@I’m the pater familias! I’m bona fide, dammit!!
Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by 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.
This is what the Indiana code referenced in Arkeny says:
“IC 3-8-1-6 President or Vice President
Sec. 6. (a) A candidate for the office of President or Vice President of the United States must have the qualifications provided in Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.”
So he was simply referencing Indiana legal code.
Why the difference?
The Constitution as written does not mention “Clauses” - You will see Articles and Sections on the written document but not clauses. So the Founders did not identify specific requirements with specific clauses.
Here is how the Constitution is actually organized - the word clause is nowhere to be seen.
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
Now the Constitution originally had 8 requirements in Art II section 1. Two of those requirements were removed by Constitutional Amendment. The 12A in 1804 removed the third requirement in the section. Since the word Clause was not part of the actual Constitution and was used informally to identify separated sections - some legal scholars took the AMENDED Constitution and ignored those sections that were removed through amendment. Remove the third requirement and the 5th becomes the 4th. When the practice of using the word Clause was initiated, some applied it to the Constitution as written while some applied it to the Constitution as amended - which is what Indiana does.
Your are right. Roe vs Wade invalidates that particular argument.
You snip starts with the sentence “no other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country.”
What are those rules you apparently don’t think are important?
Which brings up the comment made by Harlan1196.
Or do you really feel you understand the issue better than all those judges?
If someone is able to recognize, and evidence, an error by the court then they are able to "understand the issue" at least as well as, if not better than, the judges.
It also illustrates that if someone can recognize the errors made in one instance then they should also be able to recognize other instances of error.
Enforcing the impression that we're all idiots and incapable of determining issues on our own and only judges can do so, as Harlan1196 is doing, is an insult to all Americans.
Do you understand why Vattel was applied in this case? Because it dealt with International Law (ie law of nations). Indians were considered foreign citizens of sovereign nations.
You are conflating a ruling on Indian citizenship to American citizenship in general.
Besides, the court rejected the Partus Sequitur Patrem rule in Sloan v U.S.
I showed that it was a specific law in 1907 that automatically linked a woman’s citizenship to her husband.
You replied with an unsubstantiated word salad.
Show me the laws prior to 1907 - should be simple to do. Just the American ones since foreign laws don’t apply here.
Here is what you said...
This is what the Indiana code referenced in Arkeny says...
And this what footnote 9 says...See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6. Also, not only.
But what does Article 2, Section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States say compared to Clause 5?
Isn't that a pretty damning indictment of the Indiana State legislature when their laws aren't even in accord with the Constitution of the United States?
Where does it say that a women marrying a foreigner lost her American citizenship?
Your bill still allows split citizenship parents.
And can you show that this bill was actually passed into law? Where is the partner Senate Bill?
Go read my post again and then address my actual arguments.
Show me the word “Clause” in the original Constitution.
The Indiana Code refers to the amended Constitution. A clause was removed from that section.
The ventrem rule only applied in cases of unmarried women.
And I too can give a link. It has "clause" throughout it.
@http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html - THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Much mischief with our laws and freedom is the result of the 14th amendment. It only passed at all because federal troops occupied dissident states, and passing this amendment was a required condition for them to be withdrawn.
Roe v Wade is also based on a fundamental misapplication of the meaning and intent of the 14th amendment.
Or am I just supposed to "take your word for it"?
Your point about possible adoption and issuance of a replacement certificate is interesting and credible.
Sadly, there is way too much that we don't know about this White House occupier.
The Indiana Code refers to the amended Constitution
How do you know that? Can you give evidence that what you're claiming is correct and accurate?
Or am I just supposed to "take your word for it"?
It makes more sense then your idea that the State of Indiana doesn’t understand the Constitution.
Have you found a instance yet of the Constitution with the word Clause in it?
Did I not give you a link to the entire decision? I KNOW I gave you the name of it. (Ex Parte Reynolds.) Here is a link to the Entire decision. Read it to your heart's content.
It does not favor your position anywhere.
http://books.google.com/books?id=u-87AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
Look at the Constitution AS WRITTEN. The one that was signed. That old piece of brown parchment. That one.
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.