We have opinions aplenty, just like certain parts of the anatomy, opinions and fill in the blank, every one's got one.
We have the Apuzzos' citing case law, we have the opposition refuting it. They cite their case law, we refute it.
What is true too, not one federal court to date has heard one case on the merits. Every single case has been dismissed before the first word of testimony has been offered, on technicalities either for lack of "standing" or the courts have claimed "no jurisdiction".
Now isn't that a helluva way to run a railroad? or a legal system?
We want justice. Not some activist judge or loony appeals court. Neither side would walk away from the verdicts as the final word anyway. This case has to be heard by the court of last resort. The Supreme Court. Never mind Sotomayor and Kagan were appointed by Obama. They replaced 2 equally liberal justices. The balance hasn't changed.
This country is being torn apart, our unity destroyed, The final arbitrator has to make a decision.
We on the right want and deserve our day in court. A real court not some kangaroo crap. Without it we aren't going away. The constitution either means something or it doesn't, plain and simple.
Is Obama's latest offering real? Let an independent panel of forensic experts decide, not on the "copy of the purported original" get the vault one. Hawaii can screw itself, the presidency is being affected.
Everything about this case needs to go to the base level.
Natural Born citizenship needs to be researched by the best legal scholars. They must present both sides of that issue equally well. If they conclude one citizen parent is all it takes to be a natural born citizen, then they must justify how that would protect the presidency from being subverted by any outside influence because of split allegiances.
I must offer this point for all to ponder. As the argument stands currently, many Obamaists are stating as example an illegal immigrant mother can give birth on the US side of the border and that child IS a Natural Born Citizen of the US and would at 35 eligibile to be the President after residing here for 14 years.
If that is the case, what is stopping say Bin Laden from sending one of his pregnant wives to the US where she could give birth and make Bin Laden jr eligible to be the president? There's a lot of ifs to that, between birth and making it into the oval office. But we aren't doing our jobs, if such a situation isn't addressed before hand not after the fact. The soon to be first chief justice to the supreme court was making that exact point to the framers of the constitution as it was being drafted. Allegiance only to America. John Jay called this "single allegiance" and offered it as his remendy.
Does the fact of birth create single allegiance on it's own? Can allegiances be changed? Benedict Arnold had a change of heart. I'm sure that was on John Jay's mind as he pondered the question. Nothing guarantees even a Natural Born Citizen would remain loyal to the US. But who else would be most free of divided loyalties than a child born of the this land, from parents of this land ? That is the lowest common denominator. Above that, or different from that, it all becomes a crap shoot. But single or no parentage connectivity leaves the allegiance door wide open. Which is more pragmatic? Which guards the castle gate?
Getting back to that anchor baby. Is his mother from Mexico concerned with US affairs or is she concerned with Mexican affairs? Would she not want to infuse her child with a love of Mexico, it's culture, it's language, it's traditions? Perhaps it's politics. What about that child's Mexican daddy? Same Same? I'd say so. But what I say isn't what the Supreme Court would necessarily say.
It doesn't matter that in my example neither parent was a non US citizen. The same argument applies even if only one parent is a US citizen, and it makes no difference which parent is the US citizen and which the Non US citizen. The lowest common denominator is two US citizen parents pass Natural Born Status to their child.
Where a child is born also matters. If a child is born and raised in China, subject to the jurisdiction of the the Chinese government,could that not affect the legal view points of that child as he matures? Perhaps for good, perhaps adversely. Maybe some of both. What is the lowest common denominator that ensures that child will start out as "American"? By being born of the soil. Born within the confines of US jurisdiction. Our land.
Obama has created this awful mess, he can just swallow his presidential pride on this one. If he is right he hasn't got anything to worry about. But just saying "I'm right" doesn't make it so. That is imperialistic and elistist. We have no King in America. All the propaganda in the world won't make him right. We have a constitution for that. Elections if they are illegal don't matter. The court has every right, it has a duty, to overturn any illegal election.
So let this go to the Supreme Court for their decision. Once a verdict is rendered, it needs to be clearly written into the constitution as an Amendment. The Framers overestimated our abilities to interpret their intent. I believe I understand them, but I've been wrong before in my life.
IMO we don't need attorneys fighting it out up the ladder. We need 9 justices to be fair and honest, to research and interpret the constitution and rule on it for 2011 America and beyond.
Steve
----------------------
WAIT...the OBOTS KNOW (at least most of them) all about Natural Born Citizen! Heck, they thought they had Trump cornered when they found that his mother had been born in Scotland. They actually played the NBC card because it was convenient for them. But OOOOPS, Trump's mother had been naturalized prior to his birth! What fools. The OBOTS should have done their research before they gave themselves away and showed their never-ending hypocrisy.
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
Great essay Steve! Thanks for putting it out "there".
ReplyDelete