Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
2012 WILL Be the Last Presidential Election !
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 10:57:22 -0800, Peter Franks
wrote: On 3/3/2012 9:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote: Why don't you try, Mr. Justice Frankfurter: what does "natural born citizen" mean? Just tell us by looking at the text of the Constitution, please chortle. You can't tell specifically what it means because it is nonspecific. Therefore the judicial power is similarly nonspecific in this case Huh? The judicial power is decisive. It will be as specific as the Court chooses to make it. , and the ruling (opinion) is equally nonspecific/generally applicable. Faulty premise, faulty conclusion. The supreme Court CAN'T establish specificity where there is none. They do it all the time. That's what their job is based upon -- deciding cases in which the Constitution is ambiguous, contradictory (think 11th Amendment versus the 14th), or vacant (think Griswold v. Connecticut and the 9th Amenment). In the case of NBC, the meaning can be quickly established: In the context of the constitution, natural born means inherent. Therefore, an NBC child is one that is born of citizen parents. Period. Faulty premises, faulty conclusion. Read the references in Wong Kim Ark and in the Indiana state case, Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana. The key question is what was the current definition of "natural born" when the Founders wrote that line. Like practically all legal terms of the time, it was all borrowed from English common law. The history of the common law on this subject is somewhat contradictory, but the vast preponderance of evidence is that it means a person who was born in the country -- birthright citizenship, jus soli. The contradictory claim is that it is citizenship by parentage -- right of blood, or jus sanguinis. There are only a couple of sources that made that claim, and they are spurious. Jus soli for citizenship is the established law of the US. It could be overturned by Congress, and there is an effort to do so. But as of now, that's the law. The birther's quack lawyers are trying to claim that common law requires jus sanguinis to claim "natural born" status. They are unlikely to get anywhere with that argument, given the rulings in those two cases mentioned above and the fact that they have no contradictory evidence from US court rulings or otherwise. The Happersett case that they are leaning on is 1) inconclusive on the question and 2) obiter dicta. -- Ed Huntress |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Could 2012 Be the Last Presidential Election?????? | Metalworking | |||
Could 2012 Be the Last Presidential Election?????? | Metalworking |