Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
You keep repeating this like an incantation. Like it will magically make you correct or something. It is just a variation of "I'm right, and You're wrong" assertion. It is, in fact, a waste of time, because your claim is exactly what is currently being argued.
And yet you make these solemn pronouncements of what you think the law is, and act as if you know, and as if you're an expert, and it's all a complete fairy tale.
And you describe exactly how you look to others.
It is downright FUNNY. It is FUNNY to watch you act as if you think you're an expert in Constitutional law, when your entire theory is the most enormous load of horse manure.
And again, this is exactly how you look to others.
I've produced a list of quotes of what the very best early authorities in America thought natural born citizenship was all about. Last I counted, I had more than 30 of those quotes.
And for some reason you seem to think that each one has equal weight with every other one, as if by their sheer numbers, they prove something. You seem to live and breath the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum", but apart from that, your quotes run the gamut of irrelevant to barely relevant, and very little attention is paid to the value or quality of the quote as with the person making it.
Again, My Chief Justice Marshall, and Associate Justice Washington, beat the ever living dog-sh*t out of your Attorney General Rawle, both in authoritative status, AND in proximity to the deliberations making up the theory of American government. They specifically cite Vattel, even so far as to laboriously write his words in their own handwriting!
Again, My pair of Supreme Justices beats your Jack.
That, by the way, is NOT an irrelevant "argumentum ad populum" or "appeal to public opinion."
Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
Another funny thing here is that you appear too damn stupid to understand that it's not really possible to have an "appeal to public opinion" fallacy when the topic of what you're discussing is THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A PHRASE MEANT.
You clod. The reference to populum does not mean "the public." It means appealing to any bunch of people. It puts forth the notion that you must be correct because a lot of people agree that you are correct. It is "correctness by majority vote", which is not the same thing as actually being correct. Another name for it is argumentum ad numerum. Here is a link to variations on the same theme.
"Facts decided by consensus." For some reason you think this is logical. Galileo was correct. The Majority was wrong.
In any event, as noted, the vast majority of my list of quotes comes from the BEST EXPERTS AND TOP AUTHORITIES in the early United States.
No they doen't. As I have pointed out, the best contemporary expert you've got is Rawle, and Justices Marshall and Washington beat him soundly as a top authority. There is no authority higher in law than a Supreme court Judge. You just don't like what they say, so you don't count them.
Against this enormous lineup of REAL, WORLD-CLASS AUTHORITY, you are able to produce ONE GUY, who was not a lawyer at all, and whose theories on citizenship were SMACKED DOWN by the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION and virtually every other one of our early leaders who heard and evaluated them.
I am beginning to think you are a psychotic. You have been presented numerous times with other authorities, by myself and others, yet you assert that only one has been presented to you? You need to get some mental help son.
THIRTY-FREAKING-SIX TO ONE.
And you keep obsessing about numbers. "Argumentum ad numerum."
Now do your little stampy foot dance, and whine that you are "NOT using a fallacy!" I'll wait.
And yet here you are, the "expert" who bandies about the Latin names of logical fallacies while clearly not understanding them, brandishing the utterly discredited little paper from David Ramsay as if it were a pronouncement from God, while baldly asserting that the entire weight of early American legal opinion doesn't mean jack.
And this is an example of the "straw man fallacy." That various authorities were confused as to the correct meaning was pointed out by Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett. Not only are you misstating my position, (hence the straw man) you are not even attributing any role to those American legal Authorities that don't follow your theory.
Nope.
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 [169 U.S. 649, 680] 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 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.
The final determination of the court?
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.
Wong Kim Ark was dtermined to be a citizen of the United States. The court NEVER said he was a natural born citizen.
Yeah, ask any ordinary citizen if they think the founders intended that "Anchor Babies" be regarded as "natural born citizens" of the United States, and see what they say.
DL has accused me of "argumentum ad populum." As I just pointed out (see post 1466, which I think you will find interesting), such an accusation is just silly.
As far as you're concerned, any criticism of you is silly. That's why I regard you as an expert at "silly."
And you have brought the actual authority of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT to that point.
A nonsensical assertion. Quoting the Supreme court does not establish them as being on your side. It is furthermore ridiculous to assume that one Supreme Court forever binds the findings of another Supreme Court. The overturning of Prior court's Precedent has occurred many times.
Forgot the courtesy link: Wong Kim Ark
Maybe. It would fit Obama’s psyche. It would make him 100% eligible though.
The applicant being Bennett and the facts being the information requested by Bennett.
Onaka doesn't need to parrot back each and every item requested by Bennett.
Hawaii has verified Obama's birth there. It really is that simple and that's why no-one believes your conspiracy theory.
"In General." He also said that South Carolina could have made a law which said something different. In fact, other states DID make such laws. California for example:
241. The citizens of the State are:
(a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls.
(b) All persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State.
And you've also seen the law from the State of New York.
“The citizens of the state are:1.All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;
And Connecticut.
“Sec. 1. (1857) All persons born in this State, all persons born without its limits, if children of citizens of this State, who are temporarily absent therefrom, and all other persons being in, or coming into, and locating in this State, with intent to remain and reside permanently as citizens, except aliens, paupers, and fugitives from justice or service, are and shall be deemed to be citizens of this State, owing it allegiance and entitled to receive its protection, until they shall have voluntarily withdrawn from its limits, and become incorporated into some other State or sovereignty as members thereof.” Title II, Chapter 1, Section 1 of The General Statutes of the State of Connecticut, revision of 1875, page 4.
How do you like State Legislatures as a "Legal Authority?"
This was an entirely explicit statement on his part. ANd you just brush it off as if it were nothing.
I don't brush it off as nothing, I acknowledge it as a point mostly on your side of the equation. What Madison said mostly favors your argument, but he also said things which do not. The One Statement by Madison simply doesn't make all the statements by other people go away. I personally think the statement is taken out of context, and that by way of explanation, Madison went on to imply that birth in a certain place was a proxy for meaning birth within a community. Indeed, his entire argument was that Smith was a child of Long Established and Highly esteemed members of the South Carolina community.
I've never refused to acknowledge either.
The Venus was clearly about DOMICILE, not citizenship, and certainly not natural born citizenship.
As that is the salient point as to where the parties loyalties lay, it is the determining factor as to whether or not they possessed American Citizenship. It is irrelevant to the point. On the question of citizenship, Marshall quotes the exact definition by Vattel, and pronounces it to be the best available definition. Washington likewise quotes Vattel. You cannot reasonably suggest that they Specifically quote him, and Specifically say his is the best definition around, and then try to assert that they really didn't believe his definition.
So you take a case in which Marshall produced a passage from Vattel because he found Vattel's opinion ON DOMICILE relevant. And you extrapolate from that, that Marshall must have also found Vattel's supposed opinion on citizenship relevant.
You behave as though you haven't even read Marshall's opinion. He specifically quotes what Vattel had to say about citizenship. It demonstrates conclusively that he knew what it said, and he further said that it is the best definition of which he was aware. You simply cannot spin that into a win for you.
As for Minor v. Happersett, it doesn't matter how many times rational people point out: 1) the 2 or 3 sentences you quote were the very definition of "dicta," 2) they never said children of aliens weren't natural born citizens anyway, they said they didn't know and frankly didn't care, and 3) it would have all been overruled by Wong Kim Ark anyway.
Calling it "Dicta" does not make it go away. Presumably Justice Waite's opinion reflects what Justice Waite believed, regardless of whether it is Dicta or Holding. "Dicta" is not a magic word which means "Oh, they were just joking and unserious", it still reflects the best understanding of the Judge who writes it.
Beyond what Justice Waite says about Children born to parents etc, There is simply no getting around this statement by Justice Waite.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens."
This statement Obliterates any claim that the 14th amendment definition creates "natural citizens." If it were the Opinion of Justice Waite that the 14th amendment created "natural citizens", he would have said:
The Fourteenth Amendment clearly says who shall be "natural born citizen."
He did not. He explicitly said that no part of the constitution defines "natural born citizen, and in a case replete with references to the 14th amendment.
And as noted a few days ago by another poster here, AT LEAST ONE JUDGE HAS SPECIFICALLY RULED THAT THE CLAIM IS A PILE OF HORSE****.
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon:
I put no stock in contemporary court rulings on this issue. Too many people in the legal system have been corrupted by the widespread misreading of the Wong Kim Ark precedent. They are, like Rawle, contaminated with false doctrine. (And whom I suspect may have triggered the whole body of false understanding.) The Ankeny decision is an example of a particularly incompetent ruling. Such rulings are no different from the Roe court deciding that the 14th amendment legalizes abortion. It's just bad legal reasoning based on a twisted understanding.
Yeee-ha, boys! We got us some BROWN GOLD!!
Everything coming from you has the consistency of brown gold.
Seriously, with either man as bio-dad there's no constitutional issue. Whatever illegal things obama's done can be found by uncovering and following the papertrail of activities related to hiding BO's past and documentation.
Butterdezillion knows how to follow that trail. Sheriff Joe and the CC Posse found some of it as well. It's actually kinda obvious.
Anywho, I'm sure the SCC would find it all very interesting, but there are plenty of remedies long before they would be required to put their popcorn down and write something.
You brought it up here, but your false modesty is underselling it. It's not just a "good as any" theory. When I think about it from every angle, it's more like the single unifying theory that explains everything and everyone's actions or lack there of.
It definitely accounts for suddenly pushing the idea of running Rubio and Cruz and accounts for the long-term usual players on these threads for all these years. I can go on and on.
The more inputs I come up with to add to this logic diagram, I began to realize that it's the only one where all the odd inputs taken together come up true.
And it's easy math, too. All real numbers, nothing irrational, no algebraic proofs needed or calculus to simplify it. It's just basic math.
Yep, you're underselling the "he's the natural born son of an American radical" theory, when it's the one theory that accounts for everything.
“this is the transition period”
Did the transition period continue until June, 1798?
“Resolve Requesting the Senators and Representatives in Congress to Propose an Amendment to the Constitution Providing, that None but Natural Born Subjects be Eligible to Certain Offices”
In the body of the resolve it uses the term “natural born citizen”.
During the transition period what would have been the definition of “natural born citizen”?
BTW, the English considered their legal system to be based on Natural Law.
“The final determination of the court?”
And what is the final determination in the Minor decision?
“We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman’s need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.”
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
Nothing about citizenship much less natural born citizenship.
All this says is most of our Legal system mostly bears a close resemblance to that of England. It says nothing of the particular instances in which the US legal Doctrine deviates greatly from British Law. Among these areas, citizenship vs servitude is one of the most pronounced. We fought two wars in order to establish the distinction between citizenship and subjectude.
In a Monarchy, it is very much in the interest of a King to force allegiance on anyone upon whom you can throw the yoke. They are, after all, your servants. Why would you want to exclude anyone? An expansive definition of whom can be claimed as a "subject" suits the best interest of the Crown.
A Free Republic operates under a different premise. You are not born into the service of the King, you are free and independent while being able to chose to whom you wish to give your allegiance. It does not use any and all pretexts to throw a perpetual commitment upon you.
Then why did Onaka mention Honolulu?
The statute says that the existence of a BC has to be verified, with no exceptions for non-valid BC’s. So if they have a non-valid BC they STILL have to verify that they have a BC. Pretend (in your mind) that Obama’s BC is non-valid and Bennett submitted this same request. What would a lawful verification from Onaka look like? Keep in mind what Bennett asked to be verified and the fact that Onaka has to verify the existence of the non-valid BC and anything else he can lawfully verify but CAN’T verify anything that he can’t certify as having happened (IOW, he can’t verify the truth of any particular birth claims).
Tell me what that verification would look like.
And he was correct. It was defined by English common law at the time of Independence. That was the language of the law then.
And the fact that the 14th amendment definition for citizenship exactly corresponds to what you claim is the English law to which you are referring does not provoke a logical paradox in your mind?
To put it another way, The definition of "citizen" in the 14th amendment is exactly the same as that of the English law you to which you are referring.
For Justice Waite to reject the 14th amendment definition for "natural born" is to reject the English law definition for "natural born", because they are identical in the particulars.
I don't think you are capable of acknowledging this. It will blow a fuse in you I think.
IOW Hawaii have confirmed not only that Obama's BC contains all the information that Bennett asked about but it happened the way the BC describes.
It really is that simple.
We were not discussing the Minor decision YET.
We are discussing Wong Kim Ark.
Until I have your response on that subject, the discussion of court cases will proceed no further.
-----
BTW - Did it ever occur to you that all the quotes from the States proclaiming subjects have the same rights, privileges and immunities as natural-born citizens occurred at the same time the Constitution was coming into effect?
Did it ever occur to you that these State proclamations, were intended to function just like Article II, Section I, clause 5?
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
Did it ever occur to you these State legislative acts MIGHT have sunset clauses?
Do you have any proof....whatsoever, that these 'born within the State are natural born citizens' laws were meant to operate in perpetuity?
If you do, I'd certainly like to see it.
“Resolve Requesting the Senators and Representatives in Congress to Propose an Amendment to the Constitution Providing, that None but Natural Born Subjects be Eligible to Certain Offices”
I do not find it objectionable to believe it did. I think you mistake habit of language for endorsement of principle. Having newly departed a Monarchy (for the first time in History) it is not peculiar to see examples of people still speaking with Monarchistic terms.
During the transition period what would have been the definition of “natural born citizen”?
The only definition that mattered to Federal law is what the term was accepted to mean by the Constitutional Delegates and by the Ratifying State Legislators. It is quite plausible that they were not all of the same mind, but also weren't aware that they were not unanimous in their understanding of the term.
BTW, the English considered their legal system to be based on Natural Law.
This argument is a fallacy. You are saying that since one part of what you say is true, the whole thing must also be true. My understanding of the Origin of the Jus Soli aspect of English Common law has to do with the Need to legitimize the ascent of James I to the Throne of England, but because he was born in Scotland of Scottish Parents, the use of Jus Sanguinus would have disallowed it.
Lord Coke cobbled together the arguments necessary to rationalize what they wanted to do anyway, and it was the law of England thereafter. The prior Roman law was "Jus Sanguinus." (As the name ought to imply.)
At least that is my current understanding.
What does the verdict have to do with the understanding of the Justices on a point of law? Dicta or Holding, the Judge is still stating the understanding of the court. Making it part of a verdict does not make the opinion of a judge any more or any less correct.
Again, I point out that Justice Waite Looked square at the 14th amendment, and did not find "natural born citizen" in it. I regard it as his informed opinion that the 14th amendment did not define the term "natural born citizen."
Eligibility has been resolved anyway. We've now had approximately 57 presidential elections and in each of those elections, the qualifications of the presidential candidates has been determined by the voters and their electors. The Constitution empowers the voters and their electors to select our presidents (without any candidate approval or screening by the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court will never dare try to sneak its nose under that tent to try to disqualify a candidate. In America, the people are the masters and the Supreme Court their servant.
I think you're right. While armies of researchers are are snipe hunting in Kenya, the media have been distracted from seeing the obvious - Obama is the son of Frank Marshall Davis, a notorious American Communist!
And now, anyone who points out what appears to be an obvious fact will be treated by the media as just another pack of obsessed, deranged snipe hunters. Obama displayed a capacity for real evil when he concocted this diabolical "birther" hunt.
I don't think obama did that. Ordinary citizens did, but with regard to obama at a national level, Hillary started it.
The "birther hunt"is not diabolical, but rather what happens when people like me, who grew up learning that's the way the eligibility is defined, encounter someone who isn't eligible running for POTUS.
Like I said, Hillary brought it up the first time, as did Alan Keyes, as did obama supposedly, in a response to Keyes in a debate, IIRC, which I have heard and wish I'd saved.
There used to be lots about him being born in Kenya or being Kenyan, including what's written on the jacket to "his" book, I think. I've seen it posted many times.
Hiding behind NBC eligibility makes sense, since it's been historically misunderstood and/or not accepted by everyone, and is very similar to the Electoral college in that regard. The posts here on NBC are similar to threads during the Bush/Gore regarding the popular vote vs electoral college vote.
In 2007-8, both sides took advantage of this when they ran obama and McCain, then using McCain's own pedigree to clear them both and provide cover.
Once that was done, they went back to business as usual, more or less safe within the limits of their Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) pact of silence.
Any problems that came up regarding ineligibility had both teams laying down the suppression fire and fog of their Alinsky/Chicago Way styled birther attacks and intimidation.
On this one issue, the demonrats and the GOPe old guard are in it together,...especially when the Tea Party newbies were elected!
This theory also helps to account for the GOPe's hostility to the newbie TEA partiers who gave them control of the House. The newbies didn't have the guilt the 2008 bunch did and no real loyalty yet one way or the other with McCain and his coalitions within the GOPe. Whatever that might be has a very, very limited shelf life and Rand Paul's actions suggest it has expired.
Whether FMD or Malcolm X or some other American that might have been involved with that crowd and his mama at that time to be bio-dad, obama is still a NBC, no matter how you define it. But regardless of whatever the demonrats might have done running obama, McCain is NOT eligible. And the GOPe ran him anyway.
IF we can get whatever the truth is out in the open, clean up the messes made by all involved, including whatever the hell he/they/we are doing in Libya, Syria and elsewhere in the M.E., we can also deal with the NBC confusion out in the open, just like the FFs set things up.
George Washington was extremely wise regarding his distaste for political parties and most everything else. Looking around, I see he was right on the money.
"Parties will destroy the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion [the committeeman process],
Parties are destructive to the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities,
Parties open the door to foreign influence and corruption, thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Parties serve to organize division,
will ruin public liberty,
stifles, control’s, represses,
foment occasional riots & insurrection,
kindle animosity of one part against another,
puts in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party,
agitates the community with ill founded jealousies & false alarms,
works to undermine the Constitution which could not be directly overthrown,
serves to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration,
drives the spirit of revenge
leads to despotism."
"Parties are truly your worst enemy."
~George Washington
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.