Posted on 01/31/2012 9:49:41 PM PST by reformedcrat
Forceful, unapologetic articulation is a new requirement for Republicans: it is not only a good track record or voting record, conservatives also demand the ability to forcefully articulate conservative principles. Just ask Texas Governor Rick Perry.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Do you know how to disagree without getting ridiculous? I am not “angry” with those who disagree with me, as has been alleged on this thread -—
I am frustrated at the waste of resources that results when foolish ideas are not called out for what they are.
I can't stand Obama, but your line of attack will not hurt Obama.
If the Founders trusted the voters and the states, they wouldn’t have given us a Constitution and a Constitutional Republic form of government and challenged us to keep it.
A Constitution that protects We the People and our Constitutional Republic form of government from enemies, foreign and domestic, is not a “majic wand”.
IMO, Constitutional Conservatives believe the words in We the People’s Constitution mean what the authors say. In a Permanent Ruling Aristocracy form of government, the words in We the People’s Constitution mean whatever the Permanent Ruling Aristocracy says they mean.
Natural Law and Common Law are controlling, where no Constitutional or Legislative guidance is available.
Court cases, Case Law, can be overturned by LEGISLATION on such matters. This is an accepted legal standard.
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH, and NOTHING ELSE.
Your view is not supported by even 5% of the legal profession or 5% of elected officials.
Your view is not supported by ANY leading conservative voice in this country.
It will be a “default judgment” and therefore will not gain much ground in any other venue.
Checks and Balances means that
People and States
Check and Balance
Federal power!
NO, the Founders trusted no one group with all the power. The Founders realized, full well, that a Zealot such as yourself might misuse their power, and assume that weak personal opinions should be the Law of the Land.
I think the ideas and opinions of the Founders regarding the people’s Constitution should be the Law of the Land while you think the ideas and opinions of the Permanent Ruling Aristocracy regarding the people’s Constitution should be the Law of the Land. Who is the pawn of the power crazed zeolots in the Permanent Ruling Aristocracy made up of party bosses, career politicians, and corporate media thugs?
We are very fortunate the founders were such prolific writers and documenters. They wrote about what they were thinking when they created the Constitution. So we can determine their intent. The problem with you people who believe the Constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean is that you forget the Founders had an intent. You can pretend there is no definition and say it that it will mean whatever, but the writers of the Constitution had an understanding of what Natural Born Citizen meant. To that definition, Marco Rubio is found wanting because his parents were not citizens when he was born here. He is not NBC and all your protestations will never change that fact.
If you have proof the NBC clause in our US Constitution has been nullified by a Constitutional Amendment, then bring it. Otherwise, your so called "legal authorities" don't mean dip to me. Sick twisted contortions of the US Constitution are abundant. Especially when it come to marxists and socialists.
Exactly. Rubio is going to get the nod and there will be a handful of birthers standing on the sidelines, stomping their feet in indignation while the rest of the country ignores them.
Today's post at Liberty Legal Foundation:
Judge Malihi moved the deadline for filing our legal briefs up to today, so today we filed two documents with Georgia’s Office of State Administrative Hearings. We expect Judge Malihi to rule promptly on this matter. As soon as he does, we will let you know both what his ruling is and what it means.
The first filing was our Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This is written as a proposed order in the Judge’s voice, but it is not his order. This filing is written in this way to show how we would like the Judge to rule on the evidence and arguments we presented last Thursday in Atlanta. We showed that Obama’s father was never a citizen via several documents. We then showed Supreme Court precedent that “natural born citizen” requires two citizen parents at the time the candidate was born. We therefore propose a ruling that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be on the Georgia ballot for the office of President.
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Welden-GA-Prop-Findings-of-Fact-and-Conclusions-of-Law.pdf
The second filing today was a Motion for Finding of Contempt against Obama. My message last week, Is the Judicial Branch Dead?, covered the implications of Obama’s actions last week. Never before in our history have we had a President simply ignore a court order. We have had Presidents subject to a court order more than once, but in every one of those instances, the President in question followed lawful procedure in dealing with those orders. We now have a sitting President that has openly declared that he is not subject to the Judicial Branch of our government. This is dangerous territory and our Motion urges Judge Malihi to recommend “that the Superior Court find the Defendant in willful contempt of Court, and that the Superior Court impose sanctions commensurate with an act that threatens the foundations of our Constitutional Republic.”
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Welden-GA-Mtn-for-contempt.pdf
Source page:
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1689/georgia-ruling-coming-soon/
Thank you zipper!!
Now there IS.
At the time of the Court rulings cited by Birthers, the Courts were free to interpret as they did.
Now? Now they are not, since the CONGRESS HAS DEFINED THE LAW, SPECICALLY, as to CITIZENSHIP!
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and nothing else.
You are wrong.
You are spouting crackpot legal theory not supported by established law and not supported by history or logic.
IF the FOUNDERS did not want Congress to interpret Natural Born Citizen -— then the FOUNDERS SHOULD HAVE SPELLED IT OUT as you wish that they did.
The Founders did NOT do so. Which leaves Congress to decide the meaning of the term.
Congress interprets, enacts and enables Constitutional mandates all the time.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Obama is a ‘constitutional scholar’.
Our Constitution does not define natural born citizen.
Brilliant
I’m sure you have enough to fill up plenty of restrooms. Now you want to tell the Founders what they should have done?! I’m sure that if they had known so many no nothing commies would have been trying to destroy our Constitution with the help of some people born in this country, they would have done many things differently. But they imagined that people had enough sense to look at what they had written and would interpret the laws as they intended when they wrote them. They had no idea that people would decide the meaning of words and phrases could be changed by communists and others who don’t like the outcome.
There is only one cracked pot around here and your disdain for our Founders and their decisions is disgusting. With all of your dislike for our Constitution and its Founders, you should just take yourself to a country more to your liking. Be sure to say hello to your friend Soros when you go.
You are alone.
You are wrong.
You have no case, and you have no history to prove that you are right.
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH!
That Courts said it meant something else in the past only shows that, in the PAST, it might have meant something else -— as Congress had not defined Citizenship yet, and the Courts had to rest their decisions on Common Law and Natural Law.
Now Congress has defined Citizenship, clearly in most cases (Congress does need to pass simple legislation on the “Anchor Baby” issue, Congress has the power to do so, as immigrant children are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction thereof -—”).
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth. At one time, during our Founding and for a long time there after, Common Law and Natural Law did restrict Citizenship as you state, but that was BEFORE Congress defined Citizenship requirements, more specifically.
You have no clue how this Country works.
You have no understanding of the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
Your jumping up and down and screaming about what can and can’t be done changes nothing. NBC is not the same as “citizen” or the Founders would have said that. The only “citizen” they allowed to become president was a “citizen” who was alive at the adoption of the Constitution.
Think you can find the amendment that you say changes the meaning Natural Born Citizen? Some people make an argument for the 14th Amendment changing the definition of “citizen.” But there has not been even one amendment changing “Natural Born Citizen.”
Commies want to remove the Founders intent and their understanding of the definition of NBC from the interpretation of the Constitution. From what you have written, you seem to want to align yourself with those commies. Liberals in the court system wanting to ignore the original intent behind our laws is a problem that has plagued our country for years. You can continue to align yourself with them and keep your supposed belief in safety in numbers just as the global warming supporters do. But I choose to stick to what is true and right.
It might help you make your argument if you would stop screaming. Your yelling adds nothing. In fact, it makes you appear unhinged. Get some help for your apoplectic behavior. Calm yourself.
Your qualification where a citizen at birth becomes eligible means (the alleged former) Bin Laden, could shuttle one of his wives into the US, have her plop his child here, and the child could grow up to become POTUS. Are you kidding me?
Do you actually believe this was the intent of the founders, when they placed the NBC clause in Article 2? Or, was it their intent to prevent such an atrocity?
I’ll leave it there so as not to become rude, to not say what I am really thinking regarding your atrocious misguided belief.
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.