Skip to comments.Obama Confirmed Ineligible for Office?
Posted on 04/29/2010 11:38:41 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
Were ANY of the Founding Fathers natural born citizens of the United States?
No they were not. Not even one of the Founding Fathers was a natural born citizen of the United States of America, even though some of them had indeed been (native) born on what would become U.S. soil.
None of them were natural born citizens because all of the Founding Fathers were born prior to the existence of the United States of America. No one could be the natural born citizen of a nation that did not yet exist.
America declared its independent status as a sovereign nation on July 4, 1776, breaking away from England and British rule. But the United States of America was not formed until September of 1787, with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders had no choice but to exempt themselves from Article IISection IClause V of the Constitution they wrote and ratified. But there would be no other exemptions or exceptions from that moment forward.
American citizens had better wake up and take action fast, as there is little time left to right their ship!
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Wisdom from the Great White North.
Yes, Obama, I used the words Great and White directly next to each other. Send your SEIU thugs to browbeat me. I have a crate of .308 I’m itching to open.
Bubba set the bar at: It depends on what the definition of the word .....
This issue is simmering amongst the people all the more these days. Wish the court would get off its collective *sses!
After watching Glenn Beck last night I’m almost positive that the only way we’ll be able to undo the damage is by impeaching Obama as ineligible. But no one is going to pay attention to the information in this article.
On some long ago FReeper thread on the topic, I vaguely remember someone saying a specific Supreme Court ruling spelled out what Natural Born Citizen means. But I’ve never seen it mentioned again. That’s something that would be useful!
The term "United States" existed long before the Constitution was ratified. Article II Section I Clause V states:
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.
All who were in the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were therefore, eligible.
You are correct. However, I think the author meant that since they were not ‘natural born citizens’ they would not be eligible ...
thus the second clause in the Constitution ... “... or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution ...”
It is good that the second clause was added by the Founding Fathers. Back in April 1789.
Maybe Obama is really old? : )
He’s sure as hell gettin’ old!
You're kind of a 'glass is half-full' person, aren't you?
<>On some long ago FReeper thread on the topic, I vaguely remember someone saying a specific Supreme Court ruling spelled out what Natural Born Citizen means. But Ive never seen it mentioned again. Thats something that would be useful!<>
These might fit the bill:
Yes, that is what I was thinking of. Thanks very much for the links!
Now if only we could find some Republicans with stones...
The Supreme Court has equated the terms “native born” and “natural born.” Here are two such examples:
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) found that
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the natural born citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. [A naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.
And the Supreme Court ruled that a “Native born” citizen who can return to the US and run for President:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”—Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325 Supreme Court 1939
Well let’s see now...would I rather have Hussein or George Washington in the White House? WOW, what a TOUGH one, huh!
Your question is not tough, however it is not the question before us at this moment in time.
The question is the actual birth status of the current President and occupant of the Oval Office.
The question was never who would we rather have, That takes the rule of law and the Constitution out of the equation. I’d rather keep them in and follow them.
After 30 years in the military I have had to provide my birth certificate numerous times. Not to mention for state government, or to get a passport, or ... well I could go on.
The only hard part I can see is producing one if you do not have one. A birth certificate (bc) is different than a certificate of live birth (colb).
Not true. A true statement would be: "... anyone born in Hawaii after August 21st 1959, and born to parents (plural) who are citizens of the United States, is a natural born citizen."
Someone who has divided loyalties, or partial allegiance to any other nation (such as one would have if one parent is a British citizen), is not a "natural born citizen", although they might be a "native born citizen".
Yes, and I’ll raise with:
ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM - “Don’t let the bastards grind you down.”
That was a known and never in contention. Was trying to concentrate and define ‘natural born citizen’. When reading the post that started and the initial comment that started this string.
But thanks for adding it more details already known.
Actually, man-made laws are needed if you're going to claim someone is Constitutionally ineligible. Good luck finding any court in this civilized nation that will agree that things like name and citizenship can only be patrimonial.
Completely agree. By far the best way to UNDO the damage done by Barry....ALL of it, and not just the health care debacle, is to expose him (in the mainstream) as the usurper he is.
"On some long ago FReeper thread on the topic, I vaguely remember someone saying a specific Supreme Court ruling spelled out what Natural Born Citizen means. But Ive never seen it mentioned again. Thats something that would be useful!"
The definition came directly from Vattel. Someone the founders were well acquainted with an relied upon for more than the NBC term. NBC = born in country, to citizen parentS.
That same definition was reaffirmed by:
Many early SCOTUS cases:
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattels definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
And John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:
commenting on Section 1992 said it means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
|HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?|
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdoms dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf
(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!
|Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro *||NOT Obama / Soetoro|
|* This assumes HI birth.
A citizen of 2 countries at birth.
Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obamas maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].) This notification would then have automatically generated the newspaper announcements. (This was the practice of the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin at the time).
Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
That is true. However in the day and age the Constitution was written that was the way it worked.
Today, no judge would agree. So, is that a deviation from original intent?
It worked! Great!
Again, James...read your own quote from that case:
The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the natural born citizen is eligible to be President.
The court CLEARLY states there is a difference in that only the "natural born citizen" is eligible to be President. yes, both are "citizens" but the "native" born citizen is NOT eligible because only the "natural born" citizen is.
"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325 Supreme Court 1939"
The court found that Ms. Elg was found to be a "natural born citizen" because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents. And the "Young Steinkauler" that they mention in Elg's case was ALSO a Natural Born Citizen as his parents were citizens at the time of his birth in St. Louis in 1855 (1 year after his father from Germany became a naturalized US citizen).
You see....A "Natural Born Citizen" is a "citizen" as well as a "native" born citizen. Obviously.
But, a "native" born citizen (while a citizen, yes) is not necessarily a Natural Born citizen. The perfect example in these modern times are so called anchor babies. They are "native" born citizens by being born here, but they are not Natural Born citizens as they don't have 2 parents who were US citizens at the time of their birth.
So easy even a cave man could understand it, yet....
THE recent case of one Steinkanler, who, being a resident of Germany, was called upon to do military duty in that empire, but who appealed to the United States authorities for protection, on the ground that he was born In the United States, of naturalized parentsThe Albany law journal, Volume 12 (From July 1875 to January 1876 - page 22).
Yeah! Thanks again for the formatting (centering) suggestion.
And indeed, there were two Presidents who were born after the United States came into existance, but before the Consittution was ratified. Presidents Martin Van Buren, born in December of 1782 and Zachary Taylor, born in November 1784.
But the period was not really all that long. July of 1776 (at the earliest, some might date the existance from ratification of the Ariticles of Confederation (March 1781), or the Treaty of Paris(signed September 1783, ratified in January 1784) to June 21, 1788 when the Constitution was ratified. I used the 1776 date, but you'd get the same result if you used the 1781 date of the Articles. I would not use the Treaty of Paris, since that was only getting the Brits to aknowledge what had already been created.
But it really doesn't matter because both were Natural Born Citizens of the United States and were also citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, as was everyone then living in the United States that did not choose to evacuate to Canda or England.
But other than those two, who could hardly be considered founders, the rest of the first 12 Presidents, where not natural born citizens of The United States. They were natural born subjects of King George of England, Although all were born in the King's American colonies, it would have been possible for an immigrant from either another British colony, like Alexander Hamilton who was indeed a founder, to have become President during that period, as long as he was living in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. So could Friedrich von Stueban,a Prussian by birth, but who was the first Drillmaster of what was then the Continental Army. He became a citizen in 1783, before adoption of the Constitutioin. (But virtually no one wanted him to be President, probably not even himself)
Regarding Friedrich von Stueban...it’s amazing what he did to help the troops, especially while at Valley Forge!
Here's my rebuttal to your Post 12, broken down by Subpoint:
1) Stop being a douchebag.
2) The Hughes SCOTUS Court was NOT talking about the Constitutional definition of “natural-born Citizen” as it pertains to the President and CinC. NO OTHER OFFICE IN THE LAND as specified in the Constitution or elsewhere has the UNIQUE “natural-born Citizen” requirement in Art II, § 1, Clause 5. Deconstruction of the Constitutional definition of “natural-born Citizen” was NOT the charge of the Hughes Court in Perkins v. Elg (1939), and you know it.
3) The Hughes Court gave us all kinds of crappy rulings, INCLUDING the poorly-written US v. Heller (1939) opinion ... which gave us nearly 70 years of bad Local, State and Federal laws relating to "to keep and bear arms", until it was overturned by the DC v. Heller opinion (2008).
4) As Minor v. Happersett (1874) CLEARLY instructs: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
I am still amazed, and a little saddened, that the author of the decision in Perkins v. Elg, Charles Evans Hughes, confirmed Vattel in 1936, but ran for president in 1916, after resigning as an associate justice. He was appointed chief justice by Harding, even after the publicized opinion by future Sec of State Breckenridge Long that he, Hughes, was clearly ineligible having been born of a British father.
A justice and chief justice of the supreme court must have known he was ineligible, and risked becoming a usurper.
We are doing our parts here to share the results of our efforts to find the truth. The problem now is a marketing and sales problem. “Conservative” media have succombed to the name calling, and perhaps also to the threat of legal retribution (thinking of the ethics charges which appeared when Georgia Congressman politely asked the White House to quel public questions by providing a modicum of information). Free Republic is read by lots who won't admit to it, but not nearly as many as watch Oprah or read tabloids (I'll guess that circulation approaches that of many of the dying “mainstream” newspapers.) WorldNet Daily gets more hits as a rumor mill, and pumps the sensationalist aspects. How do we reach smart, but otherwise too occupied voters to convey the meaning of the framers?”
Apuzzo, Kerchner, and their contributors are often superb, but not likely to be read accept by the left, and by those of us who have become Constitutional legal history fans. I've wondered if a concise tea party tea shirt wouldn't help. It would identify those who are confident of their grasp of the facts both to the Obots and the sincerely puzzled. Those of us who have read know most all the Obot diversions, and, as rsxid just did, will explain them to the less informed. Truth is strength, but comes at the price of having to be prepared. Ridicule requires little preparation, but most adults recognize it. Ridicule can be turned to our advantage as people, hearing an apparent disagreement, will listen more carefully. There is simply no legal doctrine contrary to the affirmations of four chief justices and six or seven associate justices.
The rsxid phrase taken from Leo Donofrio’s site, “How can a British Citizen ...” is a bit long for a tea shirt, but that is the idea. I'm partial to “Born on the soil of citizen parents”, but suspect too few would know what it means. Tea Party Tea Shirts is just one suggestion, one which we could each do for ourselves, but if Free Republic were to offer such shirts, and order them in quantities, I know I would pay a premium price for a shirt with the appropriate message knowing the differential would support FR.
How about a set of Chief Justice Shirts, perhaps including a 14th Amendment Shirt, each one with the Vattel definition? How about an Obama shirt quoting his “I am a Native Born U.S. Citizen” followed by the Wong Kim statement defining their uniqueness? How about the Obama “...born a subject of the British...” quote followed by any of a half dozen quotations about sole allegiance, Waite's for example? Roadside signs are impersonal, and can't explain or argue back. Tea shirts usually have people in them. How about a set of Constitutional Tea Shirts?
“Where’s the Birth Certificate?” is good, but your idea is better. There could be a few varieties of them, with pithy, informative short messages.
The laws of nature(God), which all nations observe alike, being established by a divine providence, remain ever fixed and immutable.
But the laws(laws by men) which every state has enacted, undergo frequent changes, either by the tacit consent of the people, or by a new law being subsequently passed. Justinian.
Natural born citizen cannot be changed or amended it is a natural law.
This changes everything..
Your addition “and born to parents (plural) who are citizens of the United States” is not found in the Constitution. It is your definition. It is not everybody’s.
I suspect the concern over both parents is a very modern concern. Until the early 1900s, women were generally assumed to be the same citizenship as their husband. I seriously doubt anyone at the Constitutional Convention asked themselves, “But what if the mother was an American, and the bigamist father but not legally husband was a foreigner who then abandoned the child and mother both...”
In the latter half of the 20th century, it seems to have been accepted law that NBC included anyone born in the USA. The only controversy was over those born outside the USA.
That may or may not have been the original intent, but the original intent wasn’t written down. Some said one, some said the other. But the SCOTUS had a chance to weigh in before Obama was certified, and they declined. They won’t weigh in now...
That's true, but the law is that the child follows the condition of the parents, with birth on US soil. It doesn't matter how the parents got to be citizens, They do not need to be natural born. If they did, no one woudl be a natural born citizen. The people born before the revolution weren't, and any new immigrants, like my my great grand parents Harrison, or my Great Great Grandparents Kunz, would also not be natural born, and so I would not natural born. But since my great grandfather Kunz was born in the US, he was at least a citizen, and may have been natural born if his parents were naturalized before he was born. Meanwhile, even if my great grandparents Harrison were never naturalized, unlikely though that is, my grandmother Gato, their daughter, was born in the US and was thus a citizen. But bothe my parents were born in the US, and thus at minimum were citizens, and I know my mother was natural born, since I know her parents were both born in the US.
I think you are working under the misunderstanding that to be natural born, your parents must be natural born. Or you just want "those people" not to be natural born. But they are, despite what you might prefer.
I think you mean US. vs Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
But it was indeed a pisser. But the decision wasn't written by Hughes, it was written by Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS, who usually did better work.
If you have a source where he, or "his people" claim he is natural born, post a link to it, or otherwise provide the source.
AFAIK, B.H. Obama Jr. and his people claim he is native born, not natural born. He might be,but they also claim his father was a subject of the UK, and became a citizen of Kenya after that country gained its independence. Thus BHO Jr, even if native born(born in the US), is not natural born(born in the US of parents who were its citizens at the time)
I think you mean US. vs Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Thank you, I stand corrected. Yes, McReynolds wrote it, but it was from the Hughes Court, that was overturned by the Roberts Court in 2008.
By a 8-0 decision declaring that a sawed-off shotgun had no reasonable relation to the terms of the Second Amendment, the unanimous Hughes Court unwittingly set a precedent that denied millions of Americans firearms for DECADES that they had a CONSTITUTIONAL right to have for hunting, recreation and personal protection.
That's pretty messed up.
The Constitution was passed by the Convention in September of 1787, but was not ratified by the required 9 states until June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire ratified it. Followed in 4 days by Virginia and in just over a month by New York. NC and RI were holdouts until Nov. 1789 and May 1790 respectively.
But, the United States Of America, by that name, came into existance in March 1781 when the Articles of Confederation were ratified. (They had been sent out to the states in 1777, but there was other pressing business, plus a few state's legislatures were in hiding, or operating far from their normal venues. From the AofC:
Article I.The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
Although one could argue that the United States came into existence on July 4, 1776, with the passage "in Congress assembled" of the Declaration of Independence, since that document was subtitled "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America"
Here’s my rebuttal to your Post 12, broken down by Subpoint:
1) Stop being a douchebag.
2) The Hughes SCOTUS Court was NOT talking about the Constitutional definition of natural-born Citizen as it pertains to the President and CinC. NO OTHER OFFICE IN THE LAND as specified in the Constitution or elsewhere has the UNIQUE natural-born Citizen requirement in Art II, § 1, Clause 5. Deconstruction of the Constitutional definition of natural-born Citizen was NOT the charge of the Hughes Court in Perkins v. Elg (1939), and you know it.
3) The Hughes Court gave us all kinds of crappy rulings, INCLUDING the poorly-written US v. Heller (1939) opinion ... which gave us nearly 70 years of bad Local, State and Federal laws relating to “to keep and bear arms”, until it was overturned by the DC v. Heller opinion (2008).
4) As Minor v. Happersett (1874) CLEARLY instructs: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”
This Court STANDARD of deducing ANY Constitutional-meaning and definition refers to the texts used by the Framers at the time in 1787. In this case, it would refer to Vattel’s Law of Nations, Blackstone’s Commentaries and perhaps Locke ... NEITHER a 1869 Naturalization Treaty with Sweden, NOR a smattering of various 20th Century Immigration Laws.
If you’re lost on any of these four major arguments, just refer back to Subpoint 1 as it addresses the impetus of your confusion and motivation on this issue.
If you’re lost on any of these facts, I can’t help you.
Chief US District Judge for the District of Columbia Royce Lamberth in rejecting Orly Taitz’s quo warranto suit in “Taitz v Obama:” This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.
—April 14, 2010
Actually, not. But it is different from a Certification of Live Birth, a purported image of which was posted by the Obama campaign organization to the daily KOS and their own website.
It's most likely a forgery, but even taken at face value, it doesn't prove Obama is a natural born citizen. In fact if one assumes that BHO Sr was a subject of the UK, then taking the CoLB at face value proved that BHO is not a natural born citizen. Native born, but not natural born.
That of course assumes the CoLB is legit.
They did not even really declare that. They said "in the abense of any evidence" The Supreme Court hears arguments, it does not take evidence. They sent the case back to the trial court for "futher proceedings".
But by that time, Miller was dead, his co-defendant (in the original case) copped a plea and the original district court judge, who had ruled the law Unconstitutional based on violation of the Second Amendment, gave him probation, which he successfully served and was discharged from. Miller was shot with a .38, but he had fired several rounds from his own .45. Guess he wasn't a very good shot. or more likely faced multiple assailants.
No other additional proceedings were ever held, proceeding where such evidence, and there was plenty, of the usefulness in a militia/military situation of short shotguns could have been introduced. (They are useful in a Naval boarding or anti-boarding role, for cavalry, or in a modern context, vehicle crews. Although that role has been somewhat supplanted by Short stocked Carbines, with what would be illegally short barrels under the National Firearms Act, but in 1939 they had not been. Even the sub-machine gun had not yet really replaced them. Although the WW-II "M3 Grease gun" and the M1 Carbine finally began to do so.
“Natural born citizen cannot be changed or amended it is a natural law.”
The parents..have to be citizens..in order for the child to
Please strike the parents being natural born..that is not what I meant..they have to be citizens..
They could be naturalized... citizens.
When the Founders placed the words natural born citizen..do u agree it is a natural law?
If it is a natural law....how..can man change it?
If man can change natural law..how?
Please bear with me..
Justanian said natural law cannot be changed..it is fixed. Man can only change his laws..
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.