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
@Squeaky
I’ll bet you never thought it would be in this context!
@John
Dear John,
Let me ask you a question for the second time. Do you believe that Obama is the legal POTUS?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
(I always wanted to write a Dear John letter!)
Maxcat, “Amendment XIV Section 1:”
“Citizen” NOT “natural born citizen.”
Are you suggesting your reference amended the presidential eligibility requirements?
Maxcat, Ben Franklin, the Law of Nations was “pounced upon” by the Founders. He didn’t say English law was “pounced upon.”
George Mason said that English law was NOT the law of the United States. Americans conducted a revolution against the British Empire, including its law. Mason also said the Constitution was an opportunity to innovate regarding the law (paraphrase).
Jay and Washington imposed a “strong check” to foreign influence and allegiances by the Commander-In-Chief. How is that accomplished with respect to the eligibility and the Natural Born Citizen form that Jay and Washington proposed?
Maybe you could address these points.
@John
You’re just being disingenuous. There is nothing clearer than “all persons born”. After that, you’re just parsing air.
Yes Mason said “innovate”. Much of said innovation was to add Enlightenment ideas on top of English Common Law. Notice the word innovate is not the same as eradicate.
Once again, Jay and Washington did not write the Constitution. Full stop.
Hey Baby, the king can lie, so can i.
Maxcat,
“Methinks thou dost protest too much,” Bill.
If a murder occurred previously, is the law against murder voided? If O.J. Simpson murdered but the law declared that he didn’t, is it subsequently legal for O.J. Simpson to murder?
If a previous President violated the law, is the Constitution nullified because it was violated?
By your own admission*, the vast majority of Presidents had two citizen-parents at the time of the candidate’s birth. Do you wonder why? Chester Arthur defrauded and I am not aware of a President Romney.
The legal method of changing the requirement for eligibility is a constitutional amendment. Why don’t you pursue the legal remedy?
* “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).”
@John
Thank you for asking. Constitutional amendment, you ask? Sure,
“Amendment XIV Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
First three words…”All persons born…”
@John
You said, “What did they have in mind when raising, enhancing or strengthening the citizenship status from “citizen” to “natural born citizen?”
Well, the Wong Kim Ark court told us in 1898 what they had in mind, and why. If you are born in this country, and not the child of an invader or foreign diplomat, then you are a natural born citizen. Now. . . if you want to consult the 1 900 Psychic Hotline, then that is your right.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that Obama is the legal POTUS?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@Squeaky
Good luck with that question. I don’t know why I keep on typing. Maybe it’s cathartic, but I feel as if I’m beating a dead horse, excuse the metaphor.
George Mason declared that the law of England was not the law of the United States. What part of that are you missing? Did you hear? The Americans rejected, physically and legally, the entire British Empire. You would have us believe the British continued to control America after its Revolution.
We are dealing with the Constitution not subsequent corrupt “decisions” by ideological judges who “legislate from the bench.” I do not argue that corrupt decisions have not been made and implemented in America. I gave you the glaring example of Obama care and John Roberts who imposed the Communist Manifesto, not the American Constitution…”from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Even Bernanke stated that the “Constitution has evolved” when, of course, it hasn’t. I don’t care how much of a gullible, bleeding heart liberal one is, you can’t implement the Communist Manifesto in America and continue be in line with the American thesis, the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Jay/Washington letter effected a raise or enhancement of “citizen” to “natural born citizen” in the draft of the Constitution. Jay/Washington set a “strong check” to foreign allegiances of the Commander-In-Chief.
What did they have in mind when raising, enhancing or strengthening the citizenship status from “citizen” to “natural born citizen?”
What was the difference in their minds between the two forms?
@John
The Jay/Washington letter, though interesting, was not codified into law, either in the framing of the Constitution or in subsequent decisions. Why do you insist that a particular letter, although important in that it was from the first Supreme Court Chief Justice to the first President, formed the basis of the law of the land? Jay was a part of the constitutional convention, but has never been thought of as a primary source writer of the final document. Rather, primary authorship has always fallen on Madison, with Jay one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, which as far as I can remember, don’t spell out “natural born citizen” either, despite your claim of Jay’s almost fanatical worry about the issue.
What did they have in mind, you ask? That’s up for conjecture, since the meaning of the term was left vague enough for it to need an amendment and further judicial rulings to clarify. Are you truly basing all of your findings on John Jay and ignoring what is actually documented? Perhaps you’re looking at it backwards, since all of this is conjecture. It could be equally stated that the change from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” is, as Squeaky stated, an attempt to fall in line with English Common Law.
Contrary to how you interpret George Mason or others, our Constitution, in many ways, comports well with English Common Law. It also is in line with many Enlightenment thoughts of the time, which, while still narrowly defining, say, eligibility to vote, strove to enhance rights, not limit them.
Are you truly saying that no amendment nor Supreme Court decision is binding simply because you don’t believe it comports to YOUR interpretation of the Constitution, reading between the lines as you are? You never have answered the question about the other President’s who had foreign parentage. Is it that the fact messes up your narrative? Your point is that all decisions that you don’t like are “Communist” or “legislating from the bench”. Does that include amendments that are passed by Congress and approved by the requisite number of states? Your view is narrow, in that you conveniently throw to the side the changes you don’t like.
I know I’m talking to myself, as is Squeaky, although she may be smarter than I am. She at least cites legislation and court rulings, although those have no effect either. I studied constitutional history, and some constitutional law, although I have no claim to a law degree or to being a lawyer. I’m also pretty aware of the influences that went into the writing of the document, and the decisions made to allow amendments. Of course, we all know that it wouldn’t have passed without the Bill of Rights, but you seem to feel that no more amending should have taken place. Perhaps women shouldn’t have the right to vote; perhaps Blacks should still be counted as fractions: I don’t know how you think, but you seem to pick and choose at will. Throwing O.J Simpson into the mix is interesting, though. Nice choice.
@John
No, your position is NOT intuitive. Consider Lynch v. Clark (NY 1844) a case where Julia Lynch was born in The U.S. to alien parents:
The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section that defines the qualification of the President. “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,” &c.
The only standard which then existed, of natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus… This was settled law in the time of Littleton, who died in 1482.
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/07/evidence-found-that-american-common-law-defined-whether-a-child-born-on-us-soil-of-non-citizen-parents-was-a-natural-born-citizen-lynch-v-clarke-1844/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
O.J. Simpson committed multiple murders.
Defense Attorneys argued against morality, law, acceptable behavior, the Ten Commandments and every other “guideline” and the “settled law” became that O.J. Simpson murdered no one.
You and defense attorneys can and will argue against the actuality of the sun rising tomorrow morning and any law or condition can be imposed.
My point is that, if you follow the Constitution, as supported by the legal text of the era and the written intentions of the Founders, parents are required.
You can argue until you’re “blue in the face” but you can never change the law, the understanding, the contemporary writings and the precedent of actual office holders that eligibility requires parents, plural, and would never allow the son of a foreign citizen to be President and Commander-In-Chief.
Preposterous. Just like Johnnie Cochran, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Murder is against the law but O.J. goes free. The guilty are innocent. Natural Born Citizen means citizen-parents, but the President is the son of a foreign citizen
Did the Founders expect certain fundamental “understandings” such as children have two parents?
Is a requirement of citizen-parents not intuitive?
Do you not know the sun will rise tomorrow?
Did O.J. Simpson commit murder?
How do you impose a “strong check?”
Are citizen-parents an eligibility requirement?
@John
If you ask me if abortion is legal in the U.S., my answer is “yes.” If you ask me if that is “right” , I will say “no” and provide my reasoning. That is because I am sane, and do not confuse reality – what is – with what coulda, shoulda,or woulda been. There was a court decision, and like it or not, it is law until it is overturned.
Theoretically, if you ask a two-citizen parent Birther that same question, you will get, “No, abortion isn’t legal because the SCOTUS made a mistake. For them, it is like Roe v. Wade never existed. That is why two citizen parent Birthers say that Obama isn’t the legitimate President, because to them, it is like Wong Kim Ark, and the more current cases, never existed. Because they were decided wrongly. A letter from John Jay trumps all that!
Another adjective for this type of thinking is “delusional.” Laws exist regardless of your opinion of them.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“How do we impose a STRONG CHECK, asked Washington and Jay?”
Certainly not by making the son of a foreign citizen president.
Natural, indigenous native born citizen is defined as requiring parents, something that was understood, in 1758, in the Law of Nations. It concludes by discussing that rights and titles pass from the father, distinctly not the mother.
If a only a citizen-mother were required to pass on citizenship status sufficient to establish eligibility for the presidency, it would have been a substantial alteration of law and tradition and would have been delineated in the language of the Constitution and in the written record.
Benjamin Franklin said the Framers “pounced” on the Law of Nations which was enthusiastically received and readily available.
George Mason declared that the law of England is not the Law of America.
George Mason also declared that the occasion of generating a new Constitution was the opportunity to innovate in the area of law.
The Jay/Washington letter proposed a “strong check” to foreign allegiances in the Commander-In-Chief which is the President after which the “citizen” requirement was increased and raised to “natural born citizen” in an effort to impose the highest requirements for the highest office. Rather than argue with Washington and Jay, you might ask yourself why they maximally increased the requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” and exactly how they expected to impose a “strong check.”
All Presidents have had two citizen-parents, obeying the law of the Constitution.
That Speaker Pelosi, the only party with standing, neglected her duty to reject the candidate’s eligibility was entirely political and not a matter of application of the law.
That you are for a collectivist candidate does not change the law or the precedent set by all precious Presidents.
You may revise history. You may persist with the big lie. The only thing necessary is that you find a sufficient number of accomplices.
P.S. Often the law is broken by parties that don’t agree with the law. That is unfortunate. The American justice system did not find O.J. Simpson guilty of murder. John F. Kennedy was President except he was not, as Nixon actually won. Law and reality were changed by illegal activity; the Mob in Illinois and Johnson’s (who was soon to be sent to prison by Bobby) gang in Texas. You attempt to change reality by changing history and the law.
Did you read the law or did you write the law?
Given the “strong check” they imposed, It is preposterous to suggest that any Framer or Founder would have considered the son of a foreign citizen eligible for the Presidency and Commander-In-Chief.
@John
These laws were decided in the mid to late nineteenth century, by Constitutional amendment and Supreme Court decision. This is not simply due to “parties that don’t agree with the law”, but rather due to 1) a legislative body, along with the requisite number of states and 2) the highest court in the land deciding that, in the first case, a clarification was needed, and in the latter, that clarification needed the finality of adjudication against claims such as yours that said amendment was, indeed, the law of the land. Speaker Pelosi, despite your continued claims, had nothing new to add. Once again, candidate Obama was breaking no new ground, except for the color of his skin. Also again, albeit certainly in vain, here is the list of previous Presidents who shared his situation:
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).
Is it the fact that none of these were of African descent that troubles you? If not, please state the difference. Is it that President Obama’s father abandoned his family? That should please you, as his influence on his son would be lessened. Is it that our president lived abroad for a time? Constitutionally, that isn’t a detriment. Hawaii, his place of birth, was admitted into the union in 1959, and had been a U.S. territory since before WWII (remember Pearl Harbor?).
Your ceaseless claim “That you are for a collectivist candidate does not change the law or the precedent set by all precious Presidents.
You may revise history. You may persist with the big lie. The only thing necessary is that you find a sufficient number of accomplices.” , is in itself a revision of history, and both Squeaky and myself have given you chapter and verse, not only of the law that settled this, but of previous presidents who had parents not U.S. born. To continually write the same nonsense is not furthering your case.
@john
The term “natural born” was and is a legal term. There is no one single definition that attaches to it, that everyone agrees to, outside the legal system. The term had been used in the prior British system, and as the WKA Court decided, it meant the same thing in the U.S. That is the law until it is changed. Like it or not, Obama is the legitimate POTUS. Advocate all you want to, to change the law. In the meantime, your interpretation has no impact on the law as it exists. You may claim that “the law” requires two citizen parents until you are blue in the face, but it don’t. When researching the law, nobody consults the Birthers to see what their opinion is. They simply look at the court cases, and when applicable, any related statutes.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
maxcat06,
Sixth Circuit Overturns 16 Hate Crime Convictions In Amish Case
with EMPHASIS on OVERTURNS!
Please peruse the above title at your convenience, keeping in mind the 23 Amendment, and know that
things will be the way they are until they are not.
I understand your presentation of “settled law” as the British were aware that the colonies in America were British…until they weren’t. I understand that Speaker Pelosi deliberately neglected to do her duty of vetting candidates for eligibility. Nefarious judges are impeached, even prosecuted on a regular basis. I hope you realize that you may find a corrupt judge that “legislates” to overturn verbatim text and popular votes such as Prop. 8, but you aren’t changing the law, you are simply temporarily perverting it. You are aware that John Roberts nationalized the healthcare and insurance industry as collectivist consideration, distinctly not a free market, private industry and self-reliant, quintessentially American economic consideration. I am aware that the natural born citizen requirement of two citizen-parents has been circumvented and “interpreted” by judges, et al., that “legislate from the bench.” Occasionally, an objective and honest jurist arrives on the scene to read the English language and implement what is said, literally, in a particular law.
Briefly, the Framers quantified the age of eligibility and used semantic form for citizenship as did Vattel, who considered natural to be two parents. Vattel quantified by the use the very plural parents as he understand natural impregnation, gestation and birth through said parents, which you deliberately miss. You find no passage that says a single citizen-parent-mother is all that is required because nowhere is that declaration made. Vattel did not employ the modern liberal concept of marriage, that of a woman having children and no father being known or present. We all know, as did Vattel and the Founders, that men marry women and have babies. We all know, as did Vattel and the Founders, that children have parents, plural. We all know that the Law of Nations stated, verbatim, that parents, that which was know and understood by all, were required – citizen-parents.
Further, Vattel concluded the description by describing the requirement that the father be a citizen, as rights, position, etc, passed from the father. A single mother could confer nothing related to rights and position.
The Constitution and Law of Nations have NOT “evolved” as ex-Fed Chairman Bernanke stated. The literal words are still there to be READ NOT “INTERPRETED by legislating jurists.
Squeaky, with this last post, the ball is in your court. I don’t even have the patience…
This thread took a very strange turn.
How did an article about a USC football player devolve into a ridiculous argument regarding eligibility for the US presudency?
Back to the football player. His future is predictable. The San Diego Chargers will draft him, and the local sportswriters will tout him as the best cornerback in the NFL durig the preseason of his rookie year. After he has surrendered 53 touchdown passes and made one interception the local sportswriters will tout him as the best cornerback in the history of the NFL.
Don’t punish him. He hurt no one. Why are people hurting him?
Artiewhitefox, I retrieved your comment at 12:13.
Squeeky! Have pity, I’m an old lady and my bladder isn’t as strong as it used to be before having four kids, oh my gosh, thanks for the humor! Still chucking…
@Annie
Thank you! I am glad you liked it. But there was a lot of very serious journalism going on there, too. The Birthers have a Maricopa County Sheriff’s Posse which says that the long form was a forgery. One of their “experts” is a document examiner. Here is one of his documents I uncovered in the course of my investigation:
http://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/readright-document1.pdf
If Reed is correct, the results could turn our whole world upside down!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
squeeky – the MSCO did a complete report on Obama and his background. It was a team they put together that did the work.