Title: The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen. Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Feb 2, 2012 Author:. Post Date:2012-02-02 14:09:20 by James Deffenbach Keywords:None Views:10699 Comments:57
I have worked in the law library of the Library of Congress and so I have a somewhat different take on the claim (never justified in your video) that the Library "proves" some legal issue.
The Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service has, in fact, issued a study paper on this very topic and it suggests very different conclusions from your video:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Most significantly, the use of a term ("natural-born citizen") written in 1787 is not interpreted solely on the expressions of a bunch of politicians some 80 years later.
One of the first judicial interpretations was well before the Civil War, in the NY case of Lynch v. Clarke (NY Chancery Ct., Nov. 5, 1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 3 NY Leg.Obs. 236, 1844 WL 4808, in which the court even quoted the Constitutional provision about the President needing to be "a natural-born citizen" and held that the expression applied to the child, born here to two British tourists, who shortly thereafter took the child with them back to England. The court held that the child was a natural-born US citizen notwithstanding that neither parent was a citizen. This decision was cited as precedent by the US Supreme Court in its decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 196 US 649, 42 L.Ed. 890, 18 S.Ct 456, which held that a child born here to two Chinese workers (who were prevented by federal law from becoming US citizens) was himself a native-born US citizen.
The Lynch decision was also cited as precedent in the Circuit Court decision of In re Look Tin Sing (9th Cir., 1884) 21 Fed 905, 10 Sawyer's Ninth Cir Repts 353, which held, similarly, that the child born here to two Chinese was, himself, a "natural-born citizen" of the US so that he could depart for China, spend many years there, and still be entitled to return to the US as a natural- born citizen. And the 9th Circuit used the term "natural-born citizen" to describe the child in the Lynch case.
And, of course, the birthers have to explain away Chester A. Arthur, 21st President (1881-1885), who was born in Vermont to an American mother and a British father.
While, as far as anyone can find, there is no court case dealing explicitly with a President or candidate for President whose character as a "natural-born citizen" was in dispute because he was born here with at least one parent a non- citizen -- and the term "natural-born citizen" appears almost nowhere else but as that qualification for President -- there are enough cases that indicate that the term means the same as "native-born citizen" and applies to a child born here regardless of the citizenship status of either or both parents.
It would seem that all you lawyers have conflicting ideas about what a natural born Citizen is but it seemed clear from the video that the founders idea of it was a child born to two people both of whom were citizens ("parents," not parent). But then you lawyers often argue that up is down and black is white if it furthers some nefarious goal or adds something to your bottom line.
Jonathan Swift had you lawyer types figured out BUT GOOD (as the Toddler would say).
"...There was another point, which a little perplexed him at present. I had informed him, that some of our crew left their country on account of being ruined by law; that I had already explained the meaning of the word; but he was at a loss how it should come to pass, that the law, which was intended for every man's preservation, should be any man's ruin. Therefore he desired to be further satisfied what I meant by law, and the dispensers thereof, according to the present practice in my own country; because he thought nature and reason were sufficient guides for a reasonable animal, as we pretended to be, in showing us what he ought to do, and what to avoid."
I assured his honour, "that the law was a science in which I had not much conversed, further than by employing advocates, in vain, upon some injustices that had been done me: however, I would give him all the satisfaction I was able."
I said, "there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves. For example, if my neighbour has a mind to my cow, he has a lawyer to prove that he ought to have my cow from me. I must then hire another to defend my right, it being against all rules of law that any man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now, in this case, I, who am the right owner, lie under two great disadvantages: first, my lawyer, being practised almost from his cradle in defending falsehood, is quite out of his element when he would be an advocate for justice, which is an unnatural office he always attempts with great awkwardness, if not with ill-will. The second disadvantage is, that my lawyer must proceed with great caution, or else he will be reprimanded by the judges, and abhorred by his brethren, as one that would lessen the practice of the law. And therefore I have but two methods to preserve my cow. The first is, to gain over my adversary's lawyer with a double fee, who will then betray his client by insinuating that he hath justice on his side. The second way is for my lawyer to make my cause appear as unjust as he can, by allowing the cow to belong to my adversary: and this, if it be skilfully done, will certainly bespeak the favour of the bench. Now your honour is to know, that these judges are persons appointed to decide all controversies of property, as well as for the trial of criminals, and picked out from the most dexterous lawyers, who are grown old or lazy; and having been biassed all their lives against truth and equity, lie under such a fatal necessity of favouring fraud, perjury, and oppression, that I have known some of them refuse a large bribe from the side where justice lay, rather than injure the faculty, by doing any thing unbecoming their nature or their office.
"It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever has been done before, may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice, and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of directing accordingly.
"In pleading, they studiously avoid entering into the merits of the cause; but are loud, violent, and tedious, in dwelling upon all circumstances which are not to the purpose. For instance, in the case already mentioned; they never desire to know what claim or title my adversary has to my cow; but whether the said cow were red or black; her horns long or short; whether the field I graze her in be round or square; whether she was milked at home or abroad; what diseases she is subject to, and the like; after which they consult precedents, adjourn the cause from time to time, and in ten, twenty, or thirty years, come to an issue.
"It is likewise to be observed, that this society has a peculiar cant and jargon of their own, that no other mortal can understand, and wherein all their laws are written, which they take special care to multiply; whereby they have wholly confounded the very essence of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong; so that it will take thirty years to decide, whether the field left me by my ancestors for six generations belongs to me, or to a stranger three hundred miles off.
"In the trial of persons accused for crimes against the state, the method is much more short and commendable: the judge first sends to sound the disposition of those in power, after which he can easily hang or save a criminal, strictly preserving all due forms of law."
Here my master interposing, said, "it was a pity, that creatures endowed with such prodigious abilities of mind, as these lawyers, by the description I gave of them, must certainly be, were not rather encouraged to be instructors of others in wisdom and knowledge." In answer to which I assured his honour, "that in all points out of their own trade, they were usually the most ignorant and stupid generation among us, the most despicable in common conversation, avowed enemies to all knowledge and learning, and equally disposed to pervert the general reason of mankind in every other subject of discourse as in that of their own profession."
So, what you and your cohorts keep arguing in effect, Shoonra, (and despite all evidence to the contrary) is: If Hitler and Eva Braun had married before he went into politics and she gave birth to their son while they were visiting here as tourists, their child would have been eligible to be President of the United States of America as a natural born citizen -- and that would be in keeping with what our Founders intended? Is that right?