when will the supreme court take on eligibility ??

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by washingtonamerica.com, Oct 15, 2011.

  1. washingtonamerica.com

    washingtonamerica.com Banned

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,998
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    at what point in american history will the u.s. supreme court take the case and render decision about "natural born" and eligibility. under what circumstances ??
     
  2. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What exactly would you like the Supreme Court to rule on?

    It is quite clear- both from what all of us were taught in civics classes- and from every legal expert- that anyone born in the United States(with the exception of children of diplomats and invading armies) is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

    The only real question that I know of that might be open is a situation like John McCain's- a U.S. citizen born outside the U.S.. Somehow I don't think that is the question you want the Supreme Court to address.

    Circumstances? The Supreme Court doesn't do theoreticals- in other words- they don't issue rulings to satisfy your curiousity. Probably would take a Presidential candidate filing a case against another candidate, and even then, in all likelyhood the Supreme Court would reject most cases because they would consider it settled law.
     
  3. Pokerface

    Pokerface New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Alls the courts need to do is allow discovery. Obamessiah will have to choice but to produce a real genuine long form birth certificate. I promise you he cant. This is why he spends millions fighting it.

    I had to produce a real birth cirtificate to get a drivers license. They would not accept a copy yet this man can be president without producing one. PATHETIC!
     
  4. washingtonamerica.com

    washingtonamerica.com Banned

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,998
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    why address citizenship at all in the constitution ? or did they ? is the a difference in natural born ? why did thomas, a sitting member, say they've been avoiding the subject ?
     
  5. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh Pokerface- who are you talking about? This thread is about a theoretical issue of eligibility.

    And what you produced to get a drivers license was a certified copy, and yes they do accept certified copies- tell me what state you got your driver's license from and I will be glad to post the requirements here for your education.

    And President Obama is the only President who has ever shown the public his state certified copy of his Birth Certificate. He is the only President who has had a state confirm he was born in the U.S. He is the only President who we actually know(because the State has said so) where his original birth certificate is.

    Continueing to repost Birther propaganda doesn't make any of it true.
     
  6. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are those the questions you want the Supreme Court to answer?

    Or is that a response to my response?

    I can't tell.

    However, if you want to know what Thomas actually said, and in context, maybe you should go read his actual quote? Original source material rather than blogs are far more reliable sources of information.
     
  7. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  8. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Over a century ago.
    An American-born grown man of Chinese parents, who was raised in China and returned to the U.S. as an adult, claiming to be a citizen.
     
  9. washingtonamerica.com

    washingtonamerica.com Banned

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,998
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    we need another wong kim ark... the court case, not the guy (not the guy here).
    the current supreme court needs to decide why the constitution has "natural born" in it.
    this next case of course, would have to do specifically, with presidential eligibility

    maybe marco rubio... since arthur and obama haave been given a pass.
     
  10. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why? The precedent has been upheld for over a century. No one even questions the precedent anymore, outside of a few kooks.

    You might as well be saying we need a new Brown v. Board of Education.
    They have already decided: To differentiate from "naturalized". There are two types of citizen; "natural born" and "naturalized". Why does the current Court need a case on that? There's no pending issue or case with respect to that.

    You birthers don't even understand how the Court works. It's not like Congress, where you can get new laws when the parties change hands. The Court respects prior precedent under stare decisis.
    Why? There's no question on that issue.

    Again, birthers are clueless about how the Courts work. They do not take up issues because a few, or even very many, people want them to. The Supreme Court reviews thousands of cases from the Circuit courts (and a few which they take as a Court of original jurisdiction) and determines which few they are taking.
    All three of the people you mention were born in the United States. Therefore, there's no issue that the Supreme Court would need to decide - stare decisis would apply, as the Court has already stated quite conclusively that birth in America makes someone a natural born citizen.

    But talk about getting a pass... Our resident birther once again proves this is not really about eligibility, but really about other things. Eligibility is a smokescreen for the real motive. Why else would you mention three names, all of whom have been born in the United States, and not any of the other half-dozen candidates for President, none of whom have even taken one baby step towards proving they are eligible to hold the office of President.
     
  11. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just because you don't like what all of us grew up understanding natural born citizen to be- that anyone born here in the United States can aspire to grow up and be elected President, and that eligiblity should be determined by the candidate not who his parents were- doesn't mean the Supreme Court needs to keep looking at it until they come to a decision that you approve of.

    Instead, you could actually follow the Constitution- you want the eligiblity of the President to be different, amend the Constitution.
     
  12. washingtonamerica.com

    washingtonamerica.com Banned

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,998
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    we all grew up thinking about presidential eligibility.

    so if a drug dealer, say a canadian druglord sneaked across the vermont border /had left the baby, she could grow up to be president ? if she did the same thing in puerto rico ?

    all eligible ?
     
  13. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anyone born within the United States can aspire to grow up to be President. In the United States, we do not judge a child based upon who their father was, who their mother was, or who their siblings are- at least not legally.

    The voters however, can based their decision on whatever they want. If they decide not to vote for someone because they are the child of a druglord, because they are not Christian or because they espouse nutty Birther theories, that is the perogative of the voters.
     
  14. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you still determined to waste your time on this fantasy? Why don't you just break down and read the law yourself?
     
  15. krew09

    krew09 Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    unless you have an I.Q. of a 3rd grader,then you can understand there is a difference between "natural", and "native"........there is NO precedence to define natural born,as being a child of only one parent who was a citizen.
    Our judicial system has long been corrupt.They are simply going along to get along.The message was clear enough the day.."Gabby" was shot in the head,she received all the media,however the death of a constitutional judge seems very meaningful.....Besides that,Soetoro,gave up any citizenship when adopted by an Indonesian parent,there were not dual citizenship allowances. He has never went through immigration,or the State Dept to reclaim his alleged citizenship.....Furthermore,he is a fraud,using a fraudulent Social Security number....It is funny how weak minded people delude themselves into thinking that that is ok.


    the Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, relied upon de Vattel in drafting both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
    Moreover, even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that de Vattel’s tome was of critical influence on the Founding Fathers, stating, for example, that “[t]he international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel. 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826). In 1775, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged receipt of three copies of a new edition, in French, of Vattel’s Law of Nations and remarked that the book ‘has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting…. ‘” 2 F. Wharton, United States Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 64 (1889)…” (emphasis added) See U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 462, n. 12 (1978).

    And one of the Founding Fathers, John Jay – a contributing author, along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, to The Federalist Papers and serving as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court – suggested in a July 25, 1787 letter to then-serving Presiding Officer of the Continental Convention of 1787, George Washington that it would be prudent to include, in the nation’s new Constitution, a specific restriction on who might be eligible to the national presidency.
     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  17. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excuse me for not repeating the rest of your bunch of Birther propaganda and general Konspiracy theory nonsense.

    All of your 'points' were addressed more succintly and professionally by the Congressional Reseach Service than I could do:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/11/new-congressional-report-on-presidential-eligibility/

    (I give this link, because I find Scribd really slow to navigate through, but it is available there if you would prefer).

    I will just post the conclusion:

    The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars,and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing aforeign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a“natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution,regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding “natural born” citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation."

    Just like we all learned growing up.
     

Share This Page