The school pushed the story originally of how Shaw was at a family party in Palmdale, Calif., Saturday when jumped to save his 7-year-old nephew, Carter.
According to the Trojans’ website, Shaw claimed he had jumped from a second-story balcony onto concrete before dragging himself into the pool and rescuing his nephew, who doesn’t know how to swim.
Shaw has admitted that he lied after the LA Times uncovered that there was a police account sharply contradicting his story. On the night that he claimed to have jumped from a second-floor balcony to save his nephew there was a police report of a woman screaming at an apartment complex about 60 minutes from Shaw’s family function. A woman told police that she saw a man run across a balcony and provided a description. That description was read to another woman at the complex who said “Sounds like my boyfriend, Josh Shaw.”
After going national with the hero story, the university was livid. Head coach Steve Sarkisian stated “He let us all down . . . Honesty and integrity must be at the center of our program.”
Shaw, a senior cornerback and team captain, has retained a lawyer.
The question is the appropriate sanction for such a false statement. The most serious aspect is not the false public account but lying to the university. The indefinite suspension from the program is obvious but should there be the additional suspension from the school? I think the team suspension is more than sufficient and a very sad blow at a critical point in this promising career. Not only will Shaw miss key games to show his abilities but NFL teams are leery of athletes with off-field problems though it did not bar Manti T’eo ultimately in joining the San Diego Chargers as a linebacker this year. The suspension is indefinite, which raises the possibility that he may never play again for the Trojans.
I expect that this is a nightmare for Shaw and his family. Teenagers can do and say stupid things. Most of us are not held up to the national limelight on such occasions. There is no indication of a crime here, but there is a serious violation in not just lying but claiming to be a hero. As an academic, I find such cases very difficult because we have all seen good kids (and adults) who get caught up in a lie that snowballs out of control. I would have much preferred his admitting the lie before the LA Times debunked the story but I hate to see a young man like this crash and burn over such a scandal.
What do you think?
Source: LA Times
“…at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,..”
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Excuse me. I’m not following you. Perhaps, that is because I am following the Law of Nations, writings of the Founders, the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights and, because “the proof is in the pudding,” the actual history of Presidents with two citizen-parents.
Oops! Don’t let the facts get in the way.
Washington? Adams? Jefferson? Both parents were British citizens.
maxcat06 – you forgot the ‘or’ part of the provision.
One more point. Please check out the parents of: Woodrow Wilson (mother born in England), Chester A. Arthur (father born in Ireland), James Buchanan (father born in Ireland), Herbert Hoover (mother born in Canada), Andrew Jackson (both parents born in Ireland), candidate Mitt Romney (father born in Mexico).
Also, a link to what I was referring to. You will find that it IS a Progressive site (horrors), but the links contained within are to “reputable” sites:
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-is-the-seventh-president-with-a-foreign-born-parent
Squeaky. Thank you. My next post was going to be the Supreme Court case citation. Apparently, that isn’t good enough, but it is the settled law of the land. Nice to see we can agree.
What do you think of Ted Cruz’s chances?
John, I don’t think it was a liberal court that settled the “natural born” issue, but I’m really not that into the makeup of the court in 1898. Methinks with the Ted Cruz issue on the horizon, things will continue to be this way, ISIS, Putin or Fukishima notwithstanding.
@John.
There is no two citizen parent requirement to be a natural born citizen. The Wong Kim Ark (1898) case flatly says the following:
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Sooo, First Note: ALL PERSONS born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens.
NOW, what did the SUPREME COURT say born in the allegiance meant???
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13
Sooo, Second Note: EVERYBODY born in America, (who isn’t the kid of a diplomat or an invading soldier) is born in the allegiance.
Now when you add the Second Note to the First Note, you get:
ALL PERSONS born in America, (who are not kids of a diplomat or invading soldier) ARE BORN in the allegiance [and] are natural born citizens.
And, to top it off, the 14th Amendment cements those concepts:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
In conclusion, a John Jay letter in 1787(?) don’t trump a SCOTUS case in 1898.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
maxcat06
“Methinks thou dost protest too much” – Bill
maxcat06, thank you.
The Founders studied the Law of Nations which used the natural born citizen phrase, requiring parents (plural) and stated, immediately subsequently, that right flowed from the FATHER, which in Obama’s case would have been African rights as his father was not an American citizen. Franklin penned that the Framers “POUNCED” on the Law of Nations as the framers enhanced and increased the eligibility requirement from citizen to natural born citizen, subsequent to the Jay/Washington letter requiring a “strong check” against foreign allegiances which equates to two citizen-parents as George Mason declared that English Law was not American Law and that the event of the Constitution was the opportunity to change law and create new concepts of jurisprudence, and all the Presidents, save one who defrauded, had two citizen-parents. The Founders didn’t need to define natural born citizen and they used the phrase rather than a numerical representation because every legal entity in the western world had read Vattel and understood that natural born citizens had two citizen-parents which clearly differentiated them from other types or degrees of citizenship. That the highest office would require the highest form of citizenship is irrefutably intuitive.
Given the Jay/Washington letter, et al., it is preposterous to suggest that the Constitution means, and the Founders intended, that the son of a foreign citizen could every become the Commander-In-Chief which is defined as the President of the United States.
I understand that collectivist liberalism dominates America through manipulation of the election process and that you support Obama for contrary, iconoclastic, anarchistic and idiosyncratic reasons, but it is not possible to transform falsity to veracity and revise history in that endeavor.
Interesting, so 200 years of attempts at clarification, resulting in the idea of “born within the United States borders” as the commonly defined legal definition has all been the machinations of the liberals? It all comes down to “collectivist liberalism”, is that how I’m reading you? What is your stand on the possibility of Ted Cruz running? What about the idea, floated in the mid-90s by Republicans, of changing the Constitution to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to run? Sure, it was a pipe dream, but don’t tell me that it was floated by “collectivist liberals”. You are pouncing on one letter, which, as you say yourself, was disputed by others around the same time, that urged a specific definition and as such you are then saying it is “as the Founders intended”. I might add that George Washington was not a framer of the Constitution. You are now using what you are calling “precedence”, that of all previous Presidents having two citizen-parents, which is important, but is not law. By your standard of “precedence”, our first 3 or 4, or possibly more, Presidents, were not legal, as their parents both were British subjects and not U.S. subjects. Splittings hairs? Certainly, but no more so than your upending 200+ years of what has been fairly established, albeit not codified, as the Constitution is vague on this, opinion as to what constitutes a “natural born citizen”. A simple Google search can confirm this, and it is becoming more evenhanded on both the left and the right, now that Ted Cruz is gearing up to run.
I would add that if the Founders were, as you claim, that worried about the prospect of a President with foreign born parents, or at least one parent, they had ample time in the framing of the Constitution to address this urgent issue. That they did not speaks to the point that they felt it was adequate as written. Perhaps they realized that the first officeholders wouldn’t qualify, but then, by qualifying them, the precedent had been set.
John, I had sworn off posting here, but I must correct your assumption of who is eligible to run for President. I know you must hate Obama being in office, but I’m clarifying this so that, when the time comes, you can bask in Ted Cruz’s candidacy, since you just seem to be selecting “liberals” for your ire. John Jay’s letter isn’t the law of the land. The following is directly from the Constitution, the document that seems to be so misquoted of late:
” Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
The following you may find less convincing, as it is from Cornell Law School, but you’re going to believe what you like;
Natural born citizen
“A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States. Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII.
Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born Citizen.” One may also be a “natural born Citizen” if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person’s parents.”
Note the word “consensus”, as there isn’t a constitutional directive.
See, also, Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2840767/posts
I was certain I would never post here again, but I get furious when the Constitution is used for just so much toilet paper. And, yes, before I get slammed, that includes presidential overreach, on BOTH sides. Also congressional inaction, as they have a specific function other than just collecting a paycheck.
Fareed Zakaria, not to put too fine a point on it, stole entire chapters, as did Doris Kearns Goodwin. Obama lives the falsehood of being eligible with a foreign citizen father, Constitution – 1789*
* John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. ”
Vattel – Law of Nations – 1758
*The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Kennedy lost the election to Nixon – the mobster, Joseph Kennedy conspired to falsify votes in Illinois and Texas with mobsters and Johnson functionaries, which are defined as mobster/criminals such as Billy Sol Estes, prison inmate.
Ah the machinations of Machiavelli.
Eric:
You forgot to mention that Shaw’s girlfriend identified him as the would-be Spiderman. Domestic abuse? Who knows.
mespo – the gf did not identify him, just said it sounds like him, BIG difference.
There’s a lot more going on here than false valor. We’ll see later.
I’m tiring of my theory of crime and punishment being proven right so often. Embarrassing the Government (state, educational, Federal, local, whatever) is at the top of the chart, followed by everything else.
People expose Government secrets, or even Government non-secrets, and are crucified. Destroy material or abuse your position, not so much.
“On the night that he claimed to have jumped from a second-floor balcony to save his nephew there was a police report of a woman screaming at an apartment complex about 60 minutes from Shaw’s family function. A woman told police that she saw a man run across a balcony and provided a description.”
Wait … what happened?
Paul C. Schulte… I disagree. Once a player accepts their scholarship and dons the team uniform they are a de-facto representative of the team and of the university and their behavior is a reflection on the athletic program and the school. Fair or not.
I served in the US Navy for 20-years and often held training prior to port visits with junior sailors about perceptions, responsibilities, and possible ramifications of their behavior when going ashore to visit ports… both foreign and domestic.
These were just young men and women wanting to have some fun, but one stupid act while on shore leave can tarnish the reputation of the ship, the Navy, and possibly the entire country. Unfortunately for the young people, that is part of the responsibility that comes with wearing the uniform. Some just don’t “get it”, but that does not lessen their responsibility.
Reminds me of an adage from my youth:
“Your Mother’s love goes with you son, everywhere you know.
Be sure you don’t take it where it should not go.”
USC was right to suspend him. He was not forthright with them when he had an obligation to do so. In real life, some lessons are harsh.
USN 420 – that scholarship underpays the student. If the student is an employee of the university, I can tell you from experience they are not getting paid enough.
Waldo, I agree. The team doesn’t lose a player it hasn’t already lost and it doesn’t get criticized for doing nothing for a player who lied (out of schools on his own time).
When I was living in KC there was another hoax but much more sad. A basketball player for Missouri was shot. His name was Steve Stepanovich and he went on to later play in the NBA. Steve told police he was sitting in his dorm room when a man, dressed like a cowboy, came in and shot him. It was soon learned what really occurred was a botched suicide attempt. However, Mizzou played their archrival Kansas some time after the incident. The student section was regaled in cowboy hats and fired cap guns whenever Steve shot free throws.
I feel somewhat sorry for these athletes who in reality have nothing beyond their athletic ability, and when the dirt hits the fan, they haven’t the ability to deal with anything outside of the Playbook.
Why couldn ‘t he be a nice, honest young man like uh. . .oh what was his name. . .oh, Doreen Johnson! Yes, why couldn ‘t he be like him? I guess maybe if you just did something you shouldn’t have done, you might have a tendency to tell fibs and embellish things.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
My problem with this is that the student was not representing the university or the team. I have always had problems for suspensions of any length for behavior by students who are not in school, so to speak. They are between summer school and the fall semester at USC. Only the football team is on campus. The humiliation from his team mates would do more to correct his behavior then an indefinite suspension.
suspended indefinitely = suspended until your ankle injuries heal
Dumb move by a good player.
Unfortunate that the hero meme was created by Hollywood script writers.
It can be perverse.
Hi Jonathan:
On another sports related story I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the following:
I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the following as it regards advertising at the US Tennis Open:
Specifically I was focusing on Emirates Airline being a major sponsor of the tournament.
I wrote about the subject here and was interested in your thoughts.
‘Right, wrong or indifferent? Emirates Airline and the U.S. Open’
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140828100650-17194403-right-wrong-or-indifferent-emirates-airline-and-the-u-s-open
Mike