Compared to the number of people who click on the latest article posted here on “jbjd,” I have relatively few subscribers, either to the articles or, to the Comments. But sometimes, the article only begins the dialogue; the Comments, and my Replies to this input from my readers, are often ‘where the action is.’ Occasionally, I review older Comments and my Replies, especially when this involves a new Comment to an old Post. In retrospect, it appears to me that the articles I post evidence perhaps a more fully developed explanation of the point I want to make – some might call this rambling – or a greater attention to detail; but this only reflects the nature of the blog. That is, I generally write the article in a way I hope will maximize the likelihood, readers will understand what I am saying; and I Reply to Comments so as to clarify any misunderstanding.
This 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 our exchange merit their own post.
In the interest of time, instead of writing that Post, I will re-Post that conversation.
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).
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).