Letters
Letters to the editor, Dec. 8
TBO.com
Published: December 7, 2011
Read the rulingPublished: December 7, 2011
I hesitate to write yet another letter on the "natural-born citizen" issue, but since Dallas Dunlap writes a lot more often than I do, I would like to summarize. On Dec. 3, he said that "natural-born citizen, "citizen at birth" and "native" all mean the same thing.
He has used Minor v. Happersett to try to prove his point, but that case makes distinctions — it does not impose limits to kinds of citizenship. It describes children born to "parents who were its citizens" when describing "natives, or natural-born citizens," so those particular "natives" require citizen parents by that definition.
When it describes citizenship of children born to non-citizens, it says "as to this class there have been doubts." Minor did not rule at all on that "class," so Minor cannot be used to prove that "class" to be "natural-born." That "class" was excluded from the definition of "natural-born citizen" in Minor. Read the ruling, and judge for yourself.
Dunlap also tried to use U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which did not rule at all on "natural-born citizen," only "citizen." Both groups of children are citizens at birth. Only one group is "natural-born," as stated in Minor and the other sources with similar language mentioned in my previous letters.
If there is a law or ruling that differs from the original meaning of "natural-born citizen" as understood at the time the Constitution was written, it would be unconstitutional because "natural-born citizen" is a requirement for the office of president in Article 2 Section 1.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment per Article 5 to change that meaning, either with the words "natural-born citizen" in the amendment, or language striking the requirement entirely.
Pat Miketinac
Brooksville
Odds-on favorites
Republican-influenced, newly drawn political districts place the Fifth Congressional District into all of Hernando and Pasco counties, as well as a slice of Polk County that will more likely than not draw State Sen. Mike Fasano into the upcoming congressional race.
The congressional seat may have been Sen. Fasano's for the asking if Ginny Brown-Waite had not handed the seat to Rep. Richard Nugent in a last-minute move two years ago when Fasano faced term limits and had an incentive to remain in politics he loves so well.
Sen. Fasano's place in the current Legislature is far reaching. He has many friends. He was presumed to be the logical choice for Congress at the time fast moves were executed to bring in Congressman Richard Nugent.
Both are excellent campaigners and both are beloved by their local constituencies. This could be a race upon which you might want to place your bet. The odds may be in your favor.
Deron Mikal
Brooksville
Which is it?
Allan Walker's Sunday letter is basically a cut-and-paste from the Ann Barnhardt blog. Barnhardt, a broker and rightwing blogger, has announced that she is closing her brokerage firm. She blames the MF Global debacle and President Barack Obama.
She and Walker both seem to suffer from rightwing double-think. After years of demanding less regulation, they are now attacking the Obama administration for not regulating the futures market enough.
Odd how that works: One minute, regulation is stifling the private sector. Next minute, after some appalling bad action by the unstifled private sector, the government is "lawless."
But cheer up. On Dec. 5 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted to overturn a 2005 rule that allowed brokers to invest in in-house transactions. It was this rule — really a lack of rule — that made the MF Global loss of investor funds possible. Note that President Obama came into office in 2009.
So now that the government regulatory boot is firmly on the neck of the brokerage biz, Walker and Barnhardt can get back to their Ayn Randian-free market, snug in their cozy blanket of government regulation.
Dallas Dunlap
Brooksville