Posted on 05/30/2011 7:40:28 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The United States is in a Constitutional and political crisis without precedent.
What can ordinary Americans do when a large number of politicians are corrupt and an even larger portion of the national political leadership is complicit in a cover-up of that corruption?
Do we petition those leaders to investigate and punish themselves?
(snip)
The evident bewilderment displayed by Will is prima facie evidence of the depth of denial now prevalent in Washington, D.C.
It is an equivalent to writing an article after the Pearl Harbor attack entitled “The Japanese might not like us.”
(snip)
Having been born in Panama and not eligible to run for the Presidency, McCain obviously doesn’t recognize the Constitution either.
For me, the uncertainty about McCain’s ineligibility was resolved by the bogus, non-binding Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by Obama, which declared McCain a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
The fact that Congress has no authority to do such a thing was apparently completely irrelevant to that majestic body. Maybe I’m a cynic, but it sounds to me like just another crooked, backroom deal.
If McCain and Obama both didn’t need the “cover”, why go through that elaborate Senate charade?
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Correct. Jindal is eligible, just as Spiro Agnew, Chester Arthur, and the several other presidential candidates we've had throughout history who were born on US soil to foreign parents.
WKA discusses at length the meaning of natural born citizen. While not binding, it is the only formal discussion by the Supreme Court on the meaning. It was also completely in line with other court decisions that preceded it.
The idea that the US Supreme Court would overturn that discussion, rejecting it completely so as to remove a sitting President, elected by a majority of the people with the full consent of Congress, is absurd.
“So you don’t believe de Vattel was commonly held as a subject-matter-expert...”
Not on citizenship. You will note that your citizenship, unlike Vattel’s writings, does NOT depend on your parents being citizens. You are asked for a birth certificate, not a genealogy.
The Wong Kim Ark decision AFFIRMED an earlier ruling and defintion of natural born citizen: Minor v. Happersett: all hcildren born in the country to parents who were it citizens. These were the natural born citizens. It distinguished this type of citizenship as NOT being defined in the Constitution which is different than 14th amendment citizenship.
The decision is irrelevant to Article II POTUS eligibility. The discussion is shaped by the question before the court, I just don't understand why WKA is supposed to help Obama.
WKA was declared a US Citizen, that's it.
Dicta - the discussion of WHY a court makes its decision, has varying value. In the WKA case, the court heard debate on what NBC means, and used it as a critical part in its decision, which is the strongest from of ‘dicta’.
That dicta has been frequently cited, and never rejected for over 100 years. Again, that makes the discussion weigh heavier in a future decision.
The first half of the decision argues that since WKA met the requirements for a NBC, he was thus a citizen per the US Constitution. The dissent recognized the argument of the court, complaining:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
But that was the LOSING side.
Before Obama took office, the SCOTUS had a chance to rule him ineligible. It is inconceivable that they would allow him to take office and hold it if they believed he was constitutionally ineligible. They have since refused every case, which indicates very strongly they believe the birthers have no valid legal case.
Further, no a single member of Congress raised an objection to the votes of the Electoral College. Not one out of 535 believed Obama ineligible based on his father - a known fact prior to the vote.
So you are left with a conspiracy so vast that it encompasses every state, every member of Congress and the Supreme Court, OR you have the case where birthers simply are wrong.
Given that NBC was a known legal phrase PRIOR to the Constitution, and that several of the ratifying states already had used it in their laws as the equivalent of natural born subject, I think it is extremely obvious that no rational person believes the Founders were following a translation of Vattel made 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written.
Birthers continue to scream “Vattel! Vattel!” - but they cannot find a case involving US citizenship under the Constitution that has argued Vattel controls the meaning of NBC.
RE> Do “Freepers”, conservatives and “republicans” have the will to divest TOTALLY from the MSM and their corporate sponsors?
12 years before I was a Freeper, I was already divested from MSM. I invite as many as are able to do so to join the team and hasten the demise of their foul media enterprise. The only reason they get paid is because of the the number of eyes on the screen in-between their lying ‘news’ and unreal ‘reality’ shows. It is unbelievable how much the liars get paid to lie to us.
Please see my tag.
The question is whether McCain is a "natural born citizen," or not. Since the phrase is not defined in the Constitution, I sought contemporary usage of that very same phrase. As luck would have it, the exact phrase appeared in the 1790 law- and it was written by some of the exact same men who wrote the Constitution just a few years before. Knowing this, the 1790 law is relevant and the 1795 law is not. No dissembly required.
I have no particular fondness for McCain (I consider him a natural born A-hole), but your position necessarily means that the thousands of Americans, born overseas to U.S. military personnel, possess fewer citizenship rights than those who never served. That makes no sense logically; it doesn't square with citizenship interpretations under English Common Law at that time; and it has nothing to do with the Framers' intent to bar people with divided loyalties from becoming President.
Those who wrote the Constitution also wrote "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens" and they wrote that just two years after writing the Constitution.
"And the voluminous reserach threads on FR have proved what that was without a shred of doubt."
There's plenty of doubt. I'll see your research threads and raise you Ted Olson - Assistant Attorney General under Reagan and Solicitor General under George W. Bush.
Netanyahu would use this country as a tool for Israel. Nothing else. And who would expect anything different? That does not make Netanyahu a bad man. But that would make him a terrible American president. So I’m not so sure about your point.
And Obama, who is our president, uses this country as a tool for muslims. Not sure about your point.
Netanyahu would protect America’s interests more than Obama does.
Past wrongs do not invalidate the US Constitution. There are citizens. There are native-born-citizens and there are natural-born-citizens. The answer to this debate is how the SCOTUS would define those differing terms. They haven’t in the context of Presidential eligibility, despite your opinion or mine. So, we will have to agree to disagree.
I wasn’t referring merely to “citizenship”. Past wrongs do not invalidate the US Constitution. There are citizens. There are native-born-citizens and there are natural-born-citizens. The answer to this debate is how the SCOTUS would define those differing terms. They haven’t yet in the context of Presidential eligibility, despite your opinion or mine. So, we will have to agree to disagree.
Explain WHY then they needed the non-biding Senate Resolution as a cover up for the crime scene in the Whit-Hut???
The very same men who wrote the Constitution also wrote "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens" and they wrote that just two years after writing the Constitution.
"I don't think mcpain's father was a four star admiral at that time, and those stars are totally irrelevant."
I don't care if McCain's father was an E-1, but the fact that his father and grand father were both Admirals demonstrates that they were American citizens and had dedicated large chunks of their lives to the service of this country. They were only in Panama because they had been ordered there by our government.
Your position means that thousands of sons and daughters of American military personnel (born overseas) possess a lesser-form of U.S. citizenship. IOW, these citizens should be penalized because their citizen-parents were naive enough to serve the United States.
ONLY a Honduras event can save us from this!!!
Well, you may ask yourself as what or who do we follow, the CONSTITUTION or the opinions of thousands of sons and daughters, hmmm???
IOW you are saying that I'm lesser-form of a U.S. citizen than YOU!!!
Please quote the definition of "natural born citizen" from the Constitution. That's the whole point of this debate. My position is the children of loyal U.S. citizens are "natural born citizens" - particularly if they were born overseas because their family was posted there by the U.S. Gov't.
Still am I???
My position doesn't deny you any rights; so I don't see why you think it does.
Netanyahu would protect Israeli interests. Nothing else. If he appeared to protect American interests it would only be because those interests aligned with Israel. Now get real. Why are you even contemplating a foreign national as POTUS? That’s insane.
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.