Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligiblity

Post Reply
Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by Seth » Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:22 am

Gawdzilla wrote:
amused wrote:Yeah, it's mostly just running in the right wing loony presses and blogs as any sort of 'serious' story. Some of the left blogs have commented, and noted that Obama is ignoring the judge's call.
abovetopsecret is lovin' it. Maybe we have one of their escapees here?
There goes the poo splatting against the plexi again. Somebody get a hose.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by Animavore » Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:26 am

Seth wrote:
Animavore wrote:Even Fox News aren't giving it much coverage. A blog post and one of the minor subsidiaries is about it.
And you think that the amount of press coverage affects the legal issues at the bar how, exactly?
I don't. I'm just wondering why the press aren't interested in a story which according to Orly Taitz could be "[a scandal] 100 times greater than Watergate." You'd think Fox in particular would be gloating over this.
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by FBM » Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:37 am

Seth wrote:Not really relevant. The term "citizen of the US at birth" and "natural born citizen" are not synonymous. And Congress cannot "create clarifying legislation" regarding the provisions of Article II, Section 1. The only thing that counts there is the original intent of the Founders when they drafted the provision.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

"To make all Laws" seems pretty inclusive to me.
The 14th Amendment does not address, at all the qualifications to be President. Yes, it specifies who may be a citizen, as opposed to a "naturalized citizen," but it says nothing about "natural born citizen."
Nor does the Constitution guarantee that there's any distinction intended. It could just as easily be read as an emphatic expression, rather than a definitional one. There is nothing decisive about whether they intended that to be a separate state or class of citizenship. If the ambiguity of the phrase becomes so problemmatic that it hinders the "Execution of the foregoing Powers", then Congress will have the Constitutional right, duty even, to make a law about it.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
amused
amused
Posts: 3873
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:04 pm
About me: Reinvention phase initiated
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by amused » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:16 am

Orly Taitz, the California attorney who brought the legal challenge to Obama’s name on the March Georgia presidential primary ballot, says this is what she has been working for over the last three years.
Orly Taitz - 'nuff said.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/23/2 ... ident.html

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39276
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by Animavore » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:24 am

:o She's not even white!

:mob:
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6468
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by Tyrannical » Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:59 pm

Animavore wrote::o She's not even white!

:mob:
Good call, I looked it up and she is in fact a Jew. Gawd would be proud :{D
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by Ian » Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:10 pm

Ooh, ooh, I think it's time to play one of my favorite games! It's called "let's make a bet". It goes like this: one person discusses something which I know is almost certain not to come true, then I suggest a friendly wager to that person. That person either a) backs down from his ridiculous idea, or b) takes the bet, eventually losing to me. Either way, I win.

This worked out especially well for Gawd in the summer of 2010, soon after he first joined the site. He had convinced himself that Israel was going to bomb Iran any day now, and thought he had found proof of their preparations. I gave him a whole month to see if his prediction was accurate. Israel may yet attack Iran, but it's now been about 18 months since he figured. Anyway, he took the bet, and his loss meant that he had to switch his avatar to the Israeli flag for thirty days.
:hehe:

Now I'm proposing a friendly wager with Seth. First he'll have to accept the bet, of course.
If Obama is on the ballot in Georgia for the general election in November, then I'm thinking Seth's avatar should be changed to an Obama campaign poster for a few weeks. I'm open to ideas about what I could give up if I lose, not that it'll matter. Other suggestions are welcome.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:13 pm

A swastika?
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 21022
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by laklak » Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:49 pm

From what I've read (and I can't be bothered to look up all the references), the original intent behind the "natural born" verbiage was to prevent foreigners (read "Royalists" for that) from moving to the U.S. and taking over the fledgling Republic. Makes sense in the context of the time. That is no longer an issue, presumably, unless we're worried about some Russian oligarch running for Prez.

As for Congress making laws "clarifying" the Constitution - they do that every day. It is certainly within the purview of the legislative branch to pass a law specifying exactly what "natural born" means, and it's something they need to do.

It would be interesting if the GOP rammed through legislation specifying Seth's "2 U.S. parents" criteria, we could get into a real Constitutional crisis. That would be fun, eh?

Aaanold in 2016!
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:50 pm

Look, it's a good law. If we didn't have it, Henry Kissinger and The Arnold might have been President.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 21022
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by laklak » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:16 pm

Hey, if we'd elected Aaanold all that Iraq shit would be done and dusted. He'd have gone in and taken care of it himself and been back in time for dinner.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:18 pm

laklak wrote:Hey, if we'd elected Aaanold all that Iraq shit would be done and dusted. He'd have gone in and taken care of it himself and been back in time for dinner.
The First Thug would have caused some serious damage to the US.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by Seth » Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:27 pm

FBM wrote:
Seth wrote:Not really relevant. The term "citizen of the US at birth" and "natural born citizen" are not synonymous. And Congress cannot "create clarifying legislation" regarding the provisions of Article II, Section 1. The only thing that counts there is the original intent of the Founders when they drafted the provision.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

"To make all Laws" seems pretty inclusive to me.
But it's not. It's to make all necessary and proper laws for carrying into execution the powers, and only the powers that are authorized by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, not any law that Congress decides to make.

Those powers are (and are limited to):
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Nowhere in that list, or any other "powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States," is the Congress authorized to alter or amend the provisions of Article II, Section 1 regarding the qualifications for President. That would require a constitutional amendment ratified by the states that specifically addresses those qualifications.
The 14th Amendment does not address, at all the qualifications to be President. Yes, it specifies who may be a citizen, as opposed to a "naturalized citizen," but it says nothing about "natural born citizen."
Nor does the Constitution guarantee that there's any distinction intended.
Yes, it does, by the rules of statutory construction and interpretation that were known at the time it was written.
It could just as easily be read as an emphatic expression, rather than a definitional one.
No, it's not an "emphatic expression." Every single word has meaning, and the words "natural born" by and of themselves create a class of US citizen that is eligible to be President.
There is nothing decisive about whether they intended that to be a separate state or class of citizenship.
Wrong. It is exactly decisive because the term was expressly used in one and only one place in the Constitution; the qualification to be President. If you compare the requirements to be a Senator, you find that the Founders were very specific about who could be a Senator and what the citizenship and inhabitancy requirements were. This was very carefully discussed:

From the US Senate website:
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention supported establishing membership limitations for House and Senate members. Influenced by British and state precedents, they set age, citizenship, and inhabitancy qualifications for senators, but voted against proposed religion and property requirements.

Age: The constitutional framers debated the minimum age for representatives before they considered the same qualification for senators. Although Delegate James Wilson stated that “there was no more reason for incapacitating youth than age, where the requisite qualifications were found,” other delegates were in favor of age restrictions. They were familiar with England’s law requiring members of Parliament to be twenty-one or older, and they lived in states which either barred legislators under the ages of twenty-one or twenty-five from the upper chambers.

As introduced in May 1787, James Madison’s Virginia Plan left Senate age restrictions to the delegates to decide, only stating that members of the second branch must “be of the age of ____ at least.” Without debating the subject further, delegates voted in favor of filling the blank with thirty, and passed the clause unanimously on June 25, three days after designating twenty-five as the minimum age for representatives. In The Federalist, No. 62, Madison justified the higher age requirement for senators. By its deliberative nature, the “senatorial trust,” called for a “greater extent of information and stability of character,” than would be needed in the more democratic House of Representatives.

Citizenship: Under English law, no person “born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland” could be a member of either house of Parliament. While some delegates may have admired the “strictness” of this policy, no framers advocated a blanket ban on foreign-born legislators. Instead, they debated the length of time members of Congress should be citizens before taking office. The states’ residency qualifications offered moderate guidelines in this regard. New Hampshire’s state senators needed to be residents for at least seven years prior to election. In other states, upper house members fulfilled a five, three, or one-year requirement, while state representatives completed a residency period of one to three years.

The Virginia Plan made no mention of citizenship when Edmund Randolph introduced it to the convention in May. Two months later, the Committee of Detail reported a draft of the Constitution. Article V, section 3 included a four-year citizenship requirement for senators. On August 9, Gouverneur Morris moved to replace the four-year clause with a fourteen-year minimum. Later that day, delegates voted against citizenship requirements of fourteen, thirteen, and ten years before passing the nine-year provision, making the Senate requirement two years longer than that for the House of Representatives.

At the convention, delegates viewed the nine-year citizenship qualification as a compromise “between a total exclusion of adopted citizens” and an “indiscriminate and hasty admission of them.” While they were concerned that the Senate, especially, might be subject to foreign influence, they did not wish to close the institution to naturalized citizens of merit. Two foreign-born framers expressed these opposing considerations. According to Pierce Butler, recent arrivals were dangerously attached to their countries of origin, a particular concern for senators whose role would include review of foreign treaties. From his own experience, he believed that naturalized citizens would need sufficient time to learn and appreciate American laws and customs before they could serve in government. For James Wilson, however, lengthy citizenship requirements “discouraged and mortified” everyone they excluded. He agreed with Benjamin Franklin that a strict policy would hinder positive immigration and offend those Europeans who had supported the Revolutionary War. On August 13, Wilson moved to reduce the Senate qualification by two years. Delegates rejected his motion, and confirmed the nine-year requirement by an 8 to 3 vote.

Inhabitancy: Although England repealed Parliament’s residency law in 1774, no delegates spoke against a residency requirement for members of Congress. The qualification first came under consideration on August 6 when the Committee of Detail reported its draft of the Constitution. Article 5, section 3 stated, “Every member of the Senate shall be . . . at the time of his election, a resident of the state from which he shall be chosen.”

On August 8, Roger Sherman moved to strike the word “resident” from the House version of the clause, and insert in its place “inhabitant,” a term he considered to be “less liable to misconstruction.” Madison seconded the motion, noting that “resident” might exclude people occasionally absent on public or private business. Delegates agreed to the term, “inhabitant,” and voted against adding a time period to the requirement. The following day, they amended the Senate qualification to include the word, “inhabitant,” prior to passing the clause by unanimous consent.
It's silly to think that the Founders spent any less time discussing the qualifications for President. In the Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton goes to great length to explain how and why the Electoral College was created by the Founders to help avoid the potential influence of foreign powers on the presidency:
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
It is rational to conclude that the special class of citizens eligible to be President was likewise carefully considered and explicitly restricted to "natural born citizens," as opposed to just "citizens" or "naturalized citizens(as in the qualifications for being a Senator." Of course it's not. The Federalist No. 68 proves that the potential influence of foreign powers on the presidency was of paramount importance to the Founders, which is why the Electoral College was created. No less care was taken in deciding that only a citizen born to two parents who were citizens themselves, or who was alive at the time the Constitution was ratified (which was a practical necessity that disappeared when the last person alive at the time of signing died, thus making the phrase obsolete), is qualified to hold the office.
If the ambiguity of the phrase becomes so problemmatic that it hinders the "Execution of the foregoing Powers", then Congress will have the Constitutional right, duty even, to make a law about it.
Nope. Determining or modifying the qualifications for President are not within the "foregoing Powers" granted to Congress. The "foregoing Powers" are ONLY those powers explicitly and expressly mention in Article I, Section 8, shown above. That phrase cannot be taken to be a general authority of unlimited Congressional authority to do whatever it wants, including amending other provisions of the Constitution. That power is NOT granted to Congress. Many Progressives have attempted to use the "necessary and proper" clause elastically, as meaning that the Congress may make literally any law which in its judgment it deems "necessary and proper," but that's a deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution. If Congress were granted the plenary power of the King to make any law it feels necessary or proper, then the entirely of Article 1, Section 8, which explicitly restricts Congress to legislating in specific areas, is meaningless surplusage. We already know that no word, much less an entire section of the document is meaningless. But because that list of explicit powers exists in the document, Congress is restricted to legislating within those boundaries, but may make all necessary and proper laws needed to effectuate those limited powers. Everything else is left to the states, or to the People, by virtue of the 10th Amendment.

Congress is a creature of the Constitution, which is a creature of the People. Only the People may amend the Constitution. An authority delegated under the Constitution cannot be used to change the Constitution itself because the Constitution stands above all such authority in the hierarchy of government, and only the People themselves, pursuant to the amendment process, can change the Constitution.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by Seth » Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:41 pm

laklak wrote:From what I've read (and I can't be bothered to look up all the references), the original intent behind the "natural born" verbiage was to prevent foreigners (read "Royalists" for that) from moving to the U.S. and taking over the fledgling Republic. Makes sense in the context of the time. That is no longer an issue, presumably, unless we're worried about some Russian oligarch running for Prez.
No longer an issue? It's absolutely an issue. It's probably more of an issue now that it ever has been, given the breadth of opposition to the US and the desire for foreigners to gain power and control of the "Great Satan."
As for Congress making laws "clarifying" the Constitution - they do that every day. It is certainly within the purview of the legislative branch to pass a law specifying exactly what "natural born" means, and it's something they need to do.
That's an interesting question which would certainly end up in a court challenge, because according to how our system works, it's not what Congress wants it to mean that's determinative, it's what the Founders (more properly the Ratifiers) meant when they ratified the Constitution. Original intent rules where ambiguity exists in the language of the Constitution. Congress does not have the power to redefine terms in the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, can "determine original intent" and in that way change meanings of words. It has done so many times, most importantly in the meaning of "regulating commerce among the several states," which at the time of ratification meant something entirely different from what the court claimed it meant nearly a hundred years later.

So, the real battle will be in the Supreme Court, and that's where the definition of "natural born citizen" will be determined, unless and until the People themselves pass a constitutional amendment saying it means something else, which is within their power.
It would be interesting if the GOP rammed through legislation specifying Seth's "2 U.S. parents" criteria, we could get into a real Constitutional crisis. That would be fun, eh?

Aaanold in 2016!
We're already there. That's what's so important about this Georgia case. It's the tip of the iceberg, and if it goes against Obama, it'll certainly end up at the Supreme Court, hopefully on an expedited basis before the election.

And whichever way it goes, it'll be final, and it will then be up to the People to decide if that's the way they want it or if they want to amend the Constitution to give the phrase some different meaning. In any event, it's likely that any ambiguity will be resolved pretty quickly now, which is always a good thing.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
amused
amused
Posts: 3873
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:04 pm
About me: Reinvention phase initiated
Contact:

Re: Obama called to Georgia court to defend primary eligibli

Post by amused » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:06 pm


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests