“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”
Sir Walter Scott 1771-1832
Well this could be interesting.
The only rule the rats accept is: There are no rules (and even if there were they wouldn’t follow them anyway — case in point...that pesky Constitution).
Pertinent passage
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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents.
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first.
That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
The purpose of the suite was to suggest that women were granted suffrage under the 14th amendment. The court found that they did not.
This sounds brilliant to me. But I’m not a lawyer or a judge.
....and Lucy will pull the football away just before the kick, and Charlie Brown will fall flat on his ass once again.
This is exactly what has needed to happen for a long while. Who cares about everything else, the fact is he is NOT a natural born citizen.
If you were taking a test and the question was asked “Can a person who’s mother was an American citizen, and the father was a foriegner be the POTUS?” and you answered yes, you would get that question marked WRONG.
Maybe our court system and elected officials should try going back to jr high government class.
In my reading of this, this case specifically does NOT answer this question. They avoided solving the problem. This surprises me since this is the case everyone seems to cite (and this is the first time I've actually read it). I don't see how this is in any way helpful.
It’s about time.
And nanny signed those those certs.
she is gonna be pi*sed.
Thank you for this post.
The probability of Obama being re-elected are better that 50 %, unless a major lawsuit, Impeachment proceedings, or recall petition can be brought to bear on Obama before June, 2012.
Our sissy RINO Congressmen and women refuse to stop Dictator Obama, so actions such as this are our primary hope of America having a chance to heal from the savage abominations of Obamanation.
BTW, please put me on your PING list.
WND? Call me a cynic, but they are about as reliable as The Globe. I’ll believe it when I see it...
Ping, please.
Thank you.
AMEN. Welcome to the light beyond the birth certificate!! :)
If only the Supreme Courts had been so wise as this since the turn of the 20th Century.
These men were deciding if the 14th amendment could give women the right to vote. They knew that the 14th did not expressly do that so they had to look elsewhere in the laws and precedents in courts case law. They did not find anywhere in US law where women were given the PRIVILEGE to vote.
They even found where New Jersey had taken the privilege of voting from women. So the court decided that the Law by long standing in US was universally that women although citizens did not have the privilege to vote.
The court did not see themselves as having the power to make the law be what they wanted it to be.
This is judicial restraint. Savor it for it is a rare treat not often encountered today.
Let me guess at the court’s eventual ruling. Hmm, let’s see. Ah, yes. Good old, “No standing.”
Instead, they name the national Democratic Party as a defendant, and ask the court to enjoin officials there from certifying that Obama is eligible for the office for the 2012 election.
PELOSI! I love it