See other Editorial Articles
Title: Is lucysmom As Gullible and Naive as her posts indicate? Could it be possible?
Source:
LP
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=257643#C32
Published: Mar 3, 2009
Author: me
Post Date: 2009-03-03 16:27:49 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 1906
Comments: 261
There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here. This kind of abuse of the court system is rightly condemned by conservatives when the target of the suits are corporations but now applauded when the target is an individual. Any looney tune can file a suit and issue a subpoena requesting any personal information he desires (you don't even need a lawyer to do it) and the target is forced to respond. It could even happen to you. IMHO, there is something obscene about demanding the scope of personal information that these suits are after. The "birthers" demand the right to poke through the details of Obama's early life longing for anything to use against him. They are using the court system to harass and hound while wrapping them selves in the noble cloak of patriotism. They make the word dirty. lucysmom posted on 2009-03-03 10:40:46 ET Reply Trace
Poster Comment: The "birthers" are merely asking for actual PROOF that Obama is in fact an AMERICAN. His long form birth certificate, which could be produced at almost no cost, could confirm that he is or prove that he is not. Why is he and the DNC spending huge sums of money to keep it hidden if it actually proves that he is a citizen? I suspect that it proves the opposite for there would be no other reason not to disclose it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-64) not displayed.
.
.
.
#65. To: war (#55)
No sensible person would give a $#it how they "rate" with you. I assure you it won't keep me awake at night.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The problem is, JD, "sensible" to you means believing that a conspiracty was hatched 48 years ago...yada yada yada...
And "sensible" to you seems to be droning like your daddy, Badeye, about money. Mr. "I've probably created more wealth in 1 week than you have in a lifetime" ah. Bite me.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. It is all of no use, James. You may struggle as you might, you'll make no headway with Lord Kelvin Erudite.
Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA. You may struggle as you might, you'll make no headway with Lord Kelvin Erudite. LOL! I already knew he was pretty much a hopeless case having read much of his fawning over the black prince on LP. Hard to believe he brought it here.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord, how we struggle with these refugees. Join 2x4 Tuesdays & protect your RKBA. I can only assume ignorance or trollery on your part. Either way, you're incorrect. You know full well that of two requirements to be president, one of them is that he be a natural born citzen. Children born on US soil of non-citizen immigrants are natural born. Natural born citizens, according to the understanding of the men that wrote the Constitution, are those people born on US soil of two US citizen parents. That ain't Barack.
LOL! Another socialist, a woman named Emma Lazarus, wrote that inscription. I am afraid the politicians took that to heart a bit too literally. Nothing wrong with helping the people you can, as an individual, but a countries immigration policy should not be based on a poem no matter how pretty or well intentioned the author might be.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. LOL That one there isn't worth the time.
That's why I only gave him/her a few sentences. ; )
Nope. I am 100% correct. You cannot distinguish between a person born in the US of immigrants versus those born of native born or naturalized. The plain language of the 14th mendment states what? All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. It does not separate those who are born in to classes of citizens based upon simple parentage. Obama was born in Hawaii...he was not the child of a diplomat and therefore immune from US law.
Nope.
The 14th amendment has nothing to do with eligibility for president. That eligibility is stated in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Well that's just a plain stupid statement given that it defines federal citizenship.
Feel free to show where in Article II your specific definition of "natural born" is found. Thanks.
For whatever it's worth: Natural-Born Citizen Defined by P.A. Madison One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced. Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.” The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker: Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues. Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father. UPDATE: I came across this interesting speech by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Langdon Cheves, in February of 1814: The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth.Cheves is obviously drawing on the works of Emer de Vattel, Law of Nations. Not something you would expect from the Speaker of the House of a Nation that supposedly adopted England’s common law. UPDATE II: Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820: When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him. Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893, 909: I highlighted/bolded the parts of this that say citizenship is transferred from the FATHER because the Obamasiah's alleged father was a Kenyan, not an American. And since he was most likely born in Kenya to a mother who could not, under the laws current at that time, transfer her citizenship, it seems that Obama is not eligible to be President.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I've seen tyhat fish before. First off, there is not Federal Common law found in the USCON. Secondly, thoise quotes pre-date the 14th which defined citizen at birth. Thirdly, those are opinions NOT law.
Sorry to break it to you. Obama fooled ya. Here's the legal work that the Framers referenced when writing the Constitution, The Law Of Nations by Vattel: MOONBAT
Feel free to cite where so referenced, thanks... Feel equally free to explaio the plain language of 14A...
"Federal" citizenship is also the device used to keep you a slave to the IRS and the Social Insecurity system. Are you sure you want to argue in favor of it? Regardless, the 14th amendment has nothing to do with eligibility for president.
BTW, you do understand that "Law of Nations" is, in fact, not law?
WRONG. Your argument comes dow to this...you acccept an extra-constitutional defintition of citizen but will not accept the one that is in the USCON. It's a very transparent argument.
Who has the trademark on this? I want to use it...
Different argument.
It wasn't defined because ALL of the Framers knew what a natural born citizen was based upon their common legal education. Their point of reference was Vattel's legal work cited above. As Justice Scalia cited Vattel in a recent 2nd Amendment ruling just two years ago (see footnote 10), Vattel is still considered an authoritative legal source.
I understand far more than you appear to understand the basic history of the formation of Consitutional thought. Vattel's definition of the term "natural born citizen" is the basis for the Framers' use of the phrase. They all knew what a natural born citizen is, which is why they felt no need to define it in the Constitution. They assumed that a literate population wouldn't need to have their hands held to define everything. I guess they assumed wrong. The Law of Nations and The Constitution ...Emmerich de Vattel's text, "The Law of Nations" was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions. To this day, Great Britain does not have a written constitution, but instead a collection of laws, customs, and institutions, which can be changed by either the Parliament or the monarchy, or by the ``Venetian'' financiers who are the real power over the British Empire. Consequently, the British constitution remains to this day little more than a mask for the arbitrary power of the oligarchy. The only place of appeal which the American colonists had for unjust laws was to the King's Privy Council. Attempts by the colonists to argue that actions by the British Monarchy and Parliament were unlawful or unconstitutional would be stymied, if they stayed within this legal framework which was essentially arbitrary. Although Vattel praised the British constitution for providing a degree of freedom and lawfulness not seen in most of the German states, his principles of constitutional law were entirely different from the British constitutional arrangements. Consequently, the American colonists attacked the foundation of the King and Parliament's power, by demanding that Vattel's principles of constitutional law be the basis for interpreting the British constitution. American writers quoted {The Law of Nations} on constitutional law, almost immediately after the book's publication. In 1764, James Otis of Massachusetts argued, in one of the leading pamphlets of the day, ``The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,'' that the colonial charters were constitutional arrangements. He then quoted Vattel, that the right to establish a constitution lies with the nation as a whole, and the Parliament lacked the right to change the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. Boston revolutionary leader Samuel Adams wrote in 1772, ``Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,' `that their authority does not extend so far,' and `that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.'" In a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, in 1773, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on Leibnizian principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power. The early revolutionary leaders' emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later written, as we will see below.
There is no trademark. It's free for whomever wants to use it.
You brought it up. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with presidential eligibility.
Ping...
Wise move. My assumption is that if someone has a microphone and access to the ears of millions of people via the mass media, they're completely bought and paid for.
If you keep repeating it do you hope that it will morph into the truth? Your argument is in response to the question "What constitutes a 'natural born citizen'?" and your counter claim to the 14th amendment definition of "citizen" is to say that it doesn't apply to...wait for it...the definition of a citizen. Your argument fails the most basic test of logic.
Since you keep bringing up the 14th amendment, here's what the Father of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, had to say about citizenship: Even by Bingham's understanding, Obama's not a natural born citizen.
"Not owing foreign allegience" is a reference to the diplomatic reference in the amedment. Nice try...
Originally, in post 59 of this thread, you stated, "There is no such requirement to be natural born." As you were utterly uninformed about that simple and provable requirement, your opinion is obviously of little worth on this matter. As James Madison said: "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." Oops. Your boy Obama is just another in a line of usurping agents for the Bankster class.
Can yuou cite the debate at Annapolis in which this requirement was put into operation?
A reference to parentage not the progeny.
Try Philly instead. It predated Annapolis: "One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of The Law of Nations in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ... ." link But tell us again how there is no Constitutional requirement that a president has to be natural born citizen. That's your best gag yet.
Incorrect. You made a simple declarative statement that had no basis in reality.
NEOCOMMIE clinton knee padder libturd. It's debatable, but it appears to make the NEOCONS look tame once in it's element.
Comments (105 - 261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestExcuse me if you rate -273 Kelvin on the credibility scale.
Lord Acton
#66. To: James Deffenbach (#65)
No sensible person would give a $#it how they "rate" with you.
#67. To: war (#66)
Lord Acton
#68. To: James Deffenbach (#67)
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
#69. To: randge (#68)
It is all of no use, James.
Lord Acton
#70. To: James Deffenbach (#69)
I already knew he was pretty much a hopeless case having read much of his fawning over the black prince on LP. Hard to believe he brought it here.
www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
#71. To: war, Jethro Tull, James Deffenbach, randge (#59)
There is no such requirement to be natural born.
#72. To: randge (#70)
Lord, how we struggle with these refugees.
Lord Acton
#73. To: bluegrass (#71)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#74. To: Rotara (#73)
#75. To: bluegrass (#71)
Either way, you're incorrect.
#76. To: bluegrass (#71)
Natural born citizens, according to the understanding of the men that wrote the Constitution, are those people born on US soil of two US citizen parents.
#77. To: war (#75)
The plain language of the 14th mendment states what?
#78. To: bluegrass (#77)
The 14th amendment has nothing to do with eligibility for president.
#79. To: bluegrass (#77)
That eligibility is stated in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
#80. To: bluegrass (#71)
(Edited)
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural- born_citizen_defined.html That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Lord Acton
#81. To: James Deffenbach (#80)
#82. To: war (#76)
(Edited)
§ 212. Citizens and natives. 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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
If you prefer the Cult of Obama to the law, just say so. Bushbots always preferred the Cult of Bush to the law also. A pox on all of your houses.
#83. To: James Deffenbach (#80)
And since he was most likely born in Kenya...
#84. To: bluegrass (#82)
#85. To: war (#78)
Well that's just a plain stupid statement given that it defines federal citizenship.
#86. To: bluegrass (#82)
#87. To: bluegrass (#85)
Regardless, the 14th amendment has nothing to do with eligibility for president.
#88. To: bluegrass (#85)
#89. To: bluegrass (#85)
"Federal" citizenship is also the device used to keep you a slave to the IRS and the Social Insecurity system. Are you sure you want to argue in favor of it?
#90. To: war (#79)
Feel free to show where in Article II your specific definition of "natural born" is found.
#91. To: war (#86)
(Edited)
BTW, you do understand that "Law of Nations" is, in fact, not law?
#92. To: war (#88)
#93. To: war (#89)
Different argument.
#94. To: James Deffenbach (#82)
#95. To: randge (#56)
I do not trust any of them, however.
#96. To: bluegrass (#93)
You brought it up. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with presidential eligibility.
#97. To: war, randge, James Deffenbach, Jethro Tull, christine, Cynicom (#96)
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen... http://www.1 4thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
#98. To: bluegrass (#97)
#99. To: war (#98)
#100. To: bluegrass (#90)
It wasn't defined because ALL of the Framers knew what a natural born citizen was based upon their common legal education.
#101. To: bluegrass (#99)
Originally, in post 59 of this thread, you stated, "There is no such requirement to be natural born."
#102. To: war (#100)
#103. To: war (#101)
#104. To: bluegrass (#82)
If you prefer the Cult of Obama to the law, just say so. Bushbots always preferred the Cult of Bush to the law also. A pox on all of your houses.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
.
.
.