Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
My understanding was that Jeff was posting those Acts to show that sometimes they said "natural born citizen" and sometimes "natural born subjects." I only had to read them to see that--I didn't have to wonder who was being naturalized and why. But when you claim that they're examples of how everyone in the US at the time had to be naturalized, and how the Founders considered themselves to be aliens...well, that seemed like such an extraordinary claim that then I asked who and why. I don't question the verbiage or the existence of the Acts, I question your assertion about what they represent.
That being the case, I see no point in continuing the conversation.
I'm sorry if asking you to back up an assertion you apparently can't support causes you to run away. You have a good evening too.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're getting at. The majority found Ark to be a citizen, based on reasoning that he fit a longstanding criterion for being a natural born citizen. Fuller said that was an unreasonable conclusion because it meant he could be president. Where's the confusion?
I see you’ve asked me more about it. I still don’t understand what you’re getting at. The court did not pronounce Ark eligible for the presidency, and they did not in so many words name him a natural born citizen. That wasn’t the question before them.
BUT the reasoning that lay behind their finding that he was a citizen was that he fit the criterion for natural born citizen, and if he was one of those, he must be a citizen. Fuller realized the implication of that as regards eligibility for the presidency—not necessarily for Ark, but for other people in his circumstances—and brought it up as part of his dissent. Again, where’s the confusion?
BUT, nowhere does he fit the criteria! If he HAD fit the criteria then it would have been ruled so. It WASN'T ruled so and that means the only place he fits the criteria is in the cranial pans of those wishing it WERE so.
I mean...COME ON! You're the presiding SCOTUS judge and you don't find WITH the criteria. Your rulings should confirm the criteria, not contravene the criteria as that ruling did.
Running for POTUS is a privilege, not a right!
“Still, they were married.
“So I still think that IF Obama were born in Kenya, then he would be ineligible.”
A bigamous marriage is a nullity. It does not exist, if challenged. If a credible Kenyan BC were to be authenticated Barry’s legal team would immediately employ “The Bastard Gambit” of claiming his mom was single so no 5-year residency after age 14 applied...along with the Marguet-Pillado dicta and voila he would be eligible as far as the Obots and the 9th Circus are concerned.
Yep. Our hypothetical Jewish citizen is a seventh-generation patriotic American. Never even been outside his home state. Which is Oklahoma.
But he’s Jewish, as we pointed out, so he has the birthright to dual citizenship. US and Israel. Not that he’s ever exercised it.
Now, birthers would tell this man that he’s not eligible. And I think that’s sheer nonsense.
Justia’s Tim Stanley was a member of Obama for America.
Thanks Ray, something I didn’t know. Here is some sad insight into what is becoming of our legal system. Stanley and Center for American Progess’ CIO Eric Malamud, who almost became Director of the US Printing Office, are exposed by a respected law professor, Robert Berring, once the Professor of Legal Informatics for Boalt Hall. The money being spent to proselytize with Soros’ money at all the major law schools is frightening. The issue was the viability of “free on-line legal resouces”, making law more “open.” Of course Prof. Berring almost certainly knew about Stanley’s corruption of many legal cases citing Minor v. Happersett as precedent, and Malamud’s role in getting Cornell to edit ex Parte Lockwood, which cites Minor as precedent. The Professor replies directly to Stanley and Malamud, out hawking their legal activist program “law.gov”, that every one of his students at Berkeley (about half the law students) must compare cases provided by the “free” sites - Stanley’s is the biggist - and the for-fee sites like LexisNexis and Findlaw. With that many students perusing cases, particularly with eligibility a hot issue, some must have found the inconsistencies in the Justia supreme court cases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc-gfFy_Dyo
The law schools are either already on-board, and regard the living Constitution as a source of argumentation that might be useful to a young lawyer, or they are so beholden to the the government, and to the job potentials in the corrupt justice department, not to mention grants, that they simply wouldn’t confront both parties of Congress, who conspired, and the executive who refused to discuss eligibility, since the both had their dog in the race. For many, like those in the media, the power arrayed against them made any discussion of ineligibility political and financial suicide, which most likely accounts for Mark Levin, and Hannity, who works for Obama’s patron, Alwaleed bin-Talal.
Glen Beck was driven from Fox by Soros, and now spouts “crazy birthers” enthusiastically every time he has a chance. From “Question Boldly” to “Crazy Birthers” suggests that his mind was altered by a powerful reality that didn’t include Chief Justice Marshall, or George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson, or our most important abolitionist, Judge Bingham, who sponsored and authored the 14th Amendment.
We now have Muslim Brotherhood allies, some of them, if we accept Sharia Law, Muslims, in the presidency, the director of the CIA, the Secretary of Defense, and State Department (though Hillary had Huma Abiden, whose mother, father, and brother, were/are all Muslim Brotherhood operatives, as Hillary’s closest aide. We have an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holyland trials as Obama’s appointee to the US Human Rights Committee (or a similar tile)
Naw. He wuz born here and as an Okie he has superior rights as a citizen.
Texas have a more elevated status of citizenry.
As we all know, Texas doesn’t fall into the Gulf of Mexico for one simplerre reason:
Oklahoma sucks....
“Two Citizen parents are not required if born on US Soil.”
There is no on-point SCOTUS ruling affirming your opinion, especially not one with the fact pattern that Barry has claimed of having a UK subject father.
SCOTUS declining to hear many cases that have all been dismissed on pre-trial motions all prior to discovery and cross-examination of witnesses and argument regarding precedents like MvH and WKA does not constitute a ruling that “two citizen parents are not required.” The matter simply has never “reached” SCOTUS so they are duty bound to act as though Barry’s is eligible.
That is why I try not to make declarations regarding matters that only SCOTUS can decide, but that haven’t come before them.
The Constitution CLEARLY gives almost all of the authority to the States, to the Electors, to the State Election officers, and to CONGRESS!
Now, if some State refused to put Obama or Cruz on the ballot, then and only then would there be a Federal Court case.
But not until then.
And? The Supreme Court has never said that at least one parent must have brown eyes or blue eyes either, it is not the role of the Court to spell out specifics about things that nearly every normal person understands.
Again, NO legal authority supports to radical birther position.
NOBODY!
And this has been the case since the founding, so no ruling spelling out this matter was really needed.
Citing John Woodman as a “debunker” of Arpaio’s forgery evidence reveals that this alleged FReeper is either a Fogblower or a p*ss-poor investigator who should be ashamed of himself...but I repeat myself!
“Citing John Woodman as a “debunker” of Arpaio’s forgery evidence reveals that this alleged FReeper is either a Fogblower or a p*ss-poor investigator”
He’s both!
You should, as the vast majority of your insults apply very well, to you.
The vast majority of informed conservatives who read this thread will not think that you are very smart, or a very good person either, for that matter.
“How does the divorce of SADO and BHO SR figure in to this?”
If a bigamous marriage is a nullity, then the divorce is a nullity, too! The marriage did not legally exist. The INS FOIA documents show that the INS in 1961 was already suspicious that the marriage was bigamous and fully intended to challenge it themselves if BHO Sr. tried to use the “marriage” to gain a green card.
I believe that Barry’s legal team already shows signs of expecting that Barry will be discovered at some point to have been born in Kenya. The did this by citing the CRO citation of Marguet-Pillado (in Apuzzo’s case in NJ?). Maybe the birth documents referred to in the secret Kenyan gov’t letters that are published in Corsi’s book will turn up (for the right price).
If Barry is shown to have a Kenyan birth, his lawyers will be FIRST to claim he is the bastard child of legally single Stanley Ann and leap to embrace the Marquet-Pillado dicta. The legal roadmap is already there.
“The Constitution CLEARLY gives almost all of the authority to the States, to the Electors, to the State Election officers, and to CONGRESS!”
And yet nearly all anti-birthers point to an interpretation of WKA which they claim supports a conclusion that both Wong and Barry are NBC and POTUS eligible. I can’t remember whether you did.
SCOTUS get to define what the Constition means and Judge Carter said as much in 2009, IIRC. But he said that an eligibility challenge to a candidate must be brought by a party with standing, such as McCain, that is successfully concluded before inauguration. Judge Carter also stated that a Quo Warranto in the DC Circuit could also be filed.
Judge Carter dismissed the case for lack of standing because the plaintiff candidates had no realistic chance of winning, and also the case was not served on Barry until after inauguration. The judge ruled that the quo warranto claim should have been filed in DC Circuit, not the CA Circuit so he lacked jurisdiction on that claim.
So Judge Carter reserved for the courts numerous avenues of attack against Barry’s eligibility outside the electors and congress...all of which were thwarted in 2012 when losing candidates with standing, primarily Romney, once again failed to challenge Barry’s eligibility prior to inauguration.
A quo warranto by Romney in the DC Circuit would have been pointless because it would have had to have been approved by AG Holder, IIRC.
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.