Posted on 01/09/2013 1:13:25 PM PST by Elderberry
No. 12A606
Title: Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants
v.
Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed: December 13, 2012
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S207078)
Date Proceedings and Orders
Dec 11 2012 Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 13 2012 Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy. Dec 26 2012 Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 9 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Jan 9 2013 Application (12A606) referred to the Court.
Thank you very much, sweetie pie!
Happy, HEALTHY, HOPEfully PROSPEROUS New Year to you!
That Roberts’ legacy will say he was a republican party hack CJ of SCOTUS. Roberts is trying hard to appear neutral.
Plausible in owebama’s world, unfortunately.
Maybe he sees this as an opportunity to redeem himself. Maybe he never thought Obama would take things to the disarmament level. Maybe the supreme court is finally spooked- first black president, or not. They are supposed to uphold the constitution. Issuing an EO on the Second Amendment may be pushing his luck.
[I’ll guess he’s secretly gay...]
Hell, that’s a job enhancement in Washington. ;)
Awwww, you make me melt!
All the best to you and yours too!!!!
ROTFL. You’re likely right.
a suggestion:
while this is going on, file charges for dereliction of duty against the supervisor of elections for failing to collect eligibility documentation for all candidates allowed on the ballot
of course, allow them to collect the documentation now...
forcing 0bama to submit the forged documents would open the way for criminal charges of felony forgery...
Meaningless quackery. How about, I dunno, we worry about a real issue like how to take back Conservatism?
With this kinda crap I guess that’s not gonna happen. I guess discussing Lizard People is next.
It sure didn’t take long for my thread to be moved down to Bloggers, with the title rewritten.
It's an ancient problem. "Who shall guard the guards?"
Yeah, standing up for the Constitution is soooo unconservative like, eh troll?
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
In our Republic the ultimate guards of Liberty and the Constitution are supposed to be the People and Citizens of the United States of america. However, the socialist educational establishment and the socialist dominated legal estabblishment have systematically discouraged the knowledge and practice of self-government as it was practiced 200 years ago. The key is an informed citizenry encouraged to vigorously participate in local and state government. Tomorrow there will be a monthly Republican county meeting. There will be fewer than a dozen people attending the meeting of the county chairman and a few precinct officers. The Republican voters will be absent at the very time they need to be planning on how to remove officers and legislators violating their oaths of office prmising to protect and deefend the Constitution.
Well, no, actually, the rules for impeachment are well defined, and he would have to be convicted by the Senate and removes. Can you see that happening? At this point, if he’s found to be a poser, and ineligible for office, the remedy would involve removing every person who aided and abetted in this crime against the Constitution.
.
See # 91.
Actually, butterdezillion has given many months of her life to this cause and continues to do so. There are others as well.
Pray for them. Pray for America.
Doesn't a critical component of Conservatism involve respecting and adhering to the Constitution?
That's the question, after all, isn't it?
Let's say someone with standing ends up placing the several smoking guns squarely on their dais.
The court might ultimately rule that the people and Electoral College ultimately determine an Executive's qualifications, the specifics of the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding.
This is sort of in line with the legislature (or the Senate or House) prerogative as ultimate authority on the qualifications of its Members.
This would put pressure on Congress to impeach and remove a pretender president, the High Crime and/or misdemeanor being identity theft and fraud.
The real shake then to the social order would be very similar to the long-term damage left by a Senate that turned a blind eye to perjury in 1999.
Then again, the Right Thing for the Supremes to do, the Profile in Courage, would be to view the prima facie evidence as it is, and toss the usurper out of the game.
Not very damn likely, is it?
It is clear that, for the time being, we don't. That was true from the moment the savvy progressives used their certainty that low-information voters would never understand that we have eligibility requirements for president beyond age. They would blithely accept that a term not defined in the Constitution was open to reinterpretation by whomever, never knowing that no terms were defined in the Constitution, and only “Treason” had its common-law definition adjusted because we didn't have monarch to whom the old definition applied. We were presumably a nation of laws, and not men. Over 40 citations of the common law, including by five Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, no representative from either party will repeat the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, or Chief Justice Morrison Waite, or Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, or 14th Amendment author, the 14th Amendment that Barack has said governs his class of citizenship, "I am a native-born citizen of the US", a class which is not the same as "natural born citizenship", accept the low-information citizens.
Orly Taitz saw this in 2008, and apparently decided that the laws governing the falsification of social security numbers and military registration, which Obama, either ignored, or wasn't required to comply with as a foreign citizen, had demonstrably violated, were more understandable to the public. Taitz, from Moldavia, where compliance with authority was largely “pay-to-play” like Chicago, realized that she had little chance with crony federal judges, all of whom are political appointees. No judge has the means to buck the unlimited resources of Justice Department.
Obama’s two Supreme Court appointees have already refused to recuse themselves from the pretrial hearings where the Supreme Court decides whether a case warrants being heard. There is no law, other than the Senate's potential to impeach a judge, requiring recusal, even when both Obama appointees will lose millions of dollars if their appointments are mooted by removal of Obama, who therefore had no authority to appoint them.
Taitz is exercising the provisions our Constitution provided to protect us from a government imposing tyranny, provisions she understands from having escaped them herself, and having seen members of her family die, and ancestors suffer both from communism, and Soviet antisemitism, the same threats that followed her to the US in the form of a lifelong socialist/communist, whose patron through college, Alwaleed bin-Talal, representing the Saudi Family, is a principle fund-er of the Muslim Brotherhood, to whom Obama has given twenty F-16s, over 100 tanks, billions of dollars, and whose operative, proposed CIA director, John Brennan, has been managing the overthrow of every Middle East “dictator” not controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Taitz is fighting for the lives of her children, and, whether we know it or not, for the freedoms taken for granted by the low-information voters.
Taitz has also taken on the biggest weapon used by the “progressives” their complete control of our voting systems. She ran against the Soros-supported candidate for California Sec. of State, and found at least 1.5 million ineligible voters. Remember, it was Soros’ soldiers who had the strategic foresight to target the control of votes, the Secretaries of State, whose employees are now mostly SEIU members, the workers who count our votes. Some states are moving entirely to absentee ballots, making the fraud called “exit polling” impossible. Remember Stalin's bit of wisdom: “Elections are decided by those who count the votes.” (not a precise quotation) Even our pundits have no clue how completely Soros and his operatives and comrades have dominated the processes to which our ignorant pundits allude when they refer to elections. That is why the polls didn't seem representative. We have eliminated any potential for an audit trail from our vote counting mechanisms.
Besides the technical weaknesses we have the political techniques that Barack once taught when he was a trainer for Project Vote, an Acorn spinnout. Our elections are not elections. We have little chance of electing senators or presidents who will respect the Constitution. Because States still have some autonomy, we may get a few in the House with Constitutional allegiance. We have seen how easily the less corruptible can be isolated and rendered in impotent.
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.