Agreed, or move it to the 'B' list... however, let me chime in just once
more.
:-)
Jones, having been an attorney in his previous life, would probably be a
better source, however, I think he left that life for a reason and would
prefer to spend time on what interests him now, which is the sci/tech
fringe...
Being that I have in several 3-ring binders, and have read them, most of the
SCOTUS cases on citizenship, and many lower cases as well, I think I may
have some knowledge and history which 99.999% of people in this country
don't have. My time in some very contentious startups has also provided me
with, or subjected me to, considerable interaction with attorneys, and the
legal environment... so I wanted to provide some wisdom and a bit of
commentary before we return to what really makes us all drool.
I will include a link at the end which I think provides a very thorough
history and explanation of the legal environment which is pertinent to this
discussion. But first, I'd like to provide a few comments before handing the
issue off to each of you to *research and decide for yourself*.
LEGAL vs COMMON DEFINITIONS
One of the important lessons that has come out of my experiences is that
words have an everyday meaning, and they have a LEGAL meaning/definition.
Guess which one is important when dealing with attorneys, or when dealing
with a judge in a courtroom? Why do you think Clinton, an attorney, said,
"It depends on what your definition of 'is', is." Most will joke about it,
but I guarantee you Clinton was not being silly when he said that. I also
have a quote from Bill Gates who made a very similar statement in the
presence of attorneys... why? Because they have been in or around attorneys
and the legal world and know just how important words are, and that the
legal definition of a word is in many instances different than the common
meaning, and you better know the difference if you want to have any chance
of winning a legal battle. Is it any wonder why most of the Federal
Regulations have a "Definitions" section? The hints that legal definitions
are important are everywhere...
This is not debatable... LEGAL definitions are important, no, not just
important, they are *fundamental*, in a society that is governed by LAWS.
After all, how are laws expressed or defined? Words... they are written
down and then published. One of the duties/responsibilities of the court
system, especially the SCOTUS, is to clarify and decide the legal (i.e.,
enforceable) meaning of those words, or even *a word*, when disputes arise.
With that said, back to the dispute at hand...
The question of 'natural born citizen' is the central issue; NOT whether he
was a U.S. citizen. There was a VERY SPECIFIC REASON why that wording was
added to the Constitution... and I believe in only one place. This quote
from the link below explains it quite concisely:
----------------------
2. What are the eligibility requirements for president?
Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States."
This means that, in modern times, you cannot legally or legitimately serve
as President of the United States, unless you are:
- at least 35 years of age,
- a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and
- a natural born citizen.
Regarding the third requirement ("natural born citizen"), the Constitution
makes a special exception for persons who became U.S. citizens before
September 17, 1787, the date on which the U.S. Constitution was adopted.
Such persons may serve as president, even if they are not natural born
citizens [09].
Today, no one qualifies for this special exception. No one alive today was a
citizen when the Constitution was adopted. In modern times, if you wish to
be president, it is not enough to be a U.S. citizen -- you must be a U.S.
natural born citizen.
----------------------------------
When the Constitution was adopted, it became the highest level of law.
Thus, the document needed to handle the case where the current president,
who might not have been natural born, could legally be president if he was a
citizen prior to the constitution. That's why it states, "a citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". And the
same applies to subsequent presidents as well until there was no one left
who became a citizen prior to 1787. Today, the clause, ""a citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is really a
nonissue since the people that this clause applied to have long ago died.
The Founders knew just how corruptible humans are, and wanted to make sure
that what they created didn't get subverted, so they added the requirement
of being 'natural born' and for very specific reasons which have been
explained already.
That is the central issue at hand, and I will not go into it any further
here, as I feel in this case one must decide for him/herself. Most have
already decided and nothing will change their minds, however, for those who
want to research this further, and feel that they understand the history and
legal foundations as best as possible, I will suggest the following website:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
It is one of the most thoroughly researched websites which explanations the
history, the court cases, and legal thinking on the issue... why do I not
simply refer to a US SupCt case here? Because the SCOTUS has NOT ruled on
the legal definition of 'natural born citizen'! Not yet anyway... read and
decide for yourself.
As an interesting side-story, I remember looking at an early draft of the
Massachusetts Constitution, and it *specifically forbid attorneys from
running for any elected office*. That clause never made it past a few
drafts! I don't know what percentage of Congressmen and Senators are
lawyers, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was well above 50%. If all the
states had adopted that rule in their own Constitutions, I don't think we'd
be in the mess we're in now...
-Mark
PS: Sorry Jones, but I felt compelled to respond. ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:02 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are
crazy
Let's drop the political BS.
We do not need it here.
There are great things happening in Austin - this crap belittles it all.
