Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
“No, I’ve proven it in writing ... again, several times ... “
__
I read Ha Ha’s comment to mean not that you hadn’t committed it to writing, but rather that it is considered to be proof “only in your mind.”
Isn’t it a fact that, since the time Obama’s eligibility was first questioned, there hasn’t been a single judge or recognized Constitutional scholar who has voiced a similar opinion?
No, actually it’s not. The judges in Ankeny v. Indiana said that Minor defined NBC. They opined that there was phantom guidance to go further than this, but they never could support it with actual legal precedence. That court also admitted that the SCOTUS said that the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizenship.
Yes, that's what I meant. I'm not sure the concept of "proof" even applies in the case of interpretation of SCOTUS decisions.
“No, actually it’s not.”
__
Well, I beg to differ, and I would be happy to cite the dozens of cases that have ruled otherwise. Here’s how the list begins:
“Every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible to serve as President. See, e.g., Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that Obama is a ”natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012); Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“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”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010); Fair v. Obama, No. 06C12060692 (Md. Carroll Cty. Cir. Ct., Aug. 27, 2012 (relying on Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark to hold that Obama is a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as President); Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Farrar et al v. Obama et al., No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14, 2012), appeal denied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012).”
And that’s just the beginning. I’d be happy to post the rest if you’d like.
Not a single one has reached the conclusion that Obama is ineligible. Not a single member of either chamber of the Congress has filed an objection to the vote of the Electoral College in either of the last two Presidential elections.
I know that you find your arguments to be completely persuasive, and you expect others to be persuaded as well. But until you can demonstrate that others have in fact been persuaded, you are making Ha Ha’s point and mine: Your arguments constitute “proof” only in your own mind, and not in anyone else’s, certainly not those with the qualifications and legal authority to pass such judgments, which to date have been unanimously opposed to yours.
Most of the cases ruled on procedural grounds ... and officially that's all the Ankeny court ruled on too. They didn't have any real legal support for their assumption that natural-born citizens are those born in the country regardless of the parents' citizenship so they ended up saying that they found enough disagreement in a Supreme Court ruling to justify that they didn't have to accept the plaintiffs' argument as true. They never declared Obama or ANYONE to be a natural-born citizen. Any subsequent court that cites this decision on the basis of such a precedent is doing so dishonestly.
Here’s how the list begins:
And of course, you found one that dishonestly cites the Ankeny decision.
And that’s just the beginning. I’d be happy to post the rest if you’d like.
Go for it, but do so understanding that quantity does not equal quality. None of those courts or decisions outweighs the unanimous Supreme Court decision in the Minor case that exclusively defined NBC as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens."
I know that you find your arguments to be completely persuasive, and you expect others to be persuaded as well.
The SCOTUS citations speak for themselves for those persons who are honest enough to read them and admit what is being said.
Your arguments constitute “proof” only in your own mind, and not in anyone else’s, certainly not those with the qualifications and legal authority to pass such judgments, which to date have been unanimously opposed to yours.
Sorry, but this is simply false. The Ankeny decision admitted that Minor defined NBC and that the same court said that the 14th amendment does NOT define NBC. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
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.
By footnote, the Ankeny decision notes this is a positive declaration for how NBC is defined, although they added an assumption that isn't supported by the context of the decision.
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
12. Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
By claiming the Minor court left the issue open on persons born of alien parents, the Ankeny court admitted that NBC was officially defined as those born to citizen parents ... BUT the Minor court did NOT leave the issue open for anyone else. They considered EVERY known way that someone could become a citizen and under their review, Obama would not be a U.S. citizen because his father never naturalized.
Next the court shows that the Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed that the Minor decision was about citizenship:
The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.”
Now, principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution, as expressed in Minor, was a verbatim match of Vattel's definition from Law of Nations, which the Ankeny court tried to downplay as "an eighteenth century treatise" ignoring that Law of Nations is widely and regularly cited with authority by the higher court. But the bottom line is that Ankeny admits it has no precedent for declaring ANYONE to be a natural-born citizen who is not born in the country to citizen parents:
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 ...
The court could NOT declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen because they affirmed Minor's definition of NBC as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Wong Kim Ark was NOT born in the country to citizen parents, thus he could NOT be declared to be a natural-born citizen, and under REAL Supreme Court guidance, neither can Obama nor anyone else who is not born to citizen parents.
Sorry, but this excessive babbling is nothing more than a baseless denial. I just showed where Ankeny admitted the points I've brought up, and all you have are character attacks.
In your mind, your case is proved. In their minds, it is not. It is therefore undeniable that you have proven your case only in your own mind.
Until you can show where it's wrong, my points stand. That's how a debate works. And as you probably already know, the points I've brought up were taken before a panel that was unable to refute the points of law.
I didn't say they "support" my conclusion; I said they ADMITTED the points that I've brought up. And by footnote, they admitted there was no actual legal precedent for the "guidance" they claimed to have divined from the Wong Kim Ark decision. It's part of the reason that decision never declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Any decision that does so on the basis of Ankeny does so because of unsupported dicta and NOT an actual legal precedent.
And until you can demonstrate that someone in authority has agreed that Obama is not eligible to be President, your points stand only in your own mind.
The Supreme Court AGREED UNANIMOUSLY that NBC = "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." No lower court decision trumps this. And there's been NO concensus even among the lower courts because they don't use consistent reasoning to dismiss the lawsuits. Ankeny admitted what I've talked about and I've given those citations. Just because they weaseled out of the decision on procedural grounds doesn't change the fact that they could NOT declare Obama to be eligible for office.
One area where liberals cannot help but give themselves away is the judiciary. Conservatives gave up on the judiciary ages ago. We watched as liberals infested it, took it over, and used it to advance liberalism and undermine conservatism at every turn. We long ago realized the black robed bullies are not our friends—and they are the mirror opposite of objective. They are mostly liberals, sprinkled w a few (a VERY few) less-liberal but not actually conservative rarities.
Liberals have no similar cynicism toward the judiciary. To them it is a source of truth and authority. Otherwise, why cite it as somehow definitive or even pertinent in matters of the Constitution and other issues? Iow, when you come across someone who cites judges as a type of objective authority, you know you are dealing w a liberal.
The most amazing part being they have no idea what they are doing. I.e.: it genuinely never occurs to them to connect the dots between liberals in black robes and liberal decisions. They believe the game is on the level, and incredibly, they expect conservatives to believe it too.
Here’s a good analogy. In every crucial football game, the umpires, who are unabashedly fans of one of the two teams, make every call in favor of ‘their’ team. Their team wins. When it does, their fans go wild and stomp around in a wild victory dance, telling everyone how great their team is. They are not sharp enough to correlate the biased umping w their victory, nor are they aware that everyone else can see the bias plainly. So they prance around looking really stupid, and never once suspect that’s what they’re doing.
Likewise liberals citing the judiciary. What they are actually highlighting is the fact that liberals decide cases in favor of liberals. Yet the leftist cheerleaders of the judiciary think that is ‘justice’ as its finest, and sincerely can’t understand why conservatives don’t agree.
At least their myopia tells us something: it tells us they are true blue libs. Fwiw, it’s something.
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.