Skip to main content

Home/ SaveOurRights/ Group items tagged michigan

Rss Feed Group items tagged

liveinfreedom .

Michigan Law Review Constitution - 0 views

  • Congressional power to withhold citizenship from children of U.S. citizens is not hypothetical; for decades, it was law, and to some extent still is. The Tribe-Olson Opinion proposes that “[i]t goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States . . . .” However, the Seventh Congress, which included Framers Gouverneur Morris and Abraham Baldwin among others, did precisely that. In 1961 in Montana v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court construed an 1802 statute to mean that “[f]oreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens . . . .” Thus, children of members of the armed forces serving overseas, and diplomats and civil servants in foreign posts, were not only not natural born citizens eligible to be president, they were not citizens at all.
  •  
    The citizenship of those born in the Canal Zone in 1936 is a legal question, not a question about one's views of Senator McCain's candidacy. U.S. citizenship law is not simple or intuitive.
liveinfreedom .

Michigan Law Review: Explanation of Legal Process to Obtain OBAMA BIRTH information . - 0 views

  • The Justiciability of Eligibility
  • “[j]udicial review—if any—should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.”
  • here is no bright-line rule for ascertaining whether an injury is sufficiently imminent to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong, but the Court has said that an asserted right to have the government act in accordance with the law is not sufficient.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • and Berg probably lack Article III standing.
  • Understood in this way, prudential standing presents formidable difficulties for these plaintiffs and, indeed, for anyone seeking to challenge a presidential candidates’ qualifications in federal court.
  • The Warth-Newdow language suggests that federal courts should be especially reluctant to find standing in cases asserting a “structural” constitutional violation—like the prohibition on members of Congress serving in the executive branch or the requirement that a president be a natural born citizen—as opposed to the violation of individual rights.
  •  
    It is doubtful, however, that they are justiciable in lower federal courts. Standing requirements and the political question doctrine make it unlikely that a federal court will reach the merits in cases of the type filed to date. Justiciable means can the case be heard in a court or not? It is believed that this issue is more properly addressed by the political process and NOT the courts.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20 items per page