Tag Archives: America

Field rejects the legal status of natural law

The influential lawyer and legal reformer David Dudley Field gave an address to the Social Science Association in 1866. The title of his talk was “An International Code.”

In that address, Field made the following interesting comments about writers on international law, and I think it applies directly to the writings of Emerich de Vattel:

Who made these rules, or this international law if you so call it, is explained by the definition which I have given. It was made by the nations themselves, either through express compact with each other or through general practice; that is to say: by treaty or by usage. Publicists, I know, looking beyond the rules so made or sanctioned, have sought in those moral precepts by which nations, not less than individuals, ought to be governed in their intercourse with each other for guides in other circumstances; and statesmen and diplomatists have often fortified their arguments by reference to such opinions, and it has thus frequently happened that those precepts have been gradually adopted into the usage of nations. These views of the publicists are, however, to be regarded rather as suggestions of what ought to be the conduct of nations in particular circumstances than as a statement of established rules. They are entitled to the same weight in the decision of national disputes as a treatise on natural law is entitled to in the decision of a case by the courts of America or England. [Emphasis added.]

Read full storyComments Off

Check the answer book

Parody Civics book

Parody Civics book

I have had commenters here swear that they were taught in their high school Civics class that (a) anyone born in the United States could be President or (b) only those born in the United States to citizen parents could be president.

Now I  personally don’t remember the subject coming up at all, but then that was a very long time ago and I don’t remember a lot of high school anyway. I think high school classes pretty much follow high school text books, and so the truth of the matter probably lies in those books. So I offer this challenge:

Come up with a text book published in the last 100 years that explains US presidential eligibility and in particular, what “natural born citizen” means.

Please, verifiable entries only.

I realize that a high school text book will not settle the legal question, but it will help settle the question of what the expectations of the American people were prior to the current marketing effort supporting a certain view.

Jon Stewart’s book,  America (the book) Teacher’s Edition: A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction (2004), pictured above, does address the question by saying:

You must be a native citizen of the United States. Very important. Imagine having fought for years to win your independence from England only to have King George get on the ballot and win. Very embarrassing. (Page 40)

Stewart, as many writers and court decisions have, uses the phrase “native” and “natural” interchangeably.

Read full storyComments { 85 }

More international law on citizenship

Continuing our series on international law and citizenship, we introduce the book International Law (1904) by John Westlake, Professor of International Law, Cambridge University. The section on citizenship is very long and the following is but a small part, selected for its particular relevance from Chapter 10.

Who are Nationals Jus soli and jus sanguinis

Historically nationality arose out of allegiance. The sovereign lords in the dealings between whom international law had its origin belonged to a system of which the dominant character was feudal and in feudalism the personal relation of a man to his lord was blended with the territorial relation of a fief to the lordship of which it was held. By virtue of the latter the personal relation to the lord was imposed on all natives of the fief or of the country considered as a collection of fiefs and this jus soli was not inconvenient because few persons were to be met with in any country who had not been born in it except traders and other obviously casual visitors. It was therefore on birth on the soil or on certain circumstances equivalent to birth on the soil that the character of a natural born subject primarily depended. By the common law of England which fairly represents the old common law of western and central Europe on the matter allegiance was due to the king from all persons born on land within his dominions with the exceptions presently to be mentioned or in foreign harbours on board an English ship of war or packet enjoying the immunities of a ship of war or at sea on board an English ship and from children born abroad to a duly accredited English ambassador or minister, but not from children born on foreign soil to English soldiers or sailors…. (more…)

Read full storyComments { 12 }

The tale of two judges (updated)

One could get dizzy from all the spin put on Judge Carter’s remarks in court yesterday and the subsequent orders in Barnett v Obama. I’m going to take the position that all federal judges basically follow the law, but they may vary in style. I thought Judge’s Carter’s style might be better understood by contrasting it with another Federal judge, presented with a similar case.

The case is Hollister v. Soetoro, the court District of Columbia District Court and the Judge, James Robertson. Hollister was Phil Berg’s case, the “interpleader” case in which he tried to force the court to decide  who was really president, Obama or Biden, using a trick from contract law. Berg’s 1st Amended Complaint was filed February 11, 2009 and the same day Judge Robertson issued an order “that defendants need not respond to the amended complaint and that plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss is due 2/13/09″. A few motions went back and forth, but the result is that on March 5, less than one month after the amended complaint was filed, the judge dismissed the case.

Judge Robinson declared that the “interpleader” case was “frivolous”. He said:

This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of the books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end. [Emphasis added.]

Judge Robinson, it seems, is unwilling to waste the court’s time on frivolous lawsuits.

In contrast, Judge David O. Carter seems a more patient sort. He is giving Orly Taitz explanations as to what she does wrong, and even tried to assist her in accomplishing service. He is going through all the forms including scheduling a trial date, even though there may be no trial. Whatever his personal view of the merits of the lawsuit, he is acting in a very measured and objective fashion. On the one hand he promises not to summarily dismiss the case on a technicality (giving glee to the Orly tribe) but on the other hand suggesting that there will be no discovery until the motion to dismiss is dealt with, and leaving a none-too-subtle hint to the US Attorneys that a motion to stay discovery might be in order. [I think part of the confusion here is on the definition of technicality. I suppose failure to meet a deadline for service is technical for one side, and not having standing is considered technical by the other.]

Carter’s even-handed language may lead those of us itching for resolution (either trial or dismissal) to read too much into his statements. In the end, I am confident that he will follow the law, and Orly, if she pays attention, might get a bit of a legal education in the process.

Read full storyComments { 23 }

Marking up Jeff Schwilk

I received an email a little while ago from Orly Taitz. She was forwarding the following from Jeff Schwilk of the “San Diego Minutemen.” Normally, I let what others say stand intact and comment on it. However, just for fun, I’ll mark this one up a little.

The expedited trial has been set for Jan. 26, 2010, just 4 1/2 months from now! [Actually Orly asked for the trial to be expedited and the Court refused. The January 26 date is not expedited, and this tentative trial date presupposes that the government's motion to dismiss is not granted, and that is a huge assumption.]

I and many other concerned veterans and citizens attended the hearing today in Federal Court in Santa Ana in the lawsuit against Barack Obama to determine his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief. About 150 people showed up, almost all in support of the lawsuit [did you take a poll, or did you bring them all with you on a bus?] to demand that Obama release his birth certificate and other records that he has hidden from the American people. (more…)

Read full storyComments { 54 }

God Bless Orly Taitz

Orly of Arc

Orly of Arc

Orly’s web site has taken on a decidedly evangelical tone of late with two feature articles:

From Reader Bill FitzPatrick

Dear Orly: May the Good Lord Bless and Keep you safe and of sound mind for the task you are undertaking.  Just like our First  Real President George Washington knelt before his battle with the English Crown at our  country’s beginning,

and

Thank you for your prayer, America’s spiritual foundation. Good trumps evil, we will win, I just hope it happens soon, before they destroy this country and it’s [sic] economy

PRAY led by the HOLY SPIRIT TO:

1) Set an impenetrable angelic hedge of protection around District Judge David O. Carter, and attorney Orly Taitz.

2) Confound, and bind the enemy with the light of God through Christ Jesus in us, that the darkness in their false case will be completely exposed to the nation!

3) Deal swiftly when the enemy steps out of these bounds, bind their tongues.

… This is a link to George Washington’s Prayer Journal (more…)

Read full storyComments { 58 }

Obama birth poll shows striking regional divide

“Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America
or not?”

A poll conducted for the Daily KOS (and this is a real poll,  not one of those unscientific citizen grand jury polls) asked the simple question: “Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?” The results were incredible:

Daily KOS Birther Poll Results

Daily KOS Birther Poll Results

Graphic source: The Washington Monthly.

In most of the country, denialists are in the fringe, but in the South, the view is almost mainstream. (more…)

Read full storyComments { 23 }