Via Bob Parks: Whoops! Of The Day
Apparently, NBC is (very early) projecting that Romney will garner 55% of the popular vote, and Obama 43% (which percentage, no doubt, includes the coveted votes of Deceased-Americans and of the Multivote-Americans). At the same time, NBC is apparently projecting that Romney will win 257 Electoral College vote, as against Obama's 280 -- if this hold, then Obama will be declared to have been re-elected to the Presidency, despite that, definitionally, he is not a natural born US citizen (*), and is thus Constitutionally unqualified to occupy the office.
Now, the point here is that *everyone* knows that neither the Democrats as a party, nor the "liberals" as individuals, will be demanding, this time around, that the Electoral College be abolished should NBC's (way too early) projections bear out -- for, as I keep reminding Gentle Reader, "liberals" as hypocrites.
Regardless of any other predictions, here is one prediction that has no possibility of failing --
Should Obama "win" the popular vote and fail to win the Electoral College, leftists (i.e. "liberals" and Democrats) will, once again, demand the abolition of the Electoral College, and will likely demand that the legal result be overturned right now.
On the other hand, should Romney "win" the popular vote and fail to win the Electoral College, leftists (i.e. "liberals" and Democrats) will NOT SAY A WORD about the abolition of the Electoral College, and will certainly not likely demand that the legal result be overturned right now.
For, as I keep reminding Gentle Reader, "liberals" as hypocrites.
(*) It has noting to do with where he was born, you purposely dense "liberals", it has to do with the fact that Obama Sr was not a US citizen, of any type, at the time Obama Jr was born.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Re: "despite that, definitionally, he is not a natural born US citizen (*),"
Obama is a Natural Born Citizen because the US Supreme Court has ruled in the Won Kim Ark case (which BTW was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, and that it refers to the place of birth, and that everyone born in the USA except the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US citizen.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Here are sources to turn to for further research:
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346
smrstrauss,
Is it simply that you do not understand what you're talking about, or is it that you do not give a damn what you assert when you copy-and-paste disengenuous Obamanation talking points?
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18) -- The question of whether Mr Wong Kim Ark was a natural born US citizen is not even addressed. The question was whether he was a US citizen -- which is a more general state of citizenship (or subjecthood) than being a natural born citizen.
Answer: NO the question of whether Wong Kim Ark was a Natural Born citizen was not addressed. The issue was whether he was a citizen. But, the ruling nevertheless ALSO defined what Natural Born means, and it said:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
That quite clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (not Vattel) and that it refers to the place of birth (not the parents), and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born, and that the same rule applied in England, and in the 13 American colonies, and in the early states, and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
That ruling was six to two (one justice not voting) and as I said, it was AFTER Minor v. Happersett.
Continuing:
Here are some, not all, of the seven state courts and one federal court that ruled that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen due to the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the one ruling that said the same about John McCain, a total of nine---and not one court (not even Minor v. Happersett) has ever ruled that two citizen parents are REQUIRED to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: "Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: "No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father."
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise"
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."
Oh, and birthers tried to appeal the last of these rulings, Farrar, and the US Supreme Court turned down their appeal on October 1.
Post a Comment