Posted on 02/15/2012 9:21:05 PM PST by James Thomas
Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, has been invoked on the campaign trail often.
Newt Gingrich used his release of 12 years’ of tax records as an example to push his rival to release his own tax returns. On Thursday night, Romney mentioned the fact that his father was born in Mexico in response to Gingrich’s allegations that he is “anti-immigrant,” which raises the question: If George Romney was born in Mexico, how could he run for president?
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
A clear case of the dog that didn't bark scenario. They were painfully aware of Obama's eligibility problem from day one.
Chin speaks of "a number of individuals born in the Canal Zone under U.S. jurisdiction ... even one claiming to be a birthright citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment" being deported. Presumably, they were the children of Panamanian or other non-US citizen parents. Chin does say that Congress and the courts didn't recognize children born in the Canal Zone to American parents as citizens from birth, but he doesn't say that children of American citizens born in the Canal Zone were actually deported.
Chin also notes that this reading was subject to question depending on how one read the statutes and what one meant by "limits and jurisdiction." If Congress had not acted, the courts may have ruled that children in McCain's situation were in fact citizens from birth. See Stephen E. Sach's companion article, Why John McCain Was a Citizen at Birth. Ironically, if McCain was born on Panamanian territory outside the Canal Zone, he would indeed have been a citizen from birth, according to Chin's reading -- which is pretty much the opposite from what many of us assumed at the time.
With the (bride?) wearing a matching atomic hat. Fetching.
Oh, is Leo a candidate then? Which party?
How’s your evil twin doing?
He is just the “Constitutional Scholar” who conned the birthers.
Leo and Orly - ever wonder why the eligibility movement has been such a spectacular failure. Online law school grads and professional poker players playing scholar is a good place to start.
Orly is the online law school grad. Leo is the guy with no legal experience. Sorry for the confusion.
Have you been able to document Leo’s legal background? Aren’t you the slightest bit interested?
Can’t prove a negative.
Play with the Google a little bit - you will find nothing.
Don’t you think odd that Leo wouldn’t pad his bio on his web site to show something to indicate he has some practical legal experience? What is he hiding?
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
Fogbow 0bots such as yourself drool and shiver at Orly’s flaws, and Leo’s unusual interests apart from the legal. Your feeble (to put it mildly) “arguments” in the eligibility field are embarrassing. The only reason you and your fellow 0bots are not emabarrassed must be the psych meds your doctors prescribe; or the self-medications you imbibe.
You are so transparent in your efforts that your guts are showing.
I take that to mean you cannot document Leo’s legal experience? Why am I not surprised that it means nothing to you - after all, he tells you what you want to hear.
Do you agree that Leo has no documented legal experience prior to the eligibility stuff?
Yes or no.
Time to put up or shut up.
If he is open about his past and is not hiding anything then there must be nothing there to hide.
Why is it so hard to accept that Leo has no actual legal experience? It is not like it will make you change your mind about him - after all without him, the eligibility movement has no “intellectual” foundation.
Another word for things you “know” but can’t prove is fantasy.
I told the truth: there is no documentable proof that Leo has any legal experience that would make him an expert on Constitutional law. No court cases and no publications.
That is the truth - I challenge you to prove me wrong.
You can’t be that dense.
How do I prove a negative? There are no facts to be found. No record what so ever. He is a legal cypher.
Play with the Google a little bit - you will find nothing.
With the combinations of "play with" and "the Google"...who says "the Google"? Sounds like lots of sexual innuendo there to me.
In other words he's saying...don't even bother masturbating as you've got no penis to begin with.
But, then again, I could be wrong.
Of course, denials will be forthcoming on the morrow. LOL
Know your enemy......... and fight fire with fire.
You attack the messenger because you are unable to defeat his message.
The courts have been doing a fine job defeating his message.
He has had his ass handed to him every time he walked into court - should tell you something his legal skills.
So list his victories. Tell me of his great successes. I am all ears.
The problem with Natural Law is that no one can authoritatively say what it is. Or rather, that anyone can say it says anything they want. Hobbes identified 19 Natural Laws, but a two-parent requirement for natural-born citizenship wasn’t among them. Theologians argue that natural law is that ordained by God, but I doubt you can find a religious scholar anywhere who can find much Biblical support for a theory of the transmission of citizenship across generations one way or the other.
You are right - he has led the birther one victory after another.
Donofrio v. Wells
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
Montgomery Blair Sibley quo warranto (based on his “analysis”>
AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases.
I don’t mind answering real questions.
@The Elements of Law Natural and Politic / by Thomas Hobbes
Where shall we begin? How about @CHAPTER 16. Some of the Laws of Nature?
I rejected your apology as I knew it to be insincere. I was merely being prudent.
Who the hell are you to tell either Brown Deer or me to shut up?
I agree that you are a mentally ill stewed in anger and delusion 0bama a** kissing Fogbow retread troll. Either on doc prescribed psych meds and/or self medication with weed/alcohol.
:-)
Oh well, getting directly to your point...pay attention to the emphasis.
@CHAPTER 17. Other Laws of Nature
Be sure you don't confuse the right of nature and the law of nature.
Very sound advice!
I like Hobbes. He’s archaic in his writing and it takes a lot to “grok” him.
Being the illiterate that I am, my sole knowledge of “Hobbes” is “Calvin and Hobbes”. I mean, I knew that some philosopher/think was named Hobbes, but that quote is the first thing I’ve read that he wrote, and I grok it right well. Makes me want to try a bit more of the original Hobbes.
I lust greatly, and daily.
Well, I’d say there are two kinds of curiosity - “idle” curiosity, sort of like scratching an itch, and then the thirst for truth, which is more akin to quenching a need of the deeper being.
Thanks x. The more knowledgeable people and honest questioners respond, the closer to truth we'll come.
I, of course, said that Professor Chin was a Democrat, by which I meant that his analysis had several glaring omissions. As I pointed out, not mentioning the precedent so clearly established by Minor v. Happersett is about as clear a signal as a writer can provide, since any discussion of “Birthright citizenship” must dispense with Chief Justice Waite's clear collision with what seems an intentional misinterpretation that “Birthright” citizenship is equivalent to natural born citizenship. Since Waite, along with dozens of other justices, makes natural born citizenship “born on our soil of citizen parents,” then what is “Birthright citizenship.”?
Having seen a number of interpretations, what counts is that it is not defined in the Constitution or by precedent. Many claim, at odds with Minor, that a “Birthright citizen” is either a jus soli - of the soil - or jus sanguinis - of the blood implying citizen parents, but not both. That is not the law. A natural born citizen must satisfy both conditions, jus soli and jus sanguinis. That is why Justice Waite and Judge Bingham described the definition as "never doubted." After all, someone could be born on our soil to at least one alien parent, raised overseas, and may not even speak English, but be a "Birthright citizen." One may be born to citizen parents, overseas, raised overseas and have acquired allegiance to a foreign culture and laws, but be a "Birthright citizen". Marie Elg was born in New York to naturalized Swedish parents, but raised in Sweden. When she was twenty one she knew she wanted to make the U.S. her home, and our secretary of state didn't understand Minor v. Happersett.
Thanks to judicial review, and Chief Justice Hughes, our state department was informed that someone naturally born a citizen is always a citizen, unlike any other class of citizen. There are all sorts of laws governing the circumstance which cause a citizen to lose citizenship. No law can affect natural born citizenship. Since our State Department disagreed, Marie Elg's case went to our final appeals court and Marie Elg was admitted back into the U.S. from Sweden, and informed that if she chose, after 14 years residence and reaching the age of 35, she could run for for the presidency.
Thank you for the reference to the Stephen Sachs article. About the article let me first observe that it only confirms my argument that McCain's status was uncertain. While we are mostly concerned with Obama (and indirectly with Romney's grandfather, which argument seems to have been dealt with satisfactorily, Sachs thesis is that John McCain was born a statutory citizen, not a natural born citizen. I will read the details of Stephen Sachs article carefully, but wanted to respond to your thoughtful reply before it disappears into archives which, unlike Google’s Wayback Machine, will be forgotten, but not scrubbed or blocked.
As with Wong Kim Ark, which contains many irrelevant threads of argument, it is useful to look at Sach’s conclusion. “The balance of that evidence suggests that John McCain was a citizen at birth.” So, while I find some foggery in Sach’s argumentation, his disagreement is with Chin's assertion that McCain seems not to have been born a citizen at all, a question many have raised regarding Barack Obama, since Obama’s State Department records were “cauterized” in 2008 and the perpetrator, while a cooperating witness, acquired a bullet in his head while sitting in front of his church, rendering his citizenship status unverifiable.
Sach’s research into the labyrinth of citizenship statutes may be correct, but having been born a citizen by statute defines McCain as a naturalized citizen, and not eligible by Article II. Our framers certainly understood the capabilities of clever barristers, which is probably why they took Presidential eligibility requirements out of the hands of the legislature. The British didn't need to think much about jus sanguinis since it was built into their monarchial form of government. Our "king" need only have bloodlines from citizen parents, regardless of where they were born. The British required that their legislators (Parliament) consist only of natural born subjects, but Calvin's law made the foreign born children of British Subjects into natural born subjects. British common law was not U.S. common law, though Justice Gray of Wong Kim Ark, spent much of his decision writing about British law.
Just a quick read of Sach’s article reveals another bit of artifice which you will find in Larry Tribe and Ted Olson's work for the Obama campaign committee in their letter to the Resolution 511 hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee in April of 2008. Sach’s mentions the 1790 Naturalization Act and mention that it was superseded by the 1795 and 1802 Acts, but not that the 1790 Act explicitly removed the language of the 1790 Act, including the term natural born citizen. NBC never again appears in the U.S. Code (there may be a recent citation mentioned in a Leo Donofrio article, but not having read it yet, I'll stick with "never.") Sach’s conclusion could be interpreted by those so inclined as to clarify “limits and jurisdiction” as it applies to natural born citizens. Of course, Sach’s doesn't do that. He is only, and correctly, referring to citizens.
Neither McCain nor Obama are eligible until the court reinterprets Minor v. Happersett, which is why Tim Stanley and Carl Malamud were willing to put their reputations on the line to hide the truth by “mangling” citations to Minor v. Happersett. I suspect that every law school will follow the guidance of Professor Robert Berring, who subtly warned Tim Stanley and Carl Malamud at the Soros’ sponsored (one of the sponsors, as confirmed by Carl Malamud's "Law.gov" sign, Malamud being the Center for American Progress CIO) symposium, that he assigns his students the task of comparing the accuracy of the cases they acquire from the free sites, Justia, Findlaw, and others (Stanley founded both of them), to those obtained at the fee-for-service sites, Lexus and Westlaw. (Berkeley Law.Gov Workshop - Part 5, on YouTube) Of course Obama will find a way to reward Stanley and Malamud,but dishonesty and freedom conflict, so even they may someday be sorry. Were I still in the venture business, while it is about money, it is also about trust, and both Stanley and Malamud have shown that their ideals and probably their profits trump the law. A few still believe there is integrity in the law. Lawyers (Stanley graduated from Harvard Law about the time Obama was there) should be smart enough to construct convincing arguments without requiring that the foundations, the axioms, be altered to support their thesis.
Thanks for the mentions.
@Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship
I found Lawrence B. Solum's inclusion of "ORIGINALISM AND THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE" in the .pdf rather humorous as he's wafted back and forth on the issue several times. I found the following from the introduction of Daniel P. Tokaji's in "THE JUSTICIABILITY OF ELIGIBILITY: MAY COURTS DECIDE WHO CAN BE PRESIDENT?" to be almost prophetic in laying out the various means of challenging eligibility.
The majority of opinion, even in Conservative circles, believes that “natural born citizen” means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and nothing else.
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: pg. 163,167 (1795)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html
The following is an enormous list of legal citations, from Obama operatives, but you need to know what you are up against:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/natural-born-quotes/
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2,
Madison:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives
Congress has as much of a right and duty to interpret the Constitution as the Courts.
Congress has defined Citizenship issues, several times.
Congress has every right to define the rules for Natural Born AND Naturalized citizenship, the only two forms of Citizenship available, in our country.
The majority of the conservative movement thinks the birther stuff is a waste of time.
However? YOU call anyone and everyone who challenges you an “Obot” or a “communist” or some other ridiculous charge.
The vast majority of those who voted against Obama think you are wrong on this stuff.
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.