The problem is that the State Department has on record verbiage that says that there is no definitive definition issued by any Court that actually defines what a natural born citizen is for the purposes of presidential eligibility.

There is no such statement by the State Department.

There is instead a very different and far narrower statement that says no court has been defintitive on the eligibility status of American citizens born abroad.

It hints nothing about any uncertainty regarding those born on American soil. After all, courts have been definitive on that issue.

It proves Barack H. Obama II is not only eligible to be President of the United States; he is President of the United States. Denying reality is your right, but it is a losing strategy.

I’ve never personally denied that Mr. Obama is President.

You seem to have misread the ruling. The Court cited Rule 39.8 specifically on Schneller’s current petitions. They cited his previous filings when ordering the clerk not to except more civil actions from him in forma pauperis.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-6912.htm

I don’t think I am disagreeing with you on this point, either.

So, unless you’re just trying to be argumentative, I’m not sure what your point is.

-Phil

brygenon [wrote],

Did you notice who swore in Barack Obama as President of the United States (twice)?

This proves nothing except that a protocol was followed.

It proves Barack H. Obama II is not only eligible to be President of the United States; he is President of the United States. Denying reality is your right, but it is a losing strategy.

Did you read the rule that the Supreme Court cited when dismissing the latest birther suit to reach them — the rule about “frivolous or malicious”?

It is also true that Mr. Schneller has docketed at least 6 petitions to the High Court; it is just as likely that the rule applied as much to his numerous petitions being in forma pauperis as your unsubstantiated conclusion that the rule had anything directly to do with “birther suits.”

You seem to have misread the ruling. The Court cited Rule 39.8 specifically on Schneller’s current petitions. They cited his previous filings when ordering the clerk not to except more civil actions from him in forma pauperis.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-6912.htm

Did you notice who swore in Barack Obama as President of the United States (twice)?

This proves nothing except that a protocol was followed.

Did you read the rule that the Supreme Court cited when dismissing the latest birther suit to reach them — the rule about “frivolous or malicious”?

It is also true that Mr. Schneller has docketed at least 6 petitions to the High Court; it is just as likely that the rule applied as much to his numerous petitions being in forma pauperis as your unsubstantiated conclusion that the rule had anything directly to do with “birther suits.”

-Phil

Everyone listed in Title 8, 1401 is a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. How come none of you is willing to go to your local Jr High and ask to look at the Civics text? Or ask the Civics teacher what they teach is a “Natural Born Citizen”? Is it because you know the answer is that a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen at birth? The people pushing the ‘prove eligibility’ bill know it. And heh, you guys are the “Show Me the Birth Certificate” people, so you know it too.

The problem is that the State Department has on record verbiage that says that there is no definitive definition issued by any Court that actually defines what a natural born citizen is for the purposes of presidential eligibility. What this means is that you can cite these types of laws under the auspices that they prove what makes a person eligible to be President when, in fact, that is a leading conclusion on your part.

Allow me to repeat the point: There is no law on the books that conclusively defines what it means to be a natural born citizen for the purposes of presidential eligibility at this time.

And I thought it was bad enough that there is no law that enforces Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

-Phil

brygenon says:

C.N. natus says:

The sources you cite are, 1) the opinion of someone with no authority to opine on the matter, 2) a dictionary of terms whose’s link you provide does not offer corroboration of the quote you assert.

The Slate article, http://slate.com/id/2183588/ , is by noted constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar. Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law at Yale and currently a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. His work has been cited in over 20 U.S. Supreme Court decisions. More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar

Contrary to your reporting, the book of legal terms http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ does in fact provide corroborating with citations to court decisions. A longer version of the quote from that text:

Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203.

This is a ridiculous argument.

When you write your legal dictionary, or teach your class in constitutional law, you can tell it your way, but how do you think you would stand up against the reputations of West Publishing or Professor Amar?

These are not even supreme court cases and are from 1844, 1886 and 1871. Perkins v. Elg established that a Natural Born Citizen was born in the US to Citizen parents and was a SUPREME COURT CASE IN 1929, which certainly trumps any circuit court case.

Except Perkins v. Elg said no such thing. http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html

Also remember that Marbury v. Madison (1803) established that the Supreme Court is the sole arbitter of constitutional terms (since it is the only court established in the constitution). Now take your ridiculous, desperate argument somewhere else.

Did you notice who swore in Barack Obama as President of the United States (twice)? Did you read the rule that the Supreme Court cited when dismissing the latest birther suit to reach them — the rule about “frivolous or malicious”?

Everyone listed in Title 8, 1401 is a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. How come none of you is willing to go to your local Jr High and ask to look at the Civics text? Or ask the Civics teacher what they teach is a “Natural Born Citizen”? Is it because you know the answer is that a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen at birth? The people pushing the ‘prove eligibility’ bill know it. And heh, you guys are the “Show Me the Birth Certificate” people, so you know it too.

The sources you cite are, 1) the opinion of someone with no authority to opine on the matter, 2) a dictionary of terms whose’s link you provide does not offer corroboration of the quote you assert.
The Slate article, http://slate.com/id/2183588/ , is by noted constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar. Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law at Yale and currently a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. His work has been cited in over 20 U.S. Supreme Court decisions. More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar

Contrary to your reporting, the book of legal terms http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ does in fact provide corroborating with citations to court decisions. A longer version of the quote from that text:

Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203.

And do you really need the page number when there’s a “search in this book” facility on the linked page, and the terms appear in alphabetical order.

————————————————————-

This is a ridiculous argument. These are not even supreme court cases and are from 1844, 1886 and 1871. Perkins v. Elg established that a Natural Born Citizen was born in the US to Citizen parents and was a SUPREME COURT CASE IN 1929, which certainly trumps any circuit court case. Also remember that Marbury v. Madison (1803) established that the Supreme Court is the sole arbitter of constitutional terms (since it is the only court established in the constitution). Now take your ridiculous, desperate argument somewhere else.

The sources you cite are, 1) the opinion of someone with no authority to opine on the matter, 2) a dictionary of terms whose’s link you provide does not offer corroboration of the quote you assert.

The Slate article, http://slate.com/id/2183588/ , is by noted constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar. Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law at Yale and currently a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. His work has been cited in over 20 U.S. Supreme Court decisions. More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar

Contrary to your reporting, the book of legal terms http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ does in fact provide corroborating with citations to court decisions. A longer version of the quote from that text:

Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203.

And do you really need the page number when there’s a “search in this book” facility on the linked page, and the terms appear in alphabetical order?

And as I’ve mentioned to you and others many times before, nobody knows what is “sufficient” in terms of substantiating presidential eligibility.

Mentioning that, many times, is your right, and we will stick up for that right. What goes on in your head and what comes out of your mouth is entirely up to you.

We obots keep pointing to reality. Barack Hussein Obama II is not only eligible to be President of the Untied States; he is President of the United States.

You know, if you went to college, or have read sufficiently, that when you cite citations, you give the title and author of the book, the page number and edition or year, and on the Web a link.

The sources you cite are, 1) the opinion of someone with no authority to opine on the matter, 2) a dictionary of terms whose’s link you provide does not offer corroboration of the quote you assert.

Therefore your citations prove not your claims….

…anyone putting forward a proof of eligibility bill, as well as every honest American who passed 7th grade civics knows what is sufficient to substantiate presidential eligibility. It is a birth certificate showing a candidate was born in the United States or born a US citizen.

Cite me the law where this is fact.

-Phil

Thanks for the coverage on “Dr. Ron Polarik, PhD,” still the most entertaining of all the loony birthers. No credentials, no doctorate, no evidence of his real name, no eloquence in his mess of a report, and still some folks hang on to this charltan’s opinion as if it had anything to do with reality.

Absolutely no problems in the continuing coverage of an anonymous person. May I further remind you of the following facts:

1. I, too, maintain my own anonymity on this site, and I would wager that my expressing my own opinions is no different than his expressions;

2. Nobody knows much about many of the folks that post commentary on various web sites. The truth of the matter is that everyone takes what anyone says with a grain of salt, trying to corroborate what anyone says with what is known by one to be true;

3. Last but certainly not least, nobody has ever come out conclusively proving that Dr. Polarik is not who he says he is; the castigations have been bandied about based upon the premise that he simply hasn’t fully revealed his entire persona, something of which he is not obligated to do in the court of public opinion.

-Phil

“And as I’ve mentioned to you and others many times before, nobody knows what is “sufficient” in terms of substantiating presidential eligibility.”

Baloney, The entire Congress, the FEC, the RNC, the DNC, the entire Bush administration, the Dept of State, the Dept of Homeland Security, the 50 states, DC and 6 territories, anyone putting forward a proof of eligibility bill, as well as every honest American who passed 7th grade civics knows what is sufficient to substantiate presidential eligibility. It is a birth certificate showing a candidate was born in the United States or born a US citizen. The only people who deny knowing this are birthers. And I believe you deny it just to try to disrupt the Obama administration.

Anyone born in the US or born a US citizen is a natural born citizen.

To me even more clear, “natural born” simply means by birth, so by definition anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen. By law, anyone born in the U.S. and subject to its laws is born a citizen.

“The Constitution’s rule that the president be ‘a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.” http://slate.com/id/2183588/

“Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity.” http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ