“Loophole Louie:” Another day, another liberal activist judge; Update: Sen. Judiciary Cmte approves 12-7 on party line vote
Update 5:37pm Eastern: Butler approved by SJC on 12-7 party line vote.
Here we go again. President Obama has nominated Louis B. Butler Jr. to a federal judgeship in the Western District of Wisconsin. The vote is scheduled for today. Butler is a former Wisconsin Supreme Court judge who embraces the Obama “empathy standard” of adjudication — going beyond the application and interpretation of the rule of law to incorporate identity politics and policy judgements.
The WSJ points out that Butler was “twice rejected by Wisconsin voters for a place on the state Supreme Court:”
As consolation prizes go, Louis Butler can’t complain. After being twice rejected by Wisconsin voters for a place on the state Supreme Court, the former judge has instead been nominated by President Obama to a lifetime seat on the federal district court. If he is confirmed, Wisconsin voters will have years to contend with the decisions of a judge they made clear they would rather live without.
Judge Butler served on the state Supreme Court for four years, enough time to have his judicial temperament grow in infamy. Having first run unsuccessfully in 2000, he was appointed by Democratic Governor Jim Doyle to the seat vacated by Justice Diane Sykes in 2004. But after serving four years, voters had seen enough of his brand of judicial philosophy, making him the first sitting justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in four decades to lose a retention election last year.
In Ferdon v. Wisconsin Partners, he drew the rage of doctors and others when he dismantled the state’s limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractices cases—the kind of tort reform that had been serving the state well. Business groups were likewise floored by his decision in Thomas v. Mallet, which allowed “collective liability” in lead paint cases—making any company a potential target, regardless of whether they made the paint in question. His nickname as a public defender was “Loophole Louis,” a name that stuck when, as a judge, he was considered to be soft on crime.
At his confirmation hearing this month, Mr. Butler was quick to make light of his double rejection by Wisconsin voters, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that “After 16 years on the bench, I may be a better judge than a politician.”
Ahem. That’s a coded nod to liberal groups like the George Soros-funded Justice at Stake that are trying to eliminate judicial elections. Rather than letting voters choose judges, they prefer so-called “merit selection” plans whereby judges are selected by committees of lawyers…
…Mr. Butler’s nomination also shows the return to prominence of judicial ratings by the American Bar Association, which traditionally gives extra weight to “judicial experience.” The ABA, which was ousted by the Bush Administration in part because of the ABA’s notorious liberal bias, is now back in favor in the Obama White House. Mr. Butler served on the ABA’s Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, a group that like Justice at Stake critiques how that independence is supposedly compromised by the need to raise money for judicial elections.
Mr. Butler’s nomination shows the dominance of liberal ideology in Mr. Obama’s judicial selections, and especially a contempt for Wisconsin voters.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has a record the liberal 9th Circuit of Appeals would love. Jack Park reviews Butler’s “law development court” theory. John Fund spotlighted the voters’ rejection of its activist bent last year:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court certainly bent the rule of law over the past four years, as a 4-3 liberal majority became the nation’s premier trailblazer in overturning its own precedents and abandoning deference to the legislature’s policy choices. Thus the defeat of Justice Louis Butler at the hands of Burnett County Judge Michael Gableman has national implications. A recent study in the University of California-Davis Law Review found that Wisconsin is the eighth most-cited state supreme court by other judicial bodies. Its rulings play a larger role in shaping court decisions elsewhere than those of courts in states such as New York, Florida or Texas. In addition, 38 states elect all or part of their appellate-level judges by popular vote. Judge Butler’s defeat sends a signal that a judge who dramatically oversteps traditional boundaries can be brought to account.
When John Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, he noted “judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them.” Most Americans agree, but the liberal majority on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court made so many suspect calls it seemed intent on rewriting the rules….Wisconsin is in many ways a liberal state – it hasn’t voted Republican at the presidential level in decades – but its electorate showed this week that it favors judicial restraint over activism. This fall, voters in other states ranging from Louisiana to Michigan will face pivotal elections over what direction their own state supreme courts will go. Inevitably, a chorus will complain about the amount of money spent on those races by outside groups. No doubt the campaigns will be messy. But that’s a small price to pay to ensure that voters remain a check on the judiciary. If judges are umpires, the best way to ensure that they make the right calls is to bounce those who abuse their power from the game.
Now, Obama is recruiting the rejects for lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.
Elections, indeed, have consequences.
***
How will the GOP Senators on the Judiciary Committee vote? Stay tuned.
***
And another controversial liberal judge pick: Edwin Chen.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
First Day of 2012 Open Thread & Aspirin-Swapping Roundtable
January 1, 2012 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
235 Comments
Reports: Miners trapped in Mullan, Idaho; 6 hospitalized
December 15, 2011 01:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
23 Comments
Sports and the sexual abuse of children; Plus: Rick Santorum makes things worse
November 8, 2011 02:29 PM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments10 years ago: My generation’s bloody wake-up call
September 10, 2011 10:07 PM by Michelle Malkin
44 Comments
Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene Open Thread
August 28, 2011 12:25 PM by Doug Powers
104 CommentsQuake alert: Shake, rattle, and roll!
August 23, 2011 02:03 PM by Michelle Malkin
231 CommentsHappy Mother’s Day!
May 8, 2011 11:07 AM by Doug Powers
57 CommentsChrist the Lord is risen today
April 24, 2011 09:32 AM by Michelle Malkin
100 Comments
Categories: Uncategorized
JustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidRiehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the Nonconformists
Ahhh swede…the question is “savingss where and for whom?”
Chap,
What do you think about the fact that the Hawaiian Attorney General approved the 2nd public statement made by the Hawaiian Director of Health… the one that finally claimed “Obama was born in Hawaii” only AFTER the U.S. House of Representatives said so first, and claimed Obama is a “natural-born American citizen” without explaining how they came to that legal conclusion?
What do you think about the fact that when the Hawaiian Attorney General gives an opinion on an issue, and the conclusion of that opinion is made public, then Hawaiian law requires that the Attorney General’s opinion also be made public?
What do you think about the Hawaiian Attorney General’s opinion being kept secret illegally?
Everything here is a secret. They routinely close doors on hearings that are legally “open”, all police discipline matters are top secret, that kind of thing. With a one-party system, no one wants to make waves or the kingmakers will not annoint you to your next political position…
That being the case, without some strong evidence that conservative defections caused McCain to lose, it doesn’t help matters to keep talking as though it did. All it does, as far as I can see, is needlessly cause divisions in the ranks. “Petulance” cuts both ways. Save your anger for those who truly deserve it.
I think Obama was born in Hawaii, I think that British law as to who is and who isn’t a citizen of their country should have absolutely zero bearing on what the US considers a natural born citizen and I think that a Swiss philosopher is equally as unconvincing an authority.
And that is all I will say.
I voted third party, get over it! I got your petulant delicate sensibilities right here!
Although I disagree with your logic, I will drop the issue until there is a nominee again.
Direct is only part of it. The grandmother of someone who rear ends you with his car is a direct cause. The question is whether it is a proximate cause.
And it is not guilty by association. It is guilty, but we cant’t sort out who exactly killed whom. Again, look to my bank robber example and tell me whether you think both defendants should walk away free simply because you can’t exactly match up which victim was shot by which bad guy.
Flawed premise. The burden of proof was supposed to be designed to protect the innocent from flimsy evidence and false charges. If your defendants had not admitted to guilt, and your evidence is lacking, they’re are supposed to go free, as painful as that may be. Isn’t that the same argument liberals use when addressing capital punishment? Otherwise, you or I could have been fingered for that robbery and shooting, and been sentenced to life with Ben Ova.
On December 3rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm, chapoutier said:
But you have not seen an initial birth certificate, complete with the delivering doctor’s signature, to prove exactly where Obama was born.
And being born “in Hawaii” is not sufficient. If he was born at the Queen’s Hospital, as originally reported, and if that Hospital is located on Hawaiian Crown Lands, then he was not born on U.S. soil.
Not to mention that if he was born at the Queen’s Hospital, as originally reported, then he was party to the crime of putting false information in fundraising materials for Kapi’olani Medical Center.
It matters where exactly he was born.
It matters whether or not someone born a subject or citizen of a foreign country can grow up to command our military. That is what is unique about the Presidency. Someone with zero military experience can become the Commander of everyone in the military, including the highest-ranking career military officers. It is vitally important that no “foreigner” ever be given that power.
Barack Hussein Obama II (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro) is a “foreigner” in practically every sense of the word…
Possibly born on “foreign” soil, even if born in Hawaii.
Born a “foreign” subject.
Raised in a “foreign” country.
Considers himself a “citizen of the world”, not a “citizen of the United States”.
Allowed his book to be published in the world’s most populous Muslim nation with the title “Assault Hope: From Jakarta to the White House”.
The man who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court was very wise when he wrote the following to the man who would become the first President of the United States:
Ummm…the lead paint manufacturers weren’t denying their products didn’t make people sick/kill them. They were just saying there was no way to prove that they specifically made THIS particular person sick/kill them. It is a loophole borne entirely from the fact that the particular paints were (at the time, at least) indistinguishable from one another. One that was rightly closed by this incredibly sensible judicial doctrine.
Red Pill,
If Luxembourg decided to pass a law, claiming that anyone in the US with the letter “L”, “U” or “X” in his name is also a citizen of its country, should we be beholden to that law, and exclude anyone fitting that criterion?
My answer would be no. We are a soveriegn nation beholding to no other laws but our own Constitution.
I would agree. RedPill thinks that because a British law allegedly (I don’t know enough about the law to say with certainly) claimed him as a British citizen, that this should be binding on the US.
Let me modify your example. The bank guards go to lunch and put their guns on a high shelf (paint safely attached to wall). Over time (OK, shorter than paint aging) the guns fall off the shelf. A kid (please never let this happen) picks one up and shoots himself (and gets well). The parents sue the guards. As it heppens, both guards had recently been to the firing range so both weapons had residue, and as fate would have it, one hadn’t fully reloaded, so both weapons had a spent cartridge (revolver) and the bullet unfortunately was too damaged to identify the weapon. So both guards lose the case? Clearly one was innocent.
Which is the significant difference in analogies.
But…In this case, what you do is line both men against the wall, hand the gun to the kid, with one bullet in the chamber, and tell him to have fun. If the kid hits one or the other guards, that is God’s way of telling us who was guilty. If the kid misses both, that means there is not God and zeroangel and I are right. If the kid shoots himself again, that means Darwin’s theory of natural selection is right.
Chap,
In the phrase “natural born Citizen”,
to what does the word “natural” refer?
The answer is “natural law”, or “the law of nature”.
Hence, your Luxembourg example is off-base. This isn’t about man-made law, it’s about “natural” law.
I realize that you reject the work of Emmerich de Vattel. But the fact remains that the Constitution itself, in Article 1 Section 8 refers to the concept of the Law of Nations. And the preeminent work on the Law of Nations was Vattel’s work:
Vattel’s work was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.
Show me another work on the law of nature, to which you think the founders derived a definition of “natural born citizen” that ignored the citizenship of the father.
In order for you to believe that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief, you must:
1) Ignore the fact that Obama’s father was never a U.S. Citizen, and that by the law of nature he passed British subjecthood from father to son, regardless of birth location.
2) Believe that while the founders looked to Vattel’s work to inform their understanding of the principles of natural law and the law of nations, the founders somehow disagreed with Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”.
3) Take it on faith that Obama was actually born on U.S. soil, realizing that it is possible to have been born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and still have been born on non-U.S. soil. In fact, if born where originally reported, it is highly likely that Obama was not born on U.S. soil.
I will assume for now, for the sake of argument, that your definition of “natural” as a reference to “natural law” is valid.
That said, I take it that even if Britain Nationality Act of 1948 never existed, you would still consider Obama a British citizen merely by reference to natural law?
Then why cite the man-made law at all?
Not so different. Normally one would paint a house with one or two brands – and clearly all the other manufacturers would not be culpable. The problem is knowing which. Which is also the case with the guards – one must be innocent, but we don’t know which.
Right. And on an individual basis, there is no way to determine guilt or innocence. But in both the lead paint and the bank robbers, there are multiple torts/crimes and multiple victims, in which each defendant is guilty. It is just a matter of not being able to match up the right corpse with the right shooter. The only alternative to more or less divvying up the cost across all the wrongdoers is to totally exculpate them.
On December 3rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm, chapoutier said:
So for the sake of argument, you will assume that the Constitutional meaning of “natural born citizen” comes from “natural law”.
Correct. As would the Founders.
It’s an example of the man-made law agreeing with natural law.
And either way you go, Obama was born a British subject!
2 has already been done. US v. Wong Kim Ark:
No. If you go by Vatell’s version of natural law, and concede that Britain’s law should hold domain over the US’s definition of natural born citizen, then either way he was born a British subject.
Chap,
A “subject” is subject to a sovereign ruler (King, lord, etc.).
A “citizen” is sovereign.
(And our government was specifically created to be the servant of “We the People”, not vice versa.)
A subject is not the same thing as a citizen.
When the Declaration of Independence was signed, we ceased to be subjects of the British King, and became sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
“Subject” and “citizen” are two different things.
“Natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” are two different things.
You quote the Wong Kim Ark references to “natural born subject” and choose not to quote the Wong Kim Ark references to “natural born citizen”.
Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.
On December 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm, chapoutier said:
Who’s version of natural law do you reference?
And why did YOU ignore the preceeding sentence?
Don’t give me the difference between subject and citizen nonsense. That is a difference without distinction, at least in this context. And in fact the decision specifically stated that the English common law carried over after the Declaration and after the Constitution. Perhaps you could point to me specifically in that case where this supposed vital distinction is drawn between subject and citizen. And then maybe you can explain why Grey would favorably cite a law which wouldn’t apply anyway.
Much of our law is based on English common law. Are you telling me that it is all invalid because of syntax?
I reference none. I think your connection between “natural” in the sense of “natural born” and “natural” in the sense of “natural law is spurious.
Chap,
The fact is that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution includes the following:
The fact is that Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution includes the following:
The fact is that “the Law of Nations” in Article 1 Section 8 and “natural born Citizen” in Article 2 Section 1 aren’t “just words”… they meant something to the Founders, and the question is to where do we turn to find the meaning of those words?
I contend that the meaning of those words, “the Law of Nations” and “natural born Citizen”, can be found in the same body of work:
Vattel’s work was read by many of the Founders.
You can think my connection is spurious, but I don’t see you offering an alternative body work that was read by the founders and defines both terms.
The Founders clearly meant something by those words, and it is the duty of everyone who cares about supporting and defending the Constitution to do their best to determine what the Founders meant by those words.
That is an honest and noble endeavor, and is by no means spurious.
I don’t have to come up with an alternative. The Supreme Court already did. It specifically said that the common law rule that one born in Britain to alien parents is a natural born subject was the law of the land at the time of the Declaration and was the law of the land at the time of the Constitution and beyond.
If the framers wished to be clearer about the definition, they certainly could have simply stated that “natural born” meant born to citizens. They did not. In light of the fact that they did not do so in the face of conflicting contemporary definitions means they opened the issue up to judicial interpretation. And I don’t know how much more clearly the judicial interpretation could be.
And, the fact that the term “Law of Nations” was the name of a treatise by Vattel is meaningless. The notion and term “jus gentium” far predates Vattel, going back to Roman law. The use of the English translation to mean “international law” is neither surprising nor some super secret code referring to Vattel, who no doubt named his treatise after the same well known concept.
And…for what its worth, I never intended to imply that your intentions were spurious. Just your conclusion on that point.
You are nothing if not passionate and, from what I have seen, polite.
Thanks, Chap.
I understand that “the Law of Nations” as a concept predates Vattel’s work, and I believe the Constitution is referring to the concept in general, not just Vattel’s work specifically. At the same time, Vattel’s work was the work they read and referenced in some of their writings.
Even if I, for the sake of argument, assume that your definition is valid, that definition requires birth on U.S. soil.
You have not seen an initial birth certificate to prove that Obama was born on U.S. soil.
Perhaps you trust “FactCheck.org”, which had to have it’s fact checking corrected not once, but twice, by attorney Leo Donofrio.
Perhaps you trust the Hawaiian Director of Health, who wasn’t willing to verify the Obama COLB, didn’t say “Obama was born in Hawaii” in her October 2008 statement, and only said “Obama was born in Hawaii” in July 2009, mere hours AFTER the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of a resolution saying “Obama was born in Hawaii”.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the Hawaiian AG approved having the Hawaiian DoH say “Obama was born in Hawaii” based on not an initial birth certificate, but rather a Congressional resolution?
And those Representatives probably thought that the Hawaiian DoH had already confirmed that “Obama was born in Hawaii” long before they voted… but the truth is she had never said that.
Even if truly born in Honolulu, Hawaii, how do you know if Obama was born at the Queen’s hospital, on Hawaiian Crown Lands, or at Kapi’olani Medical Center?
How do you know that Obama was born on U.S. soil? The fact is, you don’t. You’re trusting a highly parsed statement by the the Hawaiian DoH, which required a “secret” opinion by the Hawaiian AG.
Why is this relevant?
Why is this relevant? Because land that is part of a separate, sovereign nation is not U.S. soil. A native American reservation is “sovereign land” of a native American nation. And the Hawaiian Crown Lands are considered by some to be sovereign land of “the Hawaiian nation”.
If born at the Queen’s Hospital, as originally reported (and then scrubbed), Obama was born on “Hawaiian Crown Lands” that some consider soveriegn soil, not U.S. soil.
The bottom line is that without certified documentary proof, you are accepting the unsubstantiated word of Dr. Fukino, and secret opinion of the Hawaiian Attorney General, that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen”. Which may or may not be the same thing as a “natural born Citizen of the United States of America”. You have no proof that Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center, as he claims.
And even if you don’t care where he was born, there are issues.
People like Andrew C. McCarthy (National Review Online Contributing Editor) say the birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.
It is my understanding that so-called Crown Lands were ceded to the US before statehood, and then, sometime later after statehood, given back by the US government. But of course when it was given back, it would not have been to a nonexistent sovereign entity. It would have been to a state, and thus still a part of the US.
Is a native American reservation “sovereign land”, or U.S. land?
(Serious question)
I am not an attorney, and do not pretend to be one, but it is my understanding that native American land is considered it’s own sovereign “nation”.
If Obama had been born on a native American reservation on the mainland, would he be considered to have been born on U.S. soil?
That is where I’m going with this.
Now consider Hawaii:
Without an initial birth certificate, signed by a doctor, we do not have documentary proof that Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center, as he now claims.
This issue won’t just go away.
In an interview today, Sarah Palin was asked:
Not that it is terribly important, but I am pretty sure Palin is lying when she claims she has produced Trig’s birth certificate.
RedPill,
I have some thoughts wrt tribal lands, but I am on an iPod right now, so complex thoughts and citations are difficult. I will have to wait till tomorrow.
I didn’t know Trig was a Presidential candidate. And yes, it wasn’t terribly important. Nice stretch though.
I know…which makes it a particularly silly thing to lie about.
Rogue Cheddar,
Yes, Trig was not a Presidential candidate, and it was stupid for the left to question Trig’s maternity.
The point is that on a conspiracy theory much less important to our country and physically impossible to be true, Palin produced the documents in question.
Obama hasn’t.
Obama has not released any birth document (long form Birth Certificate or short form Certification of Live Birth) directly from the state of Hawaii.
The hardcopy “COLB” was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago.
The hardcopy “COLB” was never verified as authentic by the State of Hawaii.
The hardcopy “COLB” does not prove that Obama was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center, as he now claims.
The hardcopy “COLB” was only shown to a small, controlled audience from an organization connected to Annenberg. (Annenberg Political Fact Check)
Obama has prior connections to Annenberg. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge)
Annenberg Political Fact Check is not a government agency, and there is no reason to accept their “fact checking”. In fact, Annenberg Political Fact Check (factcheck.org) had to have their “fact checking” corrected, not once, but TWICE, by attorney Leo Donofrio.
Anyone who claims that Obama has already produced his birth certificate is asking you to just trust the fact checking of a non-governmental agency that has a track record inaccuracy. An organization that could very well be politically connected to Obama.
The fact is that in October 2008 Dr. Fukino did not say “Obama was born in Hawaii”, and her office sent out the October 2008 statement in July 2009 in response to an inquiry. Then, mere hours later, only AFTER the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of a resolution which claimed “Obama was born in Hawaii”, Dr. Fukino sent out a new statement that claimed “Obama was born in Hawaii”.
We do not have any proof of what evidence Dr. used to claim “Obama was born in Hawaii”. She could have used the House reslution as her “proof”.
We expect transparency.
Two things are required to put this to rest:
1) Proof of birth on U.S. soil.
2) A Supreme Court ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen”.
Chap claims that 2) “has already been done. US v. Wong Kim Ark”. That is false. The U.S. Supreme court did NOT say that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen”!
In less than 12 hours, this topic has created more than 1,500 comments here.
Sounds like a hot topic to me.
Far from being “settled”.
I have to say, the Indian reservation issue is perplexing. I do, however, believe that reservations are not considered sovereign land, though the tribes themselves are semi-sovereign political entities.
In Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court took the question of whether John Elk, a Native American born on a reservation, was a citizen. They ruled he was not. But the important reason was why…It wasn’t because he was born on or off a reservation, the Court conceded that he was born on American soil. It was because he was born subject to a foreign political jurisdiction.
If that wasn’t perplexing enough, Obama went out of his way to be adopted on an Indian reservation in 2008.
Very strange.
Hi ITRP, I didn’t mean that Obama’s COLB wasn’t important, only Chaps reference to Sarah’s son Trig. I like you, would like better confirmation of our Usurper In Chief. I also believe Obama has never been constitutionally vetted. Call me a birther, so what. I believe that someday this whole Obama charade is going to come crashing down. I only pray the Country is not destroyed in the process. The truth will out. Just ask Tiger.
Indeed. In fact, “the truth will out” should have been #1 on the list of “10 Things Obama Can Learn From Tiger“.
So Elk could not have been President?
I’d bet a lot that Obama’s college apps have him claiming to be Kenyan or Indonesian…Nobody, and I mean NOBODY would spend millions of dollars on legal fees over something this simple to settle.
Exactly.
Elk was born within the territorial limits of the United States, and the Supreme Court ruled that he was not even a “Citizen”, let alone a “natural born Citizen”. Elk clearly was not eligible to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief of the United States.
Yet many people want to believe that birth within the territorial limits of the United States is now sufficient to be considered a “natural born Citizen”.
Wrong.
Even in the case of Wong Kim Ark, the the Supreme Court had every opportunity to declare him a “natural born Citizen” and INTENTIONALLY DID NOT. They intentionally avoided calling Ark a “natural born Citizen”. They chose instead to declare him a “Citizen”.
Being a “Citizen” was sufficient to meet the citizenship requirements of the Presidency if and only if the candidate had been a Citizen at the the time of the Adoption of this Constitution:
Anyone born after the Adoption of the Constitution had to meet the more stringent requirement of “natural born Citizen”.
The Supreme Court did not declare that Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen”. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not declare that Wong Kim Ark was eligible to become President.
The Supreme Court did declare that Elk was not even a Citizen. Therefore, the Supreme Court essentially declared that Elk was not eligible to become President.
The Wong Kim Ark case does not provide a basis to claim that Obama is a natural born Citizen.
And if Obama was born on Hawaiian Crown Lands, the Elk case provides precedent to say that Obama may not even be a U.S. Citizen! His mother was too young at the time to confer U.S. citizenship to him, and his father conferred British subjecthood up on him.
Exactly.
And I know from first-hand experience with a high-level person in the admissions process of an “Elite” university that it is easier to get in when you are a foreign student.
There is good reason to question whether or not Obama presented himself as a foreign student in order to get into Columbia and Harvard.
Correct. But not for reasons relevant here.
Except for the fact that it says English common law considered a person born in the country to alien parents was still a natural born subject, AND THAT THAT LAW CARRIED OVER TO THE US EVEN AFTER THE CONSTITUTION.
You cannot deny that, Red Pill.
No they didn’t. There was no controversy as to citizen vs. natural born citizen. Much of the authority they cited used the term “natural born” but the distinction, if any, was not legally relevant in the case at hand because “citizen” is a lower threshold. Courts don’t make rulings they don’t have to.
There clearly IS a distinction. Article 2 Section 1 uses the distinction.
So you admit there is a distinction. “Citizen” is a lower threshold, and “natural born Citizen” is a higher threshold, so there most certainly is a distinction.
Agreed. The court explicitly said that it was not necessary for them to say whether or not Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen”, it was only necessary for them say whether or not Wong Kim Ark was a “Citizen”.
And they said that he was a “Citizen”. You can’t claim that the Court would have ruled him a “natural born Citizen” if the case had been about him running for President.
It could be highly relevant if Obama was born on Hawaiian Crown Lands. Obama has failed to prove that he wasn’t born at the Queen’s Hospital, as was originally claimed. He has yet to prove that he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center, as he now claims.
“We the People” expect transparency, and two things are required to put this to rest:
1) A long-form Birth Certificate to prove a precise birth location on U.S. soil.
2) A Supreme Court ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen”.
(*cough*) Roe vs. Wade (*cough*)
No. Elk was found not to be a citizen entirely due to the fact that he was born into a native American tribe, a sovereign entity. I believe the case specifically said it would be the same regardless of whether or not he was born on a reservation or not. Same way with a foreign diplomat. If the wife of the English Ambassador has her baby at GW hospital, that baby is NOT a US citizen.
Yes. I have not argued otherwise.
Electors to the Electoral College sear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I believe the the electors, Senators, Representatives, and VP who cast votes and certified those votes, as well as the Supreme Court Chief Justice who swore in Biden and Obama, had a duty to support and defend the the 20th Amendment language that requires both the President and Vice-President to “have qualified”.
I believe McCain, Palin, Obama, and Biden should all have been required to release certified copies of their long-form birth certificate.
McCain released his, although I believe it proves he is not qualified because, contrary to popular belief, McCain was not born on a U.S. military base, but rather at Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama. McCain was not born on U.S. soil, and was made a U.S. Citizen by man-made statute, not by natural law. So, regardless of what a Senate resolution co-sponsored by Obama said, John McCain is not a natural born Citizen.
What would be really interesting now would be for someone to ask Palin to release her long-form Birth Certificate, in order to support and defend the 20th Amendment of the Constitution. I believe she would release it.
Then, the spotlight would shine even brighter on Obama, since both McCain and Palin would have released their long-form birth certificate, but Obama and Biden had not.
Without saying a word, the message sent would be, “We showed ours. Why won’t you show yours?”
Ok, then why do illegals’ babies get to be citizens?
Because, I imagine the Court would say, illegals have subjected themselves to the liegence of the United States merely by their presence. Ambassadors have not. In any case, babies of ambassadors have specifically been an exception, statutorily and in common law, in this country and many others for a long time.
Yes, the would probably say that.
And no one would laugh derisively since everyone fears crazy judges.
All right then…I am pretty sure I have settled all of RedPill’s questions about Obama’s citizenship.
Right?
Right?
Then Obama rides in and tells us what is good for us…just like he has done with the economy, war on terror, etc.
No.
Taken literally, you are saying that even after the Constitution, English common law carried over and a person born in the country to alien parents was still a natural born subject of the British crown.
You can’t show a single U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared that a person born in the U.S. to alien parents is a natural born citizen of the U.S.
Obama must first prove conclusively where he was born, by releasing his long-form birth certificate.
Then, the Supreme Court must once and for all make a clear statement of what is, and what is not, a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
John McCain was born at Colon Hospital in Colon, Panama, (and not on a U.S. military base, as some believe). I don’t believe that John McCain qualifies as a natural born citizen, either. Citizen, yes, by statute, but not by natural law. Citizen, yes, natural born citizen, no.
On December 4th, 2009 at 2:49 pm, chapoutier said:
Care to address the adoption?
From page 2…
Explain that one. Why did they “have to” adopt Obama? Why was she forced against her will to adopt Obama?
So, Chap, if Elk was deemed not a U.S. citizen, did Obama relinquish any claim to U.S. citizenship when this adoption was performed?
Chap,
If you choose to respond in the Sarah Palin quote of the day thread, just leave a short comment here to say so.
Oh wow. This “adoption” angle is absurd. Does this “revered compact” have any force of law? Do you similarly think that “commitment ceremonies” by gays in state’s that do not allow marriages confer actual legal consequences?
1) Elk was deemed not a Citizen because he was “subject to the jurisdiction” of something other than the United States.
2) Obama was born subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain. He was born a British subject.
3) Obama very intentionally had himself adopted by an Indian Chief and his wife (against the wishes of the wife, Obama’s “new mother”), on an Indian Reservation. While I don’t believe Obama takes direction from the Chief, Obama was choosing to put himself “subject to the jurisdiction” of this Chief and Indian nation.
Also, I have a more general question.
The 14th Amendment was a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court made a ruling about the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins.
I thought there were only 2 ways such a ruling could be overturned:
1) A Supreme Court ruling in a new case which overturned the ruling in the prior case.
2) A new Constitutional Amendment
So, how why was an act of Congress (the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) allowed to overturn a Supreme Court ruling (Elk v. Wilkins)?
Could an act ov Congress overturn Roe v. Wade?
act
ovCongressact of Congress