Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Emmet Sullivan Rules 14th Amendment Did Not Repeal Natural Born Citizen Requirement
ORYR ^ | Monday, October 1, 2012

Posted on 10/01/2012 3:58:17 PM PDT by Red Steel

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan Rules Natural Born Citizen Requirement Not Repealed By The 14th Amendment Or The 5th Amendment


Abdul Karim Hassan vs FEC - Court Opinion - District Court for the District of Columbia - 10/1/2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

"Plaintiff Abdul Karim Hassan brings this action against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013, which provides public funding to Presidential nominees of major or minor political parties, is unconstitutional and invalid, and (2) the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution1 is irreconcilable with, and has been “trumped, abrogated and implicitly repealed” by, the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

--JUMP--

"Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."

"Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid."

"Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail."

CONTINUED HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/108620619/Abdul-Karim-Hassan-vs-FEC-Court-Opinion-District-Court-for-the-District-of-Columbia-10-1-2012

MORE HERE: http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20121001_Hassan_v._FEC.shtml

BACKGROUND ON HASSAN'S CASE HERE: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/09/fec-unanimously-ruled-foreign-born.html


TOPICS: Government; Society
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; emmetsullivan; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
This DC Federal judge states the obvious to anyone who has seriously studied this issue.
1 posted on 10/01/2012 3:58:29 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Muslims and Arabs, Arabs and Muslims - why do you allow them in the country??


2 posted on 10/01/2012 4:05:03 PM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (I will fear no muslim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

PING


3 posted on 10/01/2012 4:05:22 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Paging Mitt Romney, Fox News and anybody else that will listen. Oh Donald Trump, please pick up the red phone.

I pray I live long enough to see Obama shown as the fraud he is.


4 posted on 10/01/2012 4:06:28 PM PDT by Qwackertoo (Romney/Ryan 2012 The Future of Our Children and Their Children are at stake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qwackertoo

I pray I live long enough to see Obama shown as the fraud he is.

Me too. I didn’t know I could dislike someone so intensely. It would feel good to see him humiliated and imprisoned.


5 posted on 10/01/2012 4:11:37 PM PDT by Josephat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The overwhelming conventional wisdom among the Judiciary is that the 14th Amendment modified the natural born citizen definition to mean Jus Solis , or born on the soil of the United States without regard to the citizenship of the parents. This widespread belief is one of the reasons why the courts have scoffed at any challenge to Obama's eligibility. If this ruling were upheld by the higher courts, it would cause problems for Obama, but, of course, would come too late to make any difference.

My guess is that this opinion will not hold.

6 posted on 10/01/2012 4:11:57 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

This does nothing about establishing a third type of citizenship. It only says there are two. A naturalized person can not run for president is still law. This has nothing to do with the “birther” issue of obama. This is some kook who was trying to run for president and obtain “free money”. The five other cases were all his and all on the same issues.

This was a waste and should have been headlined less deceptivly.


7 posted on 10/01/2012 4:13:16 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
This does nothing about establishing a third type of citizenship. It only says there are two. A naturalized person can not run for president is still law.

Here's where you get it wrong. The 14th Amendment is naturalization as to make citizens who where not citizens before to become citizens at birth. The 14th Amendment is manmade, which has nothing to do with natural law.

8 posted on 10/01/2012 4:21:34 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

sfl


9 posted on 10/01/2012 4:21:51 PM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
The overwhelming conventional wisdom among the Judiciary is that the 14th Amendment modified the natural born citizen definition to mean Jus Solis , or born on the soil of the United States without regard to the citizenship of the parents.

Source of your statement?

10 posted on 10/01/2012 4:22:28 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hardraade
Muslims and Arabs, Arabs and Muslims - why do you allow them in the country??

I have no problem with Arab Christians coming to this country. Many have and been model citizens, contributing greatly to our country's welfare.

11 posted on 10/01/2012 4:31:35 PM PDT by rmh47 (Go Kats! - Got eight? [NRA Life Member])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Obama will be sending some people over to talk to the Judge.


12 posted on 10/01/2012 4:36:03 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Obama went to Indonesia as an American and came back to America as an Indonesian. In 1983, Obama naturalized as U.S. Citizen.

Obama is ineligible to be POTUS or VP because of his Certificate of Naturalization.


13 posted on 10/01/2012 4:38:11 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (Gossip is Satan's talk radio.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Obama went to Indonesia as an American and came back to America as an Indonesian. In 1983, Obama naturalized as U.S. Citizen.

Obama is ineligible to be POTUS or VP because of his Certificate of Naturalization.”

Do you have a link, PDF, word document, etcetera to support what you said?


14 posted on 10/01/2012 4:49:36 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Oh, let's start with Justice Scalia's opinion who believes that it's Jus Solis (found here):

Scalia opinion

I'm not a research service, so you're on your own for the rest.

15 posted on 10/01/2012 5:07:32 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Interesting.


16 posted on 10/01/2012 5:25:53 PM PDT by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Guano ... meant to leave the impression that Justice Scalia says ONLY jus soli. Someone is working hard to cover little barry bastard commie’s flanks.


17 posted on 10/01/2012 5:39:51 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57; SvenMagnussen

Don’t get your hopes up - Sven frequently makes wild statements that he never backs up.


18 posted on 10/01/2012 6:03:41 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I am read the opinion. It states there are only two citizens. There is no discussion at all to the “birther” issue. It is in the link.


19 posted on 10/01/2012 6:31:37 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; null and void; LucyT; Spaulding; rxsid
Per DC Circuit Judge Sullivan:

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

I don't recall any such SCOTUS holding “in the context of Presidential eligibility,” rather only holdings relating to NBC issues concerning persons who were not presidential candidates, such as Mrs. Minor, or Elk and Elg.

20 posted on 10/01/2012 7:00:25 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

And that’s what I’m really saying too only 2. Those naturalized and natural born.

Naturalized citizens also include citizens born under the aegis of the 14th Amendment, and all others are natural born citizens.


21 posted on 10/01/2012 7:03:40 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker; SvenMagnussen

sometime Lurker,
I hear ya, I’ve read the posts :0

Sven,
Let’s see what ya got..... or is it the “fish that got away”?

Hmmmm, little kitty cats LOVE fish ;) lutefisk especially ;) ;)


22 posted on 10/01/2012 7:12:27 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Even though Minor dealt with women suffrage the Supreme Court directly construed the Constitutional Natural Born Citizen clause to find Ms. Minor a natural born citizen, which is the same eligible criteria used, as you know, for would be citizens who run to be president.


23 posted on 10/01/2012 7:19:40 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Absolutely Nobama; aragorn; Art in Idaho; Aurorales; autumnraine; azishot; AZ .44 MAG; ..
Constitutional Eligibility

24 posted on 10/01/2012 7:42:23 PM PDT by null and void (Day 1350 of our ObamaVacation from reality - Obama, a queer and present danger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Thanks for the ping!


25 posted on 10/01/2012 7:53:36 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
AWESOME!!! That's what we have been telling these idiots. The 14th Amendment did NOT REPEAL Article II requirements. Natural born citizens are NOT CREATED by the action of the 14th amendment. They exist independently of any action by the 14th amendment.

Any citizen who is only a citizen through the action of the 14th amendment is not a "natural citizen." Any citizen who is only a citizen through subsequent acts of legislation are also not "natural citizens". They are instead naturalized citizens so created through the explicit powers granted to congress to create naturalize citizens.

We are making progress. It's slow, but we are steadily making progress.

Now all we have to do is prove that the many thousands of British loyalists who were born in the United States, remained British citizens, and not US Citizens, and that both Nations recognized this fact.

26 posted on 10/01/2012 8:37:09 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
My guess is that this opinion will not hold.

I would like to hear arguments claiming that the 14th repealed article II. What are they going to say? That "Our citizens were natural before, but now they are even more natural!"?

Seriously, it is ridiculous to believe that you can change the meaning of "natural citizen" after the fact. "Natural Citizens" did not need the 14th amendment to be "natural citizens." (Minor v Happersett.)

And for what it's worth, a citizen with divided allegiance is not a "natural citizen." If you can be forced into another nation's army, you aren't the President we've been looking for.

27 posted on 10/01/2012 8:43:48 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

so if some crazy nation has a consciption law that allows going 10 generations back it would disqualify someone?


28 posted on 10/01/2012 8:47:16 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
While the Constitution says that a person must be NBC to be president neither it nor any Scotus ruling says that ALL NBC persons are eligible to be president.

Women were obviously presumed to be excluded from POTUS eligibility at the time of the Minor decision and Mrs. Minor wasn't even allowed to vote despite being held to be NBC by SCOTUS!

Thus I conclude that the Minor v. Happersett decision was NOT made in the context of defining presidential eligibility. IMO that would only occur when the eligibility of a presidential candidate with a non-US citizen father or mother is challenged by a plaintiff with standing and the case comes before SCOTUS.

Maybe that will happen this month on an emergency basis.

29 posted on 10/01/2012 8:54:38 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Scalia opinion

I'm not a research service, so you're on your own for the rest.

You should give people warning when you are linking to Dr. Conspiracy. I don't want to give that @sshole the traffic!

I am convinced that anyone relying on precedent doesn't know the correct answer, and I am also of the opinion that the vast majority of Legal people tend to rely on Precedent without bothering to research something from first principles.

After the Revolutionary war, there were many thousands, (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of British Loyalists who were born here, yet did not want to be Americans. Neither the US Government, nor the British Government regarded them as anything other than British Citizens.

At this time in History, Neither the U.S. nor the British believed in voluntary expatriation. You either were, or were not a citizen of a specific country, and if you were, you did not have a right to change your citizenship.

The Right to expatriation was not recognized in the United States until sometime around 1850. (If I recall correctly.) None of the founders would have been stupid enough to believe that the child of a British Loyalist, born here after July 4, 1776 was an American citizen, simply because he was born here. Indeed, here is a comment from James Monroe in a Letter Dated July 4, 1795.

A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle.

Notice how he could not interfere with the man's arrest because he did not regard him as an American citizen?

Allegiance was the defining factor in those days, not soil.

30 posted on 10/01/2012 9:05:48 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
Don’t get your hopes up - Sven frequently makes wild statements that he never backs up.

Ah, and here you are? Take note of the James Monroe comment I posted above.

31 posted on 10/01/2012 9:07:31 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I am read the opinion. It states there are only two citizens. There is no discussion at all to the “birther” issue. It is in the link.

A legal opinion which says the 14th Amendment did not repeal Article II, is ground zero of the "birther" debate. We "birthers" have been saying all along, that 14th amendment citizenship is not the same thing as "natural citizenship." Natural citizenship does not require a 14th amendment.

If you have to rely on the 14th amendment to be a citizen, then you are not a "natural citizen". You are a citizen by the operation of a man made law.

32 posted on 10/01/2012 9:10:56 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Many have tried to say there is only one type of citizenship you can get from birth.

This is simply not true.

A person who has “citizenship” because of the 14th amendment may or in fact may not be a “natural born citizen”.

The operation of the 14th amendment CANNOT make a person who would otherwise not be a “natural born citizen” into a natural born citizen. No operation of law or statute can do that.


33 posted on 10/01/2012 9:17:02 PM PDT by djf (Political Science: Conservatives = govern-ment. Liberals = givin-me-it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Even though Minor dealt with women suffrage the Supreme Court directly construed the Constitutional Natural Born Citizen clause to find Ms. Minor a natural born citizen, which is the same eligible criteria used, as you know, for would be citizens who run to be president.

I think Seven years after the ratification of the 14th amendment, the most Telling phrase in the Minor v Happersett ruling is:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

The 14th Amendment very obviously says who shall be "citizens", but it conspicuously does not use the phrase "natural born citizens". I read this as the court saying explicitly that the 14th amendment says nothing about "natural born citizens."

34 posted on 10/01/2012 9:18:49 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
so if some crazy nation has a consciption law that allows going 10 generations back it would disqualify someone?

Do you know of such a nation? Are you just trying to argumentative? There are nations that will grant automatic citizenship to the descendents of that Nation's citizens. Ireland, Italy, and Israel all have that policy, but I know of no nation which would actually try to compel an American to become one of their citizens.

Offering someone the opportunity to be one of their citizens is not at all the same thing as having a legitimate and recognized legal claim on their citizenship. Do you have any idea how many nations recognize citizenship through paternity?

Most of them.

I have read accounts of French Citizens who happened to be born on British Soil, being arrested and charged with Treason because they refused to fight in an English War against France. French Law made them French, while British Law made them British. This is the sort of loyalty problems that our founders wished to avoid in the Presidency.

35 posted on 10/01/2012 9:31:12 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
Maybe that will happen this month on an emergency basis.

We better hope it doesn't, for this Ignorant court will invariably rule in error. The Reason that for so many decades, the NRA didn't push a ruling on the Second Amendment being an Individual right was because the court could not be reliably counted on to get it right.

We are in the same situation with this. They have to be educated first, and we must provide the research to enlighten them.

36 posted on 10/01/2012 9:34:17 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Here is the quote followed by the citations by Judge Sullivan:

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between naturalborn citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid.

“See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (“The only difference drawn by theConstitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligibleto be President.”);

see also Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S.654, 658 (1946) (same);

Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S.665, 673-674 (1944) (same).”

Even Judge Sullivan doesn't think this case opens any new ground. The plainfiff was born in Guyana presumably to two non-US citizen parents, so the case is not on point with Barry's claimed US birth. Only a new case decided before Barry is inaugurated the second time (at the latest) can impact Barry.

37 posted on 10/01/2012 9:47:17 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Actually, the Supreme Court has said the 14th merely restates the definition of natural born citizen:

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683] “

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

There is not and has not been a requirement for two citizen parents for NBC status, even back in the 1840s:

“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf


38 posted on 10/01/2012 10:06:14 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Did man made law give women the right to vote, or did it recognize a right that had always existed under natural law?

Did man made law give people equal treatment under the law, or is equal treatment under the law a right that has always existed under natural law?


39 posted on 10/01/2012 10:08:13 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Did man made law give women the right to vote, or did it recognize a right that had always existed under natural law?

I'm pretty sure it was a man made law called the 19th amendment. Not so sure it was a great idea either. It seems I read an article several months ago claiming that all the Democrat Presidents have been elected on the basis of Women's votes. Take out the Women's votes, and some of our Worst Presidents wouldn't have been elected.

Did man made law give people equal treatment under the law, or is equal treatment under the law a right that has always existed under natural law?

Not the way the founders practiced it. They obviously believed in equal treatment under the law for people whom they regarded as peers. Slaves and Indians are examples of people whom they did not regard as equals.

Not all agreed with this assessment. Dr. David Ramsey was believed to have lost his bid for the South Carolina Congress seat (to William Loughton Smith) because he was openly advocating the abolishment of Slavery. Not a very popular stand in Slave owning South Carolina.

You may argue that equality under the law is "natural law", but the founders wouldn't have agreed with you in the broadness of your definition as to whom it applied.

40 posted on 10/01/2012 10:33:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Actually, the Supreme Court has said the 14th merely restates the definition of natural born citizen:

You read my comment up above citing minor which says "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." and you still want to post that the 14th defines "natural citizen"?

That sir, is cognitive dissonance.

41 posted on 10/01/2012 10:36:36 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: centurion316; Red Steel
"The overwhelming conventional wisdom among the Judiciary is that the 14th Amendment modified the natural born citizen definition to mean Jus Solis"

Where, in the 14th, does it say anything about "natural born Citizen?"

Furthermore, if there is hidden text there that your privy too, or perhaps Congressional debate on the 14th that is in contradition to that of John Bingham's (multiple) remarks, from what did the 14th "modify" it to mean Jus Solis? In other words, what was the "original" meaning prior to the 14th in your opinion?

42 posted on 10/01/2012 10:58:54 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
This court did make the best possible call on the 2A, IMO, and they could surprise all of the legal academic lefties again with an NBC ruling that would make Barry ineligible to be inaugurated again (giving him a Mulligan for his first term, of course, as it pre-dated their ruling).

If Barry gets reelected and gets to replace one of the five conservative justices before being declared ineligible (for whatever reason he is hiding) the USA may never recover!

43 posted on 10/01/2012 11:08:44 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Do men have a natural right to keep and bear arms under natural law or is that man made law under the 2nd amendment?


44 posted on 10/01/2012 11:52:55 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: centurion316; Red Steel
Thanks Red Steel. We all know that the eligibility issue does not fit sound bites. We know that the Obama media will only call people names to dissuade serious discussion. But the Judge had an opportunity, since the Muslim forced the issue, to make one of the few clear, honest, and correct legal observations. Other federal judges, all political appointees, have covered their behinds, like the former Marine in California, Carter, who promised discovery and reneged, when Obama's White House Council, Bob Bauer, sent an Eastern European-trained Pakastani to clerk for him just before he was to honor his promise of discovery to Orly Taitz.

Judging by the quick response by resident Obots including Mr. Rogers, there is concern. The judge is obviously correct. But we have a compromised Supreme Court, with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Roberts joining the other three progressives. The Constitution has been weakened by many who believe, like Obama, that the Constitution constrains them from doing what they think our nation needs. The British-born Obama, naturalized by his own admission, could not have accomplished all he has done to redistribute our wealth, and move us toward Sharia law had the Constitution been respected. Roberts’ administration of the oath, knowing, as did all of Washington, of Obama’s alien father, was a strong clue, later proved correct by his Obamacare decision.

As FR comments show, most know that the 14th Amendment explicitly avoids any mention of natural born citizen. Its author explained why in his addresses to the House before passage. I won't quote John Bingham, having done so many times, but mention that “parents with allegiance to no prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty” in our naturlization oath comes from Bingham’s speech to the House, "...of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." Our Immigration and Naturalization Service is built upon Bingham’s Naturalization Amendment, which should be no surprise. The Congress defined the requirements for parents whose child would be eligible to be our president. Before that states retained their pre-constitution naturalization laws, all of which contained oaths of sole allegiance, but some of which discriminated in ways inappropriate to a free republic.

The Judge is only confirming what was obvious until 2008, after the second of two Senate Judiciary hearings initiated by Obama campaign committee members, when the WaPo, NYT, LA Times, etc, stopped carrying reviews of legal opinions about McCain's ineligibility. Obama himself with McCaskill, filed SB 2678 in Feb., and McCaskill with Leahy filed SR 511 in Apr. 2008. Both actions, a bill, the “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act” which failed to pass out of committee, and a resolution, SR 511, emphasized that “citizen parents” were the prime critereon for every US Senator's agreement that McCain should be considered and NBC. They felt that the congressional oversight resulting in the Canal Zone remaining unincorporated should be ignored, because that is not what the framers intended with Article II Section 1. The key issue to all our senators in February and April of 2008 was that a president must have been born to citizen parents.

Twice between 2002 and 2006 John Conyers tried to pass amendments to Article II Section 1. His amendments, which would have made Obama eligible, failed of course. All twenty six attempts to amend Article II Section 1 have failed, including Orrin Hatch’s, to make Schwarzenegger eligible. There were three other attempts between 2002 and 2007, one by Menendez and a couple of others, Our political parties, both of them promoting ineligible candidates, decided that Article II Section 1 was a political risk. Too few would understand it, and for Republicans, raising Obma’s ineligibility would certainly incur racism charges, probably accompanied by riots, which were in fact promised by James Carvill, managed by by Acorn and the SEIU. Hillary was just sitting there, knowing Obama was ineligible, ready to take over the nomination.

Obots will continue to generate fog with Wong Kim Ark, in which Minor v. Happersett's definition of who are natural born citizens is Justice Gray's first citation. Mr. Rogers will dig up more obscure citations that lead to nothing, but look scholarly. Don't waste your time. He and Dr. Conspiracy have run out of anything written in a prevailing Supreme Court decsion, turning to quaint decisions from state courts and overturned federal judges, or the idiotic Indiana decsion, which cites Leo Donofrio's discovery and claims Chester Arthur's contempories knew what Donofrio discovered.

Lawyers objecting to Wong Kim Ark would long ago have found that Gray was inconsistent with his own citation, and forced the retraction of the Wong Kim decision if Gray had even implied inconsistency. He obviously didn't, and rendered Wong Kim a citizen. Besides that, a decsion or interpretation by the Supreme Court cannot be altered by implication. Changes must be explicit. Nothing changed the Minor decision - ever.

But with the current court, reinterpretation might be possible. Roberts is a progressive. No law (thank you Leo Donofrio) imposes respect for precedent. Precedent is a convenience, a tool, the way a mathematician can use an established theorem without proof, or a programmer uses system services. A court that strongly supports the progressive notion of a "living Constitution" might reinterpret Article II Section 1. If they did so at least we would know that the son of Islamic radicals, illegally in Arizona, raised in and provided scholarships by our taxes, who prays in Wahabi Mosques supported by our taxes through exemptions, and defended by our public interest law firms, paid by our taxes, is now eligible to be president. We seem now to have no legal right to see his/her passport, student records, federal aid, or birth documents. We know his parent's allegiance, but have removed the provision, Article II Section 1, that pertains to the allegiance of parents. Parents no longer matter, as if we even know who Barry's parents were. Any oaths he commits to are protected by his religous adherance which ordains Taquia, lying to Infidels. We are almost all infidels, and we approved of the changes to our laws which made lying to us legal, as well as enabling death panels and promoting the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of the Middle East.

As ridiculous as that scenario sounds, remember that if we believe Percy Sutton, a decorated Army Air Force Pilot, Charles Rangel's and Malcolm X's and Louis Farrakhan's and the Muslim Brotherhood's attorney, respected borrough president of Manhatten and close friend of Harvard University, our current president had Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal as his patron. Since the friend who approached Sutton to help Obama with his admission to Harvard law has been a Wahabi recruiter and attorney to bin-Talal since the mid-70s, and converted to Islam, changing his name from Don Warden, Black Panther founder, to Khalid al-Mansour, in 1968, it can be assumed that his ward, Obama, sympathizes, if he is not himself Muslim - which seems unlikely. Since Obama has hidden most every other record from his past, and since Sutton was always an upstanding officer of the Court, his word is probably more credible than Barack's or David Axelro's, or Vernon Jarrett's daughter-in-law's, all of whom worked for openly Marxist and Communist organiations where the end justifies the means. How is that different from Taquia? Honoring, respecting and protecting the Constitution, Article II Section 1, would have protected us from this mess.

The Supreme Court is only valuable if it's decisions are respected, and that respect is diminishing. It won't resolve cases John Marshall said "it must address", cases where only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, in this case, Constitutional Interpretation. Perhaps your judge will force the final court of appeals to decide the issue, or, by inference, not act, agreeing with the judge who said what has been repeated by many justices, that there are two classes of citizen recognized by the Constitution, natural born, and naturalized citizens, and they are clearly distinct. Only a natural born citizen may be president. Justice Gray affirmed, in Wong Kim Ark, that they share the same rights. Being president is not a right, but being natural born is a Constitutional requirement.

45 posted on 10/02/2012 1:32:13 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: null and void; Spaulding

Domo for the Ping. It was worth reading through the Obot detritus just to get to Spaulding’s as-always scintillating commentary. :)


46 posted on 10/02/2012 3:25:09 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama": His entire life is Photoshopped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Very well stated. My point was not to disagree with the Judge’s ruling which I believe was correct, but to opine that if the issue ever rises to the Supreme Court, we will be disappointed by the result. If given the chance, most members of the Judiciary will render the clause moot, they think that it is a quaint artifact that no longer applies. Of course, it would not be the first time that the Court has ignored the Constitution.

Only one circumstance might alter this outcome: a true conservative candidate cruising for victory who is discovered to have an eligibility issue. In that case, opinions will shift overnight.


47 posted on 10/02/2012 5:07:45 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The Constitution did NOT spell out the meaning of NBC because the meaning was already understood. It was a well known legal term, long used. And that long accepted meaning included those born of alien parents.

That was the Supreme Court’s point - the wording used in the 14th was a restatement, 100 years later, of what everyone understood the term to mean when the Constitution was written in 1787.


48 posted on 10/02/2012 6:43:35 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Qwackertoo

I want to see him escorted out the back door of MY WH in handcuffs by Lakin and sent straight to Lakin’s old prison cell to spent the rest of his sorry life.


49 posted on 10/02/2012 8:18:45 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
The overwhelming conventional wisdom among the Judiciary is that the 14th Amendment modified the natural born citizen definition to mean Jus Solis , or born on the soil of the United States without regard to the citizenship of the parents

Not according to the Senate. Not according to Homeland Security Chertoff. Not according to Hillary. And not according to Obama who signed his name not once but twice to the definition of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS in Senate Resolution 511.

50 posted on 10/02/2012 8:25:09 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson