsid
"A Rat Called Tandem.
[UPDATED: 2:12 PM - Cindy Simpson's top headline article at American Thinker is also a must read. Excellent analysis as usual.]
What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker as, “playing to a script”. It’s like something out of a Frank Capra movie. The citizens head to court to fix a Constitutional wrong, and the State court appears to be tough on the feds, standing up to them bravely flexing their muscles in the name of their citizens. Nice script. But it’s so very transparent.
Everyone needs to read Mario Apuzzo’s in-depth exposure of the blatant flaws in Judge Malihi’s holding, wherein you will experience a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.
I only have a little bit to add. My remarks will be brief, and focused upon Judge Malihi’s sad failure to address the issue of statutory construction, which I explained thoroughly in my last report, The Dirty “little” Secret of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause Revealed.
Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.
But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)
And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:
“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).
There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.
Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:
“In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ” (Emphasis added.)
Yeah, dude. Whatevah. Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just two weeks ago he said that was forbidden.
Minor specifically stated it was NOT trying to give a comprehensive definition of NBC.
I disagree. Minor explicitly defined NBC and said that there was NO DOUBT about their explicit definition (born in the country of parents who are citizens).
Minor explicitly expressed DOUBTS, but doubts ONLY regarding whether the children of aliens and foreigners were CITIZENS, not whether they were NBC. Look the sentence regarding the children about whom there are doubts. The doubts are about whether those children are citizens, not whether they are NBC.
Minor reached a conclusive and NO DOUBT definition of NBC and they applied it to Ms. Minor. They said there was no need to resolve the CITIZENSHIP of the children of aliens and foreigners since Ms. Minor was NBC. Only with the ARK case were those doubts regarding 14A children of aliens and foreigners resolved.
Superbirther it is your opinion it’s ok the children of aliens can be citizens if born in the US.
superbirther stated the WKA decision was a correct decision.
superbirther this decision opened the doors for millions anchor babies.
superbirther wants to hide behind the subject to jurisdiction definiton in the WKA decision.
Its ok for superbirther the children of aliens can be citizens as long as they are living here...lol
superbirther let me remind you..a nation cannot survive unless its citizens are born from citizens.
The clock is ticking.
The paragraph read:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
You can try to claim that they defined NBC, but he defines “natives, or natural-born citizens” as being in contrast (”distinguished from”) “aliens or foreigners”. He doesn’t contrast NBC with other citizens even. NBC is used only one time in the paragraph, and he uses citizen to describe the same people (”citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens”). It uses citizen & natives and NBC as equivalents.
You may not accept it, but no court has ever read it the way you do. Nor should they.
In the previous paragraph they wrote:
“This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Two classes - born, and made. Not three - born to citizens, born to aliens, and made. Just two.
Thank you! THIS is the argument they should have made - that WKA didn't apply to Obama's situation. It may or may not have won, but it is a logical and supportable argument.
What does NOT work is for birthers to ignore WKA.
Imagine a country so stupid as to give the keys of their defense to a dual or foreign citizen. That is now the USA.
No citizens of another country in the world would be so stupid.
WKA was abused by modern progressive activists long after the WKA justices were all dead! I don't blame the WKA court for that, and I don't think it is logical or fair to do so. The WKA justices never approved illegal immigrant's anchor babies. They were careful to prove the legal, permanent resident status of WKA’s parents at the time he was born.
Due to WKA, Mario Rubio became a citizen and is a great Senator, but not eligible to be POTUS, IMO. His parents were LEGAL immigrants. How many FReepers don't believe Rubio is even a citizen, or Nikki Haley, or Bobby Jindal? Their parents were all legally in the US when they were born.
Actually it would not surprise me if, by the time the courts get done with it, “Natural Born Citizen” will mean ANY citizen (however that citizenship was obtained) who was not born by caesarean section.
And some time later, a future Supreme Court will take it further and decide that excluding the caesarean section born citizens denies them the opportunity to pursue happiness and is therefore unconstitutional.
Just kidding of course, but that is how silly the anti-Constitutionalists are getting.
By UN code, anyone born caesarean is prima facie Roman.
Wait a minute “superbirther”...you stated “WKA was a correct decision”.
WKA will be this country’s demise.
Very few on this forum will agree with your WKA assessment.
Stop hiding under the skirt “superbirther”. Be a little more careful in your word selection..you may out yourself.
No need to respond superbither.
We are all swirling down the toilet bowel with people who voted for Obama, like stink on shit.
How many billions of dollars has Obama sent to a foreign country, Kenya, that he calls his home country?
A born dual citizen has just borrowed and pissed away 5 trillion dollars that my kids will have to repay. Let me repeat. A man who has held foreign citizenship has pissed away 5 trillion dollars, on loan to the American people.
I don't give a shit what your f-ing theories are. We have a disloyal foreign citizen in the White house pissing away American blood and security!!!
I honestly don’t know WHAT to expect anymore.. It is getting scarier by the day :/
He has not one ounce of respect for my constitution yet he took an oath to protect and defend it. The Kenyan SOB probably laughs when he hears the casualty reports.
Defend that sleazy POS all you want.
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...
The question was answered...
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
He was a citizen by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Some future supreme court will decide that America is a universal Idea, and all people are born citizens of America.
Unfortunately, before that happens, some Mohammedan will probably launch a nuke into DC before they get the chance.
Its a good Idea to go down to Washington's home on the potomic. You can see that this country was lead by a General. It took blood to get this freedom. We now have some ass wipe from a third world country sitting in the Oval Office, pissing it all away.
If the NBC clause of Article II can be redefined out of effect, then why not section 1 of Amendment XXII?
After all amendment X is pretty well dead.
Bullshit. If a US citizen gives birth to a child in France , he is a US citizen from birth. To whom you are born is a key factor in our law, you dumb twit.
You like to mix apples and oranges, Subjects and citizens. Intentionally fogging the distinctions. Your so full of crap, your posts stink like Kenyan manure.
He makes the contrast by where the sentence is placed. For what you want to believe to be true, the sentence that characterized the first class as NBCs would need to follow the sentence on the class of persons for which there is doubt. What exactly is the purpose of saying anything about citizen parents if NBC can be applied more broadly?? Why were citizen parents emphasized when it wasn't part of Virginia Minor's argument??
Yes, but not natural born citizenship.
Who are the natural children in Shakespeare’s Henry the V -
‘Were all thy children kind and natural?’
Not sure you’ve seen me post this before..
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.