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: 102510
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
Comments (1-69) not displayed.
.
.
.
#70. To: mininggold (#41)
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.
The so called doctors should be put on trail for attempted murder.
Quit acting retarded and seek help for your obsession. Uh. You are the one having trouble answering a simple question on a debate forum. Are you here to debate or play games?
Who am I? Who AM I? Do you mean besides informed? Male 53...Gemini...I like midnight bar-b-ques, walks on the beach and schtupping frustrated haus fraus who were once mail order brides......
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
The case that Boris cited in his post, which wasn't a citizenship case but a right to vote case, clearly established two classes..."one is either naturalized or native thus natural born..." But I do appreciate you once again underscoring that even though your knowledge base suffers from a deficit you feel compelled to ACT like you know something anyway... We both know the fraud that is you Junior. We BOTH know.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
I surprised she actually left that on here instead of editing it out.......
Quiz of the Day: Who made the statement "The world would be a better place if only Men were to vote?????? HINT: It was a woman!!!
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'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Speak for yourself. you are being the badgering, baitful idiot here. You use the issue at the drop of a hat as a foil to cover up your own intellectual laziness and gutlessness. She shouldn't answer; you don't deserve one.
You are forgetting this is a forum, not a court of law with you as a district attorney with her on the stand, with no judge to rule you out of order. From a personal basis of experience, you ignore my stand against abortion and constantly treat it suspect because it is a way to bait me for political views you can't stand. She has no need to answer you. It is you who needs to get a brain, dumb shit.
Are you here to debate or play games? A debate forum is not an inquisition forum with you as the inquisitor. I'm sorry you have so little power in your life that you have to try to make up for it on this forum, but that's not my problem. We've also had this tussle before and you appear to not be learning from experience.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
It's probably his Hair Trigger squirt gun...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
I'm pro choice, pro life. You are pro abortion.
I like women. I'm married. Quit hitting on me. Go talk to meguro. He is your type.
So you think her making a statement then taking the cowards way out and not defend it is appropriate. Got you marked as a coward from now on.
Actions speak louder then words. You voted for a known abortionist. So you were pro death/murder until at least Nov 2008.
You said you didn't care for the practice of abortion. I think you are a liar. It would be easy to explain why you don't care for it. You talk about everything else. You are a coward, a liar, or stupid. Maybe all three. So go ahead and tell us why you don't care for the practice of abortion.
Yet you believe in the right of kings to split innocent children in two to settle a squabble between two women.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
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.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
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.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Obama's opinion on abortion is one of not liking it, but supporting a woman's right to chose to get one. Nobody in their right mind slams others against abortion because they don't refuse to have anything to do with someone who doesn't like abortion, but believes others have the right to make up their own minds on the topic. I disagree with Obama enough to not ant to vote for him this election, but I do not hate him personally. So according to your fucked up way to screw with people, I am pro-abortion unless I loath someone completely who does not feel exactly like you do anyway. In other words, you are an immature baby who tries to manipulate people using the abortion issue as a one size fits all taunt. Fuck off. I am not going to refuse human contact with people who feel differently than me on an issue, and I certainly do not care that you are a baby that tries to tell me I was for something when I was and am not.
Liar. You are not in any way shape or form "pro-life". You are pro-gestation even at the cost of the mother's life.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Yea so? That doesn't answer any of the questions posed to you. Quit hitting on me. Go talk to meguro. He is your type. When the going gets tough the weak make fag jokes...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
I know you should give the topic a rest. You are trying to conduct an inquisition. There is no rule to life that says that if you don't make little old you completely happy when you try to manipulate them with the abortion issue then a horrible injustice to humanity is being perpetrated.
I have never thought a woman should give up her life to bear young. Human life is too important to give up one's life to procreate. And I certainly don't believe a woman should have a rapist's child should she chose not to. Responsible people plan their pregnancies, and should they only plan to have one or two children, in no way should the choice of father, or time of pregnancy be decided by the act of violence rape is.
Stone is not against abortion because he is pro-life, he is anti-abortion because he is a male who believes in controlling women.
The more I can get you to edit the more I know I got you by the gonads
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
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.
It's quite simple, she is engaging in a normal human reaction to being baited. War too has a good point; you want privacy over your sexual practices, yet you demand no privacy for views any and all posters here don't want to share with you because you are insatiable on a issue. Not only do you demand that someone be anti-abortion, but all their other views have to be in line the right way, or you call them a liar for saying they don't like abortion. No, there is no good reason anyone should ever post to you on the issue; because you don't view this as a pro-life issue, you see it as a control and manipulation point of order you can use to beat anyone over the head with concerning any other topic under the sun.
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.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
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?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Actually you never answered. You stated you that you didn't like the practice. You stated that not in answer to a question. The question I asked is why you don't like that practice. I asked to understand your reasoning better. That way I can be accurate in defining you. You being apparently ashamed to answer the question is what leads to the speculation. So again you didn't answer my question for some strange unknown reason. While debating someone on the internet and asking them questions may be annoying to someone who has something to hide it is nothing close to voyeurism. Go get a dictionary if you would like to know the definition. Like I said what I deleted was off topic and you already said it a few times. I don't think it has been 2 hours yet. If you want you can go put it back.
Who says she has to post to it if you do? She definitely shouldn't do that if you pick on her specifically in the header of it.
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.
You really think that? There are 10 of thousands of posts I don't agree with.
And if she said you were on bozo for browbeating her for a very long time on the topic, you would ban her account for not wanting to deal with your cheesy baiting of her. Now, if that's not abusive behavior toward a woman, nothing is.
No I would just suspend her. If she did it without advertising it nothing would happen.
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?
Comments (110 - 232) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSo you are against abortion? You don't think it is an unalienable right?
#71. To: BorisY (#69)
Doctors urged her to abort the baby for her own safety
#72. To: mininggold (#68)
Quit playing games.
#73. To: Capitalist Eric (#67)
(Edited)
Who are you to make such definitive statements?
#74. To: Capitalist Eric (#67)
(Edited)
#75. To: A K A Stone (#70)
Why don't you care for the practice of abortion.
#76. To: CZ82 (#75)
(Edited)
#77. To: A K A Stone (#70)
"Are you to dumb to answer? I think you are."
#78. To: A K A Stone (#72)
(Edited)
"Uh. You are the one having trouble answering a simple question on a debate forum."
#79. To: A K A Stone (#72)
(Edited)
Uh. You are the one having trouble answering a simple question on a debate forum.
#80. To: mininggold (#79)
I'm sorry you have so little power in your life that you have to try to make up for it on this forum, but that's not my problem.
#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.
#82. To: war (#76)
Notice how Stone refuses to answer any question about his sexual preferences and practices?
#83. To: Ferret Mike (#77)
She shouldn't answer
#84. To: Ferret Mike (#78)
From a personal basis of experience, you ignore my stand against abortion
#85. To: mininggold (#79)
We've also had this tussle before and you appear to not be learning from experience.
#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)
#91. To: A K A Stone (#84)
(Edited)
"Actions speak louder then words. You voted for a known abortionist. So you were pro death/murder until at least Nov 2008."
#92. To: A K A Stone (#81)
#93. To: A K A Stone (#82)
I like women. I'm married.
#94. To: A K A Stone (#83)
"So you think her making a statement then taking the cowards way out and not defend it is appropriate. Got you marked as a coward from now on."
#95. To: war (#93)
#96. To: war (#93)
#97. To: AKA Stone (#90)
#98. To: mininggold (#97)
#99. To: A K A Stone (#98)
(Edited)
"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."
#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.
#103. To: mininggold (#100)
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.
#104. To: A K A Stone (#101)
"Would you like me to start a new thread?"
#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
#106. To: mininggold (#102)
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?
#107. To: A K A Stone (#106)
#108. To: Ferret Mike (#107)
And if she said you were on bozo for browbeating her for a very long time on the topic, you would ban her account for not wanting to deal with your cheesy baiting of her.
#109. To: A K A Stone (#105)
(Edited)
"I wanted to know how you came to that conclusion."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]