©2011 jbjd
The Supreme Court has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. It can set aside any law – federal, state, or local – that a majority of the justices believes conflicts with any part of the Constitution.
http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2008/April/20080415234710eaifas0.2570917.html
(For a more legalistic discussion of the authority of Article III courts, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag14_user.html#art3_sec2)
No matter how many times or how strenuously people repeat the absurd claim that the definition of NBC in the U.S. Constitution is fixed by reference to any other written work, nothing fixes a definition of NBC until the ‘fat lady holding the scales of justice sings.’
In other words, until justices on the federal appellate court weigh in with a definition in a holding in a case specifically on point. All else is cacophony.
Lie number 1. We know what NBC means because this term is defined in Vattel’s Law of Nations.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s say, this man Vattel wrote a book entitled Law of Nations in which he pontificated as to which of the laws of various nations he would incorporate into his Utopian country, and that the term NBC is unambiguously defined within this text. Let us further assume that before deliberating on their own treatise, better known as the U.S. Constitution, the original drafters had access to Vattel’s tome, considering such variables including the date and place of publication, language, and availability; and that they did, indeed, read his definition of NBC before drafting our Constitution.
Assuming all that, it is nonetheless absurd to make the leap of logic that says with certainty, the Drafters, having read Vattel’s definition of NBC and understood his meaning, thereby adopted his definition into their text. Because based on this logic that insists, any subject mentioned in the Constitution evidences a concurrence with its counterpart in Vattel’s Law of Nations; we would also have state sponsored mandatory public worship of God and banishment of minority practitioners, instead of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
…
Lie number 2. We know the Drafters meant for us to follow Vattel’s definition of NBC in Article II, section 1 because they specifically referenced “Law of Nations” in Article I, section 8 (“To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations”)
Setting aside the colonial custom of capitalizing nouns, let’s assume, again, this reference in Article I, section 8 adopts Vattel’s treatment of piracy exactly as laid out in his book (as opposed to a generic standard of responding to piracy on the high seas, according to laws of various nations sailing the seas). According to the rules of statutory interpretation, this would not only not mean, the Drafters intended the definition of NBC to echo Vattel’s definition; but it would mean precisely the opposite! That is, by using the reference to Law of Nations in one place in the document but not the other, the court would find the Drafters intended not to mean the definition proffered by Vattel.
“[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-5274.pdf
That is, given that the Drafters obviously knew how to reference Vattel in one part of the Constitution, this means, if they had wanted to reference his work in another part of this legal document, they likely would have. Yet, they failed to repeat the phrase either in Article II or anywhere else in the document.
But definitively attributing the phrase “Law of Nations” in Article I to Vattel’s text and not to a general world standard of laws, is absurd on its face.
John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison wrote the Federalist Papers so as to persuade the special Constitutional panels in the 13 states to ratify the newly drafted U.S. Constitution to replace the inadequate Articles of Confederation. In Paper 83, Mr. Hamilton addresses the construction of Article III, the federal judiciary, arguing for a right to trial by jury in all criminal cases but not in civil cases. (All emphasis added.)
But this is not, in my estimation, the greatest objection. I feel a deep and deliberate conviction that there are many cases in which the trial by jury is an ineligible one. I think it so particularly in cases which concern the public peace with foreign nations that is, in most cases where the question turns wholly on the laws of nations. Of this nature, among others, are all prize causes. Juries cannot be supposed competent to investigations that require a thorough knowledge of the laws and usages of nations; and they will sometimes be under the influence of impressions which will not suffer them to pay sufficient regard to those considerations of public policy which ought to guide their inquiries. There would of course be always danger that the rights of other nations might be infringed by their decisions, so as to afford occasions of reprisal and war. Though the proper province of juries be to determine matters of fact, yet in most cases legal consequences are complicated with fact in such a manner as to render a separation impracticable.
Or, just scroll back to Vattel’s own text, in which the phrase “law of nations” and permutations appear generously.
Lie number 3. We know what NBC means because this term is defined in a law review article; and the Boston Globe°; and dicta in several Supreme Court cases not directly on point.
See lie number 1.
° This lie is especially pernicious, for 2 (two) reasons. First, it falsely implies the theories of the speaker are supported by the imprimatur of the editors of the Boston Globe! In truth, an advice column appearing in the newspaper more than 100 years ago,contained what the writer stated was his personal opinion, namely, the words “native born” and “natural born” appearing in the Constitution in relation to the word “citizen” mean two different things. Second, it disingenuously sustains a fabricated claim that the words “native born” and “natural born” can honestly be conflated to mean the same thing and then uses the personal off-the-cuff opinion of the columnist to hyperbolically deflate such contention. Ha, the ‘legal’ pundit pedaling this tripe calls the Globe piece a “crucially relevant article.” Straw dogs. As I indicated in the beginning of the present post, following the basic rules of statutory interpretation necessarily leads to the conclusion that, because the Drafters used “native born” in one section of the document and “natural born” in another section; the courts would assume they intended “native born” and “natural born” to mean two different things!
******************************************************************************************
I cannot say what the Founders intended by the term NBC. But I am troubled by the willingness of so many purported “patriots” to supplant reason with their interpretation of the document those Founding Patriots created. Of course, I have studied history; of course, I have studied the law. Naturally, I have opinions. But I am not the arbiter of the Constitution’s truth; and neither are any of those internet pontificators, lawyer and layperson alike, who claim otherwise.
I could not care less as to the individual interpretations people ascribe to the original intent of the Drafters; or whether they adopt a Constitutional methodology of original intent or ‘living document,’ to reach their conclusions. But I am as fearful of becoming enslaved by zealots on one side as on the other. Let me emphasize, just because a particular lay interpretation appears to make sense to lay people does not mean it could survive critical judicial scrutiny. (Keep in mind, many of the people involved with founding this government were trained as lawyers.) If I point to a flaw with the legal methodology, this does not mean, I am pointing to a flaw in the character. That people continue to label theories of statutory construction as ‘belonging’ to one person or another scares the hell out of me. Practically speaking, the meaning of the Constitution is only ascertained when the federal bench rules, this it what it means. This is why I seldom express my personal views as to what the document means; or engage in endless speculation as to what the Constitution means. I am too busy doing actual work aimed at changing the status quo.
While there are few absolutes in interpretation, certainly we can all concede that no interpretation is valid or invalid based only on who is espousing that view. So, in conclusion, I want to repeat my strenuous objections that some people, expressing an opposing view to the positions discussed in this article, continue to direct such dissent to me and not to the work. I suspect these bullies are intentionally misleading people by clinging to discredited theories of Constitutional interpretation in order to sidetrack attention and energies which could be better utilized to challenge the legality of those Certifications of Obama’s nomination submitted in several ballot eligibility states.
Because in the end, Obama will not be removed from office on the basis of a legal definition of NBC, anyway. Even if documents available in the public record could establish the facts of his birth, which facts could then be fit into such legal definition of NBC. Because no law required the Electors to only elect a President who meets the Constitutional eligibility for office, anyway. But we have no such facts of birth or legal definition of NBC. However, we definitely know the definition of “C.” Because the SCOTUS has previously ruled on this issue in several cases directly on point. This means, we can confront anyone who Certified to state election officials in applicable states, candidate Obama was qualified for office, with this question: on what documentary basis did you ascertain beforehand he was a U.S. Citizen?
[...] Support posted about this interesting story. Here is a small section of the postEven if documents available in the public record could establish the facts of his birth, which facts could then be fit into such legal definition of NBC. Because no law required the Electors to only elect a President who meets the Constitutional …. Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. … [...]
[...] Omar Ha-Redeye posted about this interesting story. Here is a small section of the postOr, just scroll back to Vattel’s own text, in which the phrase “law of nations” and permutations appear generously. Lie number 3. We know what NBC means because this term is defined in a law review article; and the Boston Globe°; … [...]
(Name calling omitted by jbjd.)
If natural born Citizen has no meaning as you say, then the states would certainly have no role in vetting the eligibility of a candidate.
Your relativism (because you are of the (name calling omitted by jbjd) Left, which is truly the bottom line, I mean really, you wax poetically about H. Zinn!), leads to the same place; that is that nothing means anything, because everyone’s feelings and thoughts are valid.
If the term had no meaning, then what was Resolution 511, and the grilling of McCain all about? (they said he was nbc because his parents were US Citizens AND he was born in US Territory; AND Tribe and Olsen said that a natural born Citizen was born “within the territory AND ALLEGIANCE of a nation).
They ALL know what it means.
They all know that Natural Law is the basis of our law, and the laws between nations.
Reading your circular arguments and whining about those “stealing” your ideas, and your relativistic logic that twists itself into a pretzel, and ultimately means nothing, makes me say to myself, Yup (name calling omitted by jbjd) leftist Clinton supporter.
No I am not a “right winger”, or a “republican”, or a “misogynist”. Just someone who knows that there is a definite meaning of the word “is”, and that the Constitution has definite meaning that is easily found and understood by the common man. Understood at least until relativist lawyers like you played telephone w/ it for 2oo years.
mick: Thank you for this comment, which proves my point. “Demand a definition” of NBC, notwithstanding the Drafters wrote a Constitution explicitly authorizing the Supreme Court to fix the meaning of its terms. Ignore a well-reasoned and well-documented essay that points to an explanation why individuals cannot reasonably claim the right to say who is a NBC and, instead, respond to me with personal invectives. Just as I described.
You write, “If natural born Citizen has no meaning as you say, then the states would certainly have no role in vetting the eligibility of a candidate.” NBC has no meaning not because ‘I say,’ but because the Drafters left such meanings to the SCOTUS, which hasn’t yet spoken. And, as I have previously pointed out in numerous articles and comments, states have no role in vetting the eligibility of candidates except insofar as they may determine which candidates’ names they agree to print on state ballots. Keep in mind, all of this detail with respect to the ballot is fixed by state law. You can think of it this way: states cannot possibly print the names of all the people who want their names pre-printed on the ballot. So, they write laws limiting those names with requirements like, the candidate must present petitions with so many names, or pay a processing fee, or be submitted by a state political party.
You write, “…you wax poetically about H. Zinn!” so as to support calling me names. But you appear to have missed a salient point of that post, entirely. I was aiming my remarks at those citizens left of center who, up to the time I posted that piece, might have dismissed entirely the issues of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS along with its proponents, most of whom had long since become easy targets for ridicule. I pointed out that even Professor Zinn, a champion of organized labor, supported my decision to cross a picket line when labor was abrogating their role to honor my rights as a worker. I specifically asked those people to consider that, perhaps, those of us contesting the electoral process, pointing to its flaws and trying to fix it, could use their help. Indeed, after I wrote that article, many of the left leaning sites I mentioned did begin reading my work. (And I received an apology from a harsh critic who had been attacking me from the right!)
Let me confront the vitriol expressed in your writing, for citizens whose politics are different from yours. I express a lack of tolerance when my fellow citizens spread lies which are not based in fact and, indeed, are contradicted by fact. On the other hand, you express a lack of tolerance for the right of your fellow citizens to think differently from you. Those are the same sentiments spelled out in Vattel’s writing, when the difference in thought pertained to religion. That is, establish a state religion and, if people think differently, that is, follow a different religion or, none at all then, let them sell their property and move on. Luckily for us, the Drafters rejected his opinion on this, if they had considered his viewpoints at all.
And, finally, let me remind you, I am entitled to the fruits of my intellectual capital. People who steal are thieves. Worse, when they steal my ideas about how to redress the wrongs in the electoral process, without understanding what they stole, they risk irreparable harm to all of the good work that goes on here. (Didn’t you read or understand the disaster that could have occurred in NH, which is not an applicable state for ballot fraud, when my idea of filing citizen complaints was usurped and tried out, there? http://jbjd.org/2011/01/24/write-smart-eligibility-laws/) ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. You write, “If the term had no meaning, then what was Resolution 511, and the grilling of McCain all about? (they said he was nbc because his parents were US Citizens AND he was born in US Territory; AND Tribe and Olsen said that a natural born Citizen was born “within the territory AND ALLEGIANCE of a nation).” These pages are full of my opinion about that dog-and-pony show called non-binding Senate Resolution 511. I repeat, the term NBC has no legally binding meaning notwithstanding S511. Messrs. Tribe and Olsen would not have submitted such tripe to a court of law. (John McCain is a NBC because his parents were “affiliated” with a military base?) The non-binding Senate resolution has no legally binding effect. http://jbjd.org/2009/10/27/bob-bauer-rumored-to-be-next-white-house-counsel-to-federal-court-f-you/
hi jbjd,
you are absolutely dead on regarding the fact that there is no legal definition of the term “natural born citizen”. But don’t you think it’s worthwhile to work towards getting that term defined – especially after the craziness of the last three years or so?
I don’t claim to know how to get it done, but in my mind the most important thing we can do as citizens is try to bring attention to the fact that we have no way of ascertaining whether *any* of our presidential candidates are eligible, because we have *no* way of knowing whether any of them are natural-born citizens! We MUST get the SCOTUS to define the term, and from there we can move forward.
juriggs: How absolutely wonderful to hear from you again. Yes, I agree we need to shape the eligibility discussion. I proposed more than a year ago now, that each state gets to write its own ballot eligibility definition. For example, if voters believe the definition of NBC is, 2 (two) citizen parents then, write the ballot eligibility law that way. A candidate or political party aggrieved by such law will undoubtedly appeal to the federal courts, probably accusing the state of defining the Constitution, a function left to the SCOTUS. In this way, we could achieve a legal definition of NBC. Or, by enacting laws requiring Electors to only vote for a candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, in a state with a ballot eligibility law. (BTW, I often think of you when I read another hyperbolic ‘expose’ wrongly deducing that only fraud explains why the Certification of Obama’s Nomination submitted to HI contains specific wording of eligibility, while the other 49 states – again, misinformation – contain no such wording. It’s been more than 3 (three) years now since you and I compared notes on that wording, which we know resulted from state law requirements. We have come a long way since December 2008 / January 2009, huh.) ADMINISTRATOR
can you explain your over the top rhetoric here? maybe its just to many big words for me:
° This lie is especially pernicious, for 2 (two) reasons. First, it falsely implies the theories of the speaker are supported by the imprimatur of the editors of the Boston Globe! In truth, an advice column appearing in the newspaper more than 100 years ago,contained what the writer stated was his personal opinion, namely, the words “native born” and “natural born” appearing in the Constitution in relation to the word “citizen” mean two different things. Second, it disingenuously sustains a fabricated claim that the words “native born” and “natural born” can honestly be conflated to mean the same thing and then uses the personal off-the-cuff opinion of the columnist to hyperbolically deflate such contention. Ha, the ‘legal’ pundit pedaling this tripe calls the Globe piece a “crucially relevant article.” Straw dogs. As I indicated in the beginning of the present post, following the basic rules of statutory interpretation necessarily leads to the conclusion that, because the Drafters used “native born” in one section of the document and “natural born” in another section; the courts would assume they intended “native born” and “natural born” to mean two different things!
First, it falsely implies the theories of the speaker are supported by the imprimatur of the editors of the Boston Globe! -
- where does it do that?
oic so you think there was a disclaimer? hmm so if he just said a writer for globe and not headlined the globe suit you? doesnt change his point that the questioning and the the thoughts of then is same as now and is just as legitimate.
far as i can tell-disregarding the hype “crucially relevant “, naturalborncitizen was only showing “Obama’s eligibility is, at best, questionable” and saids a growing list of influential media sources who have expressed the opinion that simply being born in the United States does not qualify one to be President. ” replacing with well known legal thought of prominent men works for me.
your num2 i just dont understand- but I suspect it is your important point and i do want to understand it.
I am a fan of both of you and I am a conservative – i dont see any liberal bias in any of your analysis (I do in your west post- sorry couldnt resist) or the proper way to handle it.
even leo saids:”I hope there is enough respect for those principles in state houses to get the job done because your federal legislators have sold you out. Once again, it’s up to the states to get it right.”
your way:”we can confront anyone who Certified to state election officials in applicable states, candidate Obama was qualified for office, with this question: on what documentary basis did you ascertain beforehand he was a U.S. Citizen? ” is the best way.
but leo like you saids it will take scotus to deside the other way.
“By enacting a bill which denies those born with dual allegiance to POTUS ballot access, the issue should end up at the doors of the Supreme Court.”
To me your 2 sites work for me and for what i need to know- why the contempt?
markcon: I advised people in the summer of 2008, if you are concerned about Obama’s eligibility for office, keep his name off the ballot. I explained, no law required Electors to only elect an eligible President. I pointed out, only some states even require the candidates whose names appear on the ballot, must be qualified for the job. I proposed defining NBC any way you want, insofar as this pertains to getting on the ballot, inviting court challenge from aggrieved candidates (or political parties) leading to a SCOTUS definition of NBC. Almost 3 (three) years and hundreds of thousands of dollars and lies later, all of the more high profile characters in the ‘eligibility saga’ have come around to realizing, the only way to redress eligibility is through the states. The proof of who is leading and who is following, is all over the internet.
Phrases like “federal legislators have sold you out” have no place in rational discourse. I can imagine that, inundated with correspondence saying things like, ‘Obama is not a NBC because…,’ when no legal definition exists of NBC; or ‘the COLB isn’t real because the shadows on the seal go this way instead of that’; or ‘Lt. Col. Lakin is a hero for disobeying orders’ (notwithstanding at trial he admitted he was wrong and offered to deploy) many federal legislators who might at some earlier point been susceptible to listening to reason have tuned out all ‘birthers’ after years of these histrionics.
You say you are a “fan” of both of us. I could not care less what you think about me; I only care that you understand the work. Because as long as you credit work that says, the court (judicial branch) was wrong not to breach the separation of powers by refusing to order the SoS (the executive branch) to perform a specific function not spelled out in the law (legislative branch) then, you have no clue about the function or import of the system of governmental checks and balances set up by the the Founders and Drafters. As long as you credit work that complains, the JSCOTUS are “WUSSIES” for rejecting what they determined was an infirm legal argument supporting a petition that the court should breach the separation of powers, however heartfelt, then you are as dangerous to our Constitutional Republic as those people who stole the 2008 D nomination and whose motives appear to many of us to be less authentic. I have been pointing out the flaws in the ‘legal’ pursuits of these hucksters for years now, hoping that readers would abandon their personal attachments to one character or another and focus, instead, on the quality of the work. In that way, I hoped people would become more active guardians of our politics.
But as long as I am the only blogger telling people to organize in their states – literally, to stand on the steps of their state capitals – to persuade A’sG to investigate the citizen complaints of election fraud (viz a viz getting Obama’s name on the ballot); then, it would appear, these charlatans are more interested in personal aggrandizement than in solving the problem of Presidential eligibility. Why? Maybe just because it wasn’t their idea, first. ADMINISTRATOR
FYI, I didn’t get these new 1859 historical finds from Donofrio, if he posts them, he got them from me and I’m sure he will attribute them appropriately as he always does.
I also respectfully disagree that SCOTUS is the final definer of Article II NBC. Congress & the Exective are equal and thus have the same authority. We have heard much from those in all departments and now we absolutely have a definitive answer.
constitutionallyspeaking: Disagree away; but then, there is that provision called the Constitution. And Marbury v. Madison, of course. ADMINISTRATOR
Marbury v Madison upholds my conclusions. If you disagree, please show me where in that ruling I am wrong.
constitutionallyspeaking: You wrote earlier, “I also respectfully disagree that SCOTUS is the final definer of Article II NBC. Congress & the Exective are equal and thus have the same authority. We have heard much from those in all departments and now we absolutely have a definitive answer.” Of course, you may disagree; but your opinion is not based on fact. Thinking in terms of “checks and balances” might clarify the issue. M v M stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and that no Congressional law which violates the Constitution can stand. In my earlier Reply, I only provided a link to the summary of the case; maybe it would help your understanding if you read the whole decision.
ADMINISTRATOR
You obviously didn’t read my article either. The debate is on the definition of Article II natural born and in 1995, SCOTUS rendered a decision which completely and simply puts the answer to rest. NO current SCOTUS decision required. We merely need to follow the intent of 14th Amendment as it was written. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562. http://supreme.justia.com/us/513/561/case.html
It is this kind of evidence that we need to take to our US & state Reps and state SOS’s to convince them to pass proper legislation. What Rand Paul has proposed is absolutely atrocious and will shred even further the intent of the founding generation who put in place our citizenship laws. So while I welcome all that you do, it seems that you have overlooked the simplest and common sense rule of interpretation.
constitutionallyspeaking: Okay, now I get it. You have your own blog – up to this point I had failed to notice one of the links you provided was to your own blog – and you obviously spent considerable time and energy devising your own theories of statutory construction and Constitutional jurisprudence. Only, now that I have rejected your ‘legal’ reasoning, this reasoned rebuttal might serve to discredit your work.
Does your state, SD, have ballot eligibility laws? If not, surely, you could frame your petition to state legislators in the context of limiting the expenditure of state election resources to printing the names of those candidates qualified for office. After you get that law, you can write whatever definition you want of NBC, as long as it is not capricious and arbitrary or contrary to law.
If you have such eligibility laws, well, let’s work on a citizen complaint of election fraud to your AG. ADMINISTRATOR
admin – and you obviously spent considerable time and energy devising your own theories of statutory construction and Constitutional jurisprudence
jbjd, I hardly devised anything of my own. I merely used common sense and the rules laid out by Story for us to use. It was he that stated: In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.
So if I missed something, why do you not point it out directly to me so I can research & study further where I went wrong? The legalese do not have the market on constitutional interpretation and there was good reason the founders set up our system to operate as such. Saying that only those with law degrees have the right & the knowledge to expound on constitutional interpretation is an elitist attitude. So while some of my conclusions are in unison with you & Donofrio, there will always remain some that aren’t. Isn’t it wonderful we still live in a country where that can be?
admin – Does your state, SD, have ballot eligibility laws?
Our state does have a law that requires that only names of qualified candidates are to be placed on the ballot, however there are no laws yet that absolutely require the SOS to vet those qualifications of candidates for the major parties. What also really gets my goat is that I have a copy of the certified 2008 DNC doc signed by our late SOS and not even the DNC declared the candidates as being qualified under the provisions of the US Constitution while the 2008 RNC one did. But with no laws in place for citizen dispute, my efforts were doomed before I even began. So, that was a total waste of my time.
Since then, there has been legislation to require that the SOS vet the qualifications as well as attempt to define what a NBC is, however it has yet to make it out of committee and frankly, the language of it would have done more harm then good so I am glad it was tabled.
But my goal is larger than just presidential qualifications. I contend that until we get our citizenship laws in check we are only going to keep treading water regarding presidential NBC. Our country needs to get back to following the intent the founders that US citizens must have exclusive citizenship to the US, either at birth or naturalization and all others are aliens, whether they be temporary or allowed permanent status, as well as is all their children, whether born here or not. This is NOT the doctrine of Vattel, it is the doctrine of natural law going back to time immemorial which he took from his predecessors. Personally, I see Cicero, Grotious, Locke, Sidney & Aristotle as having more weight on the natual law of citizenship adopted than I do of Vattel. But especially that of Sidney & Locke who’s work weighs heavily on Cicero & Grotious. Regardless, the founding generation was well learned in all.
constitutionallyspeaking: Please, send me the SD ballot eligibility law ASAP. If you are correct about that law then, I need to see the Certification you reference so that I know whom to name in the citizen complaint of election fraud! Yes; it seems you have missed the whole point of these citizen complaints of election fraud. Having the eligibility law means, anyone submitting to the SoS a Certification of Obama’s Nomination – in most states, this was Nancy Pelosi but in SC, for example, this was Kathy Hensley; and in TX, this was Boyd Richie – guaranteed he was qualified for the job. Sure, in HI, the words ‘according to the Constitution’ were added, like in SC; but this only reflected the specific wording requirements of election laws of those states. In other states, the Certifications said “duly nominated.” Anyway, this is a distinction without a difference, since the DNC rules require the nominee to be Constitutionally qualified!
Read the citizen complaints in the sidebar so that you understand what I have been talking about.
If SD had a law in 2008 requiring only candidates qualified for office may appear on the ballot then, anyone submitting Obama’s name to appear on the ballot and swearing he was qualified for office, without first ascertaining whether he is a NBC, committed criminal election fraud. And the state AG should investigate. ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. I am not offering courses on Constitutional jurisprudence or statutory interpretation.
admin-Please, send me the SD ballot eligibility law ASAP. If you are correct about that law then, I need to see the Certification you reference so that I know whom to name in the citizen complaint of election fraud
That road has already been tried & got kicked to the curb. Not by me, but another who was a former state Rep.
admin-I am not offering courses on Constitutional jurisprudence or statutory interpretation
I’m not asking you for a course in jurisprdence or statutory interpretation, Prof Eastman as well as Hillsdale staff have been more than gracious in answering my questions. I was just asking you what specific point in my article you disagree with.
I am a business owner of 30 years who has written many contracts that have stood the scrutiny of a court room without the assistance of a lawyer, so please don’t think I am looking for a free course in the law. One doesn’t have to have a formal jd in order to know the law. Or for that matter, understand how it’s made or interpreted.
constitutionallyspeaking: You write, “That road has already been tried & got kicked to the curb. Not by me, but another who was a former state Rep.” I have no idea what you are talking about. Until you told me, I had no idea SD was a ballot eligibility state. I never drafted a citizen complaint of election fraud for SD. In case you hadn’t noticed, no such complaint is posted in the sidebar of this blog. So, no one could have filed such a complaint with your state AG. The citizen complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the state legislature; wrong branch of government.
Where is the SD law I asked you to provide? ADMINISTRATOR
credit work that complains, the JSCOTUS are “WUSSIES” for rejecting what they determined was an infirm legal argument, same as frauds???
whining is not illegal yet is it?
let me put it this way. with out leo I never would of been interested enough to find you.
“federal legislators have sold you out” I knew you would jump on that! rational discourse involves only what you determine as to what is acceptable? his statement is factual by their refusal to face the subject.
‘credit work that says, the court (judicial branch) was wrong not to breach the separation of powers by refusing to order the SoS (the executive branch) to perform a specific function not spelled out in the law (legislative branch)’
I didn’t know he was taking that approach, which would appose you as you explained, no law required Electors to only elect an eligible . President. I thought he was only concerned with dual stuff.
its unfortunate that you seem to dislike the term fan- tough- still am.
your reply seems harsh but not in anyway I can validate- I cant even say its emotional- its factual but feels emotional-
so be it. I like hearing where you think he is wrong but not at my expense.
markcon: I am sorry that you feel my reply to your last comment came at your expense; this was not my intention. Let me be more specific. Leo used the legal cause of action called mandamus to ask the court to order the NJ SoS to vet candidate Obama for Constitutional eligibility for President before placing his name on the NJ state ballot. Did NJ law say, a ministerial function of the SoS is to vet the Presidential candidate from the major political party, for Constitutional eligibility before placing his name on the ballot? No. Leo merely implied this ‘duty’ from the oath of office administered to the SoS. But this is not what is required under mandamus. Yes; my answer was “emotional.” People credited Leo’s saga because he is a lawyer and passionately publicized his crusade. But he rested his case on unsound legal footing and was doomed to fail. This rejection of an infirm legal argument does not speak ill of the SCOTUS or of the lower federal (or state) courts. Where passion supplants reason, I call this ‘foot stomping.’ In other words, ‘give me what I want, what I really really want, or I will hold my breath’ (or call you names).
“Federal legislators have sold you out” belongs in this category. You write, “I knew you would jump on that! rational discourse involves only what you determine as to what is acceptable? his statement is factual by their refusal to face the subject.” As I have often said, just because we elect people to federal offices does not mean, they are spontaneously aware of the intricacies of election law, especially as pertains to the eligibility issue. (This explains why they might ask the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) for a position paper on Presidential eligibility.) And, if the only thing they have to go on, is the over-the-top mailing from constituents as well as others recruited from across the country to drown federal offices in pleas to examine Obama’s eligibility, well, I can understand how they remain uninformed as to the specific issues at play here. What if we had distilled the whole conundrum to this one question: When we asked, why did all of the D’s who Certified to state election officials Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the office of President, to get them to print his name on the ballot, refuse to tell us on what basis they had ascertained beforehand he is a NBC?
Do a search on this blog for his name to find other specific de-construction of his work (or, to find the contents of emails he has sent me, evidencing more temper outbursts). Search the internet to find my attempts to clarify that he had misread the law by insisting it provided the head of a security agency can withhold classified information from the President if he deems such conduct necessary to maintain national security, in other words, that an inferior of the Executive branch could withhold information from his boss; a conclusion absurd on its face.
If lay people credit a lawyer who (often) has no idea what he is talking about, then they are not only not learning how their electoral systems works but they are also learning the wrong things about how it works. And, they already were ‘behind the 8-ball’ in this regard. That’s why it was so easy for others with greater knowledge, to steal the 2008 election.
I am dancing as fast as I can to make up that information deficit.
And yes, I am very glad you found me. ADMINISTRATOR
Dear jbjd,
Thanks so much for some clarity on a subject shrouded in a very dense fog even though it seems like it should be an issue clear as a sunny day.
It’s probably precisely what Obama had in his hand prior to the nomination which led to his election. His lawyers legally gamed that the likelihood of anyone having the ability to thwart his candidacy very low. There was no possibility for hearings a la McCain since he was not a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination prior to the convention. Once he secured the Democratic nomination and the economy tanked, there was simply neither time nor desire to hold the same hearings that would have been negatively spun against the Republicans anyway. Once elected, the same lawyers determined there would be few if any options available for reprieve and anyone questioning his constitutional qualification would be marginalized by supporters and the media alike. Plus, the grief SCOTUS received for involvement in 2000 election that ended in Gore’s loss was a chit the Democrats could call on to discourage SCOTUS from interference in 2008. Obama and his lawyers judged they had a winning hand to proceed with the campaign. I can imagine this discussion with Obama and his close personal lawyers.
Maybe it is better to simply focus on how awful this administration is and work to get Obama defeated in 2012. This is increasingly becoming the credo of many who oppose this administration and believe the eligibility issue a non-starter.
Nah, some of us can multi-task. Besides, at some point in the future, I want some questions answered.
jimbrown: As I have mentioned previously, the record makes clear, this subterfuge necessary to steal the nomination and subsequently, the election was firmly in place by 2007. Watch for the next post, up shortly. ADMINISTRATOR
I respectfully disagree with you.
“Lie number 1. We know what NBC means because this term is defined in Vattel’s Law of Nations.”……. “ Assuming all that, it is nonetheless absurd to make the leap of logic that says with certainty, the Drafters, having read Vattel’s definition of NBC and understood his meaning, thereby adopted his definition into their text.”
For the sake of intellectual honesty you had to provide evidence, when you call people liars, that they are in fact lying. Stunning claims require stunning evidence. Therefore, you should have provided other definitions of the term of NBC that were available in 1790 that the founding fathers may have used in writing the Constitution. Then you should have demonstrated that they were familiar with these definitions. Yet, you provide no ‘evidence’ to back your claim that Vattel ‘s wasn’t the main contributor here. I am certain you are familiar with:
“The Law of Nations” by Emer de Vattel on October 5, 1789.
The book was not returned, nor any overdue book fine paid — with the overdue fee now calculated at about $300,000.
The missing book came to light when the New York Society Library was restoring its 1789-1792 charging ledger, which features the borrowing history of Washington, John Adams, John Jay, Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, George Clinton, and others
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/20/us-library-washington-idUSTRE64J4EG20100520
and:
The Law of Nations and The Constitution
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html
I can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that the founding fathers were well aware of Vattel’s law of Nations. The only debate I cannot settle is your question of if “understood his meaning, adopted his definition into their text”. The founding fathers understood french, knew and read Vattel’s work, and used it extensively in forming the US Constitution, which is SOLID evidence that they in fact used it for the term NBC. The aforementioned individuals, and please include Madison and Jefferson as readers, were the truly brilliant and gifted thinkers of their time. I suppose that they may not have ‘understood’ Vattel’s writings, but that is in my opinion, intellectually dishonest assumption!
Your confusing the issue, and misleading the people whom read your blog, by attempting to show that the founding fathers didn’t always use Vattel’s law of Nations (see lie 2 and 3). They were writing a Constitution for a new country, they were under no obligation to use Vattel’s law of Nations throughout the document, as you have noted. Wisely, they took what they wanted from Vattel and incorporated it. In the end they relied heavily on Vattel, but created a unique document.
I humbly ask, since you have called me a “Liar” that you provide your research that demonstrates that the founding fathers, as listed above whom I have demonstrated relied heavily, but not exclusively, on Vattel’s law of Nations, were familiar and understood any other ALTERNATE definition of NBC in 1790. I would remind you that, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the founding fathers were not that ‘keen’ on all things British. Having won victory against the British by help from the French and French fleet at Saratoga just a few years earlier, they seemed to rely heavily on a French writer!
I agree with you that the SCOTUS doesn’t have to accept Vattel contribution, the law of nations, or even research the matter. The SCOTUS could rule differently, and use another term for NBC. The problem for the SCOTUS, is if they accept a case, or attempt to address NBC as it pertains to POTUS, they will have to address the simple an irrefutable facts of the above understanding at the time of writing of the Constitution. That is why, in my opinion, “We are avoiding the eligibility issue” come to play http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA
jbjd, sometimes the truth doesn’t lie between opposing points of view. The great weight of historical evidence demonstrates that John Jay and Washington knew exactly why the Commander in Chief had to be NBC to avoid dual loyalties. http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=joj
The evidence suggests a fondness for the French, and Vattel’s law of Nations, but an attempt to make a unique document. I have found no credible evidence that the founding fathers were using another definition of NBC other than Vattel’s. However, since you have called this a “LIE” it is intellectually imperative that you now demonstrate evidence to back your opinion of a known and accepted alternate meaning of NBC in 1790, familiar to the founding fathers, consistent with known history and ‘fondness’ of the time. On the other hand, you can simply retract and apologize.
Pete
Pete: Assume everything you write is true.
False Conclusion #1. The ‘fact’ that George Washington took Vattel’s book out of the library in 1789 evidences the Drafters were at least aware of his definition of NBC.
Any ideas culled from Vattel’s book in 1789 cannot be said to have affected either the language or the intent of the Drafters of the Constitution since the work of the Constitutional Convention completed in 1787 and resulted in a document distributed to the states for ratification, which such document was ratified in 1788, before Washington’s election in 1789. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html
Again, straw dogs and red herrings. I would assume innumerable discussions were had, both on and off the record, concerning the character of the person who would be President and, simultaneously, CiC. I have read several of these. But discussing the merits of these arguments is an intellectual exercise that only wastes time. Even if we all agree on one definition, so what? What are the practical implications of our concurrence, absence a legally binding definition? That is, without a legal definition of NBC, it makes no sense to say, this President is or is not a NBC.
What does make sense is to challenge anyone who swore he is a NBC to explain the basis for such oath. Especially when it comes to establishing the “C.” ADMINISTRATOR
admin-You write, “That road has already been tried & got kicked to the curb. Not by me, but another who was a former state Rep.” I have no idea what you are talking about. Until you told me, I had no idea SD was a ballot eligibility state. I never drafted a citizen complaint of election fraud for SD. In case you hadn’t noticed, no such complaint is posted in the sidebar of this blog.
I did notice and that is why I responded as I did.
admin-So, no one could have filed such a complaint with your state AG. The citizen complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the state legislature; wrong branch of government.
I didn’t say the complaint was filed “with” the legislature, I said the complaint was file “by a former legislator”. I’m not stupid.
Where is the SD law I asked you to provide?
http://www.sdsos.gov/ – knock yourself out, but you won’t get anywhere. Until we fix the national laws, my state will do nothing. Jackley, just like his predesessor Long, won’t touch this subject.
Our state has just enough spineless legislators who tend to heed to political correctness first on some issues. Here is the current proposed citizenship legislation which absolutely does “nothing” but some some fultie=le attempt to appease aka shut us up. Too bad its not going to work, because we are not letting go of it until it is corrected, but as you will see, our days are but 1 left for the year and so now we must move on and concentrate on those in DC:
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1199P.htm
It concludes: This compact does not take effect until Congress has given its consent, pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
So to think that the SD legislature or the AG will address or make any changes to the election laws prior to DC addressing the definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” of the 14th is well, quite naive.
constitutionallyspeaking: I pressed the link you provided in response to my request that you follow up on your claims by sending me the SD ballot eligibility law (in effect in 2008). The link led me to the web site of the SD SoS. Until you send me the language of the actual law, along with its citation and a link to the SD statute, our communication is put on hold. (“Knock yourself out,” indeed.) ADMINISTRATOR
Your debunking of “Lie #1″ is what you call a strawdog. We know the framers of the Constitution were familiar with Vattel’s Law of Nations because it was referenced in the Journals of the Continental Congress, such as the passage found at the top of the page in this link:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=029/lljc029.db&recNum=398&itemLink=D?hlaw:3:./temp/~ammem_67tA::%230290399&linkText=1
Ben Franklin specifically references using and sharing the book with his colleagues in a letter dated Dec. 9, 1775:
“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.”
The Supreme Court references Vattel’s definition of natural citizenship as early as 1814 in the Venus case:
“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
“‘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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.’”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
Yes, it’s dicta, but it certainly shows an awareness and legal appreciation for the definition. The SCOTUS went further in Minor v. Happersett, while not citing Vattel by name, using his definition nearly verbatim:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens …”
Justice Waite cited this definition to explain the term as it appears in the Constitution in Art. II Sec. I, and to explain why he was rejecting Virginia Minor’s claim of being a citizen via the 14th amendment.
In the Wong Kim Ark case, Justice Gray cites this same definition and emphasizes that Minor was found to be a citizen by jus soli and jus sanguinis circumstances in that decision:
“Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, …”
In effect, he was upholding or at least respecting the Minor decision, so he had to make a different argument for declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen.
The dissent in Wong Kim Ark cites Vattel by name and gives the exact definition:
“Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
This is a consistent treatment of this concept and one which the Supreme Court said was the nomenclature of the framers of the Constitution. While these cases did not specifically deal with the eligibility of a presidential candidate or de facto president, in two of the cases, the definition of NBC is tied directly to the eligibility clause in the Constitution. How does one come up with a stronger, more compelling definition than that?
Also, you make a bizarre argument that native-born means something different than natural born, but in this definition, natural born is used to describe ‘the natives.’ The natives are those persons who are born in the country to parents who are citizens. Even Justice Gray avoided using the term “native-born” when talking about the 14th amendment. Instead he used the term “citizenship by birth,” but made a distinction that it was defined by the constitution, while NBC was defined OUTSIDE the constitution.
ksdb: You and so many others use this phrase so as to restrict NBC status to only those born here of 2 (two) citizen parents:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens …” It says nothing of the sort. It only says, there is no question these are natural born. As to other iterations of birth – one citizen parent, unknown parentage (adoption), etc. – the court in that case is conceding these variations have not been considered or produced conclusions. And it is not producing a conclusion here, either. Rather, the court is merely saying, no one has ever questioned whether a person born here, both of whose parents are U.S. citizens, is a natural born citizen.
That’s the same nebulous reasoning that requires a rejection of the insistence on dual parent citizens resulting from the non-binding resolution S511. People said, ‘See, the Senate said, John McCain was natural born as both parents were citizens!’ But that resolution referred specifically to John McCain, both of whose parents were citizens. And even as the case you cited said, ‘No questions have been raised as to natural born citizenship status in cases where both parents are citizens and the child is born in the U.S.’ In other words, this is more of a historical record than a legal conclusion. What if only one of his parents was a citizen? Then, the resolution might have found natural born citizen status based on the fact, one of his parents was a U.S. citizen. Because no court has specifically excluded this iteration from the NBC paradigm, in a ruling on point.
As to who read what before writing the Constitution, well, the record is clear. The Drafters read everyone, rejecting the writings of some, incorporating the writings of others. Read to learn what to do as well as what not to do. In the end, they wrote a Constitution in which Article III courts would decide what they meant. And when it comes to NBC, the courts still have not said what they meant. ADMINISTRATOR
You said, “It says nothing of the sort.” Ummm, it’s an exact quote, dear.
Then you wrote: “It only says, there is no question these are natural born.” … as “distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This is the rest of the quote that Minor uses. If you weren’t born of citizen parents, you were an alien or foreigner who had to naturalize in order to become a citizen. Waite says some authorities go further and include as citizens (not natural born citizens, which is a distinct class of citizen), those born in the country without regard to the citizenship of the parents, but of this CLASS of citizenship, he says there is doubt. Thus, he narrows down the definition of natural born citizens specifically to the children of citizens.
You wrote: “As to other iterations of birth – one citizen parent, unknown parentage (adoption), etc. – the court in that case is conceding these variations have not been considered or produced conclusions.” It doesn’t say that at all. It acknowledges two ways to become a citizen … either by birth or naturalization. Then it narrows down that children born of citizens are natural born citizens. Others may be citizens, but there is doubt about their citizenship. This doesn’t mean they can still be natural born citizens.
You wrote: “Rather, the court is merely saying, no one has ever questioned whether a person born here, both of whose parents are U.S. citizens, is a natural born citizen.” Well, no, the court is talking about natural born citizenship because in its opinion, Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen. They rejected her claim that her citizenship was not due to the 14th amendment because she was already a natural born citizen. For anyone not born of citizen parents (plural), the court would have to decide if he or she is a citizen, which is what the court did in the Wong Kim Ark decision. Ark did not fit the definition of NBC, so Gray used the 14th amendment to declare him to be a citizen, but predicated upon his parents having permanent domicil and reckoning that the Constitution (via the 14th amendment) outweighed a treaty with China (which the dissent disagreed with).
You wrote: “That’s the same nebulous reasoning that requires a rejection of the insistence on dual parent citizens resulting from the non-binding resolution S511.” This is a strawdog. I didn’t say anything about S511. Focus on the actual point.
You wrote: “And even as the case you cited said, ‘No questions have been raised as to natural born citizenship status in cases where both parents are citizens and the child is born in the U.S.’” The case I cited did not say this at all. This is your paraphrase and a poor one. From there you speculate on something that is not supported by any case that I’m aware of.
You wrote: “As to who read what before writing the Constitution, well, the record is clear.” Yes, it is. They obviously read and respected Vattel, which undermines the premise of your list of lies. The court clearly respected this work as a guide. You said, “And when it comes to NBC, the courts still have not said what they meant.” Sorry, but I’ve shown otherwise. It used a clear definition of natural born citizenship and set it apart as a class of citizenship that is distinct from other types of citizenship at birth. Of this, there is no doubt.
ksdb: As usual, your comment is all about obfuscation. But even assuming just for the sake of argument your flawed reasoning is sound, so what? Waste of time speculating… Stop misdirecting.
On what documentary basis did Nancy Pelosi or Alice Germond or Boyd Richie or Kathy Hensley ascertain Obama is a NBC, before swearing he was, to state officials in ballot eligibility states, to get them to print his name on the 2008 ballot? Because when we ask, none of these people will tell us! ADMINISTRATOR
My comment is about accuracy. Drivel about supposed “lies” as you have posted is the real obfuscation. What you post is an exercise in futility or vanity, especially when you pretend you’re challenging Pelosi, Boyd Richie or anyone else. Why should they be expected to present a documentary basis for determining Obama is an NBC when you can’t even decide how it’s defined?? THAT is the epitome of what you call “nebulous reasoning.”
Under the definition I pointed out, we need to see proof of citizenship for Obama and both his parents. Under your scenario, we’re left fishing and/or hoping for imaginary documentary evidence for which there is no compelling rationale or expectation to produce. If you can’t articulate a definition for natural born citizen, how do you determine what documents are or are not appropriate for Pelosi and the others to have used declare Obama to be eligible for office??
ksdb: If the D’s who Certified Obama is a NBC in states with ballot eligibility laws, had no documentary basis for such determination then, they committed ballot fraud. Whatever they defined as NBC. Of course, we can all agree, the Constitution and the federal courts have clearly defined C. (I am only repeating previous writings on this subject, scattered throughout this blog.)
Can we look at the only reference in actual codified law for the term “natural born Citizen” for at least a portion of the answer. This is in reference to the Naturalization act of 1790. In this naturalization act we find that Congress describes a condition where one was CONSIDERED AS a “natural born Citizen”. I point out the qualifying words because so many say that the act “defines ‘natural born Citizen’” – but it does not. It merely indicates who can be considered as nbC. Even SR 511 incorrect cites this act as ‘defining nbC’ (“Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;”)
To meet this criteria one could be born overseas but had to be born of two citizen parents. In simple terms this act did exactly what ksdb advocates – it waives any reference to jus soli and relies solely on jus sanguinis to give, through man made law, a status that is CONSIDERED a “natural born Citizen”. Thus, would it be proper to assume that at least part of ‘the definition’ is provided in this act – jus sanguinis?
We all know that the following version of the act completely eliminated this reference. Maybe Congress realized it had overrode the Constitution with their act and thought that to be wrong. But for 5 years we did have a law that defined what it took to be CONSIDERED an nbC – it was solely jus sanguinis. Thus, can it not be reasoned that jus sanguinis is at least part of the elusive definition.
Mike: No. We don’t know the reason this law was re-written but, assuming you are correct in guessing, legislators determined their definition of NBC was wrong. Invariably, the courts would have agreed with them.
I have opinions as to the definition of NBC; so do millions of others. Nothing means anything until the lady with the scales, sings.
Reading through this blog, you will find I have repeated several times, I could not care less as to the definition of NBC. The mere fact that none exists means, these endless discussions as to the definition are only an intellectual exercise, at best. At worst, they are intentional misdirection.
But, as I have also said, we know what is a C. I repeat, how did Nancy Pelosi or Boyd Richie or Kathy Hensley know he was even a C before swearing he was, to state election officials in states with ballot eligibility laws, to get them to print his name on the ballot? ADMINISTRATOR
jbjd,
Any Texans want to comment on the Texas Delegate Selection Plan?
“(Austin, TX) – In accordance with the delegate selection process governed by the Charter and Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, the Texas Democratic Party is pleased to announce that our Texas Delegate Selection Plan is posted on our website. You can view it here. There is an open comment period on the Plan until April 8th, 2011. Anyone who would like to offer a comment on the Plan is invited to email DelegatePlan@txdemocrats.org.”
http://www.txdemocrats.org/2011/03/09/texas-delegate-selection-plan-important-information/
Why does “SECTION II, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, A. BALLOT ACCESS” allow anyone eligible or ineligible to be placed on the primary ballot as a presidential nominee but Texas law requires, for the general election, that “the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law”, meaning “eligible to the office of President” as stated in the U.S. Constitution?
Why aren’t the “ATTACHMENTS TO THE DELEGATE SELECTION PLAN” made available to the public for review?
Just a couple of questions come to mind…
azgo: OMG! The ‘fix’ is already in, in TX! Your comments point to this: the TX plan offered up by the TDP violates TX statutory law. And the D’s are waiting for citizens of TX to point this out? GEESH! Hell, the head of the TDP, Boyd Richie, is a lawyer!
I need to reply to your comments in a post. I know despite my many cautions, not everyone reading the articles on this blog, reads the Comments. ADMINISTRATOR
P.S. It bothers me that this news came from a citizen of AZ and not TX. Haven’t we learned that hyper-vigilance is necessary to preserve the integrity of our electoral process from special interests called political parties?
Your “update”, of course, is nonsense. Pontifications of a sharp mind dulled by relativism. True, SCOTUS is the ultimate arbitter of Constitutional terms, but the Constitution was written to be understood by the common man. 200 years of lawyers playing telephone with it, and their own inflated egos that insist that stare decisis overrides any original meaning, have rendered it mush. Any law that is against the Constitution is null and void. If there is no meaning of the term natural born Citizen that is actionable, then the states have nothing to base any vetting of a candidate, and A2S1C5 is uninforcable. Thus is the end result of your relativist, circular firing squad logic. I would expect no less from one who admires both Howrd Zinn and Hillary Clinton. The meaning is well known from over 200 years ago, and is expressed consistantly over that time. I laugh at the nonsense you write, but it is also a sad commentary on the state of both the law profession and teaching profession.
Mick: Howard Zinn was a WWII combat veteran, which conduct I would imagine most citizens of this country would agree has more than earned him the ‘right’ to be free of the scorn of the ‘thought police.’
You write, “Any law that is against the Constitution is null and void.” Okay; but who gets to decide? For example, assume those states that formerly provided public ‘facilities’ (train cars) to its citizens stratified on the basis of their color, actually believed the definition intended by the term “equal protection” expressed in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was not violated by such conduct. Of course, many of those citizens affected by this conduct believed otherwise, and so challenged the prevailing view of the Constitution. Based on the case brought before the SCOTUS, it ruled, “separate” can still mean, “equal.” (Plessy v. Ferguson).
For the next 6 decades, many citizens still believed the SCOTUS had gotten it wrong. And an argument was re-submitted to the court, using better evidence, in a case involving public education services. This time, rejecting stare decicis, the court ruled, “equal” cannot exist when the government provides services to people separated by their race. (Brown v. Board).
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/afam/afam-brown.html
This is what “checks and balances” is all about. According to the Constitution’s delegation of power to the SCOTUS to interpret what the document means; separate was equal during the 6 decades between Ferguson and Brown. Of course, this does not mean, states engaged in separating the provision of services by race, notwithstanding Plessy; or that, state constitutions did not prohibit such segregation.
You mistakenly conflate defining NBC for the purpose of establishing eligibility for POTUS; with establishing eligibility for having the state print a name on the ballot. I have been advocating that states set ballot eligibility, only. In fact, I maintain, absent a Constitutional amendment; this is the only way to finally get a legal definition of the term (which must come from the federal appellate court, which includes the SCOTUS).
ADMINISTRATOR
[...] morning, I Replied to a Comment sent in by “Mick” on DEFINITION on DEMAND, which was originally posted 1 (one) month ago. In hindsight, I think the ideas we expressed in [...]
[...] In the interest of time, instead of writing that Post, I will re-Post that conversation. Micksays: April 14, 2011 at 07:55(Edit) [...]
Notwithstanding the historical understanding embraced by the Framers, the various ‘dicta’ of Congressional speeches and within Judicial Opinions or the public perceptions to the contrary, there is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.
I’ve come to realize that in order for the SCOTUS to garner the COURAGE to take up a case, whether presented as a Political Question or as a Citizenship Question it is necessary for the ‘national Will’ to be apparent and in demand of an answer.
In other words, there MUST be a Political Will in order to get a Judicial Opinion on this subject.
Political Will being the Will of the People as long as we remain a Representative Republic at the Federal and State levels.
Challenges to State Election Laws need to be filed based on the premise that without a “legal” definition all State Election Laws are repugnant to the Constitution when the Constitutional prerequisite imperative requirement is ignored.
The same with the Federal Election Commission.
It can even be argued that there can be NO legal POTUS/V-POTUS without a “legal” definition upon which to base conformity to the needs of the Constitution.
IMO.
(Both are being prepared along with another Petition to SCOTUS, however, the more the merrier and a stronger expression of Political Will))
slcraig: I am so glad you wrote this comment because it provides an opportunity to clarify several points previously explored on this blog which, obviously, require reinforcement. First, let me commend your realization, no definition of NBC exists absent a ruling from a federal appellate court, this is what it means. Also, you are correct in focusing on state election laws as the starting point for a consideration of how to reach the courts for a definition of NBC. Now, here is where we part ways.
1. Political will, in general, may provide the impetus for courts to both hear cases and, rule in particular ways. (We often couch this political nuance as a ‘public policy’ argument.) But with respect to the several cases impinging on Presidential eligibility, thus far, I have seen no case filed thus far that encompasses a legally cognizable action. Thus, the consideration of politics or public policy has never even been reached by the court.
2. The case that could reach the federal appellate court is this: the state defines Presidential eligibility for the sole purpose of getting the name of the candidate Constitutionally eligible for office onto the ballot; and the aggrieved candidate charges the state has no right to define NBC, for the purpose of determining eligibility for office. However, even this might not reach the court because, how the state defines NBC for the ballot will not preclude the election by Electors of that person, absent another law requiring state Electors to elect only someone whose name appeared on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR
[...] Finally, Leo again raises the specter of Vattel. For goodness sake, give up that ghost! DEFINITION on DEMAND [...]