Skip to comments.Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, others to leave a Legacy of COWARDICE
Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
First off, I am a conservative and have spent countless hours listening to and reading the books of all these men. Reading Levin's Liberty and Tyranny was compelling, as were many of the publications of these Patriots. With the VAST amount of Constitutional research accumulated in order to write these best sellers, there is and has always has been one important fact known to ALL these men to be a Constitutional FACT missing. That non negotiable FACT is that according to the Constitution, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT eligible to be placed on the ballot, let alone occupy his present position as President of the United States of America! Obama himself touts the fact that his father was a British Subject at the time of his BHO 2s birth, making him at the very least a duel citizen and not eligible to hold the office as president. Furthermore, Daddy was NEVER a citizen of the United States, again making Jr. ineligible with that fact alone. None of these men (as far as I know) served in the military for whatever reason and I think there may be some suppressed guilt because of that when I hear their accolades regarding current and former Men of Honor. As they refer to many of their callers and guests as Brother, they at the same time have never felt compelled to commit the heroic act of jumping on a Firecracker, let alone a Grenade to help save their Brothers and in the end help save this Nation. Levin is the one that has disappointed me the most when I heard him disenfranchise many of his loyal listeners on Jan 19th, 2010 (may have been the 20th) by referring to those that even questioned the eligibility issue as (paraphrasing) ignorant and foolish. He followed that comment by saying that Obama was of course eligible to be President. He, in my opinion is an expert on the Constitution and knows full well that his statement was an out and out lie. When the truth finally reveals itself, I can almost hear the excuses from these Less than Honorable radio and TV Patriots now 1. I was given strict orders from station bosses not to bring up or allow discussion on the eligibility issue and to refer to those that do bring it up as ignorant Birthers. 2. Yes, I of course knew the simple truth, but decided it was the wrong approach to be honest when the proper way to handle this was at the Ballot Box. 3. Book sales were BOOMING and I was too GUTLESS to show the Courage that I ask my listeners to display on a daily basis. 4. There are a few in the business that are standing their ground on this issue and Liberals are calling them names. Sticks and Stones will break my Bones and even Words would really hurt me because I AM A COWARD! By the way, there are thousands of these Cowards walking the halls of Congress and other places that have at least to this point failed to MAN UP. All this makes me admire all the more the few that in their heart really do trust God Almighty and FEAR NO EVIL.
We are a common law country (with the exception of the state of Louisiana). There are two main legal systems in the west:
Common law and Civil law. There is no such thing as Positive law. It is a meaningless legal term.
A common law judicial system has as its basis the idea that the same set of facts should mean the same thing every time. Hence the emphasis on case law and precedent.
The Common Law = the entire body of legal case law that involves the interpretation of law. Minor v. Happersett? Part of the common law.
Common law is not informal law. Don’t know where you got that peculiar notion from.
Nice ancient history - too bad the 14th amendment blew all that away.
Bringing up the past again?
Well it isn't an "either/or" answer.
There's Constitutional Law, from the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions.
There's statutes and ordinances on the federal, state, or local levels.
There's common law, that being the concept of precedence.
And there's administrative law at the federal, state, and local level.
Come to think of it, you never did answer this question either.
How can Constitutional law be part of a common law system?
The only reply I got to reply 236 (that's the reply where my question is) was this...
Can you show a single Supreme Court ruling on a Constitutional issue where case law and precedence was not a factor?
If we were not a common law country, why are eligibility lawyers using Minor? Are you saying it is a binding precedent on a Constitutional matter?
You didn't answer the question. In trying to redirect you don't take the other aspects of our system of law into consideration believing that all of our law is common law when it that is only a part of it.
Common law, that being the concept of precedence as you're indicating in yur questions above, is only part of our legal system.
So maybe I'll try again...How can Constitutional law be part of a common law system?
Those laws that have been duly enacted by a properly instituted and popularly recognized branch of government. Positive laws may be promulgated, passed, adopted, or otherwise "posited" by an official or entity vested with authority by the government to prescribe the rules and regulations for a particular community. In the United States, positive laws come in a variety of forms at both the state and federal levels, including legislative enactments, judicial orders, executive decrees, and administrative regulations. In short, a positive law is any express written command of the government. The belief that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules and regulations laid down by the government is known as Positivism.
positive law n. statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law" which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason. The term "positive law," was first used by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651). (See: natural law)
Where is the term natural born Citizen mentioned anywhere in the 14th Amendment?
Here is a hint:
IT IS NOT THERE!
You DO have a knack for getting stuck in the weeds. Yes, they are specifically referring to Illegal Immigrants, but the BASIS by which they are saying they can be excluded is because they do not fit the criteria of "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof." Which is the SAME SITUATION that Barack Sr, as a Foreign National, illegally in our country was in. (He lied on his Visa Application. Had he told the truth, he would not have been allowed in the country.)
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
You even QUOTE the part that covers Barack Sr.!
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the authors intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
It does not confer citizenship on the children of LEGAL TEMPORARY residents either.
Here is the Debate on the 14th Amendment. John Bingham (The Bill's Author) is Speaking.
Next you'll tell me the guy that WROTE the 14th Amendment is mistaken as to what it means. :)
Nothing about two parents. Notice that Ann like WKA?
The "Two Parents" is not mentioned because it was obvious and redundant. It is like saying "male and female Parents". You will notice that Ann uses the PLURAL of resident(s).
As for Wong Kim Ark, it can be interpreted three ways by my count. Two of them make sense, and the third one is YOUR interpretation.
1. It did not use the term "natural born citizen" and therefore does not address the issue of Presidential Eligibility at all. It declares the children of two Legal residents are "citizens" like any other "naturalized" citizen.
2. Even though it did not use the term "natural born citizen" which must have been left out by an inexplicable and amazing oversight, it DOES address Presidential eligibility, and holds that the Child of two parents permanently and legally domiciled inside the United States (except for Indians) are "natural born citizens" even though the debates on the 14th amendment indicate they had to be "Not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."
3. Anybody born here is a "natural born citizen." (Except for Indians.)
As you can see, the possibility which is most suited to the simple mind is the one you prefer.
The common law is not a body of laws. It is a body of legal cases that is used to interpret the law. Any type of legal decision and case law, including Constitutional law is part of the common law. Common law is the super set that encompasses all case law.
That is why our conversation has been centered on past legal cases. We are discussing what precedent was or was not established and how it bears on the eligibility issue. We are discussing the common law.
And the common law is used by the courts to interpret those positive laws.
They are not in conflict - they discuss two separate things.
That’s the second time you have used that male S&M image - what’s up with that?
Don’t yell at me - go yell at the courts.
But his mother was an America citizen and subject to the jurisdiction of. Looks like little Obama was ok. Neither Ann or George seem to support a two citizen parent rule.
You really think either one thinks Obama is not eligible? Don’t make up stuff about what you think they believe - show where either one thinks Obama is not eligible.
You are also the most obtuse person I've ever known who has the audacity to proclaim that "There is no such thing as Positive law." and who continues to do so despite being shown NUMEROUS times that you have no idea what you're talking about.
We are discussing the common law.
I'm discussing your status as the resident village IDIOT!
443 - @There is no such thing as Positive law.
And no fewer than seven replies later you state this!
But why a naked guy?
Because you were right on the positive law. But it still doesn’t change the fact that we are a common law country. Just wanted to make sure you didn’t confuse the two.
Still, a college Professor that knows how to research and write. I see you make only an Ad hominem attack, and nothing on the merits of his argument.
Charles E Rice is not the president of Notre Dame, just a retired professor. He does not argue for two citizen parent. He wants Congress to investigate. He says Obama may be eligible.
Oh yes, people who think he is eligible WANT an investigation. Obviously there is nothing there, so we MUST investigate! In any case he *IS* a legal scholar. You said there were none.
Alexander Porter Morse. 1904? He is talking only about children born overseas. He does not explicitly support the two parent rule in America:
I'm beginning to think this guy is Blade Bryan, or one of the other Fogblows. No way can someone read that stuff that fast. His point is still valid. It requires Citizen Parents to make a citizen child. Do your Dogs have Kittens?
Ramsey? Prior to the 14th Amendment. Superseded.
Only under the THIRD interpretation of Wong Kim Ark. (You know, the simple minded stupid interpretation that gives us "Anchor Babies.") According to the Debates on the 14th amendment by the Congress that passed it, Dr. David Ramsey is exactly spot on. While i'm thinking about it, It is quite likely possible to see the Debates in the State legislatures regarding the meaning and intent of the 14th amendment. Another avenue of research!
Your Breckinridge Long essay? You understand he worked for Woodrow Wilson and this is a political hit piece on Charles Evans Hughes who in 1916 was running against Wilson?
Yes, his understanding of the law is completely compromised because he was a Wilson Supporter. Ad Hominem Attack. Can't you do a Non-Fallacy argument? Again, a dismissal without review of the merits of his argument.
George Collins? A tiny snippet from a losing lawyer embedded in a long news article? Really?
Now see, this is where you are telling on yourself. You came on this website pretending to be someone who was objective, and interested in debating the issue, yet you happen to know that extremely esoteric piece of information about George Collins. As I have mentioned, the only people researching this stuff are the good guys, (us) and the bad guys. (Fogblows.) Tell me again what you think about Roe v Wade?
The Book from Harvard? Out of context snips on a birther website in a essay written by Linda Melin, citizen researcher?
Good point. Would you like to see the book page that that quote came from? I can't post it because it's a violation of the terms of service used to obtain it, but I have a copy of it. :) I'll have to check to see if I can obtain the rights to reprint it.
Solum is a good article but makes no stand either way. His paper is a discussion on the proper way to interpret Constitutional language to determine original intent.
Of COURSE you don't read anything! Let me try and focus your attention on the SALIENT point in his Article.
What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.
You obviously aren't blade bryan. His attacks were more focused and directed. Your's are all over the place, and weak. You make up for in VOLUME what you lack in intellect.
Atty., Dr. Herb Titus: Obama Not A Natural Born Citizen
I FORGOT about him! I have a copy of his comments somewhere. One of these days I need to organize my bookmarks. :)
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.