Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Eligibility Hearing in Arizona tomorrow
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/arizona-obama-ballot-challenge-hearing-tomorrow-in-tucson ^ | Feb 22, 2012 | obamaballotchallenge.com

Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt

Please attend hearing if you can.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: arizona; arpaio; certifigate; eligibility; hearing; kerkorian; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-398 next last
To: DiogenesLamp

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.


201 posted on 02/24/2012 1:01:08 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Legal right and wrong is decided in a courtroom. Your interpretation of Waite’s decision has never been validated in a courtroom. It has never been validated anywhere except on birther websites.

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.

202 posted on 02/24/2012 1:01:33 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So if the legislators intentionally or inadvertently violate someone’s Constitutional rights, who do we turn to determine that and to fix it? That’s right - the courts. And what do the courts use in determining their Constitutional remedy? That’s right - past case law and Supreme Court decisions.

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.

203 posted on 02/24/2012 1:04:30 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So the rest of the Supreme Court are closet birthers? Don’t think so.

What on God's green earth are you yammering about?? Who said anything about the SCOTUS being "closet birthers"???

204 posted on 02/24/2012 1:10:07 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
But since their understanding is wrong then you are wrong.

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.

@Harlan1196 asking for another!

205 posted on 02/24/2012 1:10:10 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
We are a common law country.
You never learn...

@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!

206 posted on 02/24/2012 1:19:38 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
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 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.

207 posted on 02/24/2012 1:22:11 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: edge919
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."
208 posted on 02/24/2012 1:24:44 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: edge919
With formatting. Sorry.

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."

209 posted on 02/24/2012 1:29:01 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
All hail Harlan1196! Keeper and dispenser of knowledge of all things legislative
and determiner of that which shall and shall not be believed!

@There is no such thing as Positive law. It is a meaningless legal term.


210 posted on 02/24/2012 1:31:09 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: edge919
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.

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.

211 posted on 02/24/2012 1:31:48 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Sorry, I thought I was replying to Harlan1196.


212 posted on 02/24/2012 1:34:08 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

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.


213 posted on 02/24/2012 1:35:14 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Your crown, sire.

214 posted on 02/24/2012 1:35:14 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
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."

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.

215 posted on 02/24/2012 1:37:48 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

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?


216 posted on 02/24/2012 1:43:07 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
In the NBC issue, the court will use prior Supreme Court decisions to form their decision.
So by way of holding or ruling how is Wong Kim Ark a relevant SCOTUS case on the issue of NBC?

BTW, the dicta in WKA isn't a holding or a ruling so don't even try it.

217 posted on 02/24/2012 1:43:32 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

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.

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.

218 posted on 02/24/2012 1:43:32 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Why did you leave out my subsequent post:
“Because you were right on the positive law.”

I didn't! See #205!

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.

219 posted on 02/24/2012 1:48:25 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The common law is the unwritten law of custom.
He's using common law in the concept of case law or precedent.
220 posted on 02/24/2012 1:54:58 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
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.

Yes, the serious cognitive disconnect is with you because you're quoting the part of the decision that I said was NOT based on legal precedent and you've ignored the part that IS based on legal precedent.

Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v.Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

Do you understand what this says?? It cited Minor as defining natural-born citizen because it admits that only six years after the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court said the Constitution does NOT say what NBC means. IOW, the 14th amendment does NOT defined NBC.

Ankeny makes two errors: A) They claimed that the 14th amendment and NBC were read "in tandem" ... This is false, because the Minor court elaborated extensively on who the original citizens of the United States were BEFORE explaining what NBC means in the Constitution. B) The Ankeny court says the Minor Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. They contradict this point in their footnote by acknowledging that Minor "contemplated scenarios where both parents are citizens and aliens." The court does NOT say the question for children born to two citizen parents is left open. This means the Ankeny court answered the question affirmatively for such children. "All children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" ... These are the natural-born citizens. No question is left open about this. It is a self-limiting and exclusive definition. Minor went on to contemplate children born to alien and alien/citizen parents, which Ankeny inexplicably ignored:

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States ...

- - -
in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]

From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.

Do you see the part underlined above?? This answers the question Ankeny says was left open.

But let's suppose that Ankeny was correct and the question was left open ... was it then answered by Wong Kim Ark?? Ankeny tells us otherwise, by way of footnote, but trys to downplay this inconvenient fact as "immaterial."

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

Do you see the part underlined above?? It shows there is NO legal precedent for Ankeny's conclusion that NBCs can be those born in the territory regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Wong Kim Ark did NOT reach this conclusion nor did they even reach that conclusion for the 14th amendment.

Ankeny's claim that it is "immaterial" is complete and utter horse radish. They said it is irrelevant to all but the 44 former presidents. Well, no, it is relevant to anyone and everyone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution. It is relevant to anyone and everyone who is ruled under that Constitution. It is relevant to anyone and everyone who wants to run for president, and it should be relevant to anyone and everyone who votes for president. The NBC requirement is not there as a favor for those who become president.

And the funny thing is that the plaintiffs didn't even use your interpretation of Minor in their case:

At the time, most people had not read Minor closely nor understood what it meant. But it probably wouldn't have mattered because the Indiana court showed they were being dishonest about the plaintiffs' citations anyway. Did you read what they said?? Obama's own attorney has used factlack dot org as a source for judicial notice. Ankeny pretends in this case it's not good enough for them. They cite the Rocky Mountain News, who wrote a story correcting factlack dot org (because they did a terrible job of researching the issue). Vattel and the Law of Nations are a widely cited by the SCOTUS in decisions from the 1800s up through the 2000s. The citations to various nineteenth century congressional debate was to show the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. Why does Ankeny not admit that's what the citation was??

Then Ankeny says: "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'll stop there for a moment. Those authorities do NOT conflict with the SCOTUS's interpretation of what it means to be a natural-born citizen. Ankeny is simply telling a massive lie here because they already cited the Minor interpretation of NBC and admitted that WKA does NOT give an interpretation of NBC.

We'll continue: "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" ... THIS is the meat of the Ankeny review of NBC. Their interpretation of the legal dicta from WKA does NOT have a precedent behind it. It is nothing more than dicta that WKA ONLY used to give teeth to the 14th amendment. By making a conclusion that is NOT supported by legal precedent, they cannot declare EITHER McCain NOR Obama to be a natural-born citizen ... so they didn't. It's simply not there. So instead, they simply used their errant interpretation of NBC to say they did NOT have to accept the plaintiff's arguments as factual or legal. IOW, they just found a reason to say they didn't like the plaintiff's argument, so they were just going to ignore it.

What has changed since then, is that per Ankeny's suggestion, we recognized that Minor IS the definitive Supreme Court precedent on NBC and that the Minor definition was upheld and affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which explains why that court "did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language." Ankeny unwittingly confirmed the Minor definition of NBC and simply lied their way out of admitting it.

221 posted on 02/24/2012 2:10:08 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH

“Your argument doesn’t fly Mr Rogers.”

Actually, you completely missed the point of the argument. My POINT was that sometimes they used NBC and sometimes they used NBS - which only makes sense if NBC = NBS.

The terms were interchangeable. In the early years, it depended on the whim of the legislature if they said new citizens had rights equal to NBS or NBC.

All of these new citizens were being naturalized, so none of them actually WERE NBCs.


222 posted on 02/24/2012 2:13:01 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: edge919

And where can we find judicial acknowledgement of the “error” in Ankeny? Why that’s right - we can’t. It’s just a bunch of birthers making stuff up again.

Get back to me when you get a real victory in a real court - OK?


223 posted on 02/24/2012 2:24:02 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Same question to you...

So by way of holding or ruling how is Wong Kim Ark a relevant SCOTUS case on the issue of NBC?

BTW, the dicta in WKA isn't a holding or a ruling so don't even try it.

224 posted on 02/24/2012 2:25:14 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Still waiting...

So by way of holding or ruling how is Wong Kim Ark a relevant SCOTUS case on the issue of NBC?

BTW, the dicta in WKA isn't a holding or a ruling so don't even try it.

225 posted on 02/24/2012 2:27:32 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Get back to me when you get a real victory in a real court - OK?

Right. When it's murdering a baby or making Homosexual sex legal, it isn't right until a court says so.

Get back to us when you can think for yourself.

226 posted on 02/24/2012 2:27:45 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Read Ankeny - it explains it to you.

You will be hearing a lot about Ankeny as it is used to slap down birther suits all over the country.

I know you disagree but since you have been consistently wrong on birther litigation I don’t lend your thoughts on the issue much credence.


227 posted on 02/24/2012 2:28:33 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

It is every bit as relevant as the discussion in Minor. More so, since Minor discusses the issue for a couple of sentences, and WKA does for half of the decision.

However, the DICTA in WKA has been highly influential in citizenship cases for over 100 years now. Minor has not, since it was a question on rights of citizens to vote.

And the dissent in WKA recognized the implication that it made WKA a natural born citizen, eligible to be President.

But then, someone who doesn’t know what a ruling is probably can’t handle a discussion on holdings and dicta.


228 posted on 02/24/2012 2:32:54 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Read Ankeny - it explains it to you.

Read Roe v Wade. It is cut from the same cloth. (made up bullshit)

You will be hearing a lot about Ankeny as it is used to slap down birther suits all over the country.

Just as Roe v Wade slaps down anti-abortion suits all over the country. One of these days we need to have a reckoning with the court system.

I know you disagree but since you have been consistently wrong on birther litigation I don’t lend your thoughts on the issue much credence.

Yes, you are not allowed on the field to play, so you must be wrong, and we have Confucius here to explain it to us.

Grow up little child.

229 posted on 02/24/2012 2:33:36 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
It’s just a bunch of birthers making stuff up again.

All hail Harlan1196! Keeper and dispenser of knowledge of all things legislative
and determiner of that which shall and shall not be believed!

@There is no such thing as Positive law. It is a meaningless legal term.

Your crown, sire.


230 posted on 02/24/2012 2:34:32 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Blah, blah, blah...
None of that answers the question.

So by way of holding or ruling how is Wong Kim Ark a relevant SCOTUS case on the issue of NBC?

Read the underlined part and try again.

231 posted on 02/24/2012 2:37:59 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
@United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Show me one single instance of the words "citizen parents" from the syllabus.

232 posted on 02/24/2012 2:41:06 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

And the dissent in WKA recognized the implication that it made WKA a natural born citizen, eligible to be President.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It did no such thing! The case acknowledged that WKA was a citizen but “not” a natural Born Citizen.

By the way what the “H” is NBS........New Bull Chit?


233 posted on 02/24/2012 2:41:46 PM PST by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
@Minor v. Happersett

Show me one single instance of the words "citizen parents" from the syllabus.

234 posted on 02/24/2012 2:42:39 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH
By the way what the “H” is NBS........New Bull Chit?

Natural born subject (NBS)...from English law and dicta in Wong Kim Ark.

235 posted on 02/24/2012 2:44:55 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Harlan1196

I aplogize. The WKA decision IS binding.

“It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political, and social principles used by a court to compose the rationale of a particular judgment. Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis. Certain courts are able to overrule decisions of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction—however out of interests of judicial comity they generally try to follow co-ordinate rationes.

The process of determining the ratio decidendi is a correctly thought analysis of what the court actually decided—essentially, based on the legal points about which the parties in the case actually fought. All other statements about the law in the text of a court opinion—all pronouncements that do not form a part of the court’s rulings on the issues actually decided in that particular case (whether they are correct statements of law or not)—are obiter dicta, and are not rules for which that particular case stands.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi

Thus in Minor, the question was if women had the right to vote:

“And the constitution of the State of Missouri [n2] thus ordains:

“Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.”

Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise.

In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a “male citizen of the United States,” but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote.

The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error.”

She had argued that under the equal protection clause of the 14th, all citizens had the right to vote. But the court said “3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.”

The case of Minor v Happersett was about voting rights. Their comments about NBCs, made in passing, and admitting they made no attempt to resolve the definition, were obiter dicta.

WKA was a citizenship case, and the entire decision is dedicated to the question. Thus, it’s rationale for deciding IS “Ratio decidendi”, or “the rationale for the decision.”

“Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis.”

So yes, the discussion in WKA was a type of dicta that IS binding on subsequent courts. Thank you for helping me to learn something about the law. I thought the actual RULING was binding, but the argument was not. But if the argument is key to the question, then it IS binding.


236 posted on 02/24/2012 2:47:41 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Subject as a term applying to Republican Freemen was not used because of its association with British royalty. Republican Freemen are “NOT” subjects.


237 posted on 02/24/2012 2:50:02 PM PST by W. W. SMITH (Obama is Romney lite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH

“And the dissent in WKA recognized the implication that it made WKA a natural born citizen, eligible to be President.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It did no such thing!”

Ummm....yes it did.

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

It understood the implications of the argument used by the majority, which I now realize IS binding.


238 posted on 02/24/2012 2:50:12 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Obama Eligibility Hearing in Arizona tomorrow, Harlan1196 wrote: And where can we find judicial acknowledgement of the “error” in Ankeny?

God didn't give you a brain to make excuses for what's right there in plain English. What part do you specifically not understand or disagree with?? Notice that the ALJ in Georgia for example, did not cite a legal precedent from Ankeny, but instead said he found their argument to be "persuasive."

239 posted on 02/24/2012 2:51:41 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH

From the birthers favorite case, Minor:

“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”

But as I have shown already, the term ‘natural born subject’ was, for some years after, used interchangeably with NBC.


240 posted on 02/24/2012 2:53:12 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Ummm....yes it did.

Ummm ... no, it did not. What you cited is a based on the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution. The dissent agreed with the majority on how 14th amendment citizens were defined, which would mean Justice Fuller would have to disagree with his own citation of Vattel for defining natural-born citizen. Rogers, as always, it helps to have read the WHOLE decision, not just the parts with the words YOU want to believe in.

Does it bear that construction, or rather is it not the proper construction that all persons born in the United States of parents permanently residing here and susceptible of becoming citizens, and not prevented therefrom by treaty or statute, are citizens, and not otherwise - - - In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens;

The ONLY part of the majority decision that Fuller actually disagreed with is that children of resident aliens could be born citizens when a treaty says otherwise. Otherwise, Fuller bought the rest of Gray's common law citizenship by birth definition for resident aliens under the 14th amendment. He even USED the same term as is bolded above: citizenship by birth.

A treaty couched in those precise terms would not be incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment unless it be held that that amendment has abridged the treaty-making power.

Do you understand Rogers?? Fuller says the 14th amendment does not have the power to abridge treaty-making power. Had there not been a treaty with China preventing its subjects from becoming U.S. citizens, Fuller would have fully (pun intended) agreed with the majority. He STILL made a distinction between such 14th amendment citizenship and natural-born citizenship ... but that, as you know full well (pun intended again), was the same distinction made by the majority opinion when it cited, affirmed and failed to dispute Minor's exclusive definition of NBC: "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizen."

241 posted on 02/24/2012 3:05:28 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/arizona-judge-grants-leave-to-amend-obama-ballot-challenge

I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but what I get from this is that the judge dismissed the case because the plaintiff didn’t properly serve the defendant, BUT the judge is allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint and refile, the refiling fee waived if submitted by March 1.

Can those who read legalese better than I correct me if I’m wrong? Thanks!


242 posted on 02/24/2012 3:11:34 PM PST by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
But as I have shown already, the term ‘natural born subject’ was, for some years after, used interchangeably with NBC.

From ONE state ... as clerical entries ... although it does appear that subjects is applied more frequently to former British residents while citizen tends to apply more often to former residents of other countries ... and in these citations, the terms NBS and NBC are only used in naturalization cases. So are you arguing these people are eligible for president?? If not, then the examples prove absolutely nothing. It certainly has no bearing on why the framers chose the term NBC for the Constitution nor does it make the dicta in WKA "interchangeable" ... sorry, it's simply connecting unconnected dots.

243 posted on 02/24/2012 3:11:34 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The WKA decision IS binding.
I never argued that the decision wasn't binding.

Now to your definition and what you left off, that being the first part...

Ratio decidendi (Latin plural rationes decidendi) is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason" or "the rationale for the decision." The ratio decidendi is "[t]he point in a case which determines the judgment"[1] or "the principle which the case establishes."[2]
In other words, ratio decidendi—legal rule derived from, and consistent with, those parts of legal reasoning within a judgement on which the outcome of the case depends.

So once again you only post that which appears to prove you right.

244 posted on 02/24/2012 3:12:31 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH
I just supplied what it meant as you asked. Redirect your argument to the appropriate party.
245 posted on 02/24/2012 3:14:49 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: HoneysuckleTN

That sounds right, but I see a red flag. The judge was saying that elections have to follow statutory provisions. If there’s not a statutory provision that clearly spells out a requirement for Constitutional eligibility and/or a stautory definition of eligibility, the court may choose to deny the future motion if it gets filed and served properly.


246 posted on 02/24/2012 3:16:43 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Thank you for the clarification.


247 posted on 02/24/2012 3:24:05 PM PST by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

We have a common law legal system. That is by definition a legal system where judges uses case law and precedent when interpreting the law. The principle.behind it is that the same set of facts should be interpreted the same way every time.

All those positive laws are interpreted in light of previous case law.

Why do you think that every Supreme Court ruling is a litany of prior cases?


248 posted on 02/24/2012 4:08:34 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Oh golly. I didn’t copy the ENTIRE article. Just provided a link to the rest. How evil of me...

The citizenship of WKA was the point of the case, and that on which they heard arguments. Unlike Minor, which depended on the question, “Does every citizen have the right to vote?”

What WKA wrote about NBC/NBS was NOT irrelevant to the case, but central. Not that I expect a birther to understand it, since birthers don’t actually READ anything.


249 posted on 02/24/2012 4:24:37 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The citizenship of WKA was the point of the case, and that on which they heard arguments.
Exactly! Now close your own trap.
What was his citizenship based upon? Wasn't it by virtue of the 14th Amendment?
A natural born citizen doesn't need the 14th amendment to be a citizen?
250 posted on 02/24/2012 5:12:20 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351-398 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson