Posted on 01/27/2012 11:03:12 AM PST by Danae
The man of the night at the Jan. 26 University of North Florida Republican debate wasn’t Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul – in fact, he wasn’t even on stage.
Some might say it was Sen. Marco Rubio.
Rubio was favored by three of the four candidates as a Hispanic pick for their administrations – with frontrunner Gingrich hinting that he might pick Rubio as his vice president.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Yup.
“The framers DELIBERATELY rejected English Common law...there IS NO US Common law”
You are showing your ignorance here.
Apparently you are looking in a mirror.
There IS no US common law, and the framers deliberately chose NOT to follow English Common Law on many fronts. Instead they went in a whole new direction with the Constitution.
You’re just wrong. Bruce campbell’s chin, in an earlier post, described the situation exactly correctly.
There is no us common law? What color is the sky on your planet?
Ok, you show us nubs where the “U.S. Common Law” is. Give us a Library of Congress Index number.
A library of congress index number? Huh?
Well, there’s your problem. Common law is judge made law. There is no written statute. The common law exists in the reported decisions of courts. US tort law, for instance, is common law. There isn’t a statute or law that says what negligence is, for example. It is judge made. It is the common law.
“Why then did the Framers of the Constitution reject Alexander Hamiliton’s proposed presidential eligibility language of “born a Citizen” for John Jay’s stricter “natural born Citizen”?”
I’ve seen this posted form time to time and unfortunately it is not historically accurate.
On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a draft plan for a Constitution. It did not have a clause about “born a citizen”. It did have a executive position call a Governour, who would serve a life term.
“IV. The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behaviour” June 18, 1787, Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention by James Madison.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp
Towards the end of the Convention, Hamilton gave Madison a copy of a draft constitution that contained the Presidential eligibility clause,
“Copy of a paper Communicated to J. M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.”
[skip]
“Article IX”
“§. I. No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Max Farrand, The Record of the Federal Convention of 1787.
The Framers never saw Hamilton’s draft constitution.
Where are those citations you claim TO? If you can’t point to a volume, or index number, then it doesn’t exist. “The Common Law of the United States” does not exist. Do you know why???
Because English Common law holds as its ultimate source of legitimacy - Christ, the Son of God - the King is his representative - his hand on earth. Anyone NOT a Christian in the eyes of the “Common Law” was a heretic and an enemy of the State.
When the United States was formed, and the 1st Amendment enacted, it was an anathema to English Common Law because Christ is NOT the source of authority in the USA. LAW as it is enacted in the Constitution, and the Amendments TO it, is the source. Are there traceable links to English common law, yes. Ultimately it is the constitution as it was written which is the ultimate arbiter in the USA, NOT English Common Law, or Russian Law or French Law. Do we refer to them for CONTEXT, yes. Does that make it binding? HELL NO, it is a historical reference with NO BINDING AUTHORITY because US Law recognizes only itself and IT’S source, the constitution. Only United States Law is binding, and it is NOT English Common Law.
Are you your great great grandmother? No, but you may carry some traits she had. There is a difference even a child can see, you are not your great great grandmother, but you are related to her.
For example, the joining of the Scottish and English Thrones threw the laws of the newly joined nations under one sovereign into confusion, requiring Calvin’s Case to resolve it. Altering English Common Law. The COMMON laws between the “nations” which made up ‘England’ over centuries created a common law between them as territory was incorporated with it’s laws and was unincorporated over time. The “Common Law” was what was common between them and it evolved over time. The United States has no Common Law, because our laws were enacted through the Constitution all AT ONCE. The United States did not EVOLVE over time, it was deliberately CREATED in a single act.
This is why there IS NO U.S. Common law, and you cannot find any tome in the Library of Congress which is the “U.S. Common Law”. It does not exist. There is only the constitution, the Amendments to it, and the laws that have been created through actions of the courts.
Hi Danae,
“Anyone NOT a Christian in the eyes of the “Common Law” was a heretic and an enemy of the State.”
I understand that you are taking this from the Calvin’s Case.
But there is a footnote in the 1826 edition of Reports of Sir Lord Coke that indicates that passage from the Calvin’s Case is an error.
“(1) The position in the text seems to have been a common error founded on a groundless opinion of Justice Brooke, Anon. 1 Salk. 46, and has long since been exploded, Omichund v. Barker, 1 Atk. 21, S.C. 1 Wils 84, S.C. Willes’s Rep. 538”
It is on page 29 of the Reports on the Calvin’s Case.
Fortunately for my sons, and Marco Rubio, the birther dog is nothing more than a neutered chihuahua, yapping at heels, whimpering that someone, anyone, would listen to the crackpot nonsense he's feebly yelping.
Guess we know where you stand on the constitution.
Be well.
No, it goes wait further back than that. Try 1200 or earlier. Some ancient vestiges are said to come from the 600’s. It got the came common because it was common over time. For example... I am reading an account of Catherine the Great Empress of Russia... the laws of Russia then were decrees issued by the sovereign (this is in the 1700’s) and implemented by the ‘senate’, though the senate also seemed to do as it willed on the side. However, that law either built upon earlier law, or abolished it, perhaps seconded it... but it was common to Russia. Catherine, being enlightened by Voltaire and many others instituted changes which would eventually lead to her great grandson ending the practice of serfdom just a few years before the United States did. But that process took generations or evolving and sometimes devolving law to come about. In Russia of that time, the law was the sovereign, and that bears striking similarity to the English. America was founded on the principles of enlightenment which so captured Catherine and changed Russian history until the Bolshevik Revolution.
The actual Constitution, I'll stand behind it 100%.
The made-up birther one? Not so much.
Ummm hummm. Apparently you have not recognized the difference between what you have been taught and what actually IS. It is time to recognize the earth is not flat Drew.
The vice-president must be qualified to serve as president. Rubio, having been born in the United States in 1971, is natural born and over 35. Thus, he qualifies.
He's said he doesn't want the job. We'll just have to see how he looks after the dust settles.
You are taking that out of context. Try reading the whole thing. To paraphrase, that deciction states that there is a theory that people born here to non-citizens are not natural born, but specifically states that it was not necesarry to rule on that issue in that case. Courts generally do not rule on issues in cases if they have a simpler way to settle it. In that case, they decided that since the plainriff as clearly a citizen, and that was all they needed to know, they didn’t have to decide deal with it.
In the common sense use of the language, anyone born a citizen is natural born, in that they don’t need to be “naturalized”. There are no precendents creating a third kind of citizen. That’s why all the birther lawsuits ultimately go nowhere.
I’m with you Danae.
I’ve posted about that repeatedly. It shocks me that nobody in the media has picked up on it except to mock it as more “birther nonsense” or to say, like Bill the Shill O’Reilly, that there is “nothing to it.”
I won’t vote for a ticket with Rubio on it eithr even though I was all in for Rubio from thestart vs. Charlie Crist.
Besides, if Rubio or Jindal were chosen for VP spot, the Dems would shred them just as they started to do with McCain (until Obama was exposed to have even shakier eligibility). I can hear the screams of “’birther’ hypocrites” and such already.
Besides, I can’t stand the thought of stooping to the Democrats’ and Obama’s level.
“Here we go again...”
And whose fault is that?
“Florida has many Cubans to choose from”
Sadly, most are of the RINO variety.
Yeah, let’s stoop to the Dems’ gutter level.
That’s just what we need.
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.