Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, others to leave a Legacy of COWARDICE

VANITY

[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 2’s” 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.

[Harlan1196]

You are talking about a period from 1907 to 1922:

“The Law: Federal legislation that changed the status of married immigrant women so that not all of them would automatically obtain the citizenship of their husbands

Date: September 22, 1922

Also known as: Married Woman’s Act

Significance: In 1907 a federal immigration law was passed that specifically stated that upon marriage a woman would take the nationality of her husband. The Cable Act changed this, except for women who were American citizens and married men who were ineligible for American citizenship under federal law because of their race.”

http://immigration-online.org/397-cable-act-of-1922.html

Please show the legislation and case law prior to 1907.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is a possibility that you have not considered.

All of the figures that you mention have looked into it, thought about it critically, weighed the “evidence” and decided that there is nothing to it.

Then one can only conclude that they are either astonishingly dull witted, (not likely) or that they have NOT seen the evidence which *I* have seen. I'll not attempt to go over it all right here, but I will post this excerpt from an 1811 newspaper article purportedly written by James Madison under his Pseudonym "PUBLIUS."

Link to entire Page of 1811 Newspaper article.

The way to get rid of Obama is the old fashioned way- vote him out. If we can't do this, and the country actually wants this guy, the problem is a lot bigger than Obama and where his father was born. The problem is that the populous is irreversibly lost.

This is not just about attempting to get rid of him, (it's really too late to worry about that.) it is about attempting to deny him legitimacy in the History of the United States. All of our History books need to contain an asterisk by his name *First Illegitimate President.

All of his works and all of his appointments needs to be tainted with the label of "illegitimate."

[DiogenesLamp]

There are not any. Minor said two parent NBC was agreed, but that others had a broader definition, and that they would not try to settle it.

No, it said that Two Parents was definitely settled, and that "Some Authorities" (implying the minority) would go further.

The problem is that, at the time of the approval of the Constitution, NO ONE had suggested two citizen parents were a requirement.

And that is because any other formulation WAS NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE at this time! Split citizenship parentage did NOT BECOME POSSIBLE until 1922! You might as well suggest that they didn't mention the parents had to be male and female! OF COURSE NOT! NO OTHER POSSIBILITY EXISTED!

All the law prior used the phrase ‘natural born subject’ - and that phrase was used interchangeably with natural born citizen for at least a few years after the Constitution.

And according to John Adam's Law book, that meant having Parents who were in Actual Obedience to the KING! (Owing allegiance to England.) As that meant exactly the same thing as the Vattel definition, there was no need to specifically mention it.

I am not going to fool with the rest of your comment. I can only take so much crap at one time.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m not the smartest guy in the room but I would bet a lot of money..... The country would be FAR worst off if the birther movement actually achieved it’s goal.... Even though I agree Zero is not eligible

In what way would we be worse off? Would we have a bigger than 15 trillion dollar debt? Would we have MORE than two more Liberal @ssholes on the Supreme court, and countless others worming their way through the Federal Judiciary? Would Iran be MORE likely to make Nuclear bombs with which to start World War III? Would we have had MORE banning of domestic drilling and oil production if Obama was gone?

In what manner, pray tell, would we be WORSE off if Obama was determined to have never been legitimate? Riots in the Cities? I think the question regarding those is when, not if. Most of the Urban poor is the DIRECT result of Liberal Democrat Policies in the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs has virtually guaranteed the creation of a massive poor underclass dedicated to the proposition that Democrats will always hand them out free goodies from other people's pockets.

[DiogenesLamp]

He did not ignore that argument, but he rejected it - based on the WKA decision & Ankeny. Had he done otherwise, he would have been promptly overturned as an incompetent judge for ignoring the law.

The Wong Kim Ark decision did not deal with the status of "natural born citizen" so therefore any attempt to cite it regarding "natural born citizen" is a misapplication of Precedent. As the Ankeny decisions is also based on this false conflation of two distinctly different terms, it is utter crap of no legal value.

[Harlan1196]

You meant to say that laws to prevent split citizenship parentage were only in place from 1907 to 1922.

And note that it was only from 1907 and 1922 that a woman with American citizenship automatically lost her citizenship when she married a foreign national.

“After 1907, marriage determined a woman’s nationality status completely. Under the act of March 2, 1907, all women acquired their husband’s nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date. This changed nothing for immigrant women, but U.S.-born citizen women could now lose their citizenship by any marriage to any alien. Most of these women subsequently regained their U.S. citizenship when their husbands naturalized.”

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html

It is not as simple as you present it.

[philman_36]

You replied to #185. You really need to read this reply of mine if you haven't done so already.
@191

[Harlan1196]

When that “utter crap of no legal value” is repeatedly upheld in courts across the country, will you perhaps entertain the notion that you are wrong? Or do you really feel you understand the issue better than all those judges?

[philman_36]

Hey, at least he's a fan of the 2nd Amendment...
Anyone can mouth words for appearance's sake only.

[philman_36]

Or do you really feel you understand the issue better than all those judges?

@Ankeny v Governor of Indiana

9 The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4.

@Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

@Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

How could the court make such an error? They made the same error many times over.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've got my copy of the Constitution her in my den and upon reading it, I can't find the definition of natural born citizen {which I assume is the FACT that you refer to}.

James Madison addresses this very point.

The great mass of suits in every State lie between Citizen & Citizen, and relate to matters not of federal cognizance. . . . What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

Link:

There have been several SC cases but no solid definition of natural born citizen that eliminates a person that is born on US soil from being a natural born citizen.

There are three solid definitions of the term from the Era of 1787 of which I am aware. There is the Vattel Definition, which was Cited by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall and Justice Washington in 1811 in the case of "The Venus."

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Supreme Court Justice Washington:
"1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.

Chief Justice Marshall:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

"The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place for the management of his affairs has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile."

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."

There is the definition obtained from John Adams Personal law book written by Mathew Bacon in 1736:

And then finally, there is the "Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States By Dr. David Ramsay in 1789."(Widely circulated among the members of the first Congress)In it he says:

The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.

Link to the entire essay.

While we're at it, we might as well throw in Aristotle.(322 BC)

Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?

...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;

...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.

...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;

Look it up yourself. Aristotle, Book 3, Section II, First Sentence.

So yeah, the correct definition was pretty ubiquitous at that time period. They didn't NEED to write it in the Constitution. Like Madison said: "If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Please show the legislation and case law prior to 1907.

Here you go.

Prior to it being codified, it was just an accepted practice.

[Mr Rogers]

Born “out of the limits”.

[DiogenesLamp]

You meant to say that laws to prevent split citizenship parentage were only in place from 1907 to 1922.

No, I meant to say that prior to 1922 it was NOT POSSIBLE to have split national parents. NO nation recognized the wife as having different citizenship from her Husband. In the case of divorce, her original citizenship could be reinstated, but as long as they were married she derived her citizenship from her Husband.

It is not as simple as you present it.

Nor as you present it. Dual national parents did not occur until 1922. How could anyone consider such a thing when it had never been done before?

[philman_36]

Still waiting...

Or do you really feel you understand the issue better than all those judges?

@Ankeny v Governor of Indiana

9 The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4.

@Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

@Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

How could the court make such an error? They made the same error many times over.

Are you incapable of recognizing an error made by the court?

[DiogenesLamp]

When that “utter crap of no legal value” is repeatedly upheld in courts across the country, will you perhaps entertain the notion that you are wrong? Or do you really feel you understand the issue better than all those judges?

I absolutely understand this issue better than most Judges. I defy a one of them to demonstrate the working knowledge which I have accumulated regarding this issue. All THEY know how to do is tell me what they think some other judge thought about something the founders meant. Third hand opinion is all they are good for.

In order to correctly understand what is the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" you must SKIP OVER what is legal opinion, and go straight to the era in question and Learn what The Founders said, read, thought and acted.

THAT is where the truth lies. Not in reading the third hand opinion of some lawyer misapplying a precedent not even dealing with the issue.

YOUR understanding creates "anchor babies" as "natural born citizens" able to be President, and requires Exceptions for three glaringly obvious examples which do not fit your rule. You must have an exception for Slaves, (Changed in 1868) You must have an exception for Indians (Changed in 1924) and You must have an exception for Diplomats. (Still an exception.)

The CORRECT understanding of the term "natural born citizen" under the jus sanguinus principles requires no exceptions in any of the above cases, and does NOT create "anchor babies."

Now who is the fool here? The one who thinks our laws are supposed to create these obvious absurdities, or the one who thinks the founders were not morons?

Since you are so infatuated with what courts have to say about this issue, Here is a court case (ex parte reynolds, 1879) for you to review while pondering why your belief yields such ridiculous results.

The Universal Maxim of the Common Law being Partus Sequitur Patrem...

[DiogenesLamp]

When that “utter crap of no legal value” is repeatedly upheld in courts across the country, will you perhaps entertain the notion that you are wrong?

The Utter Crap of Roe v Wade is repeatedly upheld in courts across the country. Do you believe it isn't wrong?

[DiogenesLamp]

How could the court make such an error? They made the same error many times over.

The legal system prefers to run in ruts left by previous legal decisions. They just let the wagon steer itself most of the time. It usually goes off the same cliff the previous wagon did.

[DiogenesLamp]

Born “out of the limits”.

The part naturalizing the Wife in a marriage is not limited to overseas marriages. A foreign woman is naturalized even if married inside the United States.

The Salient point is again, There was NO SUCH THING as dual national parents prior to 1922, so there could have been NO CONSIDERATION of such a circumstance in prior law. Previously, ALL children were born to citizens of the same nationality.

[philman_36]

Partus sequitur patrem: the offspring follows the father; the condition of the father.
Partus sequitur ventrem: the offspring follows the mother.