Your crown, sire.
Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
Please attend hearing if you can.
There is a fundamental difference you keep ignoring.
We know that there are justices that oppose Rowe v Wade. We know that there are prestigious conservative legal organizations that oppose Rowe v Wade. We know that there are conservative politicians that embrace opposition to Rowe v Wade and make its repeals a major campaign issue.
Now - we know of no justices that think Obama is not eligible. We know of no prestigious conservative legal organizations that have publicly stated that Obama is not eligible. And in the middle of a presidential primary, there is not a single conservative politician willing to embrace birtherism.
So your Rowe v Wade analogy does not hold water.
Ankney is a "birther website"?? It says the interpretation of Waite's decision is correct because it points out the question of whether children born in the country to TWO citizen parents are natural-born citizens was answered in the affirmative. Such a question for the children of aliens, Ankeny posits, was NOT answered by Minor (which isn't true), so they cite Wong Kim Ark for dicta to create an answer that Ark didn't actually provide, which they admit by way of footnote. But then, Ankeny never declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen, nor did they even declare Obama to be born in the United States, so they covered themselves legally only by saying they made a conclusion that had no legal precedent behind it.
I would suggest that the place for the court to look first is the constitution itself, and only examine case law if the decision is not obvious from reading the meaning and intent of the Constitution, but you are probably right. They most likely prefer to do it bass-ackwards.
That a Law created by the legislature must pass constitutional requirements before it can be held to be valid is a given. This principles was established in Marbury v Madison when the court took upon itself the task of judicial review.
Beyond that, ignorance or idiocy is no bar to the creation of a law. I can name off half a dozen wrong headed and stupid laws currently on the books and upheld by courts.
Which means at the end of the day the courts will decide if Obama is an NBC or not.
I doubt it. They have been evading the issue like a Starship engaging in evasive maneuvers. Their shields are up, and reality will not be permitted to impinge upon their hull. All they have to do is refuse to hear any cases, and eventually the Usurper will be out with nary an effort on their part. As I pointed out in Planned Parenthood v Casey, being constitutionally correct is not the courts primary goal.
I suppose running away is a sort of decision.
What on God's green earth are you yammering about?? Who said anything about the SCOTUS being "closet birthers"???
Yeah, I'm going to just give up and follow you since you're such a knowledgeable scholar in all things. NOT!
@There is no such thing as Positive law. It is a meaningless legal term.
That is what you said and what you probably still believe despite @admitting I was right.
@454
You are the one saying "We are a common law country." as if all of our law is common law when it only comprises a part of our system of laws.
You are also the most obtuse person I've ever known who has the audacity to proclaim that "There is no such thing as Positive law." and who continues to do so despite being shown NUMEROUS times that you have no idea what you're talking about.
We are discussing the common law.
I'm discussing your status as the resident village IDIOT!
We know that there are justices that oppose Rowe v Wade. We know that there are prestigious conservative legal organizations that oppose Rowe v Wade. We know that there are conservative politicians that embrace opposition to Rowe v Wade and make its repeals a major campaign issue.
Now - we know of no justices that think Obama is not eligible.
We know no such thing. We have no knowledge of what they are aware of regarding this issue, or what they think. You can surmise what they think in your opinion, but I doubt a single one of them is aware that Hawaii will issue birth certificates to the child of any Hawaiian resident, regardless of where born. I also don't think they've ever considered the possibility that Obama was adopted.
In your mind they may be deciding something after having considered all possible aspects of it, but in my mind, they have yet to even contemplate the subject.
We know of no prestigious conservative legal organizations that have publicly stated that Obama is not eligible.
As the media has done quite a good job mocking and maligning anyone who questions him, it is no surprise that the onslaught of propaganda has subdued some voices. However, there are conservative organizations that publicly state that Illegal immigrants are not entitled to U.S. Citizenship, and their arguments also apply to Obama. (whether they realize it or not.)
And in the middle of a presidential primary, there is not a single conservative politician willing to embrace birtherism.
After Hitler had spread his propaganda, who would claim to be a Jew? Or even defend them?
So your Rowe v Wade analogy does not hold water.
Oh, far better than you realize. You see, the Pro-life argument is the embodiment of the Jus Sanguinus (by the blood) argument, while the Pro-Choice argument is exactly equivalent to the "Jus Soli" (by the soil) argument.
The Pro-life argument is that life (citizenship) is inherent. The Pro-Abortion argument is that birth (on soil) is necessary. (to grant rights of personhood\citizenship)
If you believe that one only becomes a person at birth, the Jus Soli argument is for you. If on the other hand, you believe that a child inherits it's life and it's citizenship from it's parents at the moment of conception, the Jus Sanguinus argument is a better fit.
There is your problem in all its simplicity and glory.
When the judge says:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
And you think it means:
"It says the interpretation of Waite's decision is correct"
Then there is a serious cognitive disconnect going on.
And the funny thing is that the plaintiffs didn't even use your interpretation of Minor in their case:
"The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."
@There is no such thing as Positive law. It is a meaningless legal term.
One court twists what another court says, and we are supposed to be impressed? Modern courts twisting things far away from their original meaning is a basic axiom of conservative thought. You are obviously unfamiliar with it.
Roe v Wade asserts that the 14th amendment (created to grant citizenship for freed slaves, and incorporate the states into defending the bill of rights) somehow asserts that women (who could not even vote or buy property in 1868) have a right to murder their own Children.
What the silly bastards don't realize is that just after the Civil war, all the former Abolitionists turned their attention to outlawing abortion, and successfully eradicated it by 1900. (It was revived by the efforts of a Eugenicist Communist, who was specifically TRYING to kill off Members of the Black race, by convincing them to kill their own children. )
Obviously, the 1868 congress had no intention of making abortion legal, that was just @ssholes on the court imposing their own personal opinions on the rest of us. That it had the slightest thing to do with actual constitutional law is laughable.
Sorry, I thought I was replying to Harlan1196.
Once I was corrected on positive law, I never rejected it.
Positive law is man made law. The common law is the collection of legal case law that was used to interpret that law. Within the common law there is room for such areas as criminal law, civil law, tort law, administrative law, Constitutional law - each area of law uses case law and precedence to answer modern questions.
In the NBC issue, the court will use prior Supreme Court decisions to form their decision. That is how a common law system works - case law and precedence used to resolve legal issues.
Sounds to me like they did it correctly. As I said, it is only the court system that gets things bass-ackwards. The correct way to do it is to start with Original intent and work outward, not to start with what some court said more than 100 years later.
The court decision is merely the opinion of the founders filtered through a group of men who weren't even there.
Why did you leave out my subsequent post:
“Because you were right on the positive law.”
Are you willing to get up in front of everyone and say you have not made a mistake in this forum?
BTW, the dicta in WKA isn't a holding or a ruling so don't even try it.
Positive law is man made law. The common law is the collection of legal case law that was used to interpret that law. Within the common law there is room for such areas as criminal law, civil law, tort law, administrative law, Constitutional law - each area of law uses case law and precedence to answer modern questions.
In the NBC issue, the court will use prior Supreme Court decisions to form their decision. That is how a common law system works - case law and precedence used to resolve legal issues.
And we listen to this guy why? The common law is the unwritten law of custom. Positive law is law created by statue by an act of a legislature. Postive (statutory) law overrides common law. As Scalia has remarked, there is nothing left of the "common law." Everything is statutory now.
That is what you said and what you probably still believe despite @admitting I was right.
Are you willing to get up in front of everyone and say you have not made a mistake in this forum?
I have admitted my mistakes many times over the years when I made them.
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.