LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: The Dirty “little” Secret Of ...The Natural Born Citizen Clause --- Revealed.
Source:
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
URL Source: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress ... -born-citizen-clause-revealed/
Published: Jan 27, 2012
Author: Leo Donofrio
Post Date: 2012-01-27 14:14:32 by BorisY
Keywords: native, naturalized - immigrant, natural - parents
Views: 102191
Comments: 232
Natural Born Citizen Respecting the Constitution The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born. The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed. I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States. Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language: Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.” Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.” (While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.) The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific. Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation. Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President. According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B. It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored. Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule: “Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902). The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974). This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”. Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B? Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule. Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect. Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated: “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.‘ Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States. The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.) If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument. Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents. Leo Donofrio, Esq. [For a more detailed analysis of this issue, please see my Amicus Brief entered in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases.] [See commenting rules here.]
Poster Comment: People who can't figure this out shouldn't be allowed to vote - citizenship !
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 117.
#10. To: BorisY (#0)
(Edited)
Bullshit. They used "natural born" to distinguish from those born prior to the USCON's adoption. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
At the time are exempt - grand fathered ! After ... Age - resident - NATURAL BORN (( parents )) !
Parentage has nothing to do with it. Citizenship laws in the US are based first jus soli... Citizenship was conferred at the adoption of the USCON regardless of where they had been born or who their parents were. Given that, the Framers were hardly going to parse from thereafter to a most restrictive definition.
Higher office - higher qualifications ! GROW THE FUCK UP ! This isn't about voting !
One either acquires citizenship at birth, is natural born citizen; or acquires citizenship later in life, is a naturalized citizen. There is no third category of citizenship.
Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- INELIGIBLE !
What in the world does that mean?
1 - Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( NO parentS - anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- 2 & 3 INELIGIBLE ! 4 - Divine - royalty - obombammies !
Oh I see, you're creating a third class of citizenship. Good luck with that!
Bimbo: Oh I see, you're creating a third class of citizenship. Good luck with that! Your willful ignorance is getting old. Boris is right. You're wrong, so shut up.
BorisY: 1 - Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- 2 & 3 INELIGIBLE ! Bimbo: "Oh I see, you're creating a third class of citizenship. Good luck with that!" CE: "Your willful ignorance is getting old. Boris is right. You're wrong, so shut up." Ignorance - can be corrected through education. Stupid - is a birthright often passed down in families but sometimes organizationally inherited. Stupid is a choice.
Trying to get a pass by being a fatherless child ! how about the divorce - adoption !
Good point, and from what I have gathered, he never had his named changed back from 'Barry Sotoroe'. But I think the most damning evidence is, his father not being a US citizen, but a British Subject. They can smear all the lipstick on that pig they want, but it will still be a PIG! For him to be eligible, BOTH parents have to be US Citizens.
FOX News 5 did cover and report this in Georgia. There are, I think, 3 videos that covered the court proceedings, if you'd like them posted, just let me know!
Obama's father was a "citizen of Africa" - that's a good one.
Obama didn't show up in court. He thinks he is a dictotor. He is a dick. Impeach the asshole.
And you think you are God. It's up to the judge to make that decision, it's his/her court.
Actually that would be you. Who think you can kill a baby and claim it to be the most virtuous of all human acts.
And you think you can put words into other's mouths, when you can't find the facts to argue your case. That's typical of BPD. Did King Solomon offer to split a baby in two or did he not? And not one person in the Bible denied he had the right and the power to do so
So you are against abortion? You don't think it is an unalienable right?
It's been a practice in EVERY culture on earth. I don't care for it myself.
It's been a practice in EVERY culture on earth. I don't care for it myself. I think you are lying again. Why don't you care for the practice of abortion. Are you to dumb to answer? I think you are.
I surprised she actually left that on here instead of editing it out.......
You folks have been so brainwashed that you believe that anyone who is pro-choice finds abortion to be preferable to anything else. Notice how Stone refuses to answer any question about his sexual preferences and practices? Do you know why? He does. It's the "why" he won't answer. He *thinks* that he has a right to privacy. Right there is the Achilles Heal of the pro-gestation movement. He naively claims that sex is not a political issue when, given gay marriage, sodomy laws, deviant sexual behavior laws etc etc etc sex most certainly IS a political issue.
I'm pro choice, pro life. You are pro abortion.
Yet you believe in the right of kings to split innocent children in two to settle a squabble between two women.
It's been a practice in EVERY culture on earth. I don't care for it myself. That is a start. That last sentence has to be the best post you have ever made. Why don't you care for the practice?
That is a start. That last sentence has to be the best post you have ever made. Why don't you care for the practice? I already told you I will NOT play into your obsessions which have not one lick to do with abortion either pro or con. (EDITED OUT) I thought you said you didn't change poster's words. Omitting them changes the tenor of the post and makes you out to be lying again, just to get your juvenile way.
Why don't you care for the practice of abortion. You said you didn't. Why is that. Did you have an abortion and now you feel guilty? Did you tell your daughter to get an abortion and now you feel guilty you have no grandchildren? What is it that would make you say "I don't care for the practice" referring to abortion? Please give an honest answer and show libtards can tell the truth. I don't think you have it in you. Prove me wrong.
The more I can get you to edit the more I know I got you by the gonads
Your comment was just off topic that is all. I honestly don't understand your resistance to answering a very simple question. You must not be telling the truth or there is some deep dark secret you are ashamed of.
I honestly don't understand your resistance to answering a very simple question. You must not be telling the truth or there is some deep dark secret you are ashamed of. And just how is your abortion distraction "on topic" with this thread. I did answer yours.... just not up to whatever level of voyeurism you currently feel entitled to. But it's funny how you won't answer and even delete mine.
I concede that you have a valid point on it being off topic. Would you like me to start a new thread?
Would you like me to start a new thread? You can do whatever you want, but I will not play into your obsessions ......which have nothing to do with abortion, BTW You have already proven AGAIN to be ready to delete at a moments notice any post that you disagree with, so what's the point?
I ask questions about abortion because it is an evil practice. I was honestly encouraged when you said you didn't care for the practice. I wanted to know how you came to that conclusion. Abortion can be used like a litmus test. If you are in favor of it it tells you something about that individual. It tells you a whole lot about them and their values. If they have such lousy values that they think murdering an innocent baby in the womb is ok. Then something must be wrong with their morals. I wouldn't want them leading anything, lest they get mad and kill me too.
And her being a woman, and you a male, she has no right to chose not to respond to your obsessive baiting, which if answer to you would still not be happy with the answer anyway, and she would be subject to later be called a liar on it if she made you unhappy with another view she holds on something else. Remember, you are calling me a liar on the topic for something that has nothing to do with abortion. Why should anyone believe you on this topic when you are such a rabid lunatic on the matter?
If she gave me an honest answer I would accept it as her opinion. I think she is trying to think up something but she can't think what to say to a question any third grader could answer.
No one has to answer any question you just because you want them too.
Then I will have to speculate as to the reason. Here are the choices. 1. She was lying and really loves the concept of abortion. 2. She had an abortion and is ashamed to admit it. 3. Someone in her family had an abortion and she doesn't want to talk about it. 4. She doesn't really have an opinion and just says anything. 5. She thinks it is the murder of an innocent precious human life. Can you think of any other choices?
Speculation is just speculation. You already reduce your veracity by speculating I am a liar merely for voting for a particular man who has stated he does not like abortion and discourages the practices, but does not want the procedure made illegal. I dare say you can speculate all you want, but we all would be more impressed and moved by you doing a you tube video of you farting to the tune of Yankee Doodle Dandy than by an speculations you make at this point. And the fact you have thusly hurt your own veracity in this manner is your doing, no one else's.
Yes you are lying. Obama never discouraged an abortion. He put all tax payers on the table for funding government sponsored child murder. The guy is evil. And people like you did this to us Mike.
There are no replies to Comment # 117. End Trace Mode for Comment # 117.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHad the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause.
#11. To: war (#10)
(Edited)
#14. To: BorisY (#11)
#16. To: war (#14)
#17. To: BorisY (#16)
Higher office - higher qualifications !
#18. To: lucysmom (#17)
#19. To: BorisY (#18)
Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- INELIGIBLE !
#20. To: lucysmom (#19)
(Edited)
#22. To: BorisY (#20)
1 - Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- 2 & 3 INELIGIBLE !
#24. To: lucysmom, BorisY (#22)
BorisY: 1 - Natural (( parents )) ELIGIBLE ... native (( anchor status )) - naturalized (( immigrant )) --- 2 & 3 INELIGIBLE !
#28. To: Capitalist Eric, lucysmom, BorisY (#24)
#29. To: Murron (#28)
#30. To: BorisY (#29)
"how about the divorce - adoption !"
#33. To: BorisY, A K A Stone, All (#30)
Murron: "But I think the most damning evidence is, his father not being a US citizen, but a British Subject. For him to be eligible, BOTH parents have to be US Citizens."
#34. To: Murron (#33)
#35. To: lucysmom (#34)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#35)
Obama didn't show up in court. He thinks he is a dictotor. He is a dick. Impeach the asshole.
#38. To: mininggold (#37)
And you think you are God.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#38)
(Edited)
Actually that would be you. Who think you can kill a baby and claim it to be the most virtuous of all human acts.
#40. To: mininggold (#39)
And you think you can put words into other's mouths, when you can't find the facts to argue your case. That's typical of BPD.
#41. To: A K A Stone (#40)
So you are against abortion? You don't think it is an unalienable right?
#70. To: mininggold (#41)
So you are against abortion? You don't think it is an unalienable right?
#75. To: A K A Stone (#70)
Why don't you care for the practice of abortion.
#76. To: CZ82 (#75)
(Edited)
#81. To: war (#76)
You folks have been so brainwashed that you believe that anyone who is pro-choice finds abortion to be preferable to anything else.
#86. To: A K A Stone (#81)
I'm pro choice, pro life. You are pro abortion.
#87. To: mininggold (#86)
#88. To: A K A Stone (#87)
(Edited)
It's been a practice in EVERY culture on earth. I don't care for it myself.
#89. To: mininggold (#88)
#90. To: A K A Stone (#89)
#97. To: AKA Stone (#90)
#98. To: mininggold (#97)
#100. To: A K A Stone (#98)
Your comment was just off topic that is all.
#101. To: mininggold (#100)
And just how is your abortion distraction "on topic" with this thread.
#102. To: A K A Stone (#101)
I concede that you have a valid point on it being off topic.
#105. To: mininggold (#102)
You can do whatever you want, but I will not play into your obsessions ......which have nothing to do with abortion, BTW
#109. To: A K A Stone (#105)
(Edited)
"I wanted to know how you came to that conclusion."
#112. To: Ferret Mike (#109)
which if answer to you would still not be happy with the answer anyway
#114. To: A K A Stone (#112)
(Edited)
#115. To: Ferret Mike (#114)
No one has to answer any question you just because you want them too.
#116. To: A K A Stone (#115)
(Edited)
#117. To: Ferret Mike (#116)
I am a liar merely for voting for a particular man who has stated he does not like abortion and discourages the practices, but does not want the procedure made illegal.
Replies to Comment # 117.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]