Hello MyklValentine,
Thank you for your reply, in which you said, partly:
<< Like most libertarians, I consider myself to be a constitutional
constructionist, meaning that I consider the framers of the US
constitution to be competent writers who were perfectly capable of using
precise language to say what they mean and mean what they say. >>
I am please to know this, as I also like to consider myself a
"constitional constructionist," however that's construed.
<< Thus, where the constitution is involved, the most prudent
interpretation is to look at the actual words on the page, rather than
"reading in between the lines" to decipher the "spirit" or intent of
what the framers "truly meant". We are all occasionally misinterpreted,
but when one drafts a legal document, you do so with a mind for closing
loopholes.>>
OK.
<< Your assertion that "...it's also been correctly claimed that the
Constitution does not define a Citizen either" is outright false! >>
That is what the "anit-birthers" had asserted. And I frankly cannot find
any Constitutional definition of a "natural born citizen." I also said
as a counter argument that "It's been correctly cliamed that "citizen"
is not dedined in the Constitution either," which is true.
You continued:
<< "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside." from the Fourteenth Amendment. >>
OK.
<< Your standard described for natural born citizen is not in the
constitution, and your reference to the founders grandfathering
themselves for eligibility for president does not support this
interpretation, since they were not born in the United States, the
nation not existing at the time of their births, thus required such a
clause to run, regardless of their parents status. >>
Actually, the first seven (7) Presidents were grandfathered in by the
clause, "or a Citizen, at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution." (A Keepie Doll to you if you could name the first seven
(7) Presidents grandfathered in by this clause.) Whether these
Presidents were actually born on native soil is irrelevant. They only
have to be a "Citizen" at the time, etc.
<< Without ANY constitutional evidence, you readily commit the outright
arrogance of claiming, more than 200 years after the fact, to see
through the clear and explicit language of these geniuses, to grasp
their "true understanding", as if by telepathy. Time traveling telepathy
at that. >>
I'm afraid you lost me there, pal.
In any case, I like to ask you, in all sincerity, and I like an honest,
learned answer from you, based on your claimed expertise as a
"constitutional constructionist," to the question: What is the
difference between a "Citizen" required in Article One for, among other
things, a Senator or a Representative, and a "natural born Citizen"
that Article Two requires, among other things, of the President? Do you
believe there is a difference without a distinction? Do you suppose a
creative writing coach told the Framers to embellish the President's
requirement to be a "natural born Citizen" so as to "jazz up" the
writing?
I patiently await your response.
And I also thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Talk to you.
Alton
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "MyklValentine" <highermonkey@...>
wrote:
Like most libertarians, I consider myself to be a constitutional
constructionist, meaning that I consider the framers of the US
constitution to be competent writers who were perfectly capable of using
precise language to say what they mean and mean what they say. Thus,
where the constitution is involved, the most prudent interpretation is
to look at the actual words on the page, rather than "reading in between
the lines" to decipher the "spirit" or intent of what the framers "truly
meant". We are all occasionally misinterpreted, but when one drafts a
legal document, you do so with a mind for closing loopholes.
Your assertion that "...it's also been correctly claimed that the
Constitution does not define a Citizen either" is outright false!
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside." from the Fourteenth Amendment.
Your standard described for natural born citizen is not in the
constitution, and your reference to the founders grandfathering
themselves for eligibility for president does not support this
interpretation, since they were not born in the United States, the
nation not existing at the time of their births, thus required such a
clause to run, regardless of their parents status. Without ANY
constitutional evidence, you readily commit the outright arrogance of
claiming, more than 200 years after the fact, to see through the clear
and explicit language of these geniuses, to grasp their "true
understanding", as if by telepathy. Time traveling telepathy at that.
Some food for thought, though. Modern genetic testing didn't exist
until well into the 20th century, and thus in the 1700s, paternal
parentage was NEVER CERTAIN! Thus, anyone wanting to see a president
removed from office could simply make some infantile claim that the
president was a bastard child conceived on a trip by his parents to the
old world.
The distinction you are referring to, between natural born citizens
and mere citizens is a distinction between those born in this country,
and those who were naturalized here, a concept conspicuously absent from
your post.
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> On January 26, 2012, in an Atlanta, Georgia courtroom, Judge
Michael
> Malihi presided over challenges to Obama's placement on Georgia's
> ballot to run as President. Obama, though subpoenaed, naturally did
not
> attend the hearing, and neither did his lawyer. For a "blow by
blow"
> account of the hearing, go to:
>
http://gulagbound.com/25486/courtroom-details-of-obamas-126-eligibility-\
\
> hearing-georgia/. You could also see James David Manning's interview
of
> Carl Swenssen, a principle in the legal challenge, at:
> http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/
>
> The case will be decided on February 1, with Georgia's Secretary of
> State announcing on February 2 whether Obama will be on Georgia's
> ballot. (Strangely, a trial of such importance has not been covered
by
> the mainstream media. I wonder why.)
>
> Georgia is among several states whose citizens question whether
Obama is
> eligible to run as POTUS according to that "quaint" piece of
parchment,
> the U.S. Constitution. (To see more states go to:
> http://obamaballotchallenge.com/) Specifically, the issue raised in
> Georgia, among several, is whether Obama is a "natural born
citizen."
>
> "Natural born citizen" comes from Article 2 of the U.S.
Constitution,
> which requires the President to be, among other things, a "natural
born
> Citizen." Article 1, on the other hand, requires a Representative
and a
> Senator to be, among other things, a "Citizen." What is the
difference
> between a "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen"? Is there a
difference
> without a distinction? Do you suppose a creative writing coach told
the
> writers of those Articles to embellish the President's requirement
to be
> a "natural born Citizen" so as to "jazz up" the writing?
>
> While I wait for your answer, I will say that it's been correctly
> claimed that the Constitution does not define a "natural born
Citizen."
> But, it's also been correctly claimed that the Constitution does not
> define a "Citizen" either. Despite these facts, suffice it to say
that
> it was understood in 18th Century America that a "natural born
Citizen"
> is someone who is a citizen, born on native soil and whose two
parents
> were both citizens, born on native soil. And while the framers of
the
> Constitution required Representatives and Senators to be mere
Citizens,
> they required the President to be a "natural born Citizen" because
they
> feared that the loyalty of the President as Commander-in-Chief
might
> become divided if he were of a dual citizenship. Recall that a war
was
> recently fought with England and you can understand their fear. (For
an
> expatiated account of "natural born citizen," see Leo Donofrio's
Amicus
> Brief for the Georgia case:
>
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79112841/AMICUS-BRIEF-by-Leo-Donofrio-in-Georg\
\
> ia-Presidential-Eligibility-Case)
>
> As further proof of the Framers' understanding of a "natural born
> citizen," they knew you can't be a "natural born [United States]
> citizen" until July 4, 1776. Since many Framers had presidential
> aspirations, to make them eligible to be President, they
"grandfathered"
> themselves in by adding the clause that requires each of them to be
a
> mere "Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of
this
> Constitution." (Was Obama "grandfathered" in by this clause?)
>
> To remind you, the framers' understanding of a "natural born
citizen" is
> a person who is a citizen born on native soil, and whose two parents
> were both citizens born on native soil. So:
>
> Is Obama a U.S. citizen born on U.S. soil? Yes, as far as his
recently
> presented, though long demanded (and red herring) "long form" birth
> certificate attests. Is Obama's mother a U.S. citizen born in the
U.S.?
> Yes. Is Obama's father a U.S. citizen born in the U.S.?
>
> Hello, Houston we have a problem! Obama's admission that his father
was
> a Kenyan (and a British) citizen would make Obama, at best, a
> "native-born" citizen and certainly not a constitutionally required
> "natural born" citizen, and therefore, he is definitely, positively,
> absolutely ineligible to be President. This fact is so obvious and
so
> simple to understand, yet Obama was elected POTUS. How can this be?
How
> has he gotten away with it and continues to get away with it?
>
> But the main question is: Are we going to let him get away with it
> again when he tries to get re-elected POTUS? Even more poignant, is
> Obama above the Constitution, the "Supreme Law of the Land," as he
> probably thinks so?
>
> This may be the beginning of Obama's end. Let's hope Judge Michael
> Malihi will order Obama kicked off the ballot, as he probably will.
With
> Georgia "off the table," Obama will lose Georgia's 12 electoral
votes.
> But you won't hear this through the mainstream media. So keep posted
to