Two Questions for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Nominees

Wall Street Journal ^ | November 17, 2016 | RANDY E. BARNETT

[reaganaut1]

When the Federalist Society opens its three-day National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, the official topic of conversation will be “the jurisprudence and legacy of Justice Scalia.”

Even before his arrival at the Supreme Court in 1986, Antonin Scalia was known for his commitment to “originalism.” As a federal circuit court judge, he rejected the approach of divining the “Framers’ intention,” as Raoul Berger and Robert Bork had advocated. Instead, Scalia insisted that judges seek the public meaning of the text at the time it was enacted.

I’m pleased to see that President-elect Trump is echoing Scalia. Last week Mr. Trump’s transition team affirmed that he will nominate judges “who are committed to interpreting the Constitution and laws according to their original public meaning.” During the campaign Mr. Trump released a list of 21 potential candidates for Scalia’s seat. Those on the list with whom I am familiar would be sympathetic to originalism.

The bigger unknown is where they stand on stare decisis—Latin for “let it stand.” This is the idea that precedents of previous Supreme Courts should be followed, even when they conflict with the original text of the Constitution. Here is where Scalia’s friend and colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas, comes to the fore.

Justice Thomas has been more willing to reject stare decisis and reverse precedents. Consider the New Deal-era case Wickard v. Filburn. In 1942 the Supreme Court held that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce extended to a farmer growing wheat to feed his own livestock. Sixty-three years later, that expansive reading of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause continues to hold.

[Godebert]

The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term In Our United States Constitution

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Really? Then explain why legislatures in 13 different states have been trying to ensure our next POTUS is born in America and qualified to run for office? Are they all just stupid or what?

13 Eligibility Bills (2009-2011) in various states that demand proof of natural born American citizens status prior candidates being included on a respective state ballot. http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/13eligibilitybillstable312.1.11.pdf

With humor, here is the one from Texas HB 529 written by Republican Leo Berman and cosponsored by 24 other Republicans. This is before they knew ‘TEXAS TED’ was actually a Canadian, not A Texan by birth.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED - AN ACT relating to certification for placement on the ballot of candidates for president or vice-president of the United States.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 192.033,

Election Code, is amended by
amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsection (d) to read as
follows:

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (c) or (d), the
secretary of state shall certify in writing for placement on the
general election ballot the names of the candidates for president
and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on
the ballot.

(d) The secretary of state may not certify the name of a
candidate for president or vice-president unless the candidate has
presented:

(1) the candidate’s original birth certificate
indicating the name of the hospital and the physician of record; or

(2) for a candidate whose birth was not documented in
the manner required by Subdivision (1), a document certifying the
CANDIDATE’S BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES.

SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

http://openstates.org/tx/bills/82/HB529/

Seriously, Rafael should have gotten Felito a Hawaiian BC; GHWB could have made that happen for the Cruz family.

[taxcontrol]

Again you are in error. The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen,

No argument there

and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

This is where you are in error.

[taxcontrol]

1) State laws have no power over the exclusive authority of Congress to set the uniform rules with regards to Naturalization, just as they have no power over the same authority to set the uniform rules with regards to Bankruptcy

2) USC Title 8 section 1401 subsection G qualifies Sen Cruz as a national and citizen at birth

3) USC Title 8 section 1481 provides the means by which a person will / could lose their citizenship. Which Sen Cruz has never done any of the described acts

4) USC Title 8 section 1101 subsection A part 23 specifically defines the term naturalization to apply only after one is born. One can not be naturalized prior to or as function of their birth. They are either a national and citizen at birth or they are not.

5) There is no higher legal authority than the US Constitution. Not State laws, not foreign laws not Canadian law, not “natural law” and not even legal essays

So I REJECT any attempt by anyone who attempts to site any authority not established via the US Constitution.