Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
All I can say is, "Amen!"
If we're voting on it, to me, obama looks much more like Malcolm X than he does anyone else, and if he's bio-dad, that explains things even better than FMD as bio-dad does.
This is a double "Amen" post!
I'm just not sure that Malcolm X had the opportunity that Frank Marshall Davis had. I can't put Malcolm X at the scene of the crime, yet. ;-)
Legal claims at birth via citizenship by descent are all that matters as far as a father is concerned. Under the law, a bastard child given birth by a married mother is the legal issue of her husband.
That is the case to this very day. How many cases of men being forced to maintain child support for the biological offspring of another man have we heard about in just the past several years?
Quite a few.
But, those local statutes cannot be used to control the meaning of terms in the Constitution. If some of the Founding Fathers thought that the citizenship of a child's parents was important to NBC status, they meant the real parents. How local governments handled child custody and support issues would have been of no significance in creating Constitutional qualifications for Presidents of the United States.
Common law provides the understanding of marriage as codified.
Common law also provides the understanding of the term natural born citizen.
Neither are ultimately statutory, but there certainly can be statutory consequences associated with either one.
Nice try, though.
But either way, that family tree would open any door young obama wanted/needed to have opened and explains all the help he got along the way, plus would draw the Bill Ayers of the world to him like junebugs to a campfire.
He'd be better off with Obama as his last name than the other possibilities and was/is good cover in and of itself for an activist's career in politics, and puts motive to the Obama Sr. deception.
May or may not be true, but comes with the KISS of Occam's razor. (And, would be quite forgivable among those he whose support he depends upon should the truth come out.)
What do you understand that sentence to mean?
What is it about your conception of the "common law" that makes you think that, because of the common law, the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" in our national Constitution is dependent upon the rules that some local governments employ to determine child custody and support obligations?
However, I think we can show that Frank Marshall Davis had plenty of opportunities. He was right there in Hawaii!
You’re hanging your hat upon some presumed wide variability of the rights and obligations associated with marriage under the common law? Why is the notion of same-sex marriage so offensive, even to many individuals who really aren’t all that religious? Because it just seems ... wrong. Feels wrong, sounds wrong, it violates the unwritten law. A husband and father is responsible for the welfare of his children, even those apparently not sired by him. How does this ancient assumption, this unwritten rule, vary from actual statute in any significant way? It doesn’t. Statutory law didn’t form or define common law, it’s rather the other way around.
In around June of 2008, Barry’s campaign announced that the children of his father (clever lawyerly language) were governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 (The 1948 BNA) and concluded that under that act Barry would have been a UK subject at birth. But that was true only if Barry was illegitimate, which under UK Kenyan colonial law he wasn’t due to an existing Kenyan marriage to Kezia.
The campaign got this declaration out there AFTER McCain had been declared NBC in a non-binding resolution and AFTER Barry had locked up the Dem nomination and it would have brought howls of racism if Barry’s eligibility had been challenged in June 2008. But they wanted to make sure it was out there so no one could later clam that they hid it.
No. I'm trying to remind you that the term "common law" refers to judge-made law that developed over centuries one case at a time. Much of our contract, tort and property law was developed one case at a time by judges, and decisions in one case were ordinarily treated as precedent for the resolution of subsequent cases that could not be distinguished by some important different fact. Those opinions were in writing and the important principles in those cases formed the body of what we call the "common law."
When legislatures want to alter, "improve" or supplement this case-made common law, they pass statutes. When a statute conflicts with the common law, a court is to interpret and apply the statute instead of the common law.
Our Constitution is not part of the common law. It was not the creation of judges or courts. Our Constitution provides the basic framework for our political, legislative and judicial institutions. Whenever there is a conflict, it takes precedence over all statutes and common law. A local government cannot control the meaning of the terms of the Constitution by adopting a local rule, whether that rule is created by a local legislature (statute) or by a local court (common law).
I think you will have a very difficult time finding any evidence that any of our Founding Fathers thought that a child born in the United States could only be a "natural born citizen" if:
1) Both of his parents were citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth; and
2) In order to determine which man (real father or mother's husband) should be treated as the father for determining NBC status, we would all be bound by the local rule that was in effect in the locality where the child was born.
If there were Founding Fathers who believed that the citizenship of both parents was determinative of NBC status for a child born in the United States, I believe that they would have felt that the citizenship of the real father was the important factor. National citizenship is inherently a national issue. Whether a child born in the United States is or is not a NBC at birth should be determined with reference to a national standard and NBC status should not depend upon which county or state the birth occurred.
I maintain he might be the child of Frank Marshall Davis!
The British wanted no part of that bugger, or his progeny.
What is a common law marriage, Tau Food?
The American colonies rejected the requirement of a religious ceremony but retained the custom of a ceremony, religious or otherwise. The ancient Roman concept of marriage by agreement and cohabitation was adopted by early American courts as valid under the Common Law.
“In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
The Common Law is a much different thing. It is a description of the body of judge-made law that was developed over hundreds of years in Great Britain and subsequently in the United States. I described it more fully in the prior post.
Can you provide a quote in English common law that says: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... these were natives or natural-born citizens (or subjects)??
Read it again, Mr. Rogers. Now, what might this mean? That the common law as arose in the early nation was of necessity formed via colonial governments, much like the inconvenient existence of colonial citizens, not subjects, early and persistently in so many colonies not initially chartered by England?
Much like common law marriage by agreement and cohabitation, not blessed by the Church Of England as required by the English common law, was recognized as legally valid in all the colonies?
Fourteen still do if I'm not mistaken.
You persist in defining common law by statute, when statute was defined by common law in the various instances under discussion. That was in essence my initial statement with which you disagreed, in error.
“Can you provide a quote in English common law...”
If you would read the WKA decision, you would get plenty.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
And, yes, common law principles can be properly considered in interpreting provisions of the Constitution. If a particular term in the Constitution has been unambiguously and precisely defined by courts in developing the common law, then it might be reasonable to assume that those who used that same term in the Constitution intended that same meaning when they used that word in the Constitution. But, in interpreting the Constitution, a judge who cares about "original intent" would be searching for the intent of the framers and not for the prior intent of some judge making common law. The fact that the framers used the same word or term that had previously been used by some judge creating our common law does not necessarily mean that the framers intended that same meaning.
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.