Posted on 05/10/2011 9:34:15 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Nothing can be a real cool hand - IF you win with it.
“Since you make no contention of my assertion that he’s liberal I guess I’d go with what you wrote as well to deflect attention away from who the man really is.”
I cited Amar as an eminent constitutional scholar. He is.
“It’s sad that you don’t comprehend that liberal >ahem...spit< ‘scholars’ interpret the Constitution as it suits them, not America.”
Did I miss where you cited a conservative scholar who says that the native-born child of a foreigner is ineligible?
I don’t know that Black’s Law Dictionary is either liberal or conservative. It’s the standard desk reference for terms in American law, and it defines “natural-born citizen” so that native-born citizenship is sufficient. If you don’t like Black’s, please cite your favorite law dictionary that says different.
“BTW, do you have the text of Apuzzo citing Amar’s book so that it can be seen in context? I’d like to see if his book was cited in a positive or negative light. You didn’t mention it so...”
It’s in Apuzzo’s brief in reply to the motion to dismiss Kerchner v. Obama, dated 03 Aug 2009, page 14.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
I think he also cites Amar, similarly, in one of his filings on appeal.
Did I miss where you cited a conservative scholar who says that the native-born child of a foreigner is ineligible?
Why bother? All you'll do is throw Amar up as the "official" repository of knowledge and everybody else isn't qualified.
I don’t know that Black’s Law Dictionary...blah, blah, blah...
What was that quote? Something along the lines of only using Black's in civil law?
Yep, you just keep on using your liberal sources. I'll pass.
Have a nice day.
“BTW, I normally would have replied Lawrence C. Sellin, Ph.D..
http://gsbs.umdnj.edu/alumni/sellin2006.html
However, given the tendencies you’ve exhibited so far all you’ll do is come back and say he is only a conservative scholar and that he isn’t a ‘constitutional’ scholar so his views don’t count.”
So your answer is ‘no’, you cannot cite even one constitutional scholar who says that the native-born child of a foreigner is ineligible.
Just as I figured. You changed the goal post.
“Just as I figured. You changed the goal post.”
You tell not the truth. I asked from the start, “I would like to hear any living ‘constitutional scholars’ say #1 or #2.” The numbers were on the claims that eligibility required one or both parents to be citizens. Instead of moaning about liberals and what an awful troll I am, why not just answer that simple request?
Then we have your question to me at...Did I miss where you cited a conservative scholar who says that the native-born child of a foreigner is ineligible?
You changed your question to me later.
You tell not the truth.
Yep, you changed the goal posts just as I predicted. You can't change that.
Bang your drum all you want. I'm done.
While RINOs will never let repbulicans rally behind justice [remember Sandy Bergar?], this issue will never die. BO did too little too late to diffuse suspicion.
American Jackpot: The Remaking of America by Birthright Citizenship
Testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary October 5, 2004
Mr Dowdy reports on the meaning of Natural Born June 14, 1967
Mr. George Romney, present Governor of the State of Michigan, has been frequently mentioned in recent news media as a prospective candidate for the Office of President of the United States. In 1968. According to “Who’s Who” he was born In Chihuahua, Mexico, on July 8, 1907. A question exists whether he would be eligible to be inaugurated, If he should be elected to the Presidency because of a specific requirement of the Constitution of the United States that the President be “a natural born citizen”. The answer to this question should be found In advance of the party nominating conventions, not only In respect to his ability to serve If elected, but also because of the effect that the existence of such question would have on the outcome of an election, If he became the nominee of a party.
“Then we have your question to me at...Did I miss where you cited a conservative scholar who says that the native-born child of a foreigner is ineligible?
You changed your question to me later.”
The answer to that question was “no”. I had not missed you citing a conservative scholar saying that. You cannot cite even one constitutional scholar who who says that the native-born child of a foreigner is ineligible. Why is that?
Oh, and by “eligible” I mean for the presidency of the United States. I shouldn’t have to point out that kind of thing, but your case, obviously I do. Don’t go citing something about eligibility for governor or something by a scholar of a completely different subject and pretending it’s somehow relevant.
“Bang your drum all you want. I’m done.”
Hahahaha... Then you posted two more times before I replied.
“How about we turn your little game of ‘Gotcha’ around and play it on you!
What conservative constitutional scholar, besides Theodore Olson (whose ‘conservatism’ seems questionable lately), has been asked to write or comment on the issue of natural born citizenship?”
See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2686108/posts?page=1
Have you stopped to consider why it is that you can only find liberal constitutional scholars who back your position?
Loud declarations from one side and silence from the other...where has America seen this before? Maybe they're operating under the "create a consensus" mind set like that used in globull warming. Weren't we told that all scientist agreed that global warming was man made only to have that lie blow up in the faces of such proponents when the truth came out.
You have too much faith in liberals being honest brokers for me.
“Have you stopped to consider why it is that you can only find liberal constitutional scholars who back your position?”
It’s because in your fantasy world you get to make up stuff like that. I just posted a link to an FR article, where Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact put this question to two law professors, one of them a “senior legal fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation”.
“Loud declarations from one side and silence from the other...where has America seen this before?”
No, the reality is that in our time no one argued that the native-born child of a foreigner was ineligible until Leo Donofrio wanted to argue that Obama cannot be president. No one was saying Black’s Law Dictionary was wrong to define ‘natural-born citizen’ so that native birth was sufficient.
On 5 Oct 2004, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” There’s no record of anyone disagreeing Senator Orrin Hatch until late in 2008.
The closest thing to a constitutional scholar who takes your side is probably Herb Titus, former dean of Pat Robertson’s Regent University. Thing is, he doesn’t seem to have said anything about it on principle. It’s just more Obama denial.
...one of them a “senior legal fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation”.
From the article...Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Hatfield’s bill contains a dual-citizenship ban that does not exist in the Constitution.
Hans doesn't seem to be addressing "the question" at all.
It’s because in your fantasy world you get to make up stuff like that.
Oh, that's so cute! Did you come up with that or did you borrow it from "local attorney and anti-birther blogger Loren Collins"?
This is pure birther fantasy...
No, the reality is that in our time no one argued that the native-born child of a foreigner was ineligible until Leo Donofrio wanted to argue that Obama cannot be president.
Define "in our time". And how could anything have been "argued" when none of the cases have been allowed to go forward? Filing briefs isn't arguing a case, is it?
On 5 Oct 2004, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” There’s no record of anyone disagreeing Senator Orrin Hatch until late in 2008.
So friggin' what! Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) believes we planted a flag on MARS! Is she right just because she's a politician?
Snicker. The whole paragraph from Hatch, in his own words..."Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans" October 5, 2004
What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen. (here's what you didn't put up...But a child who is adopted from a foreign country to American parents in the United States is not eligible for the presidency. That does not seem fair or right to me.
Has Hatch opined lately on the issue or has he kept his yap shut since he couldn't pave the way for Aaaahnold to run for POTUS?
WOW! You're a sneaky one, aren't you.
If you look at this page...“Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans” you'll see in the right hand column those who gave testimony and which members of the Senate Judiciary Committee submitted statements. Hatch didn't "say" anything.
Our time is not mysterious; it's the time we've been alive. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark settled the question in 1898. In 1916 Breckinridge Long argued that Charles Evans Hughes was ineligible for the presidency, holding that Hughes' citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing when Hughes was born, which was prior to the 14'th Amendment. No one born before the 14'th Amendment is still around.No, the reality is that in our time no one argued that the native-born child of a foreigner was ineligible until Leo Donofrio wanted to argue that Obama cannot be president.Define "in our time".
And how could anything have been "argued" when none of the cases have been allowed to go forward?Legal scholars argue in the literature of the field. In our time, the doubts about presidential eligibility have concerned those born on foreign soil who received citizenship upon birth. The eligibility of the native born was clear and settled. See: Jill A. Pryor, “The Natural-Born Citizen Clause”, 97 Yale L.J. 881, 896, n.85 (1988); and Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma”, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968).
First, if someone disagreed, why did they wait until Barack Obama ran for president to say so? Second, you are totally to characterize the eligibility of the native-born as a liberal position.On 5 Oct 2004, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” There’s no record of anyone disagreeing Senator Orrin Hatch until late in 2008.So friggin' what!
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) believes we planted a flag on MARS! Is she right just because she's a politician?If that's what she had said, she'd be correct. The Viking 1 lander carried a U.S. flag to the surface of Mars in 1976. The story is that she though Neil Armstrong put the flag there in 1969, and her error seems to have been caught immediately.
Who said Senator Hatch was wrong, before they needed reasons why Obama cannot be president? Who said the definition of "natural-born citizen" in Black's Law Dictionary was wrong? Who rebutted the claims in the peer-reviewed literature of the field that the eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled?
I’ll not bother you any more Mr. I Believe Liberals. You’ve said more than enough already.
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.