Posted on 12/05/2008 8:35:50 PM PST by JGA2Z
Even if you are correct, the analysis must start with what the framers intended by and how they understood the phrase “natural born citizen.”
They certainly accepted the notion that some things were determined by “nature” and not solely by man-made laws.
Have you not heard of their recognition of “inalienable rights”? How would those rights be “inalienable” if they were made by man and, therefore, subject to the whims of man over time?
You are exactly right. Especially at the SCOTUS, a denial of cert. doesn’t mean there is no “there” there. It may simply mean the case doesn’t meet the various standards for review.
Here, the SCOTUS might have the option of returning the case to the lower court in NJ and directing them to interpret the NJ statute and find facts on whether the SOS complied with it. This possibly would provide the SCOTUS with a decision amenable to review.
There is a ton of precedent. The question will be how any reviewing court would assess its relevance to this specific fact pattern.
That said, this is exactly why I am okay with jawboning about the law, but not okay (for me personally) with proclaiming any conclusion on this case. There are so many potential legal issues, never mind the incredibly convoluted factual issues should any court determine it was necessary to do more than review the regularity of a birth certificate.
“Have you not heard of their recognition of ‘inalienable rights’? How would those rights be ‘inalienable’ if they were made by man and, therefore, subject to the whims of man over time?”
I have heard of that phrase. Of course, it’s from the Declaration of Independence, a document without any current legal significance. There is, as you say, a transience to human affairs. Men live, men die, and new men take their place. Rights that we as Americans hold by virtue of common consent, traditional morality, or the Constitution, are, in fact, alienable.
That is, we are able, through the power of our government, to force people to surrender rights that they previously held dear. We do so pretty much every time our various legislatures meet. We also do so by amending the Constitution from time to time. Is there something terribly unjust about this? Maybe not terribly, but I’d say there is plenty room for injustice.
However, I certainly don’t hear the voice of God in my ear. Neither did the Founders, I suspect. Many of them probably felt they had a God-given right to to their property, including their slaves. They, or rather their descendants, had their property rights alienated by an amendment to the Constitution, didn’t they?
I submit that there is no possible way to run a real-world government without subjecting men to the whims of other men. The best we can do is protect our most cherished rights with all the strength we can muster, meanwhile making it as difficult as possible for any particular interest to gain control of power. And actually, that’s why our Founders were smart enough to install federalism, checks and balances, a written Constitution, and an amendment process. Why would they bother if evryone knew what their rights were and those rights were untouchable?
“Even if you are correct, the analysis must start with what the framers intended by and how they understood the phrase ‘natural born citizen.’”
Well, we can start there, but I doubt we’ll get very far, since the Constitution doesn’t at all define the phrase. I (and the dictionary) have never known “natural born” to mean anything more than “citizen since birth.” If the 14th amendment sets the standard for who is a citizen at birth, then I’m confident in saying those people are elligible for the presidency.
“They certainly accepted the notion that some things were determined by ‘nature’ and not solely by man-made laws.”
There were more lawyers than preachers designing our nation. When it came to defining a person’s legal status, as is the case with citizenship (for what is citizenship but legal status?). I doubt that if the issue had come up back then that they would have put their ears to nature, or whatever it is you do to transcend the realm of men, instead of burying their heads in the law.
Yes, I believe it. I do not think that Obama initially expected to win this time around. I think that he sought name recognition and figured to take it next time around. I also think that he has had people behind the scenes working out how to best get an amendment such that he could legally run. That being said, when things took a rather positive turn, then we began hearing rumors of riots and racism if he was not elected or could not hold office. If, and I stress "if", he is found ineligible, this is his fault and the fault of those who should have vetted him and the people who backed him will likely be a angry that they were duped and intentionally mislead. I'd also guess that they'll be angry with the democrats who should have vetted their candidate thoroughly.
It occurs to me that the Republicans have intentionally downplayed this until everything was in place and until there could be no doubt as to what was legal. There is no point stirring things up until you can be sure that you have the legal backing for your argument. Doing so only creates anger with Obama's supporters and lets your opponents know what you're doing. Let them believe that you are buying their argument, then lay it all out when the time is right. One decisive, absolutely inarguably legal move takes down their house of cards.
It is also critical for Obama's supporters to place the blame where it belongs--on Obama and the democrats who did not do their jobs properly. This thing is big enough to essentially take down the current leadership of the democrat party, something greatly to be desired.
Speaking of the Law, here's a nice little legal tangle:
Obama's birth certificate undoubtedly has his name as 'Barry Sorento', as 'Barack Hussien Obama' is a name he adopted while in college.
That being the case, Barack Obama can NEVER preoduce a viable birth certificate, because Barack Obama was never BORN......he was created.
And Barry Sorento never ran for office.
Educate yourself, my FRiend.
P.S. Hint: natural law is not about “preachers.”
“Hint: natural law is not about ‘preachers.’”
From the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”
I think we would both agree this is the highest expression of natural right theory in the American cannon. Certainly, it’s our most quotable expression of natural right theory. Where does it say our unalienable [sic] rights come from? They come from our “Creator.” What is another name for the Creator? God. What do preachers spend their time blabbering about? That’s right, God.
Citizenship is all about the law, not politico-theological philosophy.
Now who’s educated?
But utter nonsense
Suit yourself!
“Suit yourself!”
All kidding aside, what do you mean by that? Do you not agree that natural right theory, or in the very least American natural right theory, is based on belief in God?
Learn to read. That’s why you’re dumb. You read a whole bunch of crap into my statement that was never said, nor that I believe. You read something with hair-trigger filters and think there’s something there that isn’t, and you just fire away.
Suppose that Barack Obama got through the primary before anyone found out he was ineligible. It's unclear anyone would have any legal basis for accessing his records prior to that. Do you think a government official who found out Barack Obama would want on his head the firestorm that would result from his disqualification? Or do you think he'd hope the issue could get resolved some other way?
In poker, it's perfectly rational to make a large bet with a bad hand if one doesn't expect to get called. Same here. That's why I've been arguing from the perspective not that Obama needs to be disqualified, but that he needs to release the records to clear things up. People who wouldn't be willing to have Obama disqualified even if he were ineligible might be willing to go on record as demanding that he produce records which they would expect he can produce.
Of course natural law encompasses a belief in God, for those who choose to see it through that lens. But it is not “God’s law,” nor does it need “preachers” to expound upon it.
When two robins mate, they produce robins. When two Americans mate, they produce Americans.
That is the “nature” of things, pure and simple. One could say that is the “law of nature.”
No one needs a preacher (or a lawyer, for that matter) to reveal that robins birth robins and Americans birth Americans.
That is all.
Everything beyond that is made up by man and, thus, is not by operation of nature, but by operation of law.
By all means give us your superior wisdom on the definition of “natural born citizen.” Having opened your pie hole I’m sure you have one. Right?
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.