Baloney. The courts have ruled that a Natural Born US citizen is one where
both parents are US Citizens and born in US soil. And here you are
elevating yourself to a position higher than the courts. You can not throw
away court decisions you don't like. That is anarchy.
You know, I don't even read you verbose essays anymore. I grow tired of the
lies, the misinformed opinions, and the blatant propaganda masquerading as
informed opinion. You have succeeded in doing one thing. You have
succeeded in wearing me down with your useless words.
So, I'll let you have the last word. Anyone who listens to you deserve to
have the same cranial enema that you apparently are in serious need of.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Blather in the mass media makes scientists think we are
crazy
At 08:42 PM 8/9/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Baloney. This is your opinion proffered as law.
Nothing more than a bunch of BS. A Natural Born US citizen is one with
both US citizen parents and born on US soil. Period. Stop the lies.
That opinion was rejected more than a hundred years ago.
There are some interesting legal issues here, but they are utterly of no
practical consequence. The position that both parents must be "US
citizens" is utterly without foundation, it's made up.
The case of a U.S. Citizen mother and a non-citizen father, with the child
born outside the U.S., is a marginal one and it's not clear how a court
would decide. Does the law in effect in 1961 apply? If later law
essentially defines "natural born" differently -- as it does --, does this
reach back and define as "natural born" for purposes of the constitutional
requirement, according to the current definition?
Some statements I've seen of the current law imply that it is not
retroactive, so if this is true, then Obama would not be a natural born
citizen, since his mother was three months short of her 19th birthday,
which is the age required under the old law for the birth to be automatic
citizenship.
Jojo seems to be requiring that the constitutional provision have some
kind of "original intepretation," but it's entirely unclear what that was.
The original clause, from what I've seen, was inserted at the last minute
and without explanation.
What I've been asserting is what a U.S. court would be likely to decide,
based on precedent. Jojo seems to belong to a "fundamentalist" school of
law, that presumes that there is some "constitutional law" that exists
separately from how the courts interpret it. And anyone who sides with the
court's actual interpretation, as confirmed over, say, more than a
century, is a liar.
It's fanaticism, pure and simple.
The marginal case is irrelevant, because Obama will be considered by any
court, unless someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat, as being born in the
U.S., specifically in Hawaii, in 1961. It's established by the required
documentation, and anyone who thinks that the courts will disregard the
documentation, absent a clear showing of fraud, is seriously deluded.
The U.S. Supreme Court has, to my chagrin, made decisions that were
motivated by results rather than the facts and law and precedent in a
case, but a decision removing a sitting President based on what has been
alleged is far, far worse than anything I've ever seen them do. Even if it
were actually shown that Obama were born in Kenya, for example, the Court
would be highly likely to refuse the case, citing res judicata, that the
matter was decided by Congress in certifying the election results.
Congress has the right -- and responsibility --
to consider eligibility.
Congress could also impeach, if there was Presidential misbehavior
involved, and forging documents would probably be considered misbehavior.
That is a reason why the forgery is exrremely unlikely. It's difficult to
imagine anything that might be on the document that would be worth risking
his presidency over. People have claimed that the father might be
different, and that he couldn't stand the heat of that. Highly unlikely,
folks, even if it were true.
(On the other hand, I'd have thought that a sitting President was
constitutionally protected from prosecution, and the Court, not so long
ago, allowed a sitting president to be thoroughly harassed over matters
that were entirely distracting from the business of the Presidency.)
Notice how the birther claims are essentially all over the map. What's
consistent about them is that "there is something wrong."
There usually is, if you look hard enough. That is, you can always find
something that *looks wrong.* It just takes persistence. Look at what I
found about the long form. All kinds of ridiculous claims, presented as if
they established some kind of strong suspicion of "wrong." And nothing
more there than the kinds of oddities that commonly occur.
