| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/24/2008 2:47:48 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked - civility suffering here. Personal attacks, calling people names, insulting them just isn’t nice - and it can easily result in being banned - just a word to the wise. |
Posted on 12/23/2008 12:42:44 PM PST by BP2
If Berg or Leo had a case, it would have gone before the full court.
And I am sure you can provide a source for that tidbit on information.
Can we see it?
I'm not here for your approval.
"you have, for whatever reason, opted to side with expediency"
Hmmm. Rule of Law = expediency. Didn't know that. Thanks.
"rather than republican (small case “r” intended) ideals and historical precedent."
What republican ideals have I violated? What historical precedent are you referring to? Citation, please.
"I’m all out of cookies, if that’s what you’re looking for. Your contentions are rubbish and lend themselves to a quicker decline of our nation."
Could you please be a little more specific? As in something that isn't just another personal attack.
"Get your buddies to congratulate you (with plenty of non-sexual “backrubs”), for I will not. Did I mention you’re a huge RINO *ssclown?"
Let's see, I count three more ad hominem attacks and zero more facts. And absolutely nothing specific to my political views, which you apparently abhor. So, what's your point?
So therefore, since no one's birth certificate states that they are natural born citizens, that must mean that none of us are natural born citizens.
“If the Berg Case ever goes before the SCOTUS, which it will not, Obama will claim protection under the Equal Protection Clause in that he is being held to a higher scrutiny than previous presidents. He would likely win.”
WOW, you just admitted that he doesn’t meet the criteria!
Something in the way tommy777 worded his statement jiggled a thought in my mind and made me wonder, "Why didn't the founders think themselves to be natural born?" This is now purely "thinking out loud" on my part (too much Christmas stuff going on, too much family crammed into the house, too little time to think clearly and research accurately...), but here it is, anyway:
I have seen in several threads the list of President's and their places of birth and parents information (sorry to whoever provided that - I can't find it right now, but would love to see it again), which indicated that all of our Presidents were born in the America, even those that were born prior to the Constitution and "grandfathered" in. If they were born here, why did they not consider themselves natural born?
The only thing different between them and those born later was their "allegiance" (and that of their parents) to Britain. I think the key to understanding the intention and application of "NBC" can be be found in discovering why they did not confer NBC status on themselves. Just being born in America was not enough for them; why should just being born in America be enough for us?
(Fire away: I'm probably not going to be around for the debate, but I'll be interested to check later to see if any new avenues are found for exploring this whole NBC thing...)
Merry Christmas!!
“If Berg or Leo had a case, it would have gone before the full court.”
They still might. As has been stated many, many times, on the stays were denied and the cases are still active.
Well then why is it that each and every time the question has gone to Conference, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito did not vote to pass it on to the full court?
You are wackier than truthers. This is what I’m saying. You lack original thinking. Stop being a nay sayer and drone
*Just some friendly advice*
That would give you President Biden.
But what EP would he be entitled to? Just because they don't catch some criminals does not mean that they cannot prosecute those they do catch. And, further, just because they didn't prosecute drink driving in the past and don't even catch most of the perpetrators, that does not mean that they cannot prosecute some or all to the full extent of the law. Just because Bill Clinton got a wrist slap for perjury and was not even prosecuted for rape, treason or campaign fraud does not mean that no one legitimately can be prosecuted for such. Equal Protection does not apply to suffering the consequences of criminal acts, including fraud. Just because the police do not pull over every car, and not even the ones that are speeding 'just a little bit,' that does not mean that they can't pull over the ones that do not escape any additional scrutiny as a result of what ever circumstances. EP won't save Obama from the consequences of any fraud he might have engaged in. Being a Rat might, but not EP.
Yes it would, just as the illegal aliens that were banned from Tyler, Texas schools prior to Plyler could go to school after Plyler.
The Equal Protection Clause would preclude the state from establishing two classes of citizens or people.
Well that is an amusing view.
So, why is it the SCOTUS has already reviewed Leo's and Berg's cases in Conference?
I’m the same. They key to understanding “natural born citizen” for purposes of being eligible to serve as President lies in the way the Founding Fathers were “grandfathered in”. You can see the distinction right there,
The FF were born British same as Obama (Kenyan-British actually)
The only born British (or foreign) people who qualify to be President are those who were US citizens at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution. This is written into the Constitution
While I did not go to law school, it is my understanding that random people’s essays are not used in Court to decide cases.
Instead, courts like to look at the Constitution, Case Law and Legislation.
Now again, could you please find me documentation in the Constitution, Case Law and Legislation that defines natural born citizen?
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.