I did respond to the merits then, you just didn't understand them. What you want the law to mean and what the Federal courts have held it to mean in the past are not the same thing. For instance, you talk about what a term means based on the Declaration, however as historically important as it was, it is nowhere incorporated by reference into the Constitution as the law of the land, so what you read between its lines means nothing as far as US law is concerned. It's useful, but not binding, for a court trying to understand a term directly used in both, but beyond that it has no legal authority in deciding cases under laws enacted since the Ratification.
Your response(s) recognized the states as having, quote, "broad and vaguely-defined power to do things necessary for the safety and welfare of their populace." That may well be true, but that broad concept, and the 10th Amendment itself, do not provide authority to the states to annul individual liberties.. and this is recognized by case after case (that law).
Supreme Court interpretations
- In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. The state of Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors.
In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), the Supreme Court reviewed a tax levied by the state of Maryland on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States. The Court found that if a state had the power to tax a federally incorporated institution, then the state effectively had the power to destroy the federal institution, thereby thwarting the intent and purpose of Congress (and the Constitution).
In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), and Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause and the judicial power granted in Article III give the Supreme Court the power to review state court decisions involving issues arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States
And there are many other Supreme Court decisions that follow upon and continue to affirm that "states Rights" do not allow them to subvert individual rights, freedoms and property.
Contrary to your assertion, I was NOT claiming some broad protection extended from the Declaration, but rather the principles seen throughout the U.S. Constitution itself. Among other protections in the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause explicitly protects individual rights from theft and usurpation by state authority. Beyond that, the Declaration is listed in U.S. Code, along with the Northwest Ordinance, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution itself, as being the "organic law" of the United States. "Organic law", to those who do not know, is the fundamental law and principle of a state or nation. It may not be in the form of statute, but it is inherent to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
If this were not true, our so-called "rights" and the fundamental idea that they are not granted unto us by any government, would be worthless - a sham.
Despite this, this consideration of law, statute, has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of "natural born citizen", which remains outside of man-made law, and statute. Your entire response here is a deflection having nothing to do with the consideration of natural born.
I don't hate you, you seem like a pretty intelligent guy with a minor manic problem. I just look at you as a time-wasting deceiver of yourself and others, like the periodic crop of yahoos who spring up and run around making a quick buck (or not) lecturing people on why they don't have to pay income taxes, or how they can print their own license plates, driver's licenses, or other documents as 'Constitutional Citizens,' or some other such malarkey. I've dealt the the wreckage guys like that have wrought on the gullible before, it isn't pretty.
I couldn't give a damn about what you think of me personally, but you seem to have a compulsion to go personal rather than respond to the argument itself. And falsely impugning me with things I have never said, such as "income tax, license plates, driver's licenses", and whatever other crap you care to come up with, is a dishonest attempt to impugn my argument with "false association".
And believing I'm going to roll over, simply because you reference your law degree, that's another flaw of argumentation, in reference to a false (and irrelevant) authority, done in the absence of any argument at all.
I've laid out the facts for you, and you're invited to address those facts ... if you can.
Here's some further additional fact. Throughout this country's early history, we never gave direct citizenship at birth merely as a result of being born on American soil. That so-called "birthright citizenship" only came about 1898 from the corruption of "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment, 30 years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. This corruption came about from deliberate judicial malfeasance of the Court in Wong Kim Ark, and was done because the Court could not deny the authority of Congress to enact the "Chinese exclusion acts", which prohibited the entry (or re-entry) of Chinese into the country.
If mere birth on U.S. soil did not result in citizenship during all that time, then how the hell did we have any legitimate "natural born citizen" President during that period? The only citizenship at birth that occurred in this country's early history, was citizenship achieved not by any statute authority, but rather the result of being born to two citizen parents on U.S. soil --- a natural born citizen.
But basically, you'd blow off any explanation I gave you this time, so just enjoy your fantasy world, I'm not going to waste my time looking up stuff you won't read or credit anyway. If you and your fellow thinkers are so convinced, raise money to publicize your issue and take it to court.
I do solemnly promise that I will respond directly and specifically to "anything you give me" to support your argument. I have in fact spent the time "looking stuff up", and I've likely seen what you might find in a casual search. It doesn't worry me.
And regarding "taking it to court", as I've previously indicated, I believe the issue of natural born has been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, not because (all) the challenges are invalid, but because even if the Court were to again recognize that definition of natural born, there is no authority indicated anywhere in the Constitution, for the Court to declare a sitting President to be unqualified to hold office. The last opportunity available under established process was when Congress counted the electoral vote, prior to pronouncing Obama the winner. Thus this concern is dismissed as "political" consideration.
Just out of curiosity, do you have any comment on the evidence I referenced that McCain also is unqualified to hold that Office, and he was promoted by deliberate and focused fraud?
Incidentally, if I did not believe you and I were capable of having an intelligent and worthwhile exchange, I'd have no need to waste my time responding to your empty posts at all.
