Author Topic:  (Read 2545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 76,442
« on: August 21, 2014, 07:48:23 AM »
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2014, 09:56:33 AM »
Do you have an opinion on this Ranger?
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,208
  • TBR Illuminati
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2014, 11:52:59 AM »

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,208
  • TBR Illuminati
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2014, 11:57:33 AM »
Obviously, the above is not without problems since the second listing would, technically, mean that nobody who was not alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution could be president.  Nevertheless, it still demonstrates the sort of latent ambiguities that can be found in the Constitution.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2014, 12:18:22 PM »
Obviously, the above is not without problems since the second listing would, technically, mean that nobody who was not alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution could be president.  Nevertheless, it still demonstrates the sort of latent ambiguities that can be found in the Constitution.

It does, just as some would suggest the 2d Amendment does.  Assuming though that the Founders did intend for future generations to have a chance at the presidency, the argument over the meaning of natural born citizen was I believe, up until the 14th Amendment, somewhat valid, until put to rest in 1898 with Wong. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,208
  • TBR Illuminati
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2014, 12:55:30 PM »

Online aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,002
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2014, 12:59:29 PM »
 goopo :0012:
NeverTrump wants to deny you YOUR voice, YOUR presidential choice.

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,208
  • TBR Illuminati
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2014, 01:36:06 PM »
It does, just as some would suggest the 2d Amendment does.  Assuming though that the Founders did intend for future generations to have a chance at the presidency, the argument over the meaning of natural born citizen was I believe, up until the 14th Amendment, somewhat valid, until put to rest in 1898 with Wong. 

I assume you mean United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)?

Interesting case.  I don't think that it's controlling precedent in this situation because it involved the question of whether an individual who was physically born within the geographic confines of the United States was a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding that his parents were subjects of China at the time of his birth, and holding that he was a citizen by birth.  In the case under discussion, however, the question is - assuming arguendo that Obama wasn't actually born within the geographic confines of the US - whether an individual who is born to a US citizen is a "natural born Citizen" of the United States, notwithstanding that his birth took place outside of the geographic limits of the United States.

That being said, I do think that the case contains some persuasive value, inasmuch as the majority opinion cited to the opinion of Fish, then Secretary of State to Grant, including the following language:
Quote
"The same principle on which such children are held by us to be citizens of the United States, and to be subject to duties to this country, applies to the children of American fathers born without the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitles the country within whose jurisdiction they are born to claim them as citizen and to subject them to duties to it."

"Such children are born to a double character: the citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father."

Opinions of the Executive Departments on Expatriation, Naturalization and Allegiance (1873) 17, 18; U.S. Foreign Relations, 1873-74, pp. 1191, 1192.
(emphasis mine)


Essentially, this is the basis for dual citizenship, namely, that a child whose father is a citizen of Country A is also a citizen, by birth, of Country A, even if that child's physical birth took place outside the geographic territory of Country A, and within the territory of Country B.  In other words, that child is both a citizen, by birth, of Country A, and a citizen, by birth, of Country B.

The fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark cited approvingly to Mr. Fish's opinion would be persuasive authority for the proposition that even if, assuming arguendo, Obama was born outside the geographic confines of the United States - say, in Kenya - he was still a citizen, by birth, of the United States (i.e., a "natural born Citizen") because his mother was a citizen of the United States.  Of course, it would go without saying in that situation that Obama would also be a citizen of Kenya.


Personal tangent:  my brother actually was physically born in Kenya, although both of our parents were, and still are, American citizens.  The difference, though, is that we were part of the US consular mission to Kenya and thus, under these arguments, my brother would not be regarded as a citizen of Kenya, notwithstanding that he was born within the physical territory of Kenya.


So, if the Supreme Court really wanted to get ornery and assert its fully authority to not only say what the Constitution means, but to make presidential eligibility as a "natural born Citizen" a justiciable matter, then the Court has reasonable precedent on which it could rely to hold that Obama was a citizen - by birth - of the United States because his mother was a citizen of the United States - an uncontested fact - regardless of whether his birth physically took place within or without the geographic territorial limits of the United States.


That being said, I am still of the view that the Supreme Court will most likely punt and hold that the challenge is untimely, or else hold that the issue of eligibility as a "natural born Citizen" is a political question that the courts cannot weigh in on.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 01:37:22 PM by Oceander »

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2014, 01:47:24 PM »
Quote
If the Court does end up accepting certiorari in a case like this, it would be very interesting to see how the various members of the Court came out on the issue.  My guess, given the Roberts' Court's penchant for trying to find consensus where possible, is that the Court's holding would be unanimous and would hold that the challenge to Obama's eligibility was too late - that it should have taken place prior to the election - and that there would be a variety of concurring opinions in which some of the justices might suggest that they thought it was a justiciable issue, not a political issue.

Good analysis (well for an attorney, lol).   :beer:

The only conclusion I would question is the possible conclusion by the Court that it would be too late.  I think we are too close to the next election where the issue could arise once again.  If they accept the case, which I doubt, I think they would settle it one way or another.

It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2014, 02:27:56 PM »
Quote
That being said, I am still of the view that the Supreme Court will most likely punt and hold that the challenge is untimely, or else hold that the issue of eligibility as a "natural born Citizen" is a political question that the courts cannot weigh in on.

I don't know if that would be the rationale or not but I do agree the Court is likely to punt.  It may simply refuse to accept is as it has done several times in the past.  The two cases involving members of the military were both I believe not accepted by SCOTUS.  And they certainly would have had standing in refusing to comply with an order they believed was not constitutionally given. 

And you're right that Wong wasn't about the issue of natural born citizen, but of citizenship based on birth period.  But the author of the majority opinion reasoned at length that we followed the British norm that anyone (almost) born within the jurisdiction of the realm would be natural born subjects.  Other cases (although not directly ruling on that issue) took a similar position, and none to my knowledge to the contrary.

Federal laws also considered the issue of dual citizenship and allegiance, and handled that by asserting that absent evidence to the contrary US allegiance is assumed.  BTW, my son was born in the Dominican Republic when I served there as a military advisor. 

Bottom line is I agree with you that it is unlikely the Court will take it on, but if it does, I don't think it will simply postpone a final determination, though with Roberts, one can never tell.  And certainly they can punt as being a political issue.  I hope they don't.

Sometimes the simplest answer is right.  If you're born within US jurisdiction or by at least one citizen parent (with exceptions), you're a natural born citizen, versus one who gains citizenship through the naturalization process.

And I despise Obama as much as anyone.  But just to make sure:

                                                                             :vote:
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,866
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2014, 03:01:27 PM »
It does, just as some would suggest the 2d Amendment does.  Assuming though that the Founders did intend for future generations to have a chance at the presidency, the argument over the meaning of natural born citizen was I believe, up until the 14th Amendment, somewhat valid, until put to rest in 1898 with Wong.

You keep asserting that and I continue to say NOT TRUE!

I hope that some day we get a definitive answer as to which of us is right.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2014, 03:19:29 PM »
You keep asserting that and I continue to say NOT TRUE!

I hope that some day we get a definitive answer as to which of us is right.

After our last discussion I didn't think you wanted to reengage on this issue.  But feel free to jump in.  Better than a "me too" thread.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 76,442
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2014, 04:37:54 PM »
Do you have an opinion on this Ranger?

I do.  No matter what the law says, the Supreme Court will find him eligible somehow.  To do otherwise would create a massive problem in government so they will not make him ineligible no matter the law.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2014, 04:43:46 PM »
I do.  No matter what the law says, the Supreme Court will find him eligible somehow.  To do otherwise would create a massive problem in government so they will not make him ineligible no matter the law.

I do agree that the SCOTUS would likely not initiate a terrible constitutional crisis and the subsequent social unrest over something that at best has more than one interpretation.  Not sure there's any law here at issue, but rather an interpretation of a phrase that may or may not have been altered by the 14th Amendment.  If OTOH a single district or appeal's court ruled in favor of a plaintiff, SCOTUS might feel compelled to put this to rest. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 76,442
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2014, 04:58:24 PM »
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Online aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,002
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2014, 05:06:42 PM »
Anyway, our long, national nightmare is almost over. That is, if we can get to 2016 without having a total financial/economic, societal/moral or defense/security collapse. I suspect we'll get there okay and when we do, the golfer-in-chief will be gone. Yaay!!  :patriot:
NeverTrump wants to deny you YOUR voice, YOUR presidential choice.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2014, 06:28:48 PM »
Quote
Even if he is eligible, the world has suffered.

But that's not the job of the SCOTUS to resolve, rather the people and Congress.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,208
  • TBR Illuminati
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2014, 06:33:07 PM »
This is being very kind to the court system.  How they can rule no one has suffered any personal injury compensable by a court is just wrong - in my opinion - and, as the article says, is a dodge and not a legal principle that makes it a problem.  If is not eligible, the whole world has suffered a compensable loss based on his decisions like people being out of work, corruption sanctioned, apparently, at the highest level of government, using IRS to harass people, etc.  Even if he is eligible, the world has suffered.

Courts can, and do, all the time.  It's not a dodge.  The simplest being lawsuits against municipalities that often have very short notice requirements.  For example, in NYC you have to give the city notice within 90 days of your intent to sue or you lose your case, period.  You are permanently barred from suing.

Even under the common law people lost out all the time.  The most obvious being the common law doctrine of laches - if you sit on your hands and wait an undue amount of time before bringing suit then you lose, precisely because you waited too long and the person you want to sue reasonably relied on that delay.

This whole attempt to attack Obama's eligibility - and to throw the entire country into a fatal disarray - over all of $90 is stupidity on stilts (second cousin to nonsense on stilts).  Its proponents are, to be charitable, "useful idiots" doing the work of the democrats to make the republicans and conservatives, and anyone else who can be tarred with this, look stupid and conspiratorial at the same time.

The Supreme Court won't rule against this idiot because they're too scared to, they'll rule against this idiot because the equities are so far against him it's not even funny (and so is the law, as far as I'm concerned).

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2014, 06:45:54 PM »
Courts can, and do, all the time.  It's not a dodge.  The simplest being lawsuits against municipalities that often have very short notice requirements.  For example, in NYC you have to give the city notice within 90 days of your intent to sue or you lose your case, period.  You are permanently barred from suing.

Even under the common law people lost out all the time.  The most obvious being the common law doctrine of laches - if you sit on your hands and wait an undue amount of time before bringing suit then you lose, precisely because you waited too long and the person you want to sue reasonably relied on that delay.

This whole attempt to attack Obama's eligibility - and to throw the entire country into a fatal disarray - over all of $90 is stupidity on stilts (second cousin to nonsense on stilts).  Its proponents are, to be charitable, "useful idiots" doing the work of the democrats to make the republicans and conservatives, and anyone else who can be tarred with this, look stupid and conspiratorial at the same time.

The Supreme Court won't rule against this idiot because they're too scared to, they'll rule against this idiot because the equities are so far against him it's not even funny (and so is the law, as far as I'm concerned).

Interesting take.  Thanks.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,208
  • TBR Illuminati
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2014, 06:56:10 PM »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,866
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2014, 07:11:57 PM »
After our last discussion I didn't think you wanted to reengage on this issue.  But feel free to jump in.  Better than a "me too" thread.

Thanks but I have nothing to add to what I have already posted elsewhere and all are free to read that at their leisure. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,146483.msg594134.html#msg594134

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2014, 07:28:05 PM »
How so?

The time consideration, not something I had put into the equation. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2014, 08:56:10 PM »
Thanks but I have nothing to add to what I have already posted elsewhere and all are free to read that at their leisure. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,146483.msg594134.html#msg594134

So if I understand you correctly, you are "Sourcery" from TOS?  He has been credited with that document on some of the birther sites including one by Leo Donofrio who I'm sure you know.  And it's word for word what you say you authored.  BTW, Sourcery is a regular poster on TOS and has been since '98.  Much of his analysis came from the work of John Greschak beginning in 2008 after the first lawsuit on this issue. 

Anyway, assuming as you say, this is your work, did you and Mr. Rogers ever have any further debates?  I found his counter-arguments on the 14th Amendment interesting.  BTW, you answered questions well and in much detail over there.  I did notice you were going to research the question of one vs two parent citizenship requirements.  Did you ever do that? 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,866
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2014, 10:14:54 PM »
So if I understand you correctly, you are "Sourcery" from TOS?  He has been credited with that document on some of the birther sites including one by Leo Donofrio who I'm sure you know.  And it's word for word what you say you authored.  BTW, Sourcery is a regular poster on TOS and has been since '98.  Much of his analysis came from the work of John Greschak beginning in 2008 after the first lawsuit on this issue. 

Anyway, assuming as you say, this is your work, did you and Mr. Rogers ever have any further debates?  I found his counter-arguments on the 14th Amendment interesting.  BTW, you answered questions well and in much detail over there.  I did notice you were going to research the question of one vs two parent citizenship requirements.  Did you ever do that?

I am not  and never said that I was. It just happens that I completely agree with what was said and chose to post it here in response to what you said.  I had a long PM exchange with the author at TOS after it was posted there and don't recall that I ever said a word on the thread there.  (I happen to know and respect the author a great deal outside TOSl)

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2014, 11:10:54 PM »
I am not  and never said that I was. It just happens that I completely agree with what was said and chose to post it here in response to what you said.  I had a long PM exchange with the author at TOS after it was posted there and don't recall that I ever said a word on the thread there.  (I happen to know and respect the author a great deal outside TOSl)

Okay, that would explain your hesitancy at discussing it.  Even though I disagreed with him on his conclusions and some of his facts, he was quite willing to explain and defend his work.  I still think he got his concepts  and some of legal references from Donofrio and Greschak from what I could see. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf