Donofrio, Pidgeon on Quo Warranto; IPPT v. Chrysler at SCOTUS on TARP

by Phil on 12/9/2009

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 update:

The Post & Email reported yesterday that the Supreme Court has scheduled a Conference this Friday for Indiana Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler (docket):

The action, whereby the U.S. Treasury, without authorization by Congress, used TARP funding to force Chrysler LLC into a debtor-client relationship, and then in using that to practically control the corporation in bankruptcy pleadings has raised several constitutional and legal issues on the action.

An amicus curiae brief was filed with this case in October, including the involvement of a number of advocacy groups and at least one leading constitutional scholar:

  • Washington Legal Foundation
  • Allied Educational Foundation
  • Cato Institute
  • George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law Dr. Todd J. Zwycki

Previously, a request before the Court for a stay of the bankruptcy action was denied in July.

Basically, any action taken on this case could be a harbinger for how any further Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings or quo warranto actions could be interpreted by the Court in this matter.

The question is raised: Did the Treasury Department act unconstitutionally in the manner in which it dispositioned certain federal monies?

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 update:

Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon recently spoke with Bob Unruh at WorldNetDaily.com (h/t @KatyinIndy):

As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama’s eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama’s own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a “natural born citizen” as required for the presidency.

The burden, then, would shift to Obama and his administration officials to document their constitutional authority for their decisions and their handling of taxpayer money.

If the president cannot document his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, his presidential task force had no authority to act at all, the case contends.

Pidgeon told WND the plaintiffs in the case are the former Chrysler dealers, and their interests will be paramount.

The goal is “to get them restored,” he said, and “put them back where they were before their contracts were rejected.”

“Our clients are not in this action as ‘birthers,'” he said, citing a term used for people who question Obama’s constitutional eligibility. “Our clients are here to seek redress for wrongs.”

But the case may open doors that have been closed in other disputes over Obama’s eligibility. Most previous cases, at one point or another, have been dismissed because the plaintiffs do not have “standing” – they have not suffered direct injury for which they have a reasonable expectation of seeking redress.

In the case of the dealers, they have suffered financial loss because of circumstances that developed with the government’s intervention in the auto industry.

Original story below the dashed line.

—-

In a Right Side of Life exclusive, I had reported (based on this Portland Civil Rights Examiner posting by Dianne Cotter) that attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon have, in fact, gotten together and have been retained by lead Plaintiff James Anderer and other Chrysler dealers to appeal on damages incurred in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale.

Further, the concept of quo warranto — an ancient “prerogative writ” — has been confirmed by Devvy Kidd’s recent telephone conversation with Mr. Donofrio as a petition by which he and Mr. Pidgeon will be challenging the Obama Administration under three counts.

According to Ms. Kidd’s interview, while § 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action states the following:

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

She was able to confirm with Mr. Donofrio that the above section is a bit of a “catch-all:”

Leo points out that the statute not only applies to eligibility, but also to the unlawful “exercise” of authority via public office.  At the common law, quo warranto was not only used to challenge usurpation of office but also to challenge illegal government actions and the current quo warranto statute was written as a catch all in this regard. So Leo and Steve will bring two counts under 3501, eligibility and illegal use of Government funds. The second count refers to the use of TARP funds to facilitate the Chrysler Bankruptcy sale.

An important aspect of potential “specific injury” may not have been had by creditors, but dealers face substantially greater particular harm:

The 2d Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with this issue as raised by creditors of Chrysler in an appeal of the Sale transaction to which the dealers were not a party. In that decision, the Court of Appeals stated that the issue raised “interesting and unresolved issues”, but the appellants did not have standing based upon their limited injuries. The Chrylser dealers have the requisite injury – loss of their frnachises – to meet the standing requirements. They will raise the issue in the quo warranto petition before the DC District Court.

And it looks like those TARP monies could also play a part in the filings:

You may recall that former Treasury Secretary Paulson refused to use TARP funds to bail out the auto industry indicating that to do so was not proper under the statute. A Congressional bill to allow TARP funds to be used for that purpose failed in the Senate, but the Obama administration went forward with it anyway.

Donofrio and Pidgeon also plan a third quo warranto count based upon 16-3521(2) of the quo warranto statute…

Here’s what § 16-3521. Persons against whom issued; civil action (2) states:

A quo warranto may be issued from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in the name of the District of Columbia against –

(2) one or more persons who act as a corporation within the District of Columbia without being duly authorized, or exercise within the District of Columbia corporate rights, privileges, or franchises not granted them by law in force in the District of Columbia.

The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

As Ms. Kidd puts it:

In other words, the actions taken by the government were an illegal exercise of corporate authority. The government has acted as a political agent (acting as board of directors) against corporations using taxpayer money to restructure the auto industry under their vision.

In the posting, Mr. Donofrio emphasizes that he and Mr. Pidgeon represent the best interests of the dealers, leaving open the possibility of a settlement.

In reference to the bankruptcy deal, Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon shared with me that, per a recent article by Neil Roland of Automotive News, the House is crafting a new bill for the rejected dealers:

WASHINGTON — House leaders crafted a bill over the weekend that would provide third-party arbitration for rejected General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group dealerships using criteria more favorable to dealers than those proposed by the automakers last week.

The legislation, which is being forwarded to Senate leaders for consideration, would allow dealers who want to appeal their closures to “present any kind of relevant information during the arbitration,” a copy of the new bill shows.

The arbitrator is directed to consider the dealer’s experience, past profitability, current economic viability and the demography and geography of the local market, the legislation says.

“The arbitrator shall balance the interests of the covered dealership, the covered manufacturer and the public and shall decide, based on that balancing, whether or not the covered dealership should be reinstated,” the bill says.

Nevertheless, both attorneys say that the proposed legislation would not satisfy their client’s needs and that they will be moving forward with litigation. “Unless the legislation returns our clients to their franchise agreements as they were in effect prior to the Chrysler Bankruptcy,” they said, “we will be forced to press on in the courts.”

In other news related to Mr. Donofrio, his Hawaiian UIPA requests are on hold as he focuses on the above.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

TRSoL News (semi-automatically-generated headlines every day): News.TheRightSideOfLife.com

Photo courtesy BrightCove

There are 589 comments in this article:

  1. 12/7/2009elspeth says:

    Full disclosure.

  2. 12/7/2009jvn says:

    It will be interesting to watch, but ultimately this suit will fail.

    Why?

    Well, the President has a legal warrant to hold office, so the eligibility question will fail.

    Second, it seems to me that the supposed “injury” the plaintiffs will be claiming is clearly not related to the action they are questioning. That is, the “illegal use of funds” is not a cause for the dealerships being closed. That was going to happen anyway.

    If I am driving without a license and you run a red light and slam your car into mine, you cannot sue me for damages because I didn’t have a license.

    Same thing here. The claim that the TARP funds were used illegally is unrelated to the closing of the dealerships.

    I look forward to reading the filed case…

  3. 12/7/2009JB says:

    Glad to hear of this case going forward. I respectively disagree with the notion that Obama has a legal warrant to hold office. The fact that the quo warranto eligibility statute exists should provide answer to the question that even a president can be installed illegally. The legal warrant is the constitution, not the electoral college, congress, or anyone else.

    In reference to the illegal use of funds, it is the assumption of power, not necessarily the use of the funds, that was the unlawful use of authority here. The bankruptcy could have gone forward without government intervention and the use of their power in facilitating it.

    If you poison me and kill my unborn child, it is not justified just because I was going to have an abortion anyway. The car analogy is all wrong.

    I look forward to the filing as well…

  4. 12/7/2009Black Lion says:

    From my earlier post….

    Chrysler and GM were in bankruptcy under Chapter 11. Under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) a debtor-in-possession (such as Chrysler Corporation) may unilaterally terminate an executory contract (such as a franchise agreement). You know what that means. That according to the law they can do what they want regardless of any existing contracts. Leo and Pidgeon are barking up the wrong tree. But since they are not real litgation attorney’s, we are not surprised.

    We all know that the plaintiffs would have to show that the decision was forced by the Executive Branch for starters. That would be tough because the law is specific that Chrysler and GM because they were in bankruptcy are allowed to cancel the contracts. Not only would Leo have to prove that the Executive branch made the decision, but that the decision was not in the best interests of Chrysler and GM. That will be tough for them to prove.

    Either way this case may not survive a motion to dismiss. With the exception of Leo and Pidgeon, no other lawyers see this case having any possibility of success. It is a novel and unique theory but not sure if there is a legitimate legal argument there…

    Just for your edification, Chapter 11 means the following…(from Wikpedia)…

    “Chapter 11 bankruptcy retains many of the features present in all, or most bankruptcy proceedings in the United States. It also provides additional tools for debtors as well. Most importantly, 11 U.S.C. § 1108 empowers the trustee to operate the debtor’s business. In Chapter 11, unless appointed for cause, the debtor acts as trustee of the business.[2]

    Bankruptcy affords the debtor in possession a number of mechanisms to restructure its business. A debtor in possession can acquire financing and loans on favorable terms by giving new lenders first priority on the business’ earnings. The court may also permit the debtor in possession to reject and cancel contracts. Debtors are also protected from other litigation against the business through the imposition of an automatic stay. While the automatic stay is in place, most litigation against the debtor is stayed, or put on hold, until it can be resolved in bankruptcy court, or resumed in its original venue. The court is ultimately responsible for determining whether the proposed plan of reorganization complies with the bankruptcy law.”

    Read the entry again. Chapter 11 allows “the debtor in possession to reject and cancel contracts.” So Chrysler and GM are legally allowed to cancel any contracts subject to court approval. So since this is the law what is Leo going to argue? He is going to attempt to file a case saying that even though the law allows Chrysler to cancel the franchise contract, I disagree? He is going to file a motion that states that even thought it is legal to cancel contracts, because the President is a usurper then it shouldn’t have happened? Or maybe that the President forced Chrysler to do something they legally had the right to do? That this was part of some wide ranging Manchurian conspiracy involving fake Kenyan BC and a misapplication of the NBC statute and Vattel?

    Legally Leo’s case is what he called a unique and conceptual theory. In other words he has no law to back this up. I would be interested in this surviving a moting to dismiss. Mainly because how can he link even through QW the President and the decision by Chrysler. It may be difficult for him to even establish a prima facia case. However you can see why no real litigation or constitutional lawyers are involved in this crap. This has about as much chance as the other 60 cases that have been dismissed.

  5. 12/8/2009jvn says:

    Actually BL, I think this case has LESS of a chance than the 60 or so other birther cases because it is trying to connect things that aren’t even close to being linked.

    Thank you for providing the legal background for what I’d said: that the “injury” they claim isn’t connected to the action they protest.

    How will they prove that the Obama administration made the decision to cancel the dealership agreements and that the administration knew that this decision was not in the best interests of Chrysler and GM?

    Simple. They will ask for expedited discovery to uncover the internal White House memos and e-mail that detail all of that… :)

  6. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    Black Lion,

    “Legally Leo’s case is what he called a unique and conceptual theory. In other words he has no law to back this up. I would be interested in this surviving a moting to dismiss. Mainly because how can he link even through QW the President and the decision by Chrysler. It may be difficult for him to even establish a prima facia case. “However you can see why no real litigation or constitutional lawyers are involved in this crap. This has about as much chance as the other 60 cases that have been dismissed.”

    I agree, however, Sharon2 does not.

    “Sharon 2,

    “This eligibility issue is so politically charged that no big name lawyer is going to take it.””

  7. 12/8/2009Black Lion says:

    jvn says:
    December 8, 2009 at 6:43 am
    Actually BL, I think this case has LESS of a chance than the 60 or so other birther cases because it is trying to connect things that aren’t even close to being linked.

    Thank you for providing the legal background for what I’d said: that the “injury” they claim isn’t connected to the action they protest.

    How will they prove that the Obama administration made the decision to cancel the dealership agreements and that the administration knew that this decision was not in the best interests of Chrysler and GM?

    Simple. They will ask for expedited discovery to uncover the internal White House memos and e-mail that detail all of that…
    ___________________________________________________________________
    JVN, good luck to them getting that…lol. I agree with you. I can’t see how this case has any chance of being successful The leaps in logic that are needed to connect everything together are more farfetched than the birthers claim on how Obama got a HI COLB if he was born in Kenya. It will however be entertaining to see where this case goes if it is ever filed. Remember Leo is famous for saying he will file cases that he never actually follows through on filing for one reason or another.

  8. 12/8/2009Black Lion says:

    Sue says:
    December 8, 2009 at 8:34 am
    Black Lion,

    “Legally Leo’s case is what he called a unique and conceptual theory. In other words he has no law to back this up. I would be interested in this surviving a moting to dismiss. Mainly because how can he link even through QW the President and the decision by Chrysler. It may be difficult for him to even establish a prima facia case. “However you can see why no real litigation or constitutional lawyers are involved in this crap. This has about as much chance as the other 60 cases that have been dismissed.”

    I agree, however, Sharon2 does not.

    “Sharon 2,

    “This eligibility issue is so politically charged that no big name lawyer is going to take it.””
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Sue, you and I have been posting here long enough to know that the birthers always use that excuse to explain why the only lawyers involved with them are a poker playing lawyer, a DWI attorney, and a crazy lady graduate of a non accredited law school. They never think that maybe no big name lawyer would get involved because the case is a loser because they are wrong. No, that can’t be it. It has to be some conspiracy instead.

  9. 12/8/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Anderer was a speaker at the 9/12 teabag rally in DC and railed against the “socialist Obama”. This isn’t about his Chrysler franchise, he still has a Long Island dealership selling Mitsubishis, Mazdas and Kias. No serious auto dealer who really wants his Chrysler franchise back is going to get involved in quo warranto foolishness. Quo Warranto = Birtherism, not Chrysler Franchise-ism. Chrysler re-organized under Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws. The law permitted them to break contracts, including franchise agreements as approved by the judge. Chapter 11 law existed long before there was a President Obama. Sure Anderer wants to blame his troubles on President Obama, which makes him a soul-mate for “the paraclete and the pidgeon”, but it is a lonnnnnng stretch to try and convince anyone that there was some direct order from Obama when the bankruptcy laws are long-standing.

    My predictions:

    – Unlikely anything filed this week.
    – Unlikely there is any plaintiff on the record – Any filing regarding Chrsyler bankruptcy will not withstand a motion to dismiss. besides Anderer.
    – This is mostly about smearing Obama.

    By the way, where’s the video of Fox Business appearance? Even Fox won’t post it? It’s Dec 8, Nathan Deal, where’s your letter to President Obama?

  10. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
    excerpts
    “What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?
    The most important defense to an action for defamation is “truth”, which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.”

    “Public Figures
    Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with “actual malice”. In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with “actual malice” and did not award any damages.”

    “The concept of the “public figure” is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.”

    “A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show’s advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”.”

    “Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
    Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.”

  11. 12/8/2009MGB says:

    Ms. Kidd said, “The government has acted as a political agent (acting as board of directors) against corporations using taxpayer money to restructure the auto industry under their vision.”

    It was more like the shadow government.

  12. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    I contacted the Monroe, TN District Attorney’s office this AM and asked if the TN Grand Jury had released their decision regarding Fitzpatrick’s “criminal complaints/testimony.” The nice lady who answered the phone stated that the ” Monroe County,TN Grand Jury was not going forward on either/any of Fitzpatrick’s criminal complaints.” I asked the nice lady if there had been a press release regarding this and she stated “no, she wasn’t aware of one.”

    http://www.tba.org/Resources/districtag.html
    Tennessee District Attorneys General

  13. 12/8/2009GeorgetownJD says:

    According to Leo Donofrio, “It is not a pro bono case.”

    Leo and Stephen better get their money up front on this. Clients tend to balk at payment of the legal bill after the case is lost.

  14. 12/8/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Leo and Stephen better get their money up front on this. Clients tend to balk at payment of the legal bill after the case is lost.

    Oh… it’s far worse than that. Leo & Steve better be buying malpractice insurance for their new little firm. Clients tend to come after lawyers who misrepresent their areas of legal expertise and then lose the cases. You know… areas like bankruptcy law, or constitutional law.

  15. 12/8/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    He would like to make it very clear that this new legal undertaking is on behalf of clients (former Chrysler dealer James Anderer and others) who have retained him and Stephen to act on their behalf and in the best interests first and foremost. If that means settling the case in their best interests of their clients, that is their obligation.

    Leo’s just committed an egregious error that a “professional poker player” would normally be expected to avoid. He has broadcast his traditional “tell” that he intends to bail out of the case as soon as possible… probably before it is even filed. He has already given us his excuse for the case’s ultimate failure.

  16. 12/8/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Sue says:
    December 8, 2009 at 9:37 am
    *The most important defense to an action for defamation is “truth”, which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.”*

    And relating things that a person has publicly written about himself is not defamation.

  17. 12/8/2009Black Lion says:

    SanDiegoSam says:
    December 8, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Leo’s just committed an egregious error that a “professional poker player” would normally be expected to avoid. He has broadcast his traditional “tell” that he intends to bail out of the case as soon as possible… probably before it is even filed. He has already given us his excuse for the case’s ultimate failure.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Sam, not surprising due to Leo’s lack of litigation experience. Also Leo may have neglected that TARP was established under President Bush not Obama. President Bush was the person that originally agreed to bailout the auto industry.

    “The authority of the United States Department of the Treasury to establish and manage TARP under a newly created Office of Financial Stability became law October 3, 2008, the result of an initial proposal that ultimately was passed by Congress as H.R. 1424, enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and several other acts.”

    “On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding. This has allowed President Bush to extend the use of TARP funds to support the auto industry, a move supported by the United Auto Workers.”

    On January 15th the following was announced…

    “The Treasury Department announced Friday it will lend $1.5 billion to Chrysler Financial to help finance new auto loans. The loan is part of a broader effort to shore up the struggling U.S. auto industry in becoming financially viable.”

    “The consumer finance assistance is similar to a $6 billion package provided to GMAC LLC on Dec. 31 to boost that lender’s operations. The support for the consumer lending operations adds to the $17.4 billion in Treasury assistance committed to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC last month. GM was slated to receive $13.4 billion and Chrysler $4 billion. All of the funds are coming from the $700 Troubled Asset Relief Program Congress created in October to rescue the financial system.”

    So first of all it would be Leo’s responsibility to establish that it was President Obama’s idea or decision to use the TARP funds to bailout Chrysler and GM. And even more critical he would have to show how the President was directly involved and made decisions that were not in the best interests of Chrysler.

    What Leo and Pidgeon are attempting to do is a basic copy and paste job. Meaning that they are copying off a case that was filed back in May by an Indiana pension fund regarding this issue. So this is not really an original idea by Leo and Steve but an attempt to put some sort of QW twist on that case….

    The argument by the IN Pension fund in court was basically the following…

    “TARP authorizes the purchase of troubled assets from financial institutions. The clear and unambiguous language of the statute defines financial institutions to be “any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory or possession of the United States . . . and having significant operations in the United States but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.” 12 U.S.C. § 5202(5). Chrysler is not any of these things, and no “determination” by the Treasury Department can make it one. Indeed, that is why the Treasury Department originally determined that Chrysler and the automobile industry “fell outside” the scope of TARP. It is only after Congress declined to adopt legislation authorizing an auto bailout that the Treasury Department reversed course and adopted its current interpretation of the statute.”

    The government responded by using “standing” as part of their argument….This will probably be the meat of their motion to dismiss if Leo actually gets around to filing a case….

    “Although arguing that the courts may not rule on the validity of Treasury’s decision to shore up a new Chrysler company with funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the Solicitor General did argue that those funds may go to a troubled auto company, and not just to banks or other regular financial institutions, and the Indiana benefit funds had contended.

    “The Treasury has determined that TARP funds may be used to purchase assets from automobile companies when necessary to prevent those companies’ failure or major disruption from disrupting the stability of the Nation’s economy and financial markets.”

    “In arguing that the Indiana benefit funds do not have “standing” to challenge Treasury’s use of “bailout” money to rescue Chrysler, the Solicitor General noted that the bankruptcy judge had found that those debt holders cannot show any injury to their interests from the sale deal and, even if they might experience some injury, it cannot be traced to the Treasury’s role.

    The debt holders’ “challenge to the use of TARP funds is not properly before the Court because (as both courts below appear to have concluded) [the funds] lack standing to raise it,” the government brief said.”

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/us-says-tarp-issue-out-of-courts-reach/

    http://www.theconglomerate.org/2009/05/did-treasury-bend-the-rules-by-giving-tarp-funds-to-chrysler.html

    The bottom line is Leo and company will have a difficult time getting past the standing issue as well as showing an actual injury as a result of the bailout and filing of Chpt. 11 by Chrysler. We all know that this is a partisan attack with Leo trying to use some sort of irrelevant situation to somehow compel the President to produce documents. The courts will see that also, so this puppy will probably get dismissed. Leo will have probably withdrawn by then and will somehow twist things to say that he knew that there was no case and he predicted that it would fail. No real attorney would ever have taken this case. I just hope Steve and Leo got paid up front. Because this isn’t going very far.

  18. 12/8/2009Benaiah says:

    The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

  19. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “It was more like the shadow government.”

    What do you call these “patriot” organizations and actions?

    1. citizen grand jury/american grand jury
    2. recent continential congress 2009
    3. private attorney generals
    4. filing “presentments”
    5. advocating that states secede from the Union

  20. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    Sise,

    “And relating things that a person has publicly written about himself is not defamation.”

    I would not think so.

  21. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    MGB,

    “It was more like the shadow government.”

    What do you call these “patriot” organizations and actions?

    1. citizen grand jury/american grand jury
    2. recent continential congress 2009
    3. private attorney generals
    4. filing “presentments”
    5. advocating that states secede from the Union

    Speaking for myself, I would call that citizen activism; it used to be only the Left in America that had been just as much into activism.

    And while I’m not sure about the characterization of point 5 (as even I advocate reintroducing States’ rights into federalism), there is absolutely nothing wrong with American citizens doing whatever they feel necessary — within the bounds of law, morality and ethics — to hold their government accountable for any action.

    -Phil

  22. 12/8/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Somebody “defamed” Leo?

    Where?

  23. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    “Speaking for myself, I would call that citizen activism; it used to be only the Left in America that had been just as much into activism.”

    There is nothing wrong with “activism” so long as those involved understand that their elected and appointed officials are not required to take action on their activism.

    I have the right to let my Congressperson know that I am for or against legislation, however, I do not have the right to “demand” they agree with me or vote accordingly. I also do not have the right to be disrespectful of my Congressperson.

  24. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    Phil,

    “Speaking for myself, I would call that citizen activism; it used to be only the Left in America that had been just as much into activism.”

    There is nothing wrong with “activism” so long as those involved understand that their elected and appointed officials are not required to take action on their activism.

    Yeah, and? What does this have to do with the proverbial price of tea in China?

    I have the right to let my Congressperson know that I am for or against legislation, however, I do not have the right to “demand” they agree with me or vote accordingly. I also do not have the right to be disrespectful of my Congressperson.

    You have just enumerated two rights. Please show me, Article/Section/Clause, where these rights are specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

    Ah — they are not there, correct? (Yes, that’s correct). OK, then. The two rights you’ve just enumerated — (1) the People have no right to demand agreements or votes from federal (assuming) officials; and (2) the People have no right to be disrespectful to Congresspeople — do not exist in reality, except as your own opinion.

    Granted, you certainly have the right to hold a wrong opinion, but such enumerated rights as you’ve just listed are simply self-imposed by your person and have no bearing on anyone else (unless someone else chooses to agree with you, for what that’s worth).

    -Phil

  25. 12/8/2009brygenon says:

    SanDiegoSam writes:

    Leo’s just committed an egregious error that a “professional poker player” would normally be expected to avoid. He has broadcast his traditional “tell” that he intends to bail out of the case as soon as possible… probably before it is even filed. He has already given us his excuse for the case’s ultimate failure.

    And that’s not the worst. I’m reminded of an essay by poker author Mason Malmuth on the cost of being oblivious — of betting a losing hand not as a bluff, but for failure to take the obvious clues.

  26. 12/8/2009jvn says:

    Phil –

    And during the Bush years – you remember those? What was your response when Ari Fleischer the WH Press Secretary told us that “people need to be careful about what they say” ??

    Or is “activism” only okay when you disagree with what elected officials are saying and doing?

    By the way, I don’t believe that organizing armed insurrection or praying for assassinations is “activism,” do you?

  27. 12/8/2009MGB says:

    Phil, good answer to Sue. I would add that a person who was elected to a specific office but who proceeded to set up a redundant system of unaccountable-to-the-Congress czars (aka, a shadow government) and then that shadow government proceeds to ignore the law (such as spending TARP money for purposes Congress did not intend) is a far cry from citizen activism.

    It is a thorn in their side, apparently, to see activism coming from the other end of the political spectrum.

    I do believe that I have the right to DEMAND that my so-called representatives represent the will of the people and I also reserve the right to disrespect any or all of them, including the POTUS.

    These are our employees. They are not our rulers. They are not acting under the divine right of kings. They are persons. Citizens of this country. No more and no less than the rest of us. This is the beauty of America.

  28. 12/8/2009Black Lion says:

    MGB says:
    December 8, 2009 at 3:30 pm
    Phil, good answer to Sue. I would add that a person who was elected to a specific office but who proceeded to set up a redundant system of unaccountable-to-the-Congress czars (aka, a shadow government) and then that shadow government proceeds to ignore the law (such as spending TARP money for purposes Congress did not intend) is a far cry from citizen activism.

    It is a thorn in their side, apparently, to see activism coming from the other end of the political spectrum.

    I do believe that I have the right to DEMAND that my so-called representatives represent the will of the people and I also reserve the right to disrespect any or all of them, including the POTUS.

    These are our employees. They are not our rulers. They are not acting under the divine right of kings. They are persons. Citizens of this country. No more and no less than the rest of us. This is the beauty of America.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    So MGB you had an issue with Bush then. He was the one that set up the TARP plan. He was the one that paid GMAC and Chrysler financial with TARP funds. He had czars like Bill Bennett on the government payroll. He had his personal attorney as White House counsel. He was behind he largest bailout in history with AIG.

    Bush ignored the law and eroded personal freedoms with such great ideas like the domestic spying program. He engaged the US in to wars and put of paying for them until he was out of office through creative accounting.

    It is always funny to see the hypocrasy coming from the right. The same things that were OK under the Bush administration are all of a sudden socialist and being a dictator under President Obama. Where was your activism a couple of years ago?

    You are correct, no leader is a king or a ruler. They all have to follow the law. We are a nation of laws. And the law trumps even the so called will of the people. What makes this country great is that we elect leaders and there is a process that is spelled out. Whether one likes or dislikes the results the bottom line is that the results stand and the people that were not in favor of the elected leader recognizes that that person is the leader and we accept things until the next election. There are no uprisings, people committing treason by calling for arrests of the country’s leaders or advocating an armed takeover. That doesn’t happen in the US because we are a nation of laws. And that what is wonderful about our country.

  29. 12/8/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Phil:

    The two rights you’ve just enumerated — (1) the People have no right to demand agreements or votes from federal (assuming) officials; and (2) the People have no right to be disrespectful to Congresspeople — do not exist in reality, except as your own opinion.

    Uh…. Phil…. she wrote that those are NOT rights. In other words, they don’t exist and she “enumerated” neither of them.

    So… what is your objection here again? You seem to be in violent agreement that these are not rights.

  30. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    You are correct.

    However, it has been my observation and experience that “demands, threats, accusing individuals falsely, etc., etc., generally do not get you anywhere. When you treat people with respect, generally, they will return the favor.

    “Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

    Do you consider the agj/cgj to be an “impartial jury?”

  31. 12/8/2009geir (gerhardt) smith says:

    i’m checking on my status a a poster on this forum here and if my posts go through OR not

  32. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    “Granted, you certainly have the right to hold a wrong opinion, but such enumerated rights as you’ve just listed are simply self-imposed by your person and have no bearing on anyone else (unless someone else chooses to agree with you, for what that’s worth).”

    BTW, I do not agree that my opinion is wrong.

  33. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    jvn,

    Phil –

    And during the Bush years – you remember those? What was your response when Ari Fleischer the WH Press Secretary told us that “people need to be careful about what they say” ??

    Firstly, my site has only existed since Friday, October 24, 2008, so whatever I say now isn’t really backed up by anything substantive.

    Secondly, I certainly agree that “people need to be careful about what they say.” After all, if it weren’t for you fine (and some not so fine) opposition commenters, I wouldn’t be quite as held to account for what I post, now, would I? :)

    Or is “activism” only okay when you disagree with what elected officials are saying and doing?

    Activism is good anytime.

    By the way, I don’t believe that organizing armed insurrection or praying for assassinations is “activism,” do you?

    Regarding “armed insurrections,” I do believe the 2nd Amendment handles those situations quite well.

    Regarding “praying for assassinations,” personally, I do not pray ill upon anyone, as that’s a waste of time and energy and, most importantly, God’s already said that vengeance is his (and such vengeance usually shows up at the most opportune times anyway).

    -Phil

  34. 12/8/2009brygenon says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    Anderer was a speaker at the 9/12 teabag rally in DC and railed against the “socialist Obama”. This isn’t about his Chrysler franchise, he still has a Long Island dealership selling Mitsubishis, Mazdas and Kias.

    So what happens if Anderer’s Long Island customer base learns that he has chosen to be represented by Stephen Pidgeon, who compares Barack Obama to Robert Mugabe, and opined that Obama wants to turn the United States into Zimbabwe? Not a matter of subtle undertones.

    Hey Phil — if you think I’m defaming anyone, please go right ahead and alert them to what I wrote. “brygenon” is not a fake net alias; I’m Bryan Gene Olson.

  35. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    Phil:

    The two rights you’ve just enumerated — (1) the People have no right to demand agreements or votes from federal (assuming) officials; and (2) the People have no right to be disrespectful to Congresspeople — do not exist in reality, except as your own opinion.

    Uh…. Phil…. she wrote that those are NOT rights. In other words, they don’t exist and she “enumerated” neither of them.

    So… what is your objection here again? You seem to be in violent agreement that these are not rights.

    It appeared to me that the original context was that, since there is no right to do these things, the People should simply not be doing them. This is the point with which I disagree.

    -Phil

  36. 12/8/2009jvn says:

    So Phil reveals his insurrectionist instincts. It’s good to be honest.

    Not really a good try in avoiding the question of the Bush administration’s (and their lackeys in the right wing) calling any dissent “treason.” Did you not have an opinion before you started this blog?

    But we really don’t need to worry about that as your cards are on the table.

    You hate the fact that the President (and the Democrats) won the election and would not mind much at all if there was an armed insurrection attempting to overturn the results of that election.

    And yes, God’s vengeance IS His, much to the chagin of those on the right who like to claim Him as one of theirs…

  37. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    Phil,

    You are correct.

    Wow! I’m glad I record and backup my commentary! You’ve actually said I was right about something!

    (Only kidding, only kidding.)

    However, it has been my observation and experience that “demands, threats, accusing individuals falsely, etc., etc., generally do not get you anywhere. When you treat people with respect, generally, they will return the favor.

    I would normally agree with the otherwise-worded notion that one catches more flies with honey. However, with respect to Congress and those of us who are conservative/libertarian-leaning, the honey pot has long since lost its contents.

    “Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

    Do you consider the agj/cgj to be an “impartial jury?”

    Impartiality is in the eye of the beholder.

    In other words, do you honestly think that KSM — whenever he gets his day in civilian court in New York — will have a completely impartial jury? How many such jurors won’t have already formed an opinion of the son-of-a-gun (Ooops! I guess that makes me partial! Glad I don’t live in NY)?

    I applaud any jurisdiction for making its best effort to achieve as much impartiality with its jury selections as it can. However, the degree to which anyone can be assured of an impartial jury is based mostly on trust that individuals will respond to questions “correctly” before they are empaneled (hence the reason why potential jurors don’t know what they’ll be trying until after they’ve been selected — I think that’s the way it works).

    -Phil

  38. 12/8/2009MGB says:

    Black Lion said, “It is always funny to see the hypocrasy coming from the right. The same things that were OK under the Bush administration are all of a sudden socialist and being a dictator under President Obama. Where was your activism a couple of years ago?”

    Yes, hypocrisy is at times quite funny. Did I ever say that I approved of everything Bush did? For the record, I did not. The fact remains that he’s not the president now so it’s useless to be “activist” against him or waste time harping about whatever he did or didn’t do over the past years.

    Much of what you refer to as “the same things” were not OK under Bush, as far as I’m concerned. My activism a couple years ago was the same place it is today.

    As Phil said, his blog wasn’t in existence a couple years ago, and I didn’t “meet” you before this blog, so where was YOUR activism a couple years ago?

    You know next to nothing about me, my points of view (other than specifics that I elucidated here), my political party (I belong to none) or whether or not I’m on “the right,” whatever “the right” is.

  39. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Hey Phil — if you think I’m defaming anyone, please go right ahead and alert them to what I wrote. “brygenon” is not a fake net alias; I’m Bryan Gene Olson.

    Nice to have made your acquaintance.

    Differing legal or political opinions do not constitute defamation, as far as I’m concerned.

    -Phil

  40. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    “MGB says:
    December 8, 2009 at 3:30 pm
    Phil, good answer to Sue. I would add that a person who was elected to a specific office but who proceeded to set up a redundant system of unaccountable-to-the-Congress czars (aka, a shadow government) and then that shadow government proceeds to ignore the law (such as spending TARP money for purposes Congress did not intend) is a far cry from citizen activism.”

    You might want to research the czar history as President Obama did not initiate this practice. I’m pretty sure this practice began with Reagan.

    “It is a thorn in their side, apparently, to see activism coming from the other end of the political spectrum.”

    Nope, doesn’t bother me.

    “I do believe that I have the right to DEMAND that my so-called representatives represent the will of the people and I also reserve the right to disrespect any or all of them, including the POTUS.”

    I disagree. I don’t consider the “patriots” to be “the will of the people.” I will quote Phil, “where does it give you this right in the Constitution.” See below:

    “Bill of Rights
    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    Do you see the words demand or disrespect anywhere? Would you agree that the grievances have to be valid?

    “These are our employees. They are not our rulers. They are not acting under the divine right of kings. They are persons. Citizens of this country. No more and no less than the rest of us. This is the beauty of America.”

    No elected official can become our ruler because they are voted into office and by the same token, can be voted out of office.

  41. 12/8/2009Black Lion says:

    MGB says:
    December 8, 2009 at 4:34 pm
    Black Lion said, “It is always funny to see the hypocrasy coming from the right. The same things that were OK under the Bush administration are all of a sudden socialist and being a dictator under President Obama. Where was your activism a couple of years ago?”

    Yes, hypocrisy is at times quite funny. Did I ever say that I approved of everything Bush did? For the record, I did not. The fact remains that he’s not the president now so it’s useless to be “activist” against him or waste time harping about whatever he did or didn’t do over the past years.

    Much of what you refer to as “the same things” were not OK under Bush, as far as I’m concerned. My activism a couple years ago was the same place it is today.

    As Phil said, his blog wasn’t in existence a couple years ago, and I didn’t “meet” you before this blog, so where was YOUR activism a couple years ago?

    You know next to nothing about me, my points of view (other than specifics that I elucidated here), my political party (I belong to none) or whether or not I’m on “the right,” whatever “the right” is.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    MGB, fair enough. If I made an assumption then I am sorry. I am man enough to admit if I made a mistake. It seemed like you were pushing a agenda that would be considered on the “right.” I just hear the same rhetoric by many that seemed to look the other way when the Bush administration had czars, paid out TARP funds, spent taxpayer money like a drunken sailor, and overall eroded personal liberities of Americans in the name of national security.

    I have always been “active” regarding politics. I don’t belong any specific party either.

  42. 12/8/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Phil:

    It appeared to me that the original context was that, since there is no right to do these things, the People should simply not be doing them. This is the point with which I disagree.

    And how does that disagreement manage to mutate into the assertion that she did the exact opposite of what she actually did?

    Exactly?

  43. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    jvn,

    So Phil reveals his insurrectionist instincts. It’s good to be honest.

    I prefer “rabble-rouser” or “one who stirs the proverbial pot,” personally, especially with such a bodaciously kewl site as what I have.

    It makes principled dissent so much prettier, I think.

    Not really a good try in avoiding the question of the Bush administration’s (and their lackeys in the right wing) calling any dissent “treason.” Did you not have an opinion before you started this blog?

    OK, if you still want my opinion, that’s fine. My opinion is that any Administration can call any sort of opposition opinion “treason” if they so choose; until something is becoming codified into enforceable law, it’s rhetoric, plain and simple.

    But we really don’t need to worry about that as your cards are on the table.

    They always have been. All you’ve needed to do was ask.

    You hate the fact that the President (and the Democrats) won the election and would not mind much at all if there was an armed insurrection attempting to overturn the results of that election.

    While you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, this does not represent what I think or believe, and I have an entire site to back my statement up.

    And yes, God’s vengeance IS His, much to the chagin of those on the right who like to claim Him as one of theirs…

    Just because folks claim that God is on their side doesn’t really mean much, now, does it?

    -Phil

  44. 12/8/2009John says:

    Quo warranto is the way to proceed in the D.C. court under the statute. It is the only way an unqualified person can be removed from office after he/she has been certified as the winner of an election.

    It does not matter how many people voted for Obama. If a person is not eligible to be a valid candidate for the office he/she seeks, then, even if he/she somehow gets onto the ballot and gets voted in, he/she has to remove the disqualification immediately upon assumng the seat, otherwise he/she forfeits the position. Obama can never remove his disqualification without amending the constitution. It is purely a legal determination of whether or not the candidate Obama met the requirements to be a valid candidate.

    The big stumbling block is WHO can bring this action into court. Under the federal quo warranto statute, it is clear that the AG and D.C. U.S. attorney can bring the action, as well as a “third person” or “interested party.” But who qualifies under these stipulations?

    If no one else will ever have “standing” to bring this action to court, then a usurper could succeed in going a full term or longer, where the political power, influence, and/or corruption, constraining the AG and/or U.S. attorney, prevents either or both of them from ever bringing the action into court. “Standing” will have been successfully used by the courts to avoid ever reaching the merits of the case – where it is perfectly clear that Obama definitely has something to hide, spending $1.5M or more to conceal any and all personal records from public scrutiny that would prove his eligibility or lack thereof.

    If the courts continue to insist on using the present day construction of “standing” boundaries for this national case of first impression, against all citizens, where the collective harm includes each and every American, to a person, one way or another, then our constitutional system of “checks and balances” will have completely failed. What ensues following that failure will be the responsibility of whoever failed to act under his/her oath to uphold the constitution and laws.

  45. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    Phil:

    It appeared to me that the original context was that, since there is no right to do these things, the People should simply not be doing them. This is the point with which I disagree.

    And how does that disagreement manage to mutate into the assertion that she did the exact opposite of what she actually did?

    Exactly?

    Probably because the party of the first part was communicating appropriately with the party of the second part until the party of the third part stepped in and attempted to decipher said communications.

    :P

    -Phil

  46. 12/8/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    John:

    Quo warranto is the way to proceed in the D.C. court under the statute. It is the only way an unqualified person can be removed from office after he/she has been certified as the winner of an election.

    That’s clearly not true. For example, if the “unqualified” person is the President of the United States, there are at least two other ways to do so. The first is impeachment, the second is a declaration that he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” per ther 25th Amendment.

    Furthermore, if the “unqulified” person is the President of the United States, it appears that quo warranto is not a way to proceed at all. After all, the Constitution ascribes “sole” authority for removing the President either permanently or temporarily to the Congress. So no court appears to have jurisdiction on Presidential removal… including the D.C. Court.

  47. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    John,

    “What ensues following that failure will be the responsibility of whoever failed to act under his/her oath to uphold the constitution and laws.”

    No, it will be your responsibility and whoever joins you because you/they are responsible for your/their actions.

  48. 12/8/2009John says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    If an individual is not legally eligible to be a valid candidate, yet he/she does get elected, if the disqualification is not removed upon assuming the position, the electee forfeits the seat, that is, the seat is legally vacated, he/she is not legally there. If that be the case, Congress cannot impeach someone that is “not there.” Impeachment is not an option to remove someone not legally there.

    The 25th Amendment might be a way to go under the “unable to do duties” etc., but I seriously doubt that a Democrat Congress will take steps to do that.

    Chapter 35 of the District of Columbia Code provides for jurisdiction of quo warranto cases: “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States [such as “president”], civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.”

  49. 12/8/2009siseduermapierda says:

    John says:
    December 8, 2009 at 7:20 pm
    *Impeachment is not an option to remove someone not legally there.*

    Not sure what you were smoking when you dreamed up that mess, but Barack Obama IS the President. The only way to remove a President is by impeachment. He’s been the Legal, Legitimate President for almost 11 months. If you don’t think he’s eligible, take your Proof to your Congressman and convince him to file articles of impeachment.

  50. 12/8/2009John says:

    Sue,

    The only people who ever “joined with me” were the other sailors who took the same oath as I to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, during Vietnam. The next group of individuals who “joined with me” were all the other attorneys I took the same oath with again to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, when I entered the bar. And the next group I chose to “join with” to again take the same oath with to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, were all the other police officers with whom I serve.

    I’ve been around long enough now to know from first-hand experience how political corruption of pay-backs, bribery, blackmail, etc., have undermined our constitution and legal system from within. It’s now to the point where the constitution and laws seem to have taken a second-seat to the political power and persuasion exercised by domestic enemies rather than foreign enemies.

  51. 12/8/2009John says:

    Siseduermapierda,

    IF, Obama is the “Legal, Legitimate President” you claim him to be, why would he spend so much time and money, over $1.5M to conceal all of his personal documents, like original birth certificate, passport(s), school transcripts, etc., from public scrutiny???

    If he turns out to be proven to NOT be a “natural born citizen,” sooner or later, he will have NEVER been the President, legally speaking.

    I personally find it interesting that the overwhelming majority of illegal scams, law enforcement has to deal with, designed to rip people off using the internet, phones, and mail, originate out of Kenya, Africa. I have to admit, they are so very good at scamming, they have pulled off the ultimate scam, a Kenyan has become President of the United States.

  52. 12/8/2009Black Lion says:

    John says:
    December 8, 2009 at 8:03 pm
    Siseduermapierda,

    IF, Obama is the “Legal, Legitimate President” you claim him to be, why would he spend so much time and money, over $1.5M to conceal all of his personal documents, like original birth certificate, passport(s), school transcripts, etc., from public scrutiny???

    If he turns out to be proven to NOT be a “natural born citizen,” sooner or later, he will have NEVER been the President, legally speaking.

    I personally find it interesting that the overwhelming majority of illegal scams, law enforcement has to deal with, designed to rip people off using the internet, phones, and mail, originate out of Kenya, Africa. I have to admit, they are so very good at scamming, they have pulled off the ultimate scam, a Kenyan has become President of the United States.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Really? Most internet scams actually originate out of Nigeria. They are called Nigerian 419 scams after the section of the Nigerian penal code regarding scams. If you are going to make unsubstantiated smears against the President of the United States, at least get it right….

    No matter how much you dream that “he will never be the legitimate President”, the fact of the matter is that Obama is the President of the United States. No amount of wishing will change that….

    Thirdly do you have any proof that the President spent 1.5 million dollars to defend himself against these charges? Because if you actually paid attention you would know that in a majority of the cases the President was defended by the US Justice Department. And in the cases that the President was defended by a lawyer, he was able to win court costs so he actually didn’t pay any money. If you think about it in most cases your taxes helped defend this President that you feel is a usurper. Kind if ironic isn’t it?

    Keep recycling the same tired statements. Don’t let the truth get in the way. I guess it makes some people feel better.

  53. 12/8/2009qwertyman says:

    IF, Obama is the “Legal, Legitimate President” you claim him to be, why would he spend so much time and money, over $1.5M to conceal all of his personal documents, like original birth certificate, passport(s), school transcripts, etc., from public scrutiny???

    Obama has not spent so much time and money fighting birther suits. The dollar amount that gets cited comes out of FEC reports showing that the Obama campaign has made payments to law firms. What WND and other sites have done is to take that number and say that every single penny of it was spent fighting birthers.

    They are lying to you. A presidential campaign the size of Obama’s has a wide array of issues they would need to have outside counsel for, including employment contracts, compliance with 50 state and federal election laws, leases, indemnities, travel logistics, and a broad arrangement of other reasons.

    Saying that Obama has spent $1.5 million based on seeing that amount being paid to a law firm is like me noticing that you spent $100 at McDonalds and concluding that you spent $100 on McFlurries.

    I personally find it interesting that the overwhelming majority of illegal scams, law enforcement has to deal with, designed to rip people off using the internet, phones, and mail, originate out of Kenya, Africa. I have to admit, they are so very good at scamming, they have pulled off the ultimate scam, a Kenyan has become President of the United States.

    Ignorance. The email scams you’re talking about come out of West Africa, including Nigeria, Ghana, Togo and other countries in that region. Please try not to demonstrate such a shocking degree of ignorance over something a 5 second google search would have shown you is untrue next time.

  54. 12/8/2009Linda says:

    I have to say the comment reading from the left-wingers has been quite amusing.

    We know nothing of what is written in the legal briefs filed, we do not even know that the NBC issue has even been presented in those briefs.

    I’m no lawyer, but I do know you do not play all your cards up front.

    But what the hay, keep it coming because we all need a bit of amusement during such bleak times. As for me, I will refrain from commenting on the specifics of the case until we actually know what they are.

  55. 12/8/2009roderick says:

    Let’s see another lie by the imposter. [i] am going to pull the troops out in August of 2010. That statement was made by the crybaby (I want to be president wah wah wah) in February of 2009. Why is not newsweek reporting on that? Do they think I’m going to vote for the dirtbag in the future?

  56. 12/8/2009roderick says:

    The imposter said in february of this year that he would be pulling the military out of war in august of 2010. A week ago he said it wiLl be 18 months before troops are pulled out of war. Why isn’t newsweek reporting on the lies of the imposter while the disgusting crybaby holds his lavish state dinners with food so skanky I wouldn’t give it to my cat. Bye bye ‘bama you will never get my vote and the way the poLls are going you will be ousted just like your partner in crime Reid.

  57. 12/9/2009JB says:

    Again, this case of assumption of power and illegal use of funds will pivot upon the fact that the administration placed pressure upon the automotive groups. If you’ve followed the actual events that took place then you should know that evidence already exists that this is so. You shall see.

    Futhermore, no proof is needed to show that the termination of contracts with the dealers was good, bad, indifferent or otherwise. The only thing that needs to be shown is in the discretionary sense that certain contracts were spared, others were not, and that the administration had a direct affect upon these discretionary decisions. In this instance, what came first? The decision to terminate the contracts, which they had every right to do under chapter 11? Or, the decision to terminate the contracts based upon pressure by the amdinistration and some bent and politically motivated grind by the administration? I’m not a betting man, but I would bet emails or recorded conversations exist somewhere in the mix which are quite compelling…

  58. 12/9/2009Sue says:

    Jacqlyn Smith,

    You repeat me at citizen wells:

    “Jacqlyn Smith // December 8, 2009 at 6:19 pm
    Brjam….An OBOT at TRSOL commented that the case was not going to move forward….she said she called the clerk of the court in TN and the person said it was absolutely dead…..of course I don’t believe these OBOTS….they are all morons over there at TRSOL….I don’t comment over there anymore because they keep saying the same LIES over and over and Phil lets them !”
    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/ … /#comments

    Please note my comment below. Next time you repeat me, please, at least repeat me correctly.

    “Sue says:
    December 8, 2009 at 11:09 am
    I contacted the Monroe, TN District Attorney’s office this AM and asked if the TN Grand Jury had released their decision regarding Fitzpatrick’s “criminal complaints/testimony.” The nice lady who answered the phone stated that the ” Monroe County,TN Grand Jury was not going forward on either/any of Fitzpatrick’s criminal complaints.” I asked the nice lady if there had been a press release regarding this and she stated “no, she wasn’t aware of one.””

    http://www.tba.org/Resources/districtag.html
    Tennessee District Attorneys General

    There is now a press release.

    No indictment for President Obama from Monroe County grand jury
    http://advocateanddemocrat.com/story/19149

    Author: Staff Report
    Source: The Monroe County Advocate

    “Despite a brief media frenzy, indictments sought against President Obama, a grand jury foreman and an assistant district attorney were not returned by the Monroe County grand jury.”

    “Walt Fitzpatrick has been seeking to indict President Barack Obama on treason charges, but the grand jury failed to grant his request. Grand jury proceedings are kept secret until indictments are handed down, and when the December session for Monroe County was released, neither the president’s name nor Gary Pettway or Jim Stutts was on the list.”

  59. 12/9/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “I’m no lawyer, but I do know you do not play all your cards up front.”

    ROTFL. I believe you have the game of poker confused with the practice of law.

  60. 12/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 8, 2009 at 9:44 pm
    I have to say the comment reading from the left-wingers has been quite amusing.We know nothing of what is written in the legal briefs filed.

    What’s amusing is, so far, there are no written legal “briefs”. If anything had been filed, Leo and Pidgeon would be crowing and Phil would have links to the filings.

  61. 12/9/2009Sue says:

    John,

    “The next group of individuals who “joined with me” were all the other attorneys I took the same oath with again to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, when I entered the bar.”

    So, you are a lawyer?

  62. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    JB says:
    December 9, 2009 at 1:25 am
    Again, this case of assumption of power and illegal use of funds will pivot upon the fact that the administration placed pressure upon the automotive groups. If you’ve followed the actual events that took place then you should know that evidence already exists that this is so. You shall see.

    Futhermore, no proof is needed to show that the termination of contracts with the dealers was good, bad, indifferent or otherwise. The only thing that needs to be shown is in the discretionary sense that certain contracts were spared, others were not, and that the administration had a direct affect upon these discretionary decisions. In this instance, what came first? The decision to terminate the contracts, which they had every right to do under chapter 11? Or, the decision to terminate the contracts based upon pressure by the amdinistration and some bent and politically motivated grind by the administration? I’m not a betting man, but I would bet emails or recorded conversations exist somewhere in the mix which are quite compelling…
    ___________________________________________________________________
    You show shocking ignorance of the law with your comment. First of all the LAW is very specific regarding what a debtor in possession is allowed to do when in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Any contract can be cancelled. Period. There is no legal control on who and why the decision is made. In other words Chrysler was allowed to cancel any contract that they saw fit to cancel as long as they felt it was in the best interest of the company. Good luck to Leo trying to prove that there was some undue pressure by the administration on Chrysler to cancel the specific contract of certain dealers. And undue pressure meaning that Chrysler was forced to close specific dealers in return for the funds. And that those closures were not good business…That is a lot of hope for Leo and Steve. He will need a ton of proof because in the US proof is still required.

    As far as the argument regarding using the TARP funds to bailout the automakers, that is a separate situation. This was already argued and a brief was submitted to Justice Ginsburg. (see my earlier post). That argumemt will probably not survive the motion to dismiss by the Justice Department. Our tax dollars at work.

    And still Leo will have to tie all of this together if he files QW and convince some judge that this was due to the President not being eligible and then that judge will then compel the President to produce proof? I have to see how Leo will do that.

    However there are lawyers on this thread. Let’s see how many see a case here for Leo. Since the one specific dealer has Leo and Steve working for him you can see that this is less about the cancellation of the contracts and more about somehow getting a birther suit to finally be successful and hope that it will lead to the President having to produce documents. Every judge is going to see the charade by Leo and company. So if I was a betting man I would bet on this case joining the other 60 cases that have been unsuccessful. There is no “game changer” here.

  63. 12/9/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE jvn:

    […] Well, the President has a legal warrant to hold office, so the eligibility question will fail. […] If I am driving without a license and you run a red light and slam your car into mine, you cannot sue me for damages because I didn’t have a license. […]

    Incorrect positioning of the matter, JVN.
    And here is the logical sequence that makes my case in the court – I sue you:
    1) for damages incurred from your slamming in my car,
    2) damages which will not paid by any insurance form,
    3) and the court must review your status as to the right to be driving that car when the accident occurred,
    4) and when the court will find that you didn’t have the right/ privilege of operating a motor vehicle on a public road at that time,
    5) the case will split in two directions:
    a) my rightful compensation,
    b) the state of “Cali-bama” extracting an additional punitive measure from the court for you for your breaking the law regulating the operation of a motor vehicles on public roads…

    I always said that no court will allow a frontal challenge to Obama’s legitimacy and this for many reasons – however, Obama’s doom is likely to come from side manoevering, where he (or another party) will be pushed in a corner and have to defend X-selves by producing/ refusing to produce the BC.
    The analogy I always offer is Al Capone – he was nailed down for taxes not murders –

    Bestr regards -

  64. 12/9/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE Black Lion RE John:

    […] any proof that the President spent 1.5 million dollars to defend himself against these charges? […]

    BL, wasn’t an $ 1.4 Perkins Coie item on the WH list of legal expenses? Phil has published a very good copy of that document –
    What services has Perkins Coie done for that money ?
    Wasn’t at the time of billing Robert “Mao” Bauer Obama’s private lawyer?

    Regards -

  65. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    misanthropicus says:
    December 9, 2009 at 9:20 am
    RE Black Lion RE John:

    […] any proof that the President spent 1.5 million dollars to defend himself against these charges? […]

    BL, wasn’t an $ 1.4 Perkins Coie item on the WH list of legal expenses? Phil has published a very good copy of that document –
    What services has Perkins Coie done for that money ?
    Wasn’t at the time of billing Robert “Mao” Bauer Obama’s private lawyer?

    Regards –
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Misa, yes there were 1.4 million in legal expenses but there was no documentation on what it was spent on. Definately there has not been 1.4 million spent on defending birther lawsuits because most of the suits President Obama was defended by the Justice Department so it was the taxpayers that were responsible for defending the President against those ridiculous birther lawsuits. There are many costs associated to running a campaign for President. Unless you can show us an itemized breakdown that the 1.4 was spend specifically defending eligibility lawsuits, then the number is meaningless. A statistical blip so to speak.

  66. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    John:

    If an individual is not legally eligible to be a valid candidate, yet he/she does get elected, if the disqualification is not removed upon assuming the position, the electee forfeits the seat, that is, the seat is legally vacated, he/she is not legally there. If that be the case, Congress cannot impeach someone that is “not there.” Impeachment is not an option to remove someone not legally there.

    The unmitigated goofiness that is contained in this oft repeated Birther canard is well… might as well be redundant… goofy. Eligibility is not “fairy dust.” It does not make elections, electoral and congressional certifications or inaugurations magically go away. Obama is the President of the United States and can only be removed as per the prescriptions of the US Constitution. So yes, if he were found to be ineligible then impeachment is not only possible, it is an appropriate mechanism for his removal.

    The 25th Amendment might be a way to go under the “unable to do duties” etc., but I seriously doubt that a Democrat Congress will take steps to do that.

    It hardly matters what you seriously doubt. It only matters what is true. And you were in error to insist that no other options exist for removal of the President as you admit here.

    Chapter 35 of the District of Columbia Code provides for jurisdiction of quo warranto cases: “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States [such as “president”], civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.”

    As a lawyer, are you actually asserting here that the District of Columbia Code is higher law than the US Constitution? I doubt that you are likely to get a congenial reception in an actual court with that claim… but go for it. Let’s see you try.

  67. 12/9/2009bob strauss says:

    Black Lion, As you know lawyers don’t work for free. The number of documents filed in Bergs original case, alone looks like $500,000.00 worth. $1,400,000.00 total for all suits looks like a reasonable figure and I am sure it will go up quickly very soon.

    If Obama was legitimate it would only cost $12.00.

  68. 12/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    misanthropicus says:
    December 9, 2009 at 9:20 am
    *What services has Perkins Coie done for that money ?*

    Bob Bauer was general counsel for Obama for America and Perkins Coie handled all the legal work for the campaign. Perkins Coie is also counsel of record for the Democratic National Committee, which was folded into Obama for America and moved its operations to Chicago following the Democratic Convention in 2008. Perkin’s Coie’s Political Law Group is rated the best in the country and Bob Bauer was chairman of the Political Law Group until Obama appointed him as White House Counsel. The % of legal fees compared to total spent by the campaign for the Obama campaign is comparable to the % of legal fees to total spent by the McCain campaign. The Obama campaign just spent more money overall, mostly because it raised a lot more money than McCain. Perkins Coie was also legal counsel to the Obama transition team, an expense McCain wouldn’t have had because, well, as we know, McCain lost and his only transition was back to his Senate office.

  69. 12/9/2009bob strauss says:

    sam, They can impeach him right after he is declared ineligible, and a usurper, not legally President. Obama will be neutered, declared ineligible and congress will have to come up with another guy. Once he is declared as illegal it is over, no need for impeachment. VOID!

  70. 12/9/2009qwertyman says:

    Black Lion, As you know lawyers don’t work for free. The number of documents filed in Bergs original case, alone looks like $500,000.00 worth. $1,400,000.00 total for all suits looks like a reasonable figure and I am sure it will go up quickly very soon.

    If Obama was legitimate it would only cost $12.00.

    It may be true that Obama hasn’t sent a cent to Perkins over birther suits.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19450_Page2.html

    Kreep has been battling Obama’s California lawyer, Fredric Woocher, to release the president’s records from Occidental College on the theory that they might provide information about his citizenship.

    Woocher has threatened to seek sanctions against Kreep for pursuing the case.

    “This suit, like all of the others that have been filed challenging Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency, is frivolous,” he said in an email to POLITICO, adding that he is, in fact, working pro bono. “There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us,” he said.

    So the number of documents filed in the Berg case looks like it cost $500,000 to you? Here’s the docket in that case:
    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/

    The defendants filed four documents in that case. Two of them were motions to dismiss against the original and then the first amended complaint. If you think that costs $500k, then you either have no concept of value for money or a lawyer who is blatantly ripping you off. Please tell me if you still think filing those four documents would cost half a million dollars.

    Taking the FEC filings as proof that Obama spent $1.4 million fighting birther suits is like me noticing that you spent $100 at McDonalds and concluding that you spent it all on McFlurries.

    Edit:

    What services has Perkins Coie done for that money ?

    We can’t know that for sure because it’s protected by attorney-client privilege.

    However, we can make an educated guess that a campaign as large as Obama’s had a lot of work to do to comply with 50 state and federal election laws, employment contracts, leases of headquarters and regional offices, indemnifications, travel issues, and a wide degree of issues.

    There is no rational basis to think that Obama’s campaign would use an outside law firm solely to fight birther suits.

  71. 12/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    bob strauss says:
    December 9, 2009 at 10:11 am
    sam, They can impeach him right after he is declared ineligible, and a usurper, not legally President. Obama will be neutered, declared ineligible and congress will have to come up with another guy. Once he is declared as illegal it is over, no need for impeachment. VOID!

    Um, no. I know you wish this were true and you all have this fantasy that Obama could be declared ineligible, every order, piece of legislation since Jan 20th would be voided, and Sarah Palin would become President, because we know McCain is ineligible too, also. It wouldn’t work that way. A congressman would have to file articles of impeachment with the House Judiciary Committee. The House would have to vote to Impeach. Then the Senate would have to convict with a 2/3 majority. Joe Biden would become President per the 25th amendment. Once the Congress UNANIMOUSLY certified the Electoral College vote, Barack Hussein Obama became the legal President-elect. On Jan 20 at noon, he legally became the President. There isn’t going to be any null or void of the election. But, of course, this will never happen because there is no proof President Obama is not a natural born citizen. If the question ever came up in the Congress, all he has to do is have Hawaii send a certified COLB to Rep John Conyers, the Chairman of the House Committe on the Judiciary, and it would be over.

  72. 12/9/2009MGB says:

    I said, “I do believe that I have the right to DEMAND that my so-called representatives represent the will of the people and I also reserve the right to disrespect any or all of them, including the POTUS.”

    Sue said, “I will quote Phil, “where does it give you this right in the Constitution.” See below:

    “Bill of Rights
    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.””

    The Constitution does not GIVE us rights. We have these rights from birth. They are God-given. This is self-evident truth.

    Any right NOT enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the People.

    If the right to disrespect our employees or the right to demand them to conform to the will of the people is not enumerated, it exists nevertheless.

    We have a right to free speech, which includes making demands of our employees. Of course, they can refuse to listen, at their peril, meaning that they might lose their jobs.

    The right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” sounds quite like demanding that they listen to the will of the people. Therefore, it IS an enumerated right in the Constitution.

    We also have a right to our thoughts and our attitudes, such as disrespecting persons who deserve no respect on account of their actions or their own attitudes.

    Sue, you have it exactly backwards.

    Unless the Constitution specifically states that we DON’T have a particular right, then we have it.

    Our rights are not LIMITED to those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

  73. 12/9/2009MGB says:

    roderick: I’m still waiting to see health reform being debated on CSPAN with all sides represented as the bills are written. Why don’t the media report that broken promise?

  74. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Bob Strauss:

    Black Lion, As you know lawyers don’t work for free. The number of documents filed in Bergs original case, alone looks like $500,000.00 worth.

    Most of those documents were filed by Berg, not Obama.

    What did Obama’s lawyers file other than 2 motions to dismiss and one motion to stay discovery? The entire cost to Obama for that suit cannot possible have been more than $15,000.

  75. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    MGB:

    Unless the Constitution specifically states that we DON’T have a particular right, then we have it.

    Oh?

    So then… since it is not specifically stated in the Constitution that we don’t have it, we must have a “right to health care” after all?

    I thought you guys didn’t believe that. I’m sure your Congressmen and Senators would like to hear from you concerning this non-enumerated right that you suddenly insist we have.

    You learn something new every day.

  76. 12/9/2009John says:

    Black Lion,

    You are correct. I am wrong. It is Nigeria, not Kenya. I stand corrected.

    Yes, he is the certified elected candidate for President, and as such is the “President.” That, in and of itself, does not necessarily make him a legally-elected president. If it can be shown that he was not initially qualified to be a valid candidate for the office, he is a usurper, and cannot hold the office. He would be ousted. The only way to determine that at this time, however, is through the quo warranto action.

    No. I cannot prove the exact amount that Obama has spent on keeping all of his records kept secret. The real issue is not the amount of how much he has spent to keep it all under wraps, but why he won’t allow access to the documents that would prove, without a doubt, that he is legitimate? That won’t happen because the documents will prove otherwise. That’s my take on the circumstantial evidence available to date.

    I’ve been wrong many times in my life. You’ve pointed that out in your post clearly enough. Now, prove me wrong again by getting your “president” to produce some documentation that supports his legitimacy.

  77. 12/9/2009jvn says:

    John –

    The Hawaii Certification of Live Birth and the statements by the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health certifying that he was born in Hawaii in August 1961 prove, without a doubt, that he is legitimate.

    There is no need for any further documentary disclosure.

    I am sure that you disagree with that, but your disagreement does not require any action on the part of the President.

    He correctly resists the efforts of cranks and crackpots in court. That should continue so long as the birthers keep up their nonsense.

  78. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Bob Strauss:

    They can impeach him right after he is declared ineligible, and a usurper, not legally President.

    Not exactly.

    Impeachment entails a trial, and it is at that trial that Obama’s eligibility or ineligibility would have to be determined. No court can declare him ineligible, they have been consistent (I’m sure you’ve noticed) that they do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Only the Congress can as part of the Impeachment process.

    So first you have to get the House to bring Articles of Impeachment. Then the Senate will do its duty and try those articles to determine if Obama is eligible. Then they will either convict him or not.

    See? Simple.

    Obama will be neutered, declared ineligible and congress will have to come up with another guy.

    Again, not exactly.

    Congress does not “come up with another guy.” The constitutional rules of presidential succession will determine that. Completely.

    Once he is declared as illegal it is over, no need for impeachment. VOID!

    If the 25th Amendment process is used, yes. Otherwise, you are wrong. The Impeachment would have to come first.

    So… your task is (and always has been) a very simple one. Provide the Congress with evidence that Obama is ineligible so that they can initiate Impeachment proceedings.

    Oh, I forgot.

    You don’t have any evidence.

    Never mind.

  79. 12/9/2009John says:

    Sue,

    Vietnam veteran, mechanical engineer, attorney, and police officer. All that, and I still make mistakes, as so easily pointed out by Black Lion above, especially where one does not take the time to pin down and check each and every point to be made, again pointed out by Black Lion. I’ll admit, however, where I am wrong, whereas others apparently have a very hard time doing that. Nobody has it ALL correct. That’s what it’s all about. Making the work product better all the time.

  80. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    John:

    The real issue is not the amount of how much he has spent to keep it all under wraps, but why he won’t allow access to the documents that would prove, without a doubt, that he is legitimate?

    He did. A year and a half ago.

    The only quibble you have is the phrase “without a doubt.” This phrase is only meaningful in its official and formal legal form, since we all know that anybody’s personal doubts do not count as they are completely subjective.

    The standard for documentary proof of citizenship at birth has been set in State Department Regulations for decades. Obama’s COLB meet those standards perfectly.

  81. 12/9/2009Phil says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    The standard for documentary proof of citizenship at birth has been set in State Department Regulations for decades. Obama’s COLB meet those standards perfectly.

    Except that this is not what the DoS has said. In fact, Mr. Leo Donofrio has already pointed out that not only did the infamous Senate Resolution 511 specifically talk about a natural born citizen’s eligibility hinging on American citizenship held by both parents (at least the Senate went about researching Sen. McCain’s background, with a sign-off by Mr. Obama), but that the DoS currently has no “definitive definition” regarding presidential eligibility RE: citizenship:

    Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
    (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
    a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

    -Phil

  82. 12/9/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “The Constitution does not GIVE us rights. We have these rights from birth. They are God-given. This is self-evident truth.”

    Your reference is to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Your definition of “Creator” may not be the same as another’s definition of “Creator.”

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

    What happens when your “rights” violate another’s rights? What happens when you “demand” that your elected officials violate another’s rights?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
    Griswold v. Connecticut

  83. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Phil:

    Except that this is not what the DoS has said. In fact, Mr. Leo Donofrio has already pointed out that not only did the infamous Senate Resolution 511 specifically talk about a natural born citizen’s eligibility hinging on American citizenship held by both parents (at least the Senate went about researching Sen. McCain’s background, with a sign-off by Mr. Obama), but that the DoS currently has no “definitive definition” regarding presidential eligibility RE: citizenship:

    You are not being truthful. That is exactly what the DoS has said. What you are talking about now is something completely different. They have not only said it in their regulations, but they have explicitly said it under oath and in relation to president Obama specifically in statements to the court at least twice.

    Now I understand that it is fully in the interest of “Birthers” to confabulate different arguments in the hope that the ensuing confusion will provide cover and concealment for a false argument. Buy why you think it will work now when it has never worked before is just strange.

    1. The State Department regulations for Proof of Citizenship at Birth are clear and (as I said) have been so for decades. Obama’s COLB meets them perfectly. Therefore the actual demand that John made in his post has been met.

    2. You deliberately muddy the water with an otherwise irrelevant mention of Senate Resolution 511. Since that dealt with an individual born overseas, and Obama was not born overseas, it has nothing to do with any discussion of Obama’s citizenship.

    3. The State Department regulation you sited is another example of the immediately prior tactic. It regards “birth abroad,” and since Obama was not born abroad it has nothing to do with any discussion of Obama’s citizenship.

  84. 12/9/2009John says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    Impeachment is not an option at this time. As Black Lion pointed out, Obama IS the duly elected and certified “president” at this time. Congress would have no reason to impeach a duly elected, and certified as such, president.

    Quo warranto is the only way in which an office holder can be challenged with respect to his/her claim to an office, elected or appointed. Here in Ohio it is very clearly spelled out in statutes and case law. Quo warranto is no different in federal court cases.

    For instance, the quo warranto case wherein I am currently the Relator, the law says, in few words or less, that a candidate for the office has to satisfy ALL the requirements listed in the Code, otherwise he/she SHALL NOT be elected or appointed. If he/she fails to meet just one out of all the requirements listed, then he/she does not qualify to be on the ballot. With Obama, the “natural born citizen” requirement is the one at issue for him to meet as listed in the Constitution.

    In the history of Ohio case law, there have been times where a person has gotten past the mandatory, strict compliance election laws, not being a valid candidate because he/she did not meet all the requirements to be a valid canddiate. In such cases, where that person was able to get his/her name on the ballot, and was elected by the majority of votes cast by the electorate, such are usurpers of the position they were illegally elected to assume.

    The problem is that such persons should never have been placed on the ballot. Supposedly the election laws and the vetting process is there to prevent this from occurring, but people even make mistakes at this level of society too. The electorate does not have the time nor capability to keep track of each and every candidate’s qualifications to be a valid candidate, much less how much each candidate spends to cover up what they don’t want publicly known.

    The settled case law here in Ohio says, that if an unqualified person gets onto the ballot, and is elected by a majority of votes, then that elected person has to remove the disqualification immediately upon assuming the seat, otherwise he/she forfeits the seat, it is legally vacated. Remember the statute said, “SHALL NOT be elected or appointed unless he/she meets ALL the reqirements.

    If a candidate does not meet the requirments to be a valid candidate, that person’s name should not be placed on the ballot at all. Same goes for Obama if he did not meet the “natural born citizen” requirement as a candidate. The question then becomes, how can this mess be rectified once it has been completed? That is where the old common law writ of quo warranto comes into focus. In Obama’s case, it would come into focus in the federal D.C. District Court forum as a quo warranto case filed by someone having the standing to do such.

    In my case, I was the only other qualified candidate on the ballot, and my opponent – whom I allege was not qualified to be on the ballot – was the one who received the majority of votes in the general election. He was elected and certified to be the winner by the Board of Elections. Once certified he is the winner and holds the seat. But does he hold it legally? That’s the question the quo warranto case seeks to settle.

    If I can prove that my opponent was not legally qualified to be a valid candidate for the office, then his votes will not count from the general election, because his name should never have been placed on the ballot. And, since I was the only other qualified candidate running for that seat, I am the winner with the second highest amount of votes received when his are nullified, if he’s found not qualified to be a candidate. If there were three or more candidates for the office, and he got more than us, being unqualified, then there would have to be a run-off election between the remaining two qualified candidates for that office seat.

    That’s the way it works under Ohio law, and I’d suspect that is the way it also works in most States. That is the way it would work in federal court too. Standing to bring the suit is what has been most difficult to prove in these cases thus far. Losing candidates in the same election have the best chance to be found to have standing to bring a quo warranto.

  85. 12/9/2009Sharon 2 says:

    Phil,

    Two things. First, you may want to keep abreast of this case: INDIANA STATE POLICE PENSION TRUST ET AL. V. CHRYSLER LLC ET AL. The case is in conference before the Supreme Court according to Charlton’s site. The Court had denied a stay this past summer which would seem to indicate that it won’t take the case.

    It would be interesting to see what the Court would say about the takeover of the dealerships, if it decides to take the case. It seems to me that there would be some kind of impact on the quo warranto case regarding harm. I am not familiar enough with all the facts right now.

    Secondly, do you know offhand if Gibbs said in his famous press conference answer concerning the birth certificate response that “we” presented (or whatever words he used) or “he” presented it? Does there seem to be a dance around the words to avoid saying that Obama himself did anything?

    Thanks,
    S2

  86. 12/9/2009John says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    A certificate of live birth is not a “birth certificate.” If that is what you are claiming to be proof of Obama’s citizenship, that COLB means absolutely nothing. A birth certificate has much more information on it than a COLB. A COLB is NOT a birth certificate.

  87. 12/9/2009jvn says:

    John –

    The COLB has the relevant information on it: that the President was born in Honolulu in August of 1961.

    Can you tell us of what specific and/or legal relevance any additional information that might be on a birth certificate would be in this matter?

    By the way, the COLB is accepted by the State Department as proof of birth and citizenship — just thought you might like to know that, what with your being an attorney and all… :)

  88. 12/9/2009qwertyman says:

    A certificate of live birth is not a “birth certificate.” If that is what you are claiming to be proof of Obama’s citizenship, that COLB means absolutely nothing. A birth certificate has much more information on it than a COLB. A COLB is NOT a birth certificate.

    Every state and federal agency disagrees with you. A COLB is sufficient for a passport, driver’s license, or any other purpose for which one may need a birth certificate. It’s the only birth certificate Hawaii has produced for many years now.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/28/worldnetdaily/birthers-claim-gibbs-lied-when-he-said-obamas-birt/

    When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called “long” and “short” forms.

    “They’re just words,” said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.”

    “There’s only one form of birth certificate,” she said, and it’s been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

    “When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site,” she said. “That’s the birth certificate.”

    It reflects that President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Since that is inside the US, Obama is a natural born citizen.

  89. 12/9/2009Linda says:

    “A person not educated in past history has no future.”

    Those of you who think the history of the past 233 years of this great nation is somehow irrevelent just keep making our case more relevent as you know we do have history on our side and you do not.

    S.Res. 511, in which Obama co-sponsored, which states that a NBC is one born to 2 citizen parents is the most current recorded history we have. But instead of using deciding Supreme Court decisions, the lefty’s lawyers use the dessenting opinion of Brennan to try to make their case where Obama is concerned.

    The analysis which begins by citing that the Constitution does not define ‘natural born’ citizen & that Congress has never given a definituion either can be argued against. Some argue otherwise, however the best place to find the definition would be in the 39th Congress records of 1866 when the 14th Amendment was being drafted. They then go on to cite Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 which is a 1983 Supreme Court case on freedom of religious speech. While this had me baffled for a day or so, it suddenly hit me. Maybe they were not using the deciding opinion of the case. Maybe they went to the dissenting opinion. BINGO! Justice Brennan dissenting wrote:

    “Finally, and most importantly, the argument tendered by the court is misguided because the Constitution is not a static document whose every meaning on every detail is fixed for all time by the life experience of the Framers. We have recognized in a variety of constitutional contexts that the practices that were in place at the time any particular guarantee was enacted in to the Constitution do not necessarily fix forever the meaning of that guarantee…”

    So basically what they did was take Brennan’s dissenting opinion and use it as precedent to usurp our guarantee, our national security protection under the Rule of Law that the person attaining to the highest office of land, the Commander of our military forces would have no foreign influences or intrigues. But let us not stop there with this opinion, Brennan goes on to write:

    “Our primary task must be to translate “the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century…”

    And there we have it, that big ‘it’s my constitutional right to be president some day’ analogy thrown right in our faces. Framers be damned!

    If all you lefties want a new Constitution, then get out there and try to get it done legally. Until then, you have not a leg to stand on as to your interpretation of NBC.

    Being President is NOT a right, it is a job that you have to meet certain qualifications, just as a lawyer does, a doctor, etc, etc.

    A NBC holds no more and no less the rights of every other citizen it is just that the NBC’s qualifications of not having owed allegiance to any foreign country that protects our sovereignty & national security.

  90. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    Obama acknowledges that he was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” at birth.

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States…

    http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    British Nationality Act of 1948
    Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies
    Citizenship by descent

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…

  91. 12/9/2009John says:

    jvn,

    I almost missed your post to reply. Sorry about that.

    You are correct. What Hawaii has said and the COLB do not satisfy the question for many reasons. These are not definitive items of Obama’s legitimacy in light of his chronological history and travels. There is more to suggest that he is NOT legitimate than there is that he is legitimate. Some information actually suggests that he may not even legally be a U.S. citizen.

    Thus, quo warranto is the way to go to settle it once and for all, even for the Obama supporters. Obama supporters should be welcoming a quo warranto case in federal court. I’m surprised Mr. Obama has not already ordered Eric Holder to bring the case before a court. That would be the highest integrity move Mr. Obama could ever take at this time in the debate. It would save a lot of court time all over the nation the way things are going.

  92. 12/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 9, 2009 at 2:17 pm
    * you have not a leg to stand on as to your interpretation of NBC.*

    That’s right, you don’t. The Supreme Court found in Wong Kim Ark that a child born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents. No decision by the Supreme Court since, nor any action by Congress has changed that.

    SR 511 applied only to John Sidney McCain. The status of his parents was only important because he was born outside of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, within the borders of the United States – natural born citizen regardless of his parents’ status.

    If you would like natural born citizen to be defined differently than it is today, convince your Congressman to introduce a bill with your definition.

  93. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    John says:
    December 9, 2009 at 12:41 pm
    Black Lion,

    You are correct. I am wrong. It is Nigeria, not Kenya. I stand corrected.

    Yes, he is the certified elected candidate for President, and as such is the “President.” That, in and of itself, does not necessarily make him a legally-elected president. If it can be shown that he was not initially qualified to be a valid candidate for the office, he is a usurper, and cannot hold the office. He would be ousted. The only way to determine that at this time, however, is through the quo warranto action.

    No. I cannot prove the exact amount that Obama has spent on keeping all of his records kept secret. The real issue is not the amount of how much he has spent to keep it all under wraps, but why he won’t allow access to the documents that would prove, without a doubt, that he is legitimate? That won’t happen because the documents will prove otherwise. That’s my take on the circumstantial evidence available to date.

    I’ve been wrong many times in my life. You’ve pointed that out in your post clearly enough. Now, prove me wrong again by getting your “president” to produce some documentation that supports his legitimacy.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    John, I can respect someone when they admit that they made a mistake. I know it is easy to make statements sometimes without doing the proper research to ensure that your statement is correct. We all have been wrong before, that is what makes us human beings…

    I know you are not satisfied but 69 million Americans, 9 SCOTUS justices, and 535 members of congress were all satisfied with the documentation that was submitted. That and the statement by Dr. Fukino that she examined the vital records and President Obama was BORN in Hawaii are enough proof for me.

    There is no document that will prove otherwise. That is a fantasy. There is no admissible evidence that even shows that the President was born anywhere other than Honolulu. This is why this “holy grail” search for the so called “long form” will end in failure. The so called evidence that suggests otherwise is such a joke that no court in the world would ever admit any of it. Besides the scenario that somehow Obama’s mother was in Kenya at the time of his birth is so farfetched that it borders on fiction. No evidence that she was ever in Kenya has ever been produced, which puts a hole in every born outside of the US theory.

    The COLB is legally admissible and meets the standards set by the State Department. The State of HI only issues those documents. No court or judge is ever going to compel any additional documentation to be produced. And with the birther success rate of 0 for 60 I can safely say none of these cases will ever be successful. The rule of law is clear.

    To meet the burden of standing for the federal QW statute is very difficult. Leo’s attempt to link the Chrysler dealership closings to an unwarrented action by an ineligible president will be difficult for him to prove. He is not the only attorney doing this because he is more brillant than everyone else, he is just more willing to take a case that cannot be won. We will see how he tries to tie everything together if and when he actually files this case. I am looking forward to reading it.

  94. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

    “ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President’… The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    Suffice it to say, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”…

    To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

  95. 12/9/2009qwertyman says:

    S.Res. 511, in which Obama co-sponsored, which states that a NBC is one born to 2 citizen parents is the most current recorded history we have.

    This is a common but basic logical error. S. Res. 511 did not say that a NBC was one born to two citizen parents; it said that one born to two citizen parents is an NBC.

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:

    If you have two citizen parents, then you are a natural born citizen.

    It’s like as though Phil says “I’m in New York, therefore I’m in the US,” and uses that to conclude, “I’m not in New York, therefore I’m not in the US.” It’s called denying the antecedent.

    But instead of using deciding Supreme Court decisions, the lefty’s lawyers use the dessenting opinion of Brennan to try to make their case where Obama is concerned.

    There’s a lot of wisdom in Brennan’s quote. The Constitution as originally written was a racist, sexist aristocracy that limited the franchise to property owners and tolerated slavery. Should we use that standard when determining a civil rights case?

  96. 12/9/2009John says:

    jvn and quertyman,

    A COLB is not a birth certificate. A COLB may be acceptable for use to obtain the documents you list, but the COLB is not the original birth certificate.

    What the quo warranto case would do is allow for discovery. Once a quo warranto case is brought by a Relator with standing to file the case, then as the case proceeds, discovery would take place. At that time the Relator will be able to subpoena authenticated documents, take depositions, acquire copies of passports, etc.

    Once that has been accomplished, then all these questions surrounding the authenticity of all documents related to this matter will be settled, and not until then. All of us could argue ad infinitum back and forth about which document does this, and which does that. Discovery in a quo warranto case in federal court would settle it all.

  97. 12/9/2009GeorgetownJD says:

    Hey, Phil. Did Devvy Kidd provide any explanation about Leo’s and Stephen’s strategy to get around the Barton Doctrine?

    Just wonderin’.

  98. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    The single question presented in WKA, which the WONG court affirmed, was whether WONG “at the time of his birth” became “a citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, not whether WONG was an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States. Hence, the WONG court concluded WONG was a “citizen of the United States at birth” not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    Suffice it to say, a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States at birth” is not synonymous with an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States. An Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States is always a “citizen of the United States at birth”. A “citizen of the United States at birth” is not always an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    WKA recognizes three types of citizens:

    1. Naturalized Citizens
    2. 14th Amendment Citizens at Birth
    3. Article II Natural Born Citizens

    Article II, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President…

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause [natural born citizen] in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

    UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “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.”

    [15] The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States;” and “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.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that “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,” also declares that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    [121] The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

  99. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    December 9, 2009 at 2:17 pm
    “A person not educated in past history has no future.”
    Those of you who think the history of the past 233 years of this great nation is somehow irrevelent just keep making our case more relevent as you know we do have history on our side and you do not.

    S.Res. 511, in which Obama co-sponsored, which states that a NBC is one born to 2 citizen parents is the most current recorded history we have. But instead of using deciding Supreme Court decisions, the lefty’s lawyers use the dessenting opinion of Brennan to try to make their case where Obama is concerned.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Really? I was actually using the majority opinion from a case which was decided in 1896…You might have heard of it…It was Wong Kim Ark and the majority opinion stated the following…

    “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.”

    “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.”

    “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.”

    That is the decision that most legal experts not named Donofrio or Apuzzo rely on. Especially where it states that “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.” That was in 1896. If you have a SCOTUS ruling after 1896 that states your theory that that “a NBC is one born to 2 citizen parents” then lets see it. Anyone that is familar with the law and SCOTUS rulings knows that the most recent ruling is usually the one that is cited for precedent.

  100. 12/9/2009Linda says:

    Let’s not stop there though, lets look at what the 108th Congress had to say.

    Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Constitution as recorded in Congressional records:

    “The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.”

    In the same Congressional Record we have this from Forrest McDonald, historian and professor of history at the U of Alabama:

    “Debates about electing the President raged until early September, less than 2 weeks before the Convention adjourned. Then Pierce Butler, an Irish-born delegate, came up with a cumbersome plan that overcame the objections to all earlier proposals. This was the electoral college system. The system was so diffuse that it would be virtually impossible, given the primitive communications then available, for foreign agents to corrupt it. But for good measure Butler’s proposal included the restrictive language, ”no person except a natural-born citizen…To appreciate the significance of the Constitution’s restriction of presidential eligibility to natural born citizens, it is useful to place the requirement in historical perspective…The greatest fear was of corrupt influences upon the election, particularly from abroad…That language was adopted without a single dissenting voice, nor did anyone speak in its support. Its meaning and rationale went without saying. As Joseph Storey later explained in his famous commentaries, the phraseology ”cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office and interposes a barrier against . . . corrupt interferences of foreign governments…The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak Presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of Presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable is the President’s power as Commander in Chief…Let us consider a few scenarios, starting with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of some countries have occasionally employed agents under deep cover who might not be activated for decades. It is not difficult to imagine such an agent being elected to an office of trust, but a Senator is 1 of 100, and a Representative is 1 of 435. What check is there on a President who is 1 of 1, except for the constitutional restriction?… In the role of Commander in Chief, it is not enough to be above reproach. One must be above the suspicion of reproach…In conclusion let me say that on this as on other constitutional questions, we are best guided by the wisdom and prudence of the Founding Fathers. The amendment process is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be used for political or electioneering purposes. The structure created by the Constitution has stood the test of time and continues to stand as the truest foundation for our freedom.”

    And now we have a President who we basically know nothing about except his radical & corrupt connections to those in the US as well as overseas.

    There is also a reason not one attempt to amend A2 S1 C5 of the Constitution has prevailed out of committee…they know it will never fly with the American people if it ever became mainstream and was put out for a vote.

  101. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, not whether or not he was a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States at birth” like Wong Kim Ark…

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” (Wong Kim Ark: Paragraph 16).

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

    Senator Leahy: “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen…”

  102. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    As a follow up the birthers lame attempt to always bring up S.Res. 511 is a red herring. Let us look at the actual resolution…

    RESOLUTION

    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

    Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;

    Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

    Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

    Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;

    Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

    Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

    I don’t see where it specifically states that a NBC is someone born of 2 US citizens. I do see where it specifically references that That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’. That is a little different. So again this resolution means nothing for anyone not named John Sidney McCain III….Try again.

    This is what Ted Olsen and Laurence Tribe said…

    “The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress…. and to the common law at the time of the Founding….These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance….”

    ” If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States…Premising “natural born” citizenship on the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown–including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies–were deemed natural born subjects.”

  103. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘…The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

    …The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

  104. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    December 9, 2009 at 2:47 pm
    Let’s not stop there though, lets look at what the 108th Congress had to say.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Linda, so what is your point? That you feel that the President will have some loyalty to Kenya or Great Britian, 2 countries that he has never lived in nor were born in? That is a silly argument. No matter what your thoughts on the matter are the bottom line is that the President was born in Hawaii. You can’t change that nor can you change the fact that he is President and meets the eligibility requirements…You can dislike him and vote for someone else in 2012, but that’s it. That is why the Constitution is so specific when it comes to removing the President, because they didn’t want people trying to undo the results of an election if someone that a few people didn’t like happened to be elected. The founders forsaw this kind of ridiculous sentiment and fortunately guarded against it.

    “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 which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a 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. ” Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

    “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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

    “The king of England, according to the rule of modern civilization, claimed as his subjects all persons born within his dominions : in like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen.” George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866)

    “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…” Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)

    And most recently in the state of Indiana….

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

    “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

  105. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    Obama knows that he isn’t eligble to the office of President. He also understands that “natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Why else did he sponsor the following which attempted to define “natural born Citizen” as “Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces”?

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2678

    S. 2678

    To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.

    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES FEBRUARY 28, 2008

    Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, ,Mr. OBAMA, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’.

    SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ‘‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’’.

    Congress finds and declares that the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: ‘‘Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces’’.

  106. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm
    The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Anyone else but me wonder when Benaiah will actually stop copying and pasting the same irrelevant cases which were decided before 1896 and find something relevant decided after 1896? Probably because he/she is unable to do it. It is kind of pathetic but amusing to see the same reposts of SCOTUS cases decided before Wong or where he/she posts the dissenting opinion from Wong like that is supposed to mean something. Or leaving out the most relevant line in the Minor ruling to pretend that it didn’t exist. I know Benaiah is just a “copy and paste” expert but you would think for one he/she would get the point. Especially when the factual errors in the cases cited are pointed out…I guess he/she is waiting for Leo or Mario to paste something else to copy and paste….

    Until then we are left with this from 2009….

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

  107. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 9, 2009 at 2:32 pm
    The Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

    “ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President’… The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Of course Benaiah show how disingenous he/she is by not posting the entire section of the ruling….

    The actual language of the ruling is as follows….

    “To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that no person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, ” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    When you read the entire ruling in context you are able to glean that the justices meant to address issues “for the purposes of this case.”

    In addition two important points from the Minor case are that the Court does admit that there are doubts on how native or natural born citizens are defined but for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve those doubts. Secondly the Court is making a distinction between natural born citizens and aliens and not plain citizens and natural born citizens. In other words there are only 2 classes of citizens, period. There is no such thing as a 14th amendment citizen or a citizen that is born in the US but not a natural born citizen.

    So in summary the Minor case tells the following…a) us that there are two kinds of citizens: native or natural born and naturalized, b) there was some question prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens, c) Minor does not resolve this question, d) it is clear that those born citizens are natural born citizens (since there are only two types, and those born citizens cannot be naturalized), e) United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies who is under the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby who are citizens at birth.

  108. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    Black Lyin,

    You stated the following: “It is kind of pathetic but amusing to see the same reposts of SCOTUS cases decided before Wong or where he/she posts the dissenting opinion from Wong like that is supposed to mean something.”

    Please show me where I have cited the dissenting opinion from Wong?

    Benaiah

  109. 12/9/2009Linda says:

    siseduermapierda says:That’s right, you don’t. The Supreme Court found in Wong Kim Ark that a child born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents. No decision by the Supreme Court since, nor any action by Congress has changed that.

    The SCOTUS in WKA said nothing of the sort, here is what is recorded in history:

    by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: ‘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… The civil rights act, passed at the first session of the Thirty-Ninth congress, began by enacting that ‘all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens…

    WKA’s parents were permanently domiciled in the USA, however, they were not citizens, so please tell me by what law those born to foreignoers could ever be deemed natural born. And please do not come back with the same old lame references to Blackstone & English common law, we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature:

    “The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”

    Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ‘subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ‘subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.

    Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.

  110. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 9, 2009 at 3:33 pm
    Black Lyin,

    You stated the following: “It is kind of pathetic but amusing to see the same reposts of SCOTUS cases decided before Wong or where he/she posts the dissenting opinion from Wong like that is supposed to mean something.”

    Please show me where I have cited the dissenting opinion from Wong?

    Benaiah
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Bencopyin…Yes I reread your post. I confused your Minor post for that from the dissent from Wong. So in that case I do apologize for that accusation. I do stand by comment regarding your selective edit of the actual Minor ruling though…

  111. 12/9/2009John says:

    Black Lion,

    I had to laugh at myself when I first read your reply about Nigeria versus Kenya.

    While in the prosecutor’s office as an investigator, I remember dealing with one of those scams out of Nigeria. The suspect even flew into Greater Cincinnati airport to meet the victim, handed her four money orders to hold for him until he came back. She put them in the bank, felt bad about holding all that money from him, and wire transfered the full $14K back to him in Nigeria. Needless to say, she probably still owes the bank the $14K since the money orders came back as forgeries.

    Anyway, back to the subject matter. I find the Obama eligibility case interesting because my case locally is an exact copy of what should be happening in Obama’s case. There is much more that would be the target in discovery than the COLB, birth certificates, etc. It is amazing how much you end up going after once you start discovery. Discovery itself uncovers more than you can think of going for prior to starting your search for information. So, as we all discuss this and that, I firmly believe that the only way to settle it is with a quo warranto case. It is the only legal remedy available at this time that I can identify. All other remedies are political in nature, including the civil war scenario as mentioned often all over the internet.

    My opponent, in my quo warranto case, got on the ballot in 2000 even though he did not have the required educational credentials to qualify. A lot of people knew he was not qualified, but no one took the proper procedural steps at the time to prevent him from being placed on the ballot. There is a written protest procedure that should have been used with the Board of Elections, but that was not done. The local prosecutor did not bring a quo warranto action after he won the election in 2000, but finally did get an indictment on him for falsifying his election document, where he swore on his petition affidavit that he was qualified to be a candidate for the office.

    The way the candidate process works, the Board of Elections depends on that affidavit being truthful, which is why it is a felony to falsify. There is no checking up on a candidate’s qualifications unless an opponent [of the same party under Ohio law] protests a candidacy. If there is no protest, the person’s name is placed on the ballot, no other questions are asked unless required by Code provisions beforehand.

    So, he was indicted on a felony falsification charge in Dec. 2002. He was tried in Oct. 2003, and found “not quilty” of intentionally falsifying the document. He immediately had his criminal trial record sealed under the State sealing statute. Under that statute it should probably not have been sealed by the court because a balancing is supposed to be done by the court, weighing the public’s right and need to know their elected officials are legitimate against the defendant public official’s privacy rights, which are minimal, if even existant, in such case. I have an appeal pending to get that case file unsealed. Oral arguments scheduled for January 11th.

    A legislative friend, of the same party as my opponent, even took legislative steps to have enacted an amendment to the Ohio Revised Code, that was tacked onto an “emergency” bill, that reduced the educational requirements necessary to qualify as a candidate, down to the level that would encompass my opponents level of educational credentials. That was signed into law by the Governor just in time for my opponent to file his petitions for the 2004 election. All of this was done by individuals of and with the same political party connections.

    I’ve been registered as an independent ever since I got out of the service after Vietnam. While in Vietnam, I realized that both parties were essentially the same, with the only difference I could identify being that associated with social issues. Otherwise, both parties were the same to me. Now, after all these years since, I sarcastically look at the two party system as being a bunch of politicians who have “dirt” on each other [like “Tiger Woods” type of conduct], to the point where our whole nation suffers because they blackmail each other daily to go along with stuff not in our best interest as a nation, because of the loose zippers on both sides of the isle.

    Anyway, as an independent I tried to use the protest procedure with the Board of Elections in 2008, but was told I could not protest his candidacy because the law did not allow me to do such. It did allow a Democrat or Republican to challenge my candidacy, but an independent could not challenge a Democrat or Republican. Well, now that is clearly a violation of my equal protection and due process rights under both constitutions, so I sought a writ of mandamus to force the Board to accept my protest as timely and valid.

    The common pleas court dismissed my petition on a procedural basis that I had a “future” remedy in quo warranto. I appealed that decision to the 12th District Court of Appeals which upheld the lower court ruling, even in light of a recent Ohio Supreme Court (OSC) ruling that a writ of mandamus should issue to a petitioner, if entitled to it, and not denied based upon reasoning that a “future” remedy may be available. I got trounced by both courts using a procedural reason to dismiss, which kept them from having to consider the merits of the case. I had no second right of appeal to the OSC, and this stuff costs a lot of money to try and fight using the established system we have for “justice.” So, bottom line, the unconstitutional Ohio election laws on protests are still there specifically hammering away on independents. I tried.

    One does start to get a sour taste in one’s mouth when it appears like the system does not want to correct that which is clearly wrong within the system. All one can do is keep on fighting as far as one has standing and cash available to carry on the fight. I still believe in the system, and actually know some honest attorneys [I know – oxymoron] and judges who take their oath of office seriously over political considerations. They seem to be “rare birds,” but they are nevertheless still out there working in the system.

    In 150 years it all won’t matter to any of us walking the face of the earth today. And when the Sun supernovas and engulfs Mercury, Venus, and Earth, it all goes back to molten lava, including all the hardware in this notebook. So, I guess one could legitimately argue, it just doesn’t matter – but it does!

  112. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    John:

    Impeachment is not an option at this time. As Black Lion pointed out, Obama IS the duly elected and certified “president” at this time. Congress would have no reason to impeach a duly elected, and certified as such, president.

    Nonsense. Impeachment is always an option.

    All three Presidents who have been impeached were also “duly elected and certified.” That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they have committed an impeachable offense. If you do not consider ineligibility (or as you guys love to put it, “usurpation”) an impeachable offense, then I make no pretense of understanding your judgment.

    Quo warranto is the only way in which an office holder can be challenged with respect to his/her claim to an office, elected or appointed.

    Why are you repeating this falsehood when you have already admitted that, if the office holder in question is the President, the 25th Amendment is another way?

    If a candidate does not meet the requirments to be a valid candidate, that person’s name should not be placed on the ballot at all. Same goes for Obama if he did not meet the “natural born citizen” requirement as a candidate. The question then becomes, how can this mess be rectified once it has been completed? That is where the old common law writ of quo warranto comes into focus. In Obama’s case, it would come into focus in the federal D.C. District Court forum as a quo warranto case filed by someone having the standing to do such.

    Unfortunately, the Constitution says otherwise. It places sole power for removing a sitting President in the hands of Congress. Quo warranto does not apply to the President of the United States.

    And believe it or not, the US Constitution does actually trump Ohio law.

  113. 12/9/2009Linda says:

    blacklion says: “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…” Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)

    Why don’t you put this into perspective as to the truth. This is Wilson’s attempt at trying to extort the bill of rights by claiming that unless all were considered natural born, somehow those who were not born to 2 US citizen parents would have less rights than the NBC. We all now nothing could be further from the truth.

    Again, being President is NOT a right, it is a job that one must qualify for.

  114. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    John:

    A certificate of live birth is not a “birth certificate.” If that is what you are claiming to be proof of Obama’s citizenship, that COLB means absolutely nothing. A birth certificate has much more information on it than a COLB. A COLB is NOT a birth certificate.

    Nothing in your comment is true.

    A certification of live birth is a birth certificate by definition and by by law. Since there are no Federal Standards for them every State defines their own and some have more information than others. Different states also call them by different names.

    For a birth certificate to constitute absolute legal proof of citizenship at birth it must (according to State Department Regulations) meet the following criteria:

    7 FAM 1119 PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
    (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

    a. To establish a claim to U.S. citizenship by birth in the United States:

    A person born in the United States in a place where official records of birth were kept at the time of his birth shall submit with the application for a passport a birth certificate under the seal of the official custodian of records. [22 CFR 51.43.]

    b. The birth certificate must:

    (1) Show the applicant’s full name, and date and place of birth;
    (2) Have a filing date within 1 year of the birth; and
    (3) Bear the signature of the official custodian of birth records and the raised, impressed, or multicolored seal of the issuing office.

    Nothing more is required… not a hospital name, not an attending physician, not even the names of the parents.

    As you will note, Obama’s COLB shows his full name, and date and place of birth. It was filed four days after (i.e. “within a year of”) the birth. It bears the signature of Dr. Alvin T. Onaka as well as the impressed seal of the Hawaii Department of Health.

    Rather than meaning “absolutely nothing” as you insist, Obama’s COLB is absolute legal proof of his citizenship at birth.

  115. 12/9/2009John says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    It is impossible to reason with one who does not accept the Code as written in black and white. So I won’t bother to anymore.

    Impeachment – politically won’t happen.
    25th Amendment – politically won’t happen.
    Quo warranto – legally possible in D.C. District Court

  116. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    John:

    A COLB is not a birth certificate. A COLB may be acceptable for use to obtain the documents you list, but the COLB is not the original birth certificate.

    Nobody ever get’s their original birth certificate. It is property of the State.

    That is why we certify copies like the COLB.

  117. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    John:

    Impeachment – politically won’t happen.

    If you had any evidence against Obama’s eligibility then politics would have nothing to do with it.

    25th Amendment – politically won’t happen.

    If you had any evidence against Obama’s eligibility then politics would again have nothing to do with it.

    Quo warranto – legally possible in D.C. District Court

    Not against the President of the United States, per the US Constitution’s assignation of sole power to remove a sitting President to the Congress.

  118. 12/9/2009Linda says:

    Here is more from my research that puts to rest, that even Blackstone deviated from his own works and thus liberal left opinions based on his commentaries of English Common law are tainted.

    In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.

    [Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.

    To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;…]

    [F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]

    [Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.

    The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.”For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.

    In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.

    The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

    [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

    [A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

    As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

  119. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    Black Lyin,

    For the record, there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing from dissenting opinions…

    As a matter of fact, the majority opinion in WKA cited from the dissenting opinion of Scott v. Sandford.

    Specifically, paragraph 31 of WKA cited paragraph 967 of Scott v. Sandford…

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [31] In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” 19 How. 576. And to this extent no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [914] Mr. Justice CURTIS dissenting.

    [967] The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth…

  120. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Benahaha:

    For the record, there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing from dissenting opinions

    Except of course when you’re not trying to look like a loser.

  121. 12/9/2009Linda says:

    Another famous quote from Blackstone:

    “The king is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness.”

    To the lefties, Obama is no King or Messiah and he certainly is NOT constitutionally eligible to be President. Thus ever piece of legislation or executive order he signs, God & the American public willing, according to US laws will become null and void as past precedent has proven.

  122. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    John says:
    December 9, 2009 at 3:45 pm
    Black Lion,

    I had to laugh at myself when I first read your reply about Nigeria versus Kenya.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    John, I hear you. I am the head of Risk and Compliance for a bank and have dealt with a few of those Nigerian scams that affected our customers…So that was why I knew that you were wrong regarding the country…

    I feel for you in regards to what you have and are going through. But in this case the President of the US is a unique job and is handled as a unique situation. Mainly because the election and removal of the President is specifically noted in the Constitution. That is why the QW statute will probably not work in this case. Because the Constitution is specific on how you can remove a sitting President. And it is specific in order to protect the President from unwarrented legal actions like we are seeing now.

    You are correct however. In 150 years none of us will be here anyway….

  123. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    Black Lyin,

    You stated the following: “When you read the entire ruling in context you are able to glean that the justices meant to address issues ‘for the purposes of this case’. ”

    Hence, you should acknowledge that the single question presented in WKA, which the WONG court affirmed, was whether WONG “at the time of his birth” became “a citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment, not whether WONG was an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States and thus eligible to the office of President.

    Moreover, you should acknowledge that the WONG court concluded WKA was a “citizen of the United States at birth” not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “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.”

    [15] The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States;” and “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.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that “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,” also declares that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    [121] The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

  124. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    FranciSanDiegoSam

    I know you are but what am I?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8

    Benaiah

  125. 12/9/2009Benaiah says:

    The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

  126. 12/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 9, 2009 at 3:44 pm
    * By what law*

    The 14th amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision. Deny it all you want. Write long essays. You’ll never get anywhere in court with your argument. Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii – natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents. And the courts are getting tired of your foolishness. That’s why the Indiana Court of Appeals laid it out very succinctly for you:

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    And

    “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true”

    They are telling you that the Wong Kim Ark decision trumps any interpretation you can come up with.

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

  127. 12/9/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE Black Lion:

    […] Misa, yes there were 1.4 million in legal expenses but there was no documentation on what it was spent on. […] There are many costs associated to running a campaign for President. Unless you can show us an itemized breakdown that the 1.4 was spend specifically defending eligibility lawsuits, then the number is meaningless. […]

    BL, we have:
    1) a bill for legal services of a certain Perkins Coie law firm showing $1.4 million
    2) Robert Bauer, was at that time (and later) dba Obama’s personal lawyer, handling all mister Obama’s legal issues,
    3) same Robert Bauer is now WH legal counsel,

    a) was the $ 1.5 million in fees strictly related to Obama’s 17 unpaid parking ticket in Cambridge?
    b) is there any sign that the WH (or Perkins Coie) wants to come with an itemized breaknown of the (at that time) $15 million?

    Regards -

  128. 12/9/2009qwertyman says:

    1) a bill for legal services of a certain Perkins Coie law firm showing $1.4 million
    2) Robert Bauer, was at that time (and later) dba Obama’s personal lawyer, handling all mister Obama’s legal issues,
    3) same Robert Bauer is now WH legal counsel,

    a) was the $ 1.5 million in fees strictly related to Obama’s 17 unpaid parking ticket in Cambridge?
    b) is there any sign that the WH (or Perkins Coie) wants to come with an itemized breaknown of the (at that time) $15 million?

    misanthro,

    I see a receipt here showing that you spent $100 at McDonalds. I thus conclude that you spent $100 on McFlurries.

    I’ve said several times here that there are many, many things that legal counsel could be used for. It’s impossible to know for sure, since that information would be protected by attorney-client privilege.

  129. 12/9/2009John says:

    Black Lion,

    Leo Donofrio’s evaluation of bringing the quo warranto under the D.C. Code appears to be accurate. Congress has provided that court with the jurisdiction necessary to entertain such suit, at least in the wording I found yesterday within that Code.

    Alan Keyes may be the best potential Relator with a very good chance of establishing standing to bring the suit since he was a candidate in the same election.

    Since this is a case of first impression, just like mine here on the local level, we won’t know what will “work” until an attempt is made to follow through. And, we won’t know the full extent of evidence that may exist until a court allows for the discovery of said evidence.

    I understand the popular appeal that a President is some sort of “special animal” as far as removal is concerned, but he/she is no diffferent than any other office holder when it comes to the question of eligiblity. If a candidate is not eligible, then he/she is not eligible to legally hold the office. Is the candidate legally qualified to be eligible to run for the office he/she seeks?

    Anyone who is elected and certified by a Board of Elections, Electoral College, etc., is accepted as the physical office holder – no questions asked once certified. That is the focus of the special writ of quo warranto. That’s where the question of “by what authority” does the person hold the office. Is the person legally in place, that is, was he/she legally eligible to run for the office in the first place?

    There should be absolutely no difference in the substance of a quo warranto case whether it be the president, governor, or any other elected or appointed office holder. The main question presented most often is if, and where, a quo warranto can be brought against the president. Congress appears to have vested that jurisdiction and venue within the D.C. District Court from what I have read thus far. Is that accurate? Time will tell. One never knows what a court will do until it acts finally.

  130. 12/9/2009Phil says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    Phil:

    Except that this is not what the DoS has said. In fact, Mr. Leo Donofrio has already pointed out that not only did the infamous Senate Resolution 511 specifically talk about a natural born citizen’s eligibility hinging on American citizenship held by both parents (at least the Senate went about researching Sen. McCain’s background, with a sign-off by Mr. Obama), but that the DoS currently has no “definitive definition” regarding presidential eligibility RE: citizenship:

    You are not being truthful. That is exactly what the DoS has said. What you are talking about now is something completely different. They have not only said it in their regulations, but they have explicitly said it under oath and in relation to president Obama specifically in statements to the court at least twice.

    Now I understand that it is fully in the interest of “Birthers” to confabulate different arguments in the hope that the ensuing confusion will provide cover and concealment for a false argument. Buy why you think it will work now when it has never worked before is just strange.

    1. The State Department regulations for Proof of Citizenship at Birth are clear and (as I said) have been so for decades. Obama’s COLB meets them perfectly. Therefore the actual demand that John made in his post has been met.

    2. You deliberately muddy the water with an otherwise irrelevant mention of Senate Resolution 511. Since that dealt with an individual born overseas, and Obama was not born overseas, it has nothing to do with any discussion of Obama’s citizenship.

    3. The State Department regulation you sited is another example of the immediately prior tactic. It regards “birth abroad,” and since Obama was not born abroad it has nothing to do with any discussion of Obama’s citizenship.

    OK, so, aside from the fact that you think I’m lying (no big surprise there), did you actually have some facts to refute the concept that there is currently no law that defines exactly what presidential eligibility is? Because, if you do, I’d really like to see that, instead of your banal characterizations of what you think my intentions are.

    -Phil

  131. 12/9/2009Phil says:

    GeorgetownJD,

    Hey, Phil. Did Devvy Kidd provide any explanation about Leo’s and Stephen’s strategy to get around the Barton Doctrine?

    Just wonderin’.

    I am unaware of any such information at this time.

    -Phil

  132. 12/9/2009Phil says:

    Black Lion,

    I don’t see where it specifically states that a NBC is someone born of 2 US citizens.

    I think I saw a reference via the following statement:

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:…

    Now when it states that he “was born to American citizens,” I suppose there’s some wiggle room as to exactly how Sen. McCain’s conception actually took place. Unless I’ve missed something technologically, it usually takes an egg and a sperm, and unless the evidence shows otherwise, there were only two individuals involved in Sen. McCain’s conception, his father (with the sperm) and his mother (with the egg).

    While I could be wrong on this point, since it takes a male and a female for conception to occur, in this situation, it would appear that the reference is to the plural, “American citizens,” and not to the singular — as in, both of his parents.

    -Phil

  133. 12/9/2009brygenon says:

    John thought:

    There should be absolutely no difference in the substance of a quo warranto case whether it be the president, governor, or any other elected or appointed office holder.

    Have you considered reading the Constitution? You are wrong not only about the President, but also about members of the U.S. Congress. “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members” — Article I, Section 5.

    The main question presented most often is if, and where, a quo warranto can be brought against the president. Congress appears to have vested that jurisdiction and venue within the D.C. District Court from what I have read thus far. Is that accurate?

    It may be accurate that you read it, for example on on Leo Donofrio’s blog, but Leo is a fountain of theories and strategies that always lose.

    Time will tell. One never knows what a court will do until it acts finally.

    Yet several dozen courts have acted finally on these eligibility suits and we obots managed to call them all correctly. Among those courts is the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which began the memorandum dismissing Hollister v. Soetoro with:

    This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists.

    The Court reprimanded the plaintiff’s attorney of record for the frivolous suit. Think that same Court will like your blogsphere conspiracy theory better when it comes with Chryslers and quo warranto?

  134. 12/9/2009brygenon says:

    Phil says:

    Black Lion [wrote],

    I don’t see where it specifically states that a NBC is someone born of 2 US citizens.

    I think I saw a reference via the following statement:

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:…

    Phil, did you actually take that as the definition of “natural born citizen”? A NBC is someone born of two citizen parents on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936?

    Now when it states that he “was born to American citizens,” I suppose there’s some wiggle room as to exactly how Sen. McCain’s conception actually took place. Unless I’ve missed something technologically, it usually takes an egg and a sperm, and unless the evidence shows otherwise, there were only two individuals involved in Sen. McCain’s conception, his father (with the sperm) and his mother (with the egg).

    So you passed sex ed but flunked logic.

    Here’s the definition from a source most lawyers and courts in the U.S. use: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

  135. 12/9/2009brygenon says:

    Phil wrote:

    OK, so, aside from the fact that you think I’m lying (no big surprise there), did you actually have some facts to refute the concept that there is currently no law that defines exactly what presidential eligibility is? Because, if you do, I’d really like to see that, instead of your banal characterizations of what you think my intentions are.

    It’s in the Constitution, and then you just have to know what words mean. I think the Court of Appeals of Indiana explained meaning of “natural born citizen” clearly: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

  136. 12/9/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    It’s in the Constitution, and then you just have to know what words mean. I think the Court of Appeals of Indiana explained meaning of “natural born citizen” clearly: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Funny — I neither recall the Judiciary being tasked with creating law, nor do I recall the referenced case saying that any given person was eligible for the presidency.

    -Phil

  137. 12/9/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Phil, did you actually take that as the definition of “natural born citizen”? A NBC is someone born of two citizen parents on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936?

    Despite the fact that the resolution was just that, at least it was an attempt in the correct branch of the federal government at construing a definition. Further, it means nothing more or less in terms of binding law than the reference to the Ankeny v. Daniels opinion paralleling the Judges’ Order.

    And do you still believe that the Ankeny v. Daniels opinion equates to actual law? If that’s the case, then you must necessarily recognize that when Judge Robertson in the Hollister v. Soetoro case (if I recall correctly) acknowledges Twitter as being a required and accepted form of vetting, right? Judge Robertson, after all, referenced the social networking tool within his own opinion. Further, if you take a look at his opinion that accompanied his order, not only did he say that he wouldn’t render any sort of commentary regarding eligibility, he subsequently went on to render his own commentary on eligibility.

    -Phil

  138. 12/9/2009smrstrauss says:

    This quotation: “The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…” DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE WONG KIM ARK CASE.

    These are the words of Leo Donofrio.

    The case referred to Scott v Sandford was the Dredd Scott case, which ruled that Dredd Scott was not a citizen and hence could be a slave. This was overturned by the 14th Amendment, which stated that anyone born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats, was a citizen. And this was established legally in the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which overturned Scott v Sandford.

    The Wong Kim Ark case repeatedly uses the term Natural Born to mean “born in the country,” and it says that under British common law, anyone born in Britian (other than the children of foreign diplomats) automatically became a Natural Born Subject, and the same rules apply in the USA.

    These are the words: “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, 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.”

    EVERY child… was a natural-born subject….The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies…and in the United States…and…under the Constitution.”

    And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

  139. 12/9/2009Joe says:

    Do you think it is a coincidence that the Supreme Ct is scheduling a conference for the Indiana Police Pension Trust after Donofrio and Pidgeon announced they had quo warranto clients?

    I don’t.

    But that’s just me.

    joe

  140. 12/9/2009jvn says:

    Phil –

    I love how you guys refuse to concede that we HAVE a President, that the constitutional authorities HAVE certified that he is eligible to be President because, well, they elected him, certified the constitutionality of the vote and swore him into office.

    For you to make a snide remark like “well, no one has really said that he’s eligible…” is worse than disingenuous, it’s delusional.

    No court has decided that these cases deserve a hearing on the merits, and the Indiana Appeals Court was nice enough to remind everyone what the current state of the law is in the United States vis a vis how one becomes a natural born citizen.

    I guess it feels good to be smug since y’all have nothing else.

    By the way, I have never lost a professional boxing match, does that mean I’m a world champion?

  141. 12/9/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    Here is more from my research that puts to rest, that even Blackstone deviated from his own works and thus liberal left opinions based on his commentaries of English Common law are tainted.

    The issue was put to rest long ago: “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” The U.S. Supreme Court quoted that definition, from British Jurist A.V. Dicey, in the majority opinion on U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Vattel never used the term; his work was in French.

    “Natural-born citizen” means citizen by birth. It’s not a difficult legal question; it’s just what the words mean. The historically complex issue is the criteria for being a citizen at birth, and however confusing Linda may find the past debates, there’s simply no doubt that after the 14’th Amendment and the WKA decision, jus soli is the law in the U.S.

  142. 12/9/2009Linda says:

    siseduermapierda says:
    The 14th amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision.

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    Let’s see the entire quote as the Indiana court totally usurped the SCOTUS opinion in which Justice Grey states:

    In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167. Then he goes on to quote the 14th: The first section of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution [169 U.S. 649, 676] begins with the words, ‘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.’

    Congressional definition of subject to the jusrisdiction in 1866 when the 14th was drafted: One not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

    Now here is Blackstones definition of natural born subject in 1765:

    [Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.

    Now, look there, even Blackstone, the guru on English common law at the time of the revolution concurred that a ‘natural born’ could not hold dual allegiances.

    I luv how you lefties pick and choose. It was not until later that England, to build up its army and to increase commerce(taxes they could collect), expanded(loosened) its citizenship laws, thus the reason for the war of 1812.

  143. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    Phil says:
    December 9, 2009 at 6:03 pm
    Black Lion,

    I don’t see where it specifically states that a NBC is someone born of 2 US citizens.
    I think I saw a reference via the following statement:

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:…

    Now when it states that he “was born to American citizens,” I suppose there’s some wiggle room as to exactly how Sen. McCain’s conception actually took place. Unless I’ve missed something technologically, it usually takes an egg and a sperm, and unless the evidence shows otherwise, there were only two individuals involved in Sen. McCain’s conception, his father (with the sperm) and his mother (with the egg).

    While I could be wrong on this point, since it takes a male and a female for conception to occur, in this situation, it would appear that the reference is to the plural, “American citizens,” and not to the singular — as in, both of his parents.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Funny Phil. But the point was the definition did not say that the definition of a NBC was someone born to 2 parents that were US citizens like the birthers like to say regarding this non binding Senate resolution. Like Bry mentioned the resolution actually stated the following “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.” I know you are not a legal professional but you cannot take pieces of the resolution and parse it to make a definition. That is not how it works. All the resolution says is that a specific individual born in a specific location was a NBC. That’t it. It cannot be used for anything else. So that is all it can reference…

  144. 12/9/2009Linda says:

    brygenon says: The U.S. Supreme Court quoted that definition, from British Jurist A.V. Dicey, in the majority opinion on U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    So what does a British case law/court opinions have to do with US laws. Nothing.

    Justice Thomas,recently stated this of using foreign case precedent:

    “In Justice Stevens’ view, it seems the state can never get the timing just right.” The reason, he said, is that Stevens believes the death penalty is wrong…But that is where he deviates from the Constitution and where proponents of his view are forced to find their support in precedent from the `European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, the Supreme Court of India, or the Privy Council.’”

    One should be incredibly leery of any judge who looks to the precedents established in other countries rather than own own Constitution for the basis of his or her judgments from the bench. This is true for lower court and appeals courts, but is particularly of concern at the US Supreme Court level.

  145. 12/9/2009brygenon says:

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote:],

    Phil, did you actually take that as the definition of “natural born citizen”? A NBC is someone born of two citizen parents on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936?

    Despite the fact that the resolution was just that, at least it was an attempt in the correct branch of the federal government at construing a definition.

    No, there’s no record that they had any question on the definition of natural-born citizen, which is citizen by birth. They knew the definition, and made their determination that it described John McCain.

    Further, it means nothing more or less in terms of binding law than the reference to the Ankeny v. Daniels opinion paralleling the Judges’ Order.

    And do you still believe that the Ankeny v. Daniels opinion equates to actual law?

    The unanimous three-judge panel explained what the law is, based on the prevailing precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. Was that not obvious?

    If that’s the case, then you must necessarily recognize that when Judge Robertson in the Hollister v. Soetoro case (if I recall correctly) acknowledges Twitter as being a required and accepted form of vetting, right?

    Phil, have you consider the option of — instead of complaining when people imply that you lie — simply not lying? You’ve been corrected on your false description of Judge Robertson’s ruling before. Judge Robertson credited vetting to “America’s vigilant citizenry”. Twitter is simply one of several media citizens used; he never says it is a form of vetting, much less a “required and accepted” form.

    The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.

    Judge Robertson, after all, referenced the social networking tool within his own opinion. Further, if you take a look at his opinion that accompanied his order, not only did he say that he wouldn’t render any sort of commentary regarding eligibility, he subsequently went on to render his own commentary on eligibility.

    It’s pretty much the same story over and over. You pretend to respect the rule of law, but then when the decisions come and you don’t get your way, you act like you are the authority and any nonsensical faults you can read in somehow invalidate the actual outcomes.

  146. 12/9/2009John says:

    brygenon,

    You are confusing what Congress is entitled to do with respect to its members, and controversy between two local candidates vying for the same seat in Congress.

    Say two individuals are running for a U.S. House seat. One states that he/she is qualified to be a valid candidate, but is mistaken and in reality is not. The other also states that he/she is a valid candidate, and is genuinely valid under the statutory requirements needed to be valid. Both end up on the ballot. Then the one who is not legally qualified to have been on the ballot, but such error is not caught prior to the election, wins the election, is certified, and is seated in the House.

    Many people complain about what has happened in the election, but the House hierarchy, for whatever reason(s), closes its eyes and ears to the controversy and does not take any steps to correct the existing illegal condition – usurpation by the unqualified candidate. This is where quo warranto becomes the legal remedy for the candidate who has been illegally prevented from assuming his/her seat.

    The qualified candidate can bring a quo warranto action to court to challenge the validity of the opponent’s election to said seat. If it is proven by the qualified candidate, in court, that the unqualified candidate was in fact, as a matter of law, not qualified to be a candidate for that seat, on the ballot in that election, then the unqualified candidate’s votes are deemed legally void, he/she is ousted, the qualified candidate wins, and assumes his/her rightful seat.

    Just because one loses his/her case in court does not dictate that his/her side of the case was “wrong.” Judges are susceptible to all the same faults and prejudices as every other common man/woman in society. There are all types of judges just as there are all types of attorneys. Attorneys and judges are not infallible. Some honorable with integrity, some not.

    I am not privy to the argument that would be presented on behalf of Chrysler, so I can’t answer your last statement. What I do know is this. If a person who can establish that he/she has standing to bring a quo warranto action in the D.C. District Court under the applicable statute aginst Obama, that case will go forward just like any other quo warranto case.

    There are enough people out there with enough common sense to smell a rat, knowing something is very wrong with Obama’s presidency. When the correct case hits the court, and proceeds on through discovery, then we’ll see what will happen. It’s only a matter of time before that happens. I’m confident that there are enough lawyers and concerned citizens involved at this time, that this question/issue will not disappear until some court finally has to accept a petitioner’s valid filing.

    One thing for sure. This matter is definitely not frivolous in any sense imagined.

  147. 12/9/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    brygenon says: The U.S. Supreme Court quoted that definition, from British Jurist A.V. Dicey, in the majority opinion on U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    So what does a British case law/court opinions have to do with US laws. Nothing.

    Linda, you seem to have missed it: First, I’m not saying to believe it just because the British jurist said it, but because the U.S. Supreme Court quoted that definition in the majority opinion that formed the ruling of the Court. Second, it’s not really about English law, but English language. There’s simply no doubt that our terms come from the English. Here it is again: “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.

    One should be incredibly leery of any judge who looks to the precedents established in other countries rather than own own Constitution for the basis of his or her judgments from the bench. This is true for lower court and appeals courts, but is particularly of concern at the US Supreme Court level.

    Thus we go by our Constitution, not Vattel’s rules.

    As for being “incredibly leery” of the U.S. Supreme Court, I’m not sure how that effects anything, except possibly your vote for President or Senator.

  148. 12/9/2009brygenon says:

    John says:

    You are confusing what Congress is entitled to do with respect to its members, and controversy between two local candidates vying for the same seat in Congress.

    No, I was informing you what the Constitution says, because you were wrong on the law.

    Say two individuals are running for a U.S. House seat. One states that he/she is qualified to be a valid candidate, but is mistaken and in reality is not. The other also states that he/she is a valid candidate, and is genuinely valid under the statutory requirements needed to be valid. Both end up on the ballot. Then the one who is not legally qualified to have been on the ballot, but such error is not caught prior to the election, wins the election, is certified, and is seated in the House.

    Many people complain about what has happened in the election, but the House hierarchy, for whatever reason(s), closes its eyes and ears to the controversy and does not take any steps to correct the existing illegal condition – usurpation by the unqualified candidate. This is where quo warranto becomes the legal remedy for the candidate who has been illegally prevented from assuming his/her seat.

    Which part of, “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,” don’t you understand? Members of Congress have been ousted for failure to satisfy the Constitutionally eligibility requirements, but never by the Courts.

    There are enough people out there with enough common sense to smell a rat, knowing something is very wrong with Obama’s presidency. When the correct case hits the court, and proceeds on through discovery, then we’ll see what will happen. It’s only a matter of time before that happens. I’m confident that there are enough lawyers and concerned citizens involved at this time, that this question/issue will not disappear until some court finally has to accept a petitioner’s valid filing.

    Ah, the argument from imagination. Sure you lose every single time and all three branches of government treat your cause as a fringe conspiracy theory, but you can still fantasize about winning.

    One thing for sure. This matter is definitely not frivolous in any sense imagined.

    When Donofrio’s petition for a stay in his first case got to SCOTUS conference, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey commented, “Well, you know, I’m a lawyer. So, I have got to be a little cautious in responding to this. So, this much I will say. This is a joke. This is ridiculous. This is absurd. This is a whack-job project.” You may disagree with Toobin, but he did confidently and correctly predict the disposition of case.
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/05/ec.01.html

  149. 12/9/2009Linda says:

    brygenon says:Linda, you seem to have missed it: First, I’m not saying to believe it just because the British jurist said it, but because the U.S. Supreme Court quoted that definition in the majority opinion that formed the ruling of the Court. Second, it’s not really about English law, but English language. There’s simply no doubt that our terms come from the English. Here it is again: “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.”

    It is you who seems to miss the point:

    The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

    [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

    [A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

    Why do you keep going to the definition of English subject when clearly the 1st Chief Justice of the US refutes your claim? Also, the Framers had a copy of the laws of nations as transcribed by vattel, the same law of nations that was used by the English, in which the English’s original definition of NBS one born owing no allegiance to any foreign government.

    As for WKA, it was a tainted & unlawful decision written by one who was appointed to the Supreme Court who also had his own eligibility problems as pointed out by PA Madison:

    An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.

    Sen. Trumbull, who was the author of this national law, said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

    However, Gray insists Trumbull really meant to grant citizenship to everyone born due only to the fact they were born on American soil. Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance.

    Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

    Sen. Howard follows up by stating, “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

    The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause In the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

    But let’s not stop there, the Grey in writing the WKA decision, clearly set US law aside:

    In 1883 Congress passed an act entitled “AN ACT TO EXECUTE CERTAIN TREATY STIPULATIONS RELATING TO CHINESE.” Section 14 of this act read “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.”

    Here the Court was prohibited by law made in pursuance to the powers invested in Congress by the Constitution to Naturalize subjects of China.

    Under the Constitution powers of Naturalization is exclusively invested with Congress and not the Supreme Court. To defend Wong Kim Ark one would have to show Congress had no authority to make the treaty it did with China and had exceeded its constitutional powers over Naturalization in prohibiting Naturalization of Chinese subjects.

    And also quoting PA Madison:

    Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause – and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings – leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny the acts of Congress in order to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine while rendering unethical and legally unsound rulings.

    My Conclusion: Justice Grey wrote the decision to sanitize his appointment by Chester Arthur who was also a British Subject due to the fact that Arthurs father did not become a US citizen until many years after Arthur was born. Was Grey aware of this when he was appointed? No one will ever know, but that fact that he overturned his own ruling in a previous similar case regarding Indians, Grey had to of been aware of it and waited until a case of a citizen of an overseas nation finally came before him that he could use to usurp US law.

  150. 12/9/2009John says:

    brygenon,

    According to your legal logic, the illegally usurped candidate has no legal remedy whatsoever unless Congress takes up his plight? If so, then politics will have been allowed to completely trump the law with no avenue of legal recourse for the victim.

    Whatever happened to the constitutional concepts of equal protection and due process for the illegally usurped candidate under your legal logic? He/she is not entitled to those protections?

    That’s why the extraordinary writs exist. They are special writs for special situations.

    I stand on my analysis. I say you are incorrect, mixing up the boundary conditions from two different sides of the same equation.

    When a case finally makes it to the stage of evaluation on the merits, we’ll see what happens. Until that time, you can argue as much as you wish. Obama’s underlying ineligibility will not disappear. He’s stuck with it for life. Sooner or later someone will have the requisite harm a court will require, directly caused by Obama’s actions, to obtain the standing necessary to get his/her case considered on the merits. The sooner that happens the better for all of us.

    Appeal to CNN for supportive analysis? No thanks. Not me.

  151. 12/9/2009Linda says:

    Expounding further on PA Madison and the rulings of the Fuller Court, we should also expect other rulings from that court to be challenged in the Chrysler suit by Donofio & Pidgeon. And rightly so:

    There is also a disturbing ethical aspect of Wong Kim Ark in terms of the majorities’ apparent willingness to place themselves unethically above both facts and the supreme law of the land. The United States by treaty with China was prevented from admitting Chinese subjects to citizenship. This treaty was ratified by the same senators who had adopted both Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Furthermore, the court was also prohibited under 22 Stat. §14 to admit subjects of China to U.S. citizenship, “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.” The court thought it could get around that by saying Wong Kim Ark was born a citizen of the United States per the Constitution by sweeping the holding in Elk under the carpet.

    The Fuller court was no stranger to criticism or controversy when it came to interpreting law or the Constitution. For example, in the cases of Brooks vs. Codman, and Foote v. Women’s Board of Missions the question was who should get the money appropriated as indemnity for spoliations of William Gray’s (Justice Gray’s grandfather) ships? Codman was the administrator of William Gray’s estate and under a 1891 law payments could only go to “creditors, legatees, assignees or strangers to the blood.”

    What did the court do? They did just as they had done in Wong Kim Ark; they simply said forget what the law says because we say payments should go to the “next of kin,” i.e., Justice Horace Gray.

    Sound familiar? Obama & his minions seem to be relying on ALL the tainted & unlawful decisions of the Fuller court, which means they are fully aware that they are acting unconstitutionally & illegally.

    As the case moves forward, it certainly will be interesting to see how much of this D & P bring forward. My guess is they are well on top of it and no stone will be left unturned.

  152. 12/10/2009js says:

    all the arguement about NBC…

    the 1st congress defined what is an NBC in the naturalization act of 1790

    that definition was never changed…but the naturalization act was repealed and replaced by an act that was to “carry into complete effect the power given by the constitution to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughtout the United States”…

    the replacement act did not attempt to define what a natural born citizen was at all…its stated intent affected only uniform naturalization…the founding fathers of the 1st Congress all understood the requirement of an NBC eligibility without question…as did the 3rd congress 5 years later…they did not use the words natural born citizen in the replacement articles…and they had no authority to change the articles of the constitution without ratification from the states..the constitution clearly uses the term for qualification for POTUS and it appears nowhere else in over 200 years…except in the original naturalization act…which was law for 5 years…which gives us a complete and competent view of what the founding fathers considered to be a natural born citizen…one born of 2 citizen parents…which which is where BHO utterly fails…

  153. 12/10/2009Constitutionally Speaking says:

    The Obama Administration & The ‘Fuller’ Court…

    If you have not heard it in mainstream media as of yet, you soon should. On behalf of the Chrysler dealers, who were illegally forced to close their businesses by the Obama administration’s legal hacks, Leo Donofrio & Stephen Pidgeon have bee…

  154. 12/10/2009No Obama says:

    The constitution references the “Law of Nations” in article I section 8, paragraph 9. It is also capitalized so why is their any doubt that this is in reference to Vatell?

    If you will read it 212-218 it uses the same wording ” born in the country” referring to Natural Born. Most important is the father, since we would all get our patriotism from our father, not the mother. This is about allegiance to one’s country as commander of our military! The President should never have to pick from defending the US or his mother, or his father’s other country. The President should have No divided loyalties to another country what so ever! The president must be 100% American raised to think like an American, not a citizen of the world, or any foreigner.
    Obama has admitted he was a British Citizen at birth on his own website. He is Natural Born British, how can he be both British and US citizen, and be trusted to have complete authority over our military. This is plain stupidity! Why have the congress failed to change this part of the constitution 26 times, if it is such a good idea to allow anyone born here to be president? Only a second generation American should ever be allowed to become President!
    217 is what makes McCain ok. His father did not move permanent residence, to another country to serve in our military. He was out of the country in service to, his country, so his children are still “born in the country”, his fathers country. 216 says if you are born in the port of another country on a boat from your country you are still born “in the country” of you father. Does stepping off the boat mean you moved to the foreign country? No.

    Also in a divorce in 1776, the father would get the children. If the father went back to his country to raise the child all he would have to do to become President is to move back and run, under the crazy definition they are trying to use as the new meaning of Natural Born Citizen. You would then have a foreigner in the White House.

    We now have a president who says he is a citizen of the world! So he is putting the citizens of the whole world, before the citizens of the US!

    I tell you the truth, the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves to see a British Citizen become President of the US!So is every one of your family members who has given their life to keep us free!

    Why would any one in their right mind see absolutely nothing wrong with having a foreign raised, person, with a foreign father, a communist family, with Marxist and communists, chosen as friends, all his life. With a close friend as his pastor who spews hate for America, spits on the constitution on a daily basis, lies with double talk every time he tells you he supports the constitution, but blasts it in the next sentence.
    Promisses transperency but, seals, his every past record.
    Calims he is for bipartisanship but tells the opposing party to shut up and get out of the way!
    Releases terrorists and gives them the same rights in our courts as you and I have.
    Appoints a pedophile for the “safe schools czar”

    If Obama remains in office, the next President could be Putin’s son! Does this sound like a good idea? If it does, you think no more of your freedom and this great country, than Obama does. And that is very little!

    Wake up folks! Obama has been put in office by the 120 plus Commuinist of the Democratic New party, along with the globalists bankers, the whole congress and senate, who are stealing all your money to bring this country to its knees, and we are almost there!
    Hope you like the new One World Government he will give you when he finishes the job, and signs your sovereignty away the the UN Fraud Treaties! Under the global warming fraud. Takes your property, your cars, your air conditioning and crams us all into the slum cities. Taxes the air you breath, the air you exhale, and the water you drink to survive! This is UN Agenda 21 folks! If they can shut of the water to a 400 mile long farming valley in Ca, over a 2″ minnow getting caught in the pumps, put 30,000 farmers out of business and cut the food production for the whole country and beyond by 20% in one move, they will do anything! They are no less crazy, or dangerous than Hitler ever was!

    To say the American people who voted for Obama were vigilant is the stupidest statement of the century!
    To say “he is in, so tough” no matter if he is legal or not, is to invite chaos to reign over law and nullify the constitution.

    Obama told us he would fundamentally change this country, double your utility bills, and destroy jobs by attaching business class who give us all jobs. All of this will only send jobs to cheaper labor and taxes ( that electric bill increase will be all, in reality, taxes) countries. Too many did not listen to what he was really saying. Do not forget his mandatory service National Security Force who will answer only to him. Not Congress. Another copy from Hitler, Germany. Smooth talk, all double speak, much from the teleprompter. This is your foreign raised, Communist minded, America hating, UN loving, usurper, criminal protecting, “citizen of the world”, disaster of a President.

  155. 12/10/2009brygenon says:

    John says:

    According to your legal logic, the illegally usurped candidate has no legal remedy whatsoever unless Congress takes up his plight?

    The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey spoke to the remedy issue in Kerchner v. Obama:

    The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote.

    To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.

    If so, then politics will have been allowed to completely trump the law with no avenue of legal recourse for the victim.

    Whatever happened to the constitutional concepts of equal protection and due process for the illegally usurped candidate under your legal logic? He/she is not entitled to those protections?

    The assignment of these matters to Congress *is* the law. That *is* the process. As the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento was persuaded in Keyes v. Bowen:

    the appropriate remedy for an issue concerning the qualifications of a President is an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 3 U.S.C. section 15.

    That’s why the extraordinary writs exist. They are special writs for special situations.

    These are not unanticipated situations. The Constitution assigns the matter to Congress and not the courts.

    I stand on my analysis. I say you are incorrect, mixing up the boundary conditions from two different sides of the same equation.

    So again, which part of, “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members” don’t you understand? Snipping it just means it dosn’t appear in your comment; it’s still right there in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5.

    When a case finally makes it to the stage of evaluation on the merits, we’ll see what happens. Until that time, you can argue as much as you wish.

    Above I quoted court decisions in eligibility-denier cases that refute you on these very issues.

    Obama’s underlying ineligibility will not disappear. He’s stuck with it for life. Sooner or later someone will have the requisite harm a court will require, directly caused by Obama’s actions, to obtain the standing necessary to get his/her case considered on the merits. The sooner that happens the better for all of us.

    That’s the argument from imagination again. But don’t be too discouraged — this won’t take forever. I predict Barack Obama will be found to Constitutionally ineligible and have to leave the White House on January 20’th, 2017.

  156. 12/10/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    brygenon says:Linda, you seem to have missed it: First, I’m not saying to believe it just because the British jurist said it, but because the U.S. Supreme Court quoted that definition in the majority opinion that formed the ruling of the Court. Second, it’s not really about English law, but English language. There’s simply no doubt that our terms come from the English. Here it is again: “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.”

    It is you who seems to miss the point:

    My point is the one that prevailed before real judges in a real court in a real eligibility case. The Court of Appeals of Indiana cited the same definition from U.S. v Wong Kim Ark that I’ve been citing, in their unanimous and published opinion upholding the dismissal of Ankeny v. Daniels.

    Why do you keep going to the definition of English subject when clearly the 1st Chief Justice of the US refutes your claim?

    I like the points that courts affirm. “Natural born” means the same thing when applied to “subject” as to “citizen”, and no Justice has ever said otherwise. Indeed the Supreme Court in WKA also quotes,

    Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

    As for WKA, it was a tainted & unlawful decision written by one who was appointed to the Supreme Court who also had his own eligibility problems as pointed out by PA Madison:

    It’s the prevailing precedent, whether you eligibility deniers approve of it or not. PA Madison is a crank, not a Constitutional scholar.

  157. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    “Joe says:
    December 9, 2009 at 9:11 pm
    Do you think it is a coincidence that the Supreme Ct is scheduling a conference for the Indiana Police Pension Trust after Donofrio and Pidgeon announced they had quo warranto clients?

    I don’t.

    But that’s just me.

    joe”

    Are you implying that SCOTUS keeps up with Donofrio’s and Pidgeon’s BS?

  158. 12/10/2009jvn says:

    Well, while I will say that Linda and John add a touch of literacy to the birthers side of the discussion here, their reliance on wishful thinking and the theory that a usurper President appointed a usurper Justice on the SC which means that any SC decision that was written or agreed to by that Justice is invalid, places them in the same spot as the less well spoken of their group.

    Whining and mumbling largely to themselves.

    But keep up the good work guys – we need the money we make here!

  159. 12/10/2009tminu says:

    Bry, will you please define the word “OR” for us?

  160. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    “since we would all get our patriotism from our father, not the mother.”

    BS.

  161. 12/10/2009siseduermapierda says:

    “Joe says:
    December 9, 2009 at 9:11 pm
    *Do you think it is a coincidence that the Supreme Ct is scheduling a conference for the Indiana Police Pension Trust after Donofrio and Pidgeon announced they had quo warranto clients? *

    Trying to relate what the SC is doing to something happening in Birtherville is a mistake and wishful thinking – a quick look at the docket shows it was distributed for conference on Nov 17, before Leo made any announcements about partnering with Jim Anderer.Brush up on your knowledge of how cases move through the Supreme Court. If a case is distribute for conference, it doesn’t mean the Court has scheduled a meeting solely to discuss this case. Every one of the 9000 cases brought to the court every year is considered. Only about 90 are heard. Most are referred to conference. The court has regularly scheduled conference days throughout their session.
    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/09TermCourtCalendar.pdf
    However, most cases are never actually discussed at the actual conference. The clerks and the justices work to understand the cases scheduled for conference, and by conference day have agreement on which cases might be of interest to consider. The point is, being distributed for conference is not a big deal and not a sign the case is going to be taken by the SC.

  162. 12/10/2009John says:

    brygenon,

    Again, you are thoroughly confused, mixing two completely different areas of law, granted to two different entities, by and through two different authorities.

    The remedy for those who do not have standing to bring a quo warranto action IS the ballot box. Period! End of discussion!

    One who has standing to bring a quo warranto action in D.C. District Court, however, will not have his case so readily dismissed.

    Where Congress vests a court with jurisdiction to hear certain cases, that court will act to interpret the Constitution and laws under, and within, the bounds of the specific authority conferred thereby. Congress is not in the “what-is-the-law” business. That’s the courts’ job. They will do the legal analysis for Congress wherein Congress has told them they have the authority and duty to act within.

    If Obama was not legally eligible to be a valid candidate for president, he can never legally be president. The lack of qualifications alleged to be present in the person of Barack Hussein Obama were determined at conception by the nationality of his father, mother, and geographic location where he was born. That part of the equation is a constant set by history. It will NEVER change.

    Depending on how the courts define what the term “natural born citizen” legally means, that is when the authenticated evidence, gathered by the court through discovery, will be juxtaposed that definition to determine if there is congruency between the two. If there are no deficiencies present between the two, Obama will be determined to be legal. If there are deficiencies noted, the writ will issue, Obama will be ousted, and there will be a new runoff election between all the other qualified candidates in the November 2008 Presidential election, with NO DEMOCRAT on the ballot. Consider the overall political power interests involved this matter.

    Such outcome would provide the best chance for an independent candidate to take hold the reins of government. Both major parties do not want to see Obama removed this way. So, have no immediate fear. None of this will happen until some petitioner achieves the amount of standing necessary to get his/her quo warranto case into court for adjudication on the merits.

    Sooner or later Obama will cause enough direct injury to an individual litigant or class for either to obtain such legal standing. It may take some time. The legal process moves slower than a snail’s pace. Just be patient.

  163. 12/10/2009jvn says:

    John, John, John…

    The certification of the electoral votes for President, that is to say, the constitutionality of everything to do with a presidential election is up to the Congress.

    That’s done. The election of 2008 is over and will not be declared a “do over” no matter how much you wish that were so.

    I take issue with this statement of yours: “The lack of qualifications alleged to be present in the person of Barack Hussein Obama were determined at conception by the nationality of his father, mother, and geographic location where he was born. That part of the equation is a constant set by history. It will NEVER change.”

    While I agree it will never change, the President’s qualifications were set at the moment of his birth and NOT at the moment of his conception.

    He was born a citizen of the United States, a natural born citizen of the United States and thus, eligible to be elected President – which he was – and eligible to serve as our history making, Nobel Prize winning leader of the free world.

    All Americans should take pride in this and should not let their petty politics cloud this shining moment in US history…

  164. 12/10/2009siseduermapierda says:

    John says:
    December 10, 2009 at 9:13 am
    * The lack of qualifications alleged to be present in the person of Barack Hussein Obama were determined at conception *

    You know, I don’t think our Constitution says anything about naturally conceived citizens. But it doesn’t surprise me that you folks would want to take this to its full extent. Maybe you want confirmation he was conceived with lights out, eyes closed, in the missionary position? Thanks for a big laugh, John. Just when you were starting to sound literate. Better go discuss with your Cyrano.

  165. 12/10/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “smrstrauss being fully prepared to take the word of those whose statement could not be tested (the Factcheck bloggers)”

    Answer: I pointed out that the physical copy of Obama’s birth certificate was shown to BOTH FactCheck and Politifact. And I pointed out that the facts on the posted birth certificate were repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.

    Re: “Hawaii DoH’s confirmation through UIPA that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing”

    Answer: They have not said any such thing.

    Re: “ When Hawaii DoH were asked through UIPA for access to the document(s) submitted to amend Obama’s birthdate, access to the document(s) was denied: if the document(s) did not exist DoH would have responded that the document(s) were “not maintained“.

    Answer: Who says they would have said “not maintained”? This is all speculation, and it isn’t even logical speculation.

    Here is how you find out if there was a delayed filing or if the documents were amended:

    You ask: “Was there any document in the file applying for a late filing? Yes/No” and you ask: “Was there any document in the file applying for an amendment to a document? Yes/No”

    If you get a Yes, then you can say that there was a late filing or an amendment, but you haven’t got anything like that. And the guys who were supposed to ask the questions apparently did not even ask the Yes/No question about a late filing or an amendment. BUT, more likely, she or he did, and got a NO, and they just didn’t tell. In any case, there is NO proof that there was a late filing. (A four day delay between birth and registration is not a late filing. That is normal, especially when the birth takes place on a Friday.)

    Re: “the official confirmation from DoH of an amended birthdate”

    Answer: There is NO official confirmation from DoH of an amended birth date.

    The DoH did not say “yes” to the question “Was there an amended birth date?” Nor did they answer “yes” to the question: “Was there an application for an amendment in the file?” Or, it is possible that they actually answered NO to such a question, and whomever asked the question did not publish the answer. But, in any case, there is NO confirmation of any amendment in the file.

    The fundamental facts remain: (1) There is no evidence that the COLB was forged (two guys who will not give their names have claimed that it is forged, but there is no other evidence, and if there were any solid suspicions of it being forged, the McCain and Hillary campaigns and the state of Hawaii would have been all over the situation.) (2) The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the facts on the COLB are the same as in the files, so what would be the point in forging it? (3) There is even a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in August 1961 (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

  166. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    brygenon & jvn,

    Grey in WKA clearly disregarded prior precedent set forth in Elk & Minor, so will you please explain your logic that WKA is the final precedent in the light of the decision if Perkins v Elg that concluded..Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year [1906] . In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden…The court, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”- Chief Justice Hughs, in Perkins v Elg ( 1939)

    So here we clearly have a more current SCOTUS decision that clearly defines NBC. The most damaging decision to Obama’s case that the Indiana court obviously swept under the rug, just as Grey did to Elk in the WKA decision.

    Justify that please?

  167. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    Sue: I know that my reference was to the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere did I state otherwise. Did I say that I was quoting the Constitution?

    The FACT remains that the Constitution does not GIVE us rights, we have them.

    Sam, do we have a right to health care? No. We’re talking about INDIVIDUAL rights here. Freedom. Liberty. Privacy. Freedom of speech. Assembly. We’re not talking about material resources. At least I’m not.

    We can have healthcare if we can pay for it or if we can find compassionate people who will help us pay for it. But nobody has a right to force OTHERS to pay for it against their will. It is not compassionate to force people against their will to give their resources to others. A compassionate person gives his own resources to charity.

    Someone brought up the issue of a person who steals a loaf of bread in order to feed his starving children. Is that person justified in breaking the law? No. What he ought to do, instead of STEALING, is to simply ask others for help. In my experience, only a select few individuals refuse to help others when asked. Empathy is part of our very being.

    Our rights do end when they infringe upon the rights of others. In my definition, “others” includes pre-born human beings. I agree that we have a right to privacy, but that right doesn’t include killing another person under the guise of “choice” or privacy. All human beings have a God-given right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  168. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    John: Thanks for your insights. They’re appreciated.

    I’d like to add that mere “citizenship” as defined by and accepted by the Department of State is NOT the same as “natural born” citizenship as required by the Constitution.

    True believers in Obama’s eligibility like to conflate the two in order to confuse readers.

  169. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    brygenon: “of its own members.” How does that apply to the POTUS?

  170. 12/10/2009siseduermapierda says:

    MGB says:
    December 10, 2009 at 12:54 pm
    *I’d like to add that mere “citizenship” as defined by and accepted by the Department of State is NOT the same as “natural born” citizenship as required by the Constitution. *

    Point us to where we can find this “mere citizenship” in the Constitution of US law. You can’t. There are two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized. True believers in Obama conspiracy theories like to try and confuse people into thinking there’s more than two. Or that “natural born citizen” doesn’t always mean the same thing. Silliness.

  171. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    brygenon: Nevermind. I see that you were discussing John’s case in addition to the POTUS situation.

  172. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    sise: You are just like every other smug, “compassionate” progressive who defines charity and compassion by how loudly you advocate for “social justice” which usually means that you want to pass laws that force OTHERS to pay for your pet programs, such as “health care reform.”

    Nowhere did I state that we cannot pass laws, democratically, and decide that we as a people want to help others pay for their health care. What I did say is that compassionate people help others with their own resources. They don’t sit back and simply try to force others (the wealthy, for example) to pay for what THEY think should be supported.

    What do you define yourself as, sise? A human being?

    The way that you so smugly and arrogantly stereotype people that you know next to nothing about says something about YOU but nothing about me.

    It’s not necessary for you to selectively quote Jesus to me. I suspect that, given a choice, Jesus would tell a person to HUMBLY ask for help instead of taking by force someone else’s property.

    I said that those in need ought to ask for help instead of stealing and breaking the law. (If you accept the premise that those are their only two choices, which they are not.) That is not to say that I, therefore, advocate not helping others (of our own free will, with our own resources) even when they don’t ask for help.

    For your information, the main charity to which I give MY own resources, of my own free will, provides free health services to the needy.

    For the umpteenth time, but probably not for the last time, I am NOT a Republican. I have NEVER been a Republican. I probably will never BE a Republican.

    And yes, I do know that many of us are a pink slip away from poverty. Lay that at the feet of your beloved one.

  173. 12/10/2009qwertyman says:

    What I did say is that compassionate people help others with their own resources. They don’t sit back and simply try to force others (the wealthy, for example) to pay for what THEY think should be supported.

    Exactly. For example, I don’t have any children, and though I would donate my own private money to help out, the government should not be forcing ME to pay for what THEY think should be supported. Therefore, we should abolish all public schools and let the free market sort it all out. After all, the free market never fails.

  174. 12/10/2009Tammy says:

    I am so sick of these stupid Obama idiots on this web site!!! The US GOVERNMENT CAN’T EVEN RUN A WHORE HOUSE LET ALONE OUR HEALTH CARE. Look at the Mustang Ranch. They screwed that business up, If you screw up a whore house and bar how in the world can you run anything else. The Post office is screwed up the Social security is screwed up the Medicaid and Medicare systems are screwed up the Amtrack is screwed up They couldn’t run the cash for clunker system and any thing else they touch is broken Why can’t you stupid people wake up and see that these crazy people are going to bring America down to our knees. These people don’t want what is good for us they want to destroy us because they hate America. Our soldiers are getting killed and Mr Nobel prize winner joker is taking our rights away from us. Has anyone of you Obots read the constitution? Our government doesn’t have the right to tell us that we have to buy insurance. You all need to go back to school and learn about our country and what makes it so great. Or maybe better still you can all move to Kenya and take Nobel Prize winner with you.

  175. 12/10/2009John says:

    jvn,

    As I have already stated in an earlier post, and agreed; YES, Obama has been certified as the winner of the November 2008 election. He has assumed the position, and now sits, exercising the authority and power over that position. That election is history – albeit potentially tainted history.

    What you fail to comprehend is how the mix of the Constitution, statutory codes, Congress, the Courts, power, and authority, operate under the Constitution and statutory codes, and where the perogative writ of quo warranto fits into the picture, as it clearly does, on the face of the D.C. District Court Code – statutory laws enacted by Congress.

    As has already been pointed out in many posts from others, the Constitution does spell out specific actions regarding the relationship between the President and Congress with respect to impeachment, removal, etc., and the powers Congress has under that Constitution to enact law. Congress can enact laws under the Constitution. It did that in the federal quo warranto statute.

    That statute provides the only legal way a president-elect can be removed from office by a court. That statute represents the indirect legal action of Congress, using that court, under the legislated statutory power and authority vested in it by Congress, to remove a usurper from office.

    The best group of individuals available to petition the D.C. District Court for that writ of quo warranto, to oust Obama from the position, would be a collective group of the other candidates vying for the office in the November 2008 election. They, as a group, would have the best claim of standing to bring that action.

    With Obama found to be disqualified, there would be one less candidate [Democrat] in a run-off election. Independent candidates, under those circumstances, would have the best historical chance ever to become president, running against McCain. Maybe that could seal the death of the damnable two-party system forever.

    Your point is noted about “birth” versus “conception.” At the time I wrote that post, my perspective was that the person we generally accept as Barack Hussein Obama is the product of his actual biological father and mother, since it appears he was not aborted during the gestation process.

    Without court ordered authenticated discovery having been completed, I don’t want to preclude, or overlook, any future potential arguments or surprises by Obama supporters, after a quo warranto finally gets to the merits. I can envision Obama supporters, like yourself, at that time, appealing to an argument that his Kenyan father was not the actual biological father, but rather is the product of the real biological father that was a U.S. citizen.

    I’ve personally notarized several birth certificates for unmarried couples. Their paperwork for a birth certificate is different from that of married couples. The signature of the person claiming to be the father of the baby is witnessed and notarized. That is another area ripe with loads of potential legal baggage and litigation that I didn’t want to exclude from being a possiblity in the future.

  176. 12/10/2009siseduermapierda says:

    MGB says:
    December 10, 2009 at 1:56 pm
    *Nowhere did I state that we cannot pass laws, democratically, and decide that we as a people want to help others pay for their health care. *
    That’s exactly what you said. At 12:45 you said *We can have healthcare if we can pay for it or if we can find compassionate people who will help us pay for it. But nobody has a right to force OTHERS to pay for it against their will.*
    What do you think the Congress of the United States is other than a democratically elected body to which we have given the power to pass laws like the Health Care Reform bill?
    * I suspect that, given a choice, Jesus would tell a person to HUMBLY ask for help instead of taking by force someone else’s property. *
    I almost puked my lunch at that. What an arrogant person to think you can “suspect” what Jesus might say in a given situation. I reminded you what Jesus ACTUALLY DID say in that very situation and it was nothing of the sort. He didn’t say “when I came to you and humbly asked for food, you gave me to eat.” now did he?
    *I said that those in need ought to ask for help instead of stealing and breaking the law. *
    Yes, you want people to crawl and beg for your help, humbly mind you, so you can judge whether they are worthy of you tossing them some scraps. Here’s a news flash. We pay for poor people’s health care whether we are aware of it or not. And unfortunately what we end up paying is the high cost of someone going to the emergency room when they’re so ill they can’t stay away any longer.

    *I do know that many of us are a pink slip away from poverty. Lay that at the feet of your beloved one.*
    He Knows.

  177. 12/10/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Forgot one:

    MGB says:
    December 10, 2009 at 1:56 pm
    *For your information, the main charity to which I give MY own resources, of my own free will, provides free health services to the needy. *

    For your information Matthew 6:2-4.

  178. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “*We can have healthcare if we can pay for it or if we can find compassionate people who will help us pay for it.”

    Are you on Medicare?

  179. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    Do you have any employees and if so, do you provide health care for them?

  180. 12/10/2009John says:

    MGB,

    Thanks.

    It is difficult to explain how this “legal” stuff actually works for every level of comprehension possessed by intellectually honest individuals. And then, just when you think you have a handle on something, a court decision comes down that changes the boundary conditions. It never stops. Very fluid. That’s why you have to keep up with things constantly to be on top of it all, as best you can.

    I definitely don’t consider myself to be that knowledgable in the law, particularly procedures. I continually learn more each day. One never stops learning about the “law.” In that way, it is like medicine.

    The only reason why I am interested in this Obama matter is because my pending quo warranto case is exactly like that which will eventually confront Obama. It would be helpful for many to pull up some court quo warranto cases off the internet and read the decisions. There are certain elements that have to be satisfied to successfully petition for a quo warranto writ, whereas there are different elements for a writ of mandamus, procedendo, habeus corpus, and prohibition. These special writs come from the old common law. They are “designed” to handle particular situations.

    The court that eventually accepts a good case on this matter will determine all of the definitions, like “natural born citizen,” etc., and acceptable procedures. None of this will be settled until someone with standing gets a good case into court for an adjudication on the merits. It is obvious nobody has had their case proceed any farther than procedural issues thus far. Procedure is the area that will kill a case up-front if you don’t have all your ducks in a row.

  181. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
    Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution

    http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
    The Pledge of Allegiance
    A Short History
    by Dr. John W. Baer

  182. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499
    The Pledge of Allegiance
    Why we’re not one nation “under God.”
    By David Greenberg

  183. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    http://brownellfamily.rootsweb.ancestry.com/WhyTheyCame.html
    Why They Came To America

  184. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    http://www.polishnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=93:historiapolish-history&id=453:guess-who-came-to-america-even-before-the-pilgrims-did&Itemid=329
    Guess who came to America even before The Pilgrims did

  185. 12/10/2009jvn says:

    Linda –

    I’m confused as to why you are looking at Perkins v. Elg.

    The decision affirms that a child born in the United States to alien parents is a US citizen at birth (i.e., a natural born citizen) and retains that citizenship without regard to acts of their parents an until and unless they renounce their US citizenship.

    How does this case prove your point?

  186. 12/10/2009Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    December 10, 2009 at 12:24 pm
    brygenon & jvn,

    Grey in WKA clearly disregarded prior precedent set forth in Elk & Minor, so will you please explain your logic that WKA is the final precedent in the light of the decision if Perkins v Elg that concluded..Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year [1906] . In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden…The court, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”- Chief Justice Hughs, in Perkins v Elg ( 1939)

    So here we clearly have a more current SCOTUS decision that clearly defines NBC. The most damaging decision to Obama’s case that the Indiana court obviously swept under the rug, just as Grey did to Elk in the WKA decision.

    Justify that please?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Linda, so you feel that Justice Gray disregarded precedent. That is a bold statement to say about a former Supreme Court justice. However what you feel and what I feel is irrelevant. We are not Supreme Court justices. You seem to forget that the Wong decision was a 6-2 decision, so there were 5 other justices that agreed with Gray. Are you saying that all 6 justices ignored precedent? That is an amazing statement.

    The reason that the SCOTUS decision in the Perkins v Elg case is not discussed regarding NBC is because that was not the issue being discussed. The citizenship status of the parents were not discussed in the decision. The Wong decision is the ruling regarding all citizenship issues. If you don’t believe that then do search on Westlaw or Lexis Nexis…Wong has been cited over 1,000 times so there are many jurists that disagree with your opinion regarding Wong…

  187. 12/10/2009siseduermapierda says:

    John says:
    December 10, 2009 at 3:05 pm
    *I definitely don’t consider myself to be that knowledgable in the law, particularly procedures. *

    Uh, John, you told us yesterday you’re an attorney.

  188. 12/10/2009jvn says:

    John –

    The legal question in a quo warranto suit – even if one was allowed concerning the POTUS, which is somewhat questionable – is: by what authority (or warrant) do you hold the power of this office?

    The President would simply cite his election by the Electoral College, the certification of that election by the Congress, and his being sworn in by the Chief Justice. Period. The constitutional forms were followed, and the President was duly elected and sworn.

    Given the constitutional role of the EC and Congress in that process (which includes the eligibility of the president), the federal courts have no right to interfere, and they would not. (They have not to date as well)

    Even if there was discovery allowed, it would not go beyond the COLB. The State of Hawaii certifies that the President was born there in 1961. Nothing else would be admitted into evidence without proof, so wild theories about grandmothers getting phone calls from Kenya and lying to Hawaiian authorities would not be allowable. The COLB is the certified statement from the State of Hawaii and that would be that.

    You can hang on to your pipe dreams about a new election, but that has as much chance of happening as the chance that I will one day be elected President myself…

  189. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    sise: you are the arrogant one and you’re one sick puppy, too. The quote you provided is St. Matthew’s prediction/vision of what Jesus will say upon His Second Coming, not something He has said already.

    My point is that your quotation refers NOT to “you”, collective, who will be judged but “you” individually who will be judged concerning to what extent you yourself fed the hungry or clothed the naked.

    sise, you do a very good job of ignoring something else St. Matthew shared: Matthew 7:1

  190. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    Has Donofrio and Pidgeon filed their lawsuits yet?

  191. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    Sue, I’m not on Medicare. I have no employees. I’m not in agribusiness, either, for that matter. In fact, I have more in common with the Obamas than with you.

    sise and anybody else who cares: I mentioned my charitable giving because of accusations and insults directed at me, with the implication being that I am not a Christian person or compassionate or whatever the hell else kind of insult people feel like directing at me today. I didn’t trumpet it, unless it’s to disabuse sise of the notion that I think, what was it he said, that “I have mine so screw you.”

    MY POINT is and was that a compassionate person gives to charity THEIR OWN resources.

    In addition, a person is not absolved of the sin of theft because he would not avail himself of other solutions, especially if it’s on account of another sin–that being pride.

    I’m not a Biblical scholar. I never claimed that I was. It serves no purpose to throw Bible passages at me because … What? You somehow also have stereotyped me as an evangelical, as if there’s something wrong with that?

  192. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    John: I wish you luck with your case. It’s interesting to read about your experiences and the parallels with the Obama eligibility issue. I don’t know much about the law, except what I read and as a layperson can understand. It’s refreshing to have new commenters like you and Linda (shout out to you, too, Linda, for all the good comments today and yesterday). It’s refreshing to see that you want to converse with intellectually honest people. Me, too. Unfortunately, they can be in short supply here, at times. Keep making cogent points, and you will very soon understand what I mean.

  193. 12/10/2009qwertyman says:

    MY POINT is and was that a compassionate person gives to charity THEIR OWN resources.

    Yes, and it’s great that you do so yourself. I’m very glad to read that you live your faith. I’m sure you’ve helped many people through your words and deeds.

    However, you are not enough, nor are 10,000 people as generous as you enough to take care of our current problem. A pure free market does not provide sufficient access to health care for all Americans.

    There are 40 million Americans without health care today; one in seven children have no health insurance.

    http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr981.pdf

    The number one cause of personal bankruptcy today is unanticipated medical costs.

    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

    The ability of insurance companies to engage in rescission without any restrictions leads to a multitude of cases where a patient is denied coverage for life-saving treatment due to a completely unrelated issue.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803501.html

    Our current system does not work. Can we at least agree on that point?

  194. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    http://www.stinque.com/2009/12/09/what-would-it-take-to-put-you-behind-the-wheel-of-a-birther-lawsuit/
    What Would It Take to Put You Behind the Wheel of a Birther Lawsuit?
    excerpt
    “We hope the dealers bought the extended warranty from their lawyers. Because as things stand, this case will likely break down five minutes after they drive it off the lot.”

    ROTFL

  195. 12/10/2009siseduermapierda says:

    MGB says:
    December 10, 2009 at 5:13 pm
    * It serves no purpose to throw Bible passages at me because … What? You somehow also have stereotyped me as an evangelical, as if there’s something wrong with that?*

    So to show me it serves no purpose you throw one back? Funny.

    You said you thought poor people should receive help, but they have to beg for it, and humbly enough. That said everything I needed to know about you. It matters not what’s in your wallet or what you give to charity, you’re mean-spirited and unkind and not reluctant to show it.

  196. 12/10/2009jvn says:

    Every other modern, civilized country in the western world provides healthcare for all of their citizens.

    It is shameful that the United States, the most generous, most forward thinking, most modern country that the world has ever known does not.

    That some continue to toe the line for the insurance industry, for the sole purpose of protecting that industry’s ability to continue to gouge the American public while not providing care for all is a mystery that is only understood when we understand that greed is a very strong human emotion.

    Some conservatives continue to say that “greed is good.”

    More’s the pity.

  197. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    jvn says: Linda -I’m confused as to why you are looking at Perkins v. Elg – The decision affirms that a child born in the United States to alien parents is a US citizen at birth (i.e., a natural born citizen) and retains that citizenship without regard to acts of their parents an until and unless they renounce their US citizenship.

    blacklion says: The reason that the SCOTUS decision in the Perkins v Elg case is not discussed regarding NBC is because that was not the issue being discussed. The citizenship status of the parents were not discussed in the decision.

    Let me help you two out with that since you obviously did not go read the opinion for yourself.

    From FindLaw: PERKINS v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
    307 U.S. 325

    PERKINS, Secretary of Labor, et al.
    v.
    ELG.

    ELG
    v.
    PERKINS, Secretary of Labor, et al.

    Nos. 454, 455.
    Argued Feb. 3, 1939.
    Decided May 29, 1939.

    Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

    The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.

    Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.

    In 1928, shortly before Miss Elg became twenty-one years of age, she inquired an American consul in Sweden about returning to the United States and was informed that if she returned after attaining majority she should seek an American passport…

    The decision also talks about there being no dual citizenship purposes at the time. You were either a citizen by naturalization: a citizen per the 14th or a natural born child of 2 US citizen parents. The woman’s citizenship always followed that of her father until she married, then she became a citizen of the country of her husband. You can not define NBC by citizenship laws that allow for dual citizenship as it never existed in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    What I do not understand is why the left feels it appropriate to lie and twist the facts. If you do not like the laws and court decisions then do something about them like we are. The Elg case also does discuss WKA(First.-On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, [307 U.S. 325, 329] 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, U.S.C.A.Const.; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 S.Ct. 456.) and clearly makes note that those born to with dual citizenship had to renounce the foreign citizenship upon retaining the age of majority or be deported. Once they renounced the other citizenship they became naturalized, thus Obama could never have been a NBC, at best all he could be is naturalized according to the Elg decision.

    But, I guess these kinds of legal decisions are hard for you lefties to figure out as you are still blinded by the ‘Ones’ light, but more importantly because you do not have the fortitude to actually read the case law decision. Talk about relying on BS put out there by cranks, maybe you should try and follow your won advice. There seem to be quite a few on your side of the isle.

  198. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    In conclusion to my previous post, Elg’s parents were naturalized at the time of her birth, making Elg, one born to 2 US citizen parents on US soil.

    Thus the reason for Hugh’s conclusion in the Elg decision:

    We conclude that respondent has not lost her citizenship in the United States and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of that citizenship. . . The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414)

  199. 12/10/2009Phil says:

    jvn,

    Phil –

    I love how you guys refuse to concede that we HAVE a President, that the constitutional authorities HAVE certified that he is eligible to be President because, well, they elected him, certified the constitutionality of the vote and swore him into office.

    The only thing that the 2008 Joint Session of Congress certified was the electoral vote. There was no vetting that occurred during that session.

    For you to make a snide remark like “well, no one has really said that he’s eligible…” is worse than disingenuous, it’s delusional.

    Please cite for me the direct quote where I ever said, “Well, no one has really said that he’s eligible…” I don’t think I ever said such a thing — but if you’ll point out the URL to me, I’d be glad to have a look.

    No court has decided that these cases deserve a hearing on the merits, and the Indiana Appeals Court was nice enough to remind everyone what the current state of the law is in the United States vis a vis how one becomes a natural born citizen.

    Once again, incorrect. What has actually happened is that no Court has found a good enough reason for standing or for particular harm on the part of the petitioners to warrant said Court having a full hearing on the merits of any case.

    Nevertheless, I’m a little confused on how the lack of the Judiciary hearing the merits of a case means that it cannot be brought up by we, the People, nevertheless. In reality, I’m not confused, because the truth of the matter is that the Judiciary is but one way to deal with such situations.

    By the way, I have never lost a professional boxing match, does that mean I’m a world champion?

    No — it means that you’ve never lost a professional boxing match.

    You should quit assuming that some of us do not use logic in our thoughts.

    -Phil

  200. 12/10/2009qwertyman says:

    What I do not understand is why the left feels it appropriate to lie and twist the facts. If you do not like the laws and court decisions then do something about them like we are. The Elg case also does discuss WKA(First.-On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, [307 U.S. 325, 329] 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, U.S.C.A.Const.; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 S.Ct. 456.) and clearly makes note that those born to with dual citizenship had to renounce the foreign citizenship upon retaining the age of majority or be deported. Once they renounced the other citizenship they became naturalized, thus Obama could never have been a NBC, at best all he could be is naturalized according to the Elg decision.

    But, I guess these kinds of legal decisions are hard for you lefties to figure out as you are still blinded by the ‘Ones’ light, but more importantly because you do not have the fortitude to actually read the case law decision. Talk about relying on BS put out there by cranks, maybe you should try and follow your won advice. There seem to be quite a few on your side of the isle.

    There is not one judge, member of Congress or current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of Wong or Elg. Why do you think that the lawyers making these arguments are people like Leo Donofrio or Apuzzo, who has never published or taught or even argued a constitutional case in the past? Why has there not been a single law professor in the country to sign up with your interpretation? Talk to the people at Volokh Report, the authors are all law professors, and they’re certainly not Obama supporters. Not a one of them agree with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

  201. 12/10/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Despite the fact that the resolution was just that, at least it was an attempt in the correct branch of the federal government at construing a definition.

    No, there’s no record that they had any question on the definition of natural-born citizen, which is citizen by birth. They knew the definition, and made their determination that it described John McCain.

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the first part of your response, but regarding the second, the point was that the resolution was speaking of “American citizens,” meaning parents, within the context of the statement I’ve already pointed out to you.

    Further, it means nothing more or less in terms of binding law than the reference to the Ankeny v. Daniels opinion paralleling the Judges’ Order.

    And do you still believe that the Ankeny v. Daniels opinion equates to actual law?

    The unanimous three-judge panel explained what the law is, based on the prevailing precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. Was that not obvious?

    I think what is obvious is that some opposition commenters actually thought the panel was creating law with respect to presidential eligibility.

    If that’s the case, then you must necessarily recognize that when Judge Robertson in the Hollister v. Soetoro case (if I recall correctly) acknowledges Twitter as being a required and accepted form of vetting, right?

    Phil, have you consider the option of — instead of complaining when people imply that you lie — simply not lying? You’ve been corrected on your false description of Judge Robertson’s ruling before. Judge Robertson credited vetting to “America’s vigilant citizenry”. Twitter is simply one of several media citizens used; he never says it is a form of vetting, much less a “required and accepted” form.

    Who’s complaining? I’m not. I’m presenting my view of the cases. If you think that by virtue of my explaining my opinion that I must be lying, then that’s your problem. Quit carrying on conversations with me if you think I’m lying.

    And, frankly, we’re actually agreeing on this point, no matter how much a situation like that will likely greatly pain you. My point all along is that Judge Robertson was “crediting” the citizens (I disagree with the actual point) and not creating law.

    Apparently you’ve never heard of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, which is precisely what I’ve just done RE: Twitter being a “required and accepted” form of vetting per Judge Robertson. I apologize. Dry humor doesn’t always make itself obvious via the written word.

    Judge Robertson, after all, referenced the social networking tool within his own opinion. Further, if you take a look at his opinion that accompanied his order, not only did he say that he wouldn’t render any sort of commentary regarding eligibility, he subsequently went on to render his own commentary on eligibility.

    It’s pretty much the same story over and over. You pretend to respect the rule of law, but then when the decisions come and you don’t get your way, you act like you are the authority and any nonsensical faults you can read in somehow invalidate the actual outcomes.

    Wow. Say your last sentence five times fast!

    There was no outcome to invalidate. Judge Robertson issued an opinion with his order. He can obviously say whatever he wants to. And apparently I referenced the wrong case where the Judge appeared to say one thing and then did another. Some of these cases run together in my head.

    Regarding authority, I’m the author of the posts on my site, and I’m at least as opinionated as you are. I have to wonder what your point is.

    -Phil

  202. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    qwertyman says:There is not one judge, member of Congress or current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of Wong or Elg.

    ROFL, I agree, there are none that will put the country above their political agenda and also, this is one of your lamest replies yet. You give no legal or factual basis to back your statements. C’mon man, give the actual facts, not just your opinion. You will never win this debate unless you give up the facts.

    Why do you think that the lawyers making these arguments are people like Leo Donofrio or Apuzzo, who has never published or taught or even argued a constitutional case in the past?

    Again, more non factual references. Had you looked into Pidgeon’s past case history, you would know he has a winning constitutional case history.

    Why has there not been a single law professor in the country to sign up with your interpretation? Talk to the people at Volokh Report, the authors are all law professors, and they’re certainly not Obama supporters. Not a one of them agree with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

    More internet inuendo & personal opinion based on nothing more than rumor. There are plenty of professors out there that have written on the subject. Cornell, Michigan U, etc, etc have plenty law reviews on the subject in support of our conclusion to read at their sites if you take the time to do so. That is where I got my start. You see, I was a late birther bloomer and had to play catch-up, but I was taught in my country conservative schools to do my own factual research, not base it off of others opinions as you are doing.

  203. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    jvn says: Linda -I’m confused as to why you are looking at Perkins v. Elg – The decision affirms that a child born in the United States to alien parents is a US citizen at birth (i.e., a natural born citizen) and retains that citizenship without regard to acts of their parents an until and unless they renounce their US citizenship.

    I missed responding to this. Again, you correctly quote the court in Elg that the child born to aliens is a citizen but in your i.e. you misquote the court in the Elg decision. The court clearly states that the child is a citizen. They also go on to affirm that, that child MUST renounce the foreign citizenship & be naturalized.

    Again, the definition as it pertains to the drafting of the Constitution must be had elsewhere as stated in WKA & Minor and that would be all the historical references, including law commentaries of the 1st Supreme Court Justices & law professors, i. e. Justice Wilson & Justice Story, who were the 1st to write commentaries on American law. Wilson was a drafter of the Constitution & Declaration, Story was the son of a highly decorated Revolutionary Soldier and is also the founder of Harvard Law School. Story remained at Harvard as a professor of law, even while serving on the Supreme Court, until his death. I will put my faith in them, not some English, nose up the Kings butt, dillluded judge from Britain who couldn’t even keep consistancey in his own legal commentaries on British law.

  204. 12/10/2009qwertyman says:

    ROFL, I agree, there are none that will put the country above their political agenda and also, this is one of your lamest replies yet.

    Every single judge, member of Congress, law professor and legal scholar have a political agenda to protect President Obama against charges of illegitimacy? Do you have any idea how paranoid that sounds?

    Again, more non factual references. Had you looked into Pidgeon’s past case history, you would know he has a winning constitutional case history.

    http://stephenpidgeon.com/publications.htm

    Most of his “publications” are columns on WND. His website is explicitly an evangelical site, and the only case I could find where he even participated was Doe v. Reed, where he managed to get an injunction preventing the release of signers of a petition for an anti-gay measure.

    More internet inuendo & personal opinion based on nothing more than rumor. There are plenty of professors out there that have written on the subject. Cornell, Michigan U, etc, etc have plenty law reviews on the subject in support of our conclusion to read at their sites if you take the time to do so. That is where I got my start. You see, I was a late birther bloomer and had to play catch-up, but I was taught in my country conservative schools to do my own factual research, not base it off of others opinions as you are doing.

    I would be interested in seeing a single law review note or article in the past century that supports your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause. I’ve looked several times, and never found one.

    Jill Pryor wrote a note for the Yale Law Journal 20 years ago, saying that it is “well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” She also cites a multitude of sources for this proposition.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9655857/Jill-Pryor-Natural-Born-Citizen
    Was this part of the opening stages of a conspiracy to allow somebody who is actually ineligible to get elected and take office?

    Take a look at this: H.R. Res. 166-169, 42d Cong. (3d Sess. 1872); Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 3d Sess. 226 (1872)
    The preamble states that political equality is the true basis of republican governments; that, under the Constitution as amended, all citizens of the United States, without regard to race, color, or previous conditions, are eligible to the offices of President and Vice President, except naturalized citizens, who alone are excluded.

    While the Resolution, which would have granted citizens naturalized for a certain period of time, did not pass, the preamble suggests that all citizens except those that were naturalized are eligible for the presidency. This is confirmed by Wong, by Elg, and there has been no case saying otherwise.

    Heck, even a blog post by a law professor agreeing with your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause would be interesting. I’m not asking you to do research for me, just for you to back up your own claim.

  205. 12/10/2009Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    December 10, 2009 at 7:14 pm
    In conclusion to my previous post, Elg’s parents were naturalized at the time of her birth, making Elg, one born to 2 US citizen parents on US soil.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Linda, where in the ruling does it say that Elg’s mother was naturalized or a US citizen? I am just curious. Are you making an assumption or is it specifically noted that she was naturalized? Below it only discusses the father…

    “Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.”

    In addition Linda can you explain to us why in regards to citizenship, if all of the justices and courts are wrong regarding Wong and believe in your belief about some magically third class of citizen, why do all citizenship cases after 1896 reference Wong? Why is Wong in Westlaw cited over 1000 times? How about referencing some of those so called legal scholars that believe in the bogus Vattel or an NBC is someone born to 2 citizen parents? It would be a good read? Can you also explain why the court in Wong expressly rejected Vattel 6-2 in making their ruling, since George D. Collins made the same argument to the Court that you are making now?

    You claim that the left are the ones lying and twising the facts yet Mario Apuzzo continues to claim in his legal filings that there was a ban of US citizens being able to travel to Pakistan. And obvious lie yet Apuzzo, a so called birther attorney continues to push it. It seems that the so called right are guilty of some of the same things…

  206. 12/10/2009John says:

    siseduermapierda,

    That’s correct. I am, in Ohio, since 1989, but currently registered inactive, as I have never “practiced” law as my sole primary job for income.

    I got interested in the law after my wife and I essentially got ripped off by an attorney we hired on a real property case soon after we got married back in 1977. He got disbarred five years for comingling of funds several weeks after we paid him a $3,500.00 retainer. Not only did we lose that $3.5K we paid to him, but also the $15K involved in the dispute as a result of his disbarment. That amount represented the whole combined savings we brought into our marriage. POOF!

    Since entering the bar, I have had several other instances in and out of court that “burst my idealistic bubble view of the law” with respect to my naive perception about the reality of the system. Attorneys and judges with absolutely no integrity whatsoever quickly brought me back down to reality. I’ve had one case dismissed where a three-judge panel intentionally failed to follow stare decisis in a prior case decided by the Supreme Court on point. Enough said.

    What I know, I know. What I don’t know, I don’t know. I’m not going to “blow smoke” in your face to try and make it look like I know it all, because I’m smart enough to know that I don’t. Like Clint Eastwood said in one of his movies, “A man has to know his limits.”

    Quo warranto I am somewhat familiar with, since I’ve been thoroughly immersed in my own case against an eight-year-plus usurper that was certified as the winner of the election I was involved in last November, as well as 2004, and 2000. For various politically-orientated reasons, no one ever properly challenged his credentials to be a valid candidate for the office, since the year 2000. The concrete historical facts are set in stone, so to speak. There are no questions of fact for a jury to determine. My case is purely legal in nature, as everything necessary to prove my case is thoroughly documented and easily authenticated. His deposition was “priceless.”

    Quo warranto cases are relatively rare, in that they usually only surface soon after elections. They do not represent the everyday-type of cases dealt with by attorneys. A quo warranto case brought against a president-elect has never happened, to my knowledge. This will be “freshly plowed ground” from beginning to end. That’s not to say that there is no legal avenue available for such action, because there is, as legislated by Congress in the D.C. Code provisions.

  207. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “Had you looked into Pidgeon’s past case history, you would know he has a winning constitutional case history.”

    Cite some of his “winning constitutional cases.”

    “There are plenty of professors out there that have written on the subject. Cornell, Michigan U, etc, etc have plenty law reviews on the subject in support of our conclusion to read at their sites if you take the time to do so.”

    So, back up your claim. Cite your sources.

    You cherry pick Perkins v. Elg and are wrong in your conclusion. Ms. Elg’s citizenship at birth has nothing to do with her parent’s citizenship but rather the fact that “she was born on U.S. soil.” Read the entire decision and you will clearly see that the SCOTUS decision uses the terms “citizen, citizen at birth, at birth citizen, native born citizen, and natural born citizen” interchangeably.

    Also, you will note in the decision that they cite Wong Kim Ark.

    You also appear to have missed this in the Perkins v. Elg SCOTUS decision.

    “‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”

    And you appear to have missed this.

    “‘Assuming that Alexander Bohn (the father) never became a citizen of the United States, Jacob Bohn (the son) was born of German parents in the United States. According to the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the courts, a child born to alien parents in the United States is an American citizen, although such child may also be a citizen of the country of his parents according to the law of that country.
    ‘Although there is no express provision in the law of the United States giving election of citizenship in such cases, this department has always held in such circumstances that if a child is born of foreign parents in the United States, and is taken during minority to the country of his parents, such child upon arriving of age, or within a reasonable time thereafter, must make election between the citizenship which is his by birth and the citizenship which is his by parentage. In case a person so circumstanced elects American citizenship he must, unless in extraordinary circumstances, in order to render his election effective, manifest an intention in good faith to return with all convenient speed to the United States and assume the duties of citizenship’.7
    We have quoted liberally from these rulings-and many others might be cited-in view of the contention now urged by the petitioners in resisting Miss Elg’s claim to citizenship. We think that they leave no doubt of the controlling principle long recognized by this Government. [307 U.S. 325, 334] That principle, while administratively applied, cannot properly be regarded as a departmental creation independently of the law. It was deemed to be a necessary consequence of the constitutional provisions by which persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction become citizens of the United States. To cause a loss of that citizenship in the absence of treaty or statute having that effect, there must be voluntary action and such action cannot be attributed to an infant whose removal to another country is beyond his control and who during minority is incapable of a binding choice.”

    Note, native born and natural born used interchangeably in this paragraph in Perkins v. Elg.

    “But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship. ”

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

  208. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    blacklion says: Linda, where in the ruling does it say that Elg’s mother was naturalized or a US citizen? I am just curious.

    Since you do not know the answer to that, I will state the obvious and that is that you have not researched for yourself and are only relying on internet searches and other peoples homework whom do not lay out the premise for their conclusions. I however do lay out my findings. From an article I wrote in July:

    When looking into the original intent of the framers of the 18th century, we must remember that women did not have the rights of men. A woman’s citizenship followed that of her father until the day she married. At that time, her citizenship was automatically transferred to that of her husband, thus the reason for the wording in the following statements of the framers:

    On July 25, 1787, John Jay, the 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the new Republic and also the President of the Continental Congress, wrote to George Washington the following:

    “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.”

    Under the laws of the time, this would have meant that, as long as the father was a US citizen, then both parents were US citizens, thus the child was subject to no other jurisdictions and had no allegiance to any foreign nations.

    Now fast forward to the 20th century when the laws were changed and women were given individual citizen status:

    On 22 September 1922, Congress passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. Now the citizenship status of a woman and a man were separate. This law gave each woman her own citizenship status. This act was partially drawn in response to issues regarding women’s citizenship that occurred after women were given the right to vote. From this date, no marriage to an alien has taken citizenship from any U.S.-born woman. Females who had lost their citizenship status via marriage to an alien could initiate their own naturalization proceedings.

    1936
    This act effected U.S. citizen women whose marriage to an alien between the acts of 1907 and 1922 had caused them to lose their citizenship status. These women, if the marriage to the alien had ended in death or divorce, could regain their citizenship by filing an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath of allegiance. Those women still married to their husband were not covered under the act and these individuals would have to go through the complete naturalization process.

    1940
    In 1940, Congress allowed all women who lost their citizenship status between 1907 and 1922 to repatriate by filling an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath. The complete naturalization process was no longer necessary for any woman whose marriage between 1907 and 1922 caused her to lose her citizenship status.

    Thus any child born to parents with different citizenship, was born holding dual citizenship and it is recorded in Congressional records that the US did not recognize dual citizenship for the purposes of Article II, Section I, Clause V.

    When we look further into the study of the 14th Amendment’s drafting, we find a ruling from US Attorney General, George Williams (1865 to 1871 Williams served as United States Senator from Oregon. In 1871 he was a member of the commission to settle the Alabama claims from the Treaty of Washington. December 14, 1871-1875; Attorney General of the United States). George was a US Senator at the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment:

    “The word “jurisdiction” under the 14th Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.”

    Are you getting the picture yet? Until womens sufferage, all women followed the condition aka nationality of their father or husband, thus you were either a citizen by naturalization or you were a ‘natural born’, one born to 2 citizen parents aka father was a citizen. The 1790 Act as well as all subsequent ones confirm this.

    Had womens sufferage and the subsequent Acts not passed, Obama’s mother’s citizenship would have automatically gone to the British, that of her husband. And while this helps Obama’s claim to US citizenship, in no way would he be considered a natural born for A2 purposes per the original intent of the framers. But let me not stop there:

    A lawyer in a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then Sen. Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution’ s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen, calling the requirement “stupid” and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

    The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis.

    Herlihy’s published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

    “The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the ’stupidest provision’ in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American, ” “blatantly discriminatory, ” and the “Constitution’ s worst provision,” Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, “Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle.”

    “The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.

    “Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a ‘foreigner’ coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland,” she wrote.

    “The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty,” she wrote.

    Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, “are based primarily on emotion.”

    It looks like Obama’s camp looked into the matter of ‘natural born’ back as early as 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of:

    “If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”

    The online pdf has been scrubbed, but you can read the law review in its entirety here: http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/whiplash-syndrome-feverishly-sweeping-the-nation/herlihy-natural-born-citizen-is-stupid-clause-2/

  209. 12/10/2009John says:

    jvn,

    Yes. Now you are on the correct path.- “by what authority (or warrant)” does Obama hold the office.

    Then, as soon as you identify the correct path, you depart from it.

    If ANY candidate, for ANY elected or appointed office, does not meet the specific legal requirements necessary to be a valid candidate for the office he/she seeks, even if elected by a trillion votes, certified by the Electoral College, approved by Congress, and sworn in twice by the Chief Justice, to become the president-elect, he/she is still illegally in office. He is a usurper that forfeited the seat the instant he assumed it without removing his disqualification prior to taking the seat. Read that over several times and try to understand what it means to be “legally qualified” to run for office. Read some quo warranto cases.

    If the “foundation” is sinking sand, the house cannot, and will not, stand for long. Only a Relator, or collection of Relators, with standing will be able to bring this case before the D.C. Distict Court for adjudication on the merits.

    The birth certificate issue is probably not as important as the nationality of his biological father and mother, but all these issues are still first dependent on how the court will interpret and define what the term “natural born citizen” legally means.

    I completely disagree with your last sentence in light of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama got there. If he could pull it off, so could you too. That’s the point. If a person is not eligible up-front, he/she can never be legal on the other end of the equation, no matter how much he/she is symbolically and procedurally “crowned.”

  210. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “They also go on to affirm that, that child MUST renounce the foreign citizenship & be naturalized.”

    Are you sure? I don’t think so. Read below.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

    “‘The statute does, however, make a distinction between the burden imposed upon the person born in the United States of foreign parents and the person born abroad of American parents. With respect to the latter, section 6 of the Act of March 2, 1907, lays down the requirement [307 U.S. 325, 346] that, as a condition to the protection of the United States, the individual must, upon reaching the age of 18, record at an American consulate an intention to remain a citizen of the United States, and must also take an oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining his majority.”

    “‘The child born of foreign parents in the United States who spends his minority in the foreign country of his parents’ nationality is not expressly required by any statute of the United States to make the same election as he approaches or attains his majority. It is, nevertheless, believed that his retention of a right to demand the protection of the United States should, despite the absence of statute, be dependent upon his convincing the department within a reasonable period after the attaining of his majority of an election to return to the United States, there to assume the duties of citizenship. In the absence of a definite statutory requirement, it is impossible to prescribe a limited period within which such election should be made. On the other hand, it may be asserted negatively that one who has long manifested no indication of a will to make such an election should not receive the protection of the United States save under the express approval of the department’.”

  211. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    Sue,

    If you want to know Pidgeon’s record, you will have to do that research yourself and either have to make personal contact with him as I did months ago, or use your other resources. You do seem to be a capable person. In one of the cases he won, he was able to force a state to overturned its election results, thus giving it back to the people of that state for a fair & constitutional election. Now, that shouldn’t be too hard for resouceful person like you to find.

    As far as the Elg case, if you were to read all the information contained in the footnotes, you would see that native & natural born are not the same thing.

    That is where most of you fail, you glance the cover, but do not take the intiative to open the book.

    Good Luck

  212. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    Sue says:Are you sure? I don’t think so. Read below.

    Neither was the case of a child born to a foreigner who remained in the US. To that you must open the cover and go where you have not gone before aka maybe it is you who needs to read below aka open the cover.

  213. 12/10/2009keokuk says:

    In one of the cases he won, he was able to force a state to overturned its election results, thus giving it back to the people of that state for a fair & constitutional election.

    Could you provide a citation for the court’s opinion in this case? I would be interested in reading it, but despite my best efforts on LexisNexis and Westlaw, I have been unable to locate it.

  214. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: “‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”

    And here is where you go wrong, Steinhaulers father had naturalized before young S was born, thus young S was born to an American citizen, so you are right, in this case they were referring to native as the same as natural born, but again, the native was born to an American father thus can not be used to interpret Obama’s citizenship at birth:

    in Steinkauler’s Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis.

  215. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    I guess Obama’s supporters have also scrubbed/changed all the 8th grade civics textbooks and college Govt. and Politics textbooks because they clearly state that if you are born in America, you are eligible to be POTUS with no mention of the requirement that your parents must also be citizens. There is also no reference to deVattel or Law of Nations in the textbooks anywhere.

    Amazing!

  216. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    Guess you didn’t look at this one I posted.

    “‘Assuming that Alexander Bohn (the father) never became a citizen of the United States, Jacob Bohn (the son) was born of German parents in the United States. According to the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the courts, a child born to alien parents in the United States is an American citizen, although such child may also be a citizen of the country of his parents according to the law of that country.
    ‘Although there is no express provision in the law of the United States giving election of citizenship in such cases, this department has always held in such circumstances that if a child is born of foreign parents in the United States, and is taken during minority to the country of his parents, such child upon arriving of age, or within a reasonable time thereafter, must make election between the citizenship which is his by birth and the citizenship which is his by parentage. In case a person so circumstanced elects American citizenship he must, unless in extraordinary circumstances, in order to render his election effective, manifest an intention in good faith to return with all convenient speed to the United States and assume the duties of citizenship’.7
    We have quoted liberally from these rulings-and many others might be cited-in view of the contention now urged by the petitioners in resisting Miss Elg’s claim to citizenship. We think that they leave no doubt of the controlling principle long recognized by this Government. [307 U.S. 325, 334] That principle, while administratively applied, cannot properly be regarded as a departmental creation independently of the law. It was deemed to be a necessary consequence of the constitutional provisions by which persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction become citizens of the United States. To cause a loss of that citizenship in the absence of treaty or statute having that effect, there must be voluntary action and such action cannot be attributed to an infant whose removal to another country is beyond his control and who during minority is incapable of a binding choice.””

  217. 12/10/2009qwertyman says:

    Could you provide a citation for the court’s opinion in this case? I would be interested in reading it, but despite my best efforts on LexisNexis and Westlaw, I have been unable to locate it.

    Linda seems to be talking about Sigler v. Alaska, cited on Pidgeon’s CV. It seems to be the only case he has actually litigated, or at least the only one on his CV. I don’t think the case was ever reported. I’ve found no opinion in the case.

    Most of his “publications” are columns he wrote for WorldNetDaily. I’d be interested in seeing a copy of the opinion in that case myself.

    I’d also be interested in reading the “multiple law review articles” from schools such as Cornell and Michigan that support your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause. Lexis and Westlaw searches have revealed nothing on that front either.

  218. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    Keokuk,

    I will have to go back thru my archives to find it. I came across it in mid-late Jan or early Feb this year and followed up on it with e-mails to Stephen.

    It is not pertinent info for cases moving forward, but does shed light as to his experience which is always a biggie for those of us whose work relies on hiring the right people and doing the proper background checks when you have the government breathing down your neck with a 6 inch thick book of regulations you have to make sure everyone is following on a daily basis. We were just forced to spend $40,000 on a piece of equipment due to Obama allowing Ca to regulate interstate commerce, when the equipment we had, had never failed a Ca emmisions test. It always passed well above the lowest allowable rate of emissions. Obama’s fast running track record of usurping the Constitution is going to have us backrupt in no time.

  219. 12/10/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: Linda,Guess you didn’t look at this one I posted

    You assume incorrectly, you also assume ‘citizen’ is the same as ‘natural born’ citizen. No where do they cite Bohn as native/natural born. What they do say is this:

    “We have quoted liberally from these rulings”

    And which rulings were these? WKA, but you knew that didn’t you?

  220. 12/10/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    brygenon & jvn,

    Grey in WKA clearly disregarded prior precedent set forth in Elk & Minor,

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark did not disregard Minor v. Happersett. WKA resolved doubts that Minor noted leaving unresolved.

    WKA disregarded Elk v. Wilkins because the issue in Elk was birth on an Indian reservation, which was irrelevant to WKA.

    One could argue that WKA disagreed with Elk in that under Elk, birthplace alone was not sufficient to establish natural-born citizenship, but that was never really in question. Jus soli is the law here in the U.S., but there are exceptions: Children born here of hostile invading armies are clearly not fellow citizens. We may deny citizenship to those who are not subject to our laws.

    Elk v. Wilkins was about children born on Indian reservations, and held that the Constitution did not make them American citizens. Contrary to Linda’s reporting, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark did not disagree with the Elk precedent. Children of Indian tribes did not get their rights as Americans until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

    so will you please explain your logic that WKA is the final precedent in the light of the decision if Perkins v Elg that concluded..Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year [1906] . In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden…The court, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”- Chief Justice Hughs, in Perkins v Elg ( 1939)

    So here we clearly have a more current SCOTUS decision that clearly defines NBC.

    That’s about as wrong as one can be. Elg cites WKA in *agreement*.

    “Natural born citizen” is simply a citizen by birth, and nothing in Perkins v Elg, nor any other case, says otherwise. Elg was a citizen by birth. Elg was a natural-born citizen.

    If you want to refute me, all you would need is one counterexample: one case where a person was ruled *not* to be natural-born citizen while being a citizen by birth. (Or the other way: ruled to be a natural-born citizen while not being a citizen by birth, but that doesn’t seem to be at issue.)

    The most damaging decision to Obama’s case that the Indiana court obviously swept under the rug, just as Grey did to Elk in the WKA decision.

    Justify that please?

    The justification is obvious: The Court of Appeals of Indiana knows what they are talking about and you, Linda, do not. Those are three real judges on a real court. They actually have the required expertise; you and P.A. Madison, not so much.

  221. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    It looks like Obama’s camp looked into the matter of ‘natural born’ back as early as 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of:

    “If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”

    The online pdf has been scrubbed, but you can read the law review in its entirety here: http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/whiplash-syndrome-feverishly-sweeping-the-nation/herlihy-natural-born-citizen-is-stupid-clause-2/

    It seems as though you simply copied an article from WND. Your post mirrors WND’s story word for word.

    Here’s the WND article:
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=82680

    An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born” citizen, calling the requirement “stupid” and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

    The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

    First, WND is well known as a site that either is intentionally dishonest or does not make the slightest effort to ensure the veracity of their facts (see the 1981 Pakistan lies told on WND dozens of times).

    Secondly, scrubbed? What? It’s a published law review article. It’s publicly available. Heck, I even found it on the law school’s website.

    http://www.cklawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/vol81no1/Herlihy.pdf

    It simply looks like WND never updated their own story over the past year, and that you didn’t take the slightest effort to find the note yourself before accusing the school of “scrubbing.”

    But even beyond that, think of what you’re saying here.

    You’re taking a law school student who wrote a note in 2006 and is now working at one of the largest law firms in the US, a law firm employing such ultra-liberals as Kenneth Starr, Paul Clement and Robert Bork. It’s one of the largest law firms in the US, and one of their partners played a relatively minor role in the Obama campaign. But you’re saying that this person who wrote a note before becoming an associate at Kirkland worked with the knowledge as part of an effort to undermine the natural born citizenship clause of the Constitution. An obscure note written by a third year law student was part of an effort to undermine the constitution.

    Do you have any idea how completely paranoid and crazy you sound? I’m being honest here. You are seeing conspiracies and plots everywhere. Well, maybe it’s not you; after all, you are merely quoting WND virtually verbatim.

  222. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    qwert,

    “I’d also be interested in reading the “multiple law review articles” from schools such as Cornell and Michigan that support your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause. Lexis and Westlaw searches have revealed nothing on that front either.”

    I suspect “Linda” is going to tell you that President Obama or his supporters has “scrubbed” those “multiple law review articles.”

  223. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    qwertyman says: Most of his “publications” are columns he wrote for WorldNetDaily. I’d be interested in seeing a copy of the opinion in that case myself.

    and also to Sue,

    ROFL, I’m sure you would like to see a copy so why don’t you write him and ask.

    As far as published works, you do not have to be published to have an outstanding reputation/case history and with that…

    You are all sounding very desperate now. I have left you with much you can not refute because it is obvious none of you have done one eyota of research for yourselves.

    Must have been the way you were taught to research American history in those civics classes. I am so glad I was actually taught American history. We had American history, American Government & Social Studies which covered world history. Boy, does that date me or what.

    Merry Christmas!

  224. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “I will have to go back thru my archives to find it. I came across it in mid-late Jan or early Feb this year and followed up on it with e-mails to Stephen.”

    Translation: Doesn’t exist

    Then, typical “birther” tactic: change the subject.

  225. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “You are all sounding very desperate now. I have left you with much you can not refute because it is obvious none of you have done one eyota of research for yourselves.”

    Nope, not at all. However, IANAL but I invite you to debate the lawyers at PJ–but of course, I know you won’t.

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/index.php

  226. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    qwertyman,

    And I bet you, Sue and the others still believe Obama when he said Bill Ayers was just a man in his neighborhood and that he didn’t really know him.

    Talk about walking around with blinders, its not always all about the content, in the case of Herlihy, its just as much about the connection to Kirkland & Ellis as it is about the paper. And had you gone to my site and read the entire article I wrote, you would have seen I linked to WND. I didn’t know there was a golden rule to link to all sources in the comments section and if you are going to hold me to that, then you had better take a good look in the mirror.

    Sue, you are just being mean and nasty now which must mean you have had enough of this debate and have nothing more to add, so thanks and good luck in your quest of recruiting more obots to your cause, but in light of Obama’s poll numbers, my guess is your work must be very stressful these days.

    As for me, I have a love of my country and its history that none will ever be able to defeat. That same love of freedom & liberty the founding fathers had, and though it sometimes drives my hubby nuts, that fact that his job takes him on the road for days at a time, gives him the rest he needs to keep up with me. But in truth, he is out there advocating for the same while his 18 wheels keep this country moving and you’d be surprised how many feel the same.

    This is just not a blogosphere effort here. The country is waking up and we will restore our nation to its founding core values & principles as laid out by the founding fathers.

  227. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue said: but I invite you to debate the lawyers at PJ–but of course, I know you won’t

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA…been there, done that. You can only debate idiots for so long until it sinks in that you are beating a dead horse. No wonder all your stale arguments with no teeth sounded familiar, ROLFMAO

  228. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    Does this sound familiar?

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/bringing-the-constitution-into-the-21st-century/
    Bringing the Constitution Into the 21st Century

  229. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    and also to Sue,

    ROFL, I’m sure you would like to see a copy so why don’t you write him and ask.

    Cases are generally available to the public. It removes the entire point of precedent to have a case that is not available for third parties to read. Would it make the slightest bit of sense to have to ask Kelo’s lawyer to get a copy of the opinion in the Kelo case?

    But I did send an email and ask for a copy; of course, I won’t be able to speak intelligently about this if and until he gets back to me. Too bad you weren’t able to find anything after “running across it in January.”

    As far as published works, you do not have to be published to have an outstanding reputation/case history and with that…

    True, you do not need to be published to be a good lawyer. However, it is a virtual requirement to be published to be considered any sort of legal scholar, much less an accomplished one. Writing columns for a right wing website that regularly peddles lies does not qualify as legal scholarship.

    You are all sounding very desperate now. I have left you with much you can not refute because it is obvious none of you have done one eyota of research for yourselves.

    I did research the word eyota. Turns out it’s the name of a small town in Minnesota. Not sure what that has to do with research though.

    You have left us with nothing except a CV of a guy who claims to have overturned an election through a case that appears in no state or federal reports, a guy who has a record of only one case in his entire career, helping to get an injunction as an assisting attorney, in opposition to gay rights.

    You cite to law review articles that apparently do not exist. No issue of the Cornell Law Review in over 25 years has even had a note about the natural born citizenship clause. In fairness, the Michigan Law Review had several commentaries last year on the subject. None of them seem to support your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause.

  230. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Oh Sue,

    Do they still have that direct line to the White House they claim to have? If so, then you probably already knew that I am on the naughty list that my Dem Senator won’t even respond to me anymore after I got him published in WND. He thinks asking the Constitutionality of legislation is silly, just like Pelosi and he also thinks a naturalized foreigner can become President.

    Thank goodness he will never gain reelection, but he got his 34 yr old son, who also has no experience to speak of, but a bit more than Obama, a nice US Attorney’s job.

  231. 12/11/2009theOriginalist says:

    “There is also no reference to deVattel or Law of Nations in the textbooks anywhere.

    Amazing!”

    Yes that is amazing indeed given that the our nation was founded the principles of the Law of Nature and its application to the law of nations. Fortunately, the framers were not the products of our current educational system and were quite familiar with THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS by de Vattel and the principles it describes.

    “Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty,” in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.”

    Samuel Adams,
    The Rights of the Colonists
    The Report of the Committee of Correspondence
    to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772

    “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting”
    Benjamin Franklin
    Letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, Dec. 9, 1775

  232. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “Sue, you are just being mean and nasty now which must mean you have had enough of this debate and have nothing more to add, so thanks and good luck in your quest of recruiting more obots to your cause, but in light of Obama’s poll numbers, my guess is your work must be very stressful these days.”

    No, Linda, I’m not. If you had proof of Pidgeon’s great lawsuit, you would have provided the link.

    Are you referring to Pidgeon being legal cousel for “Defend Marriage Washington?”

  233. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    Talk about walking around with blinders, its not always all about the content, in the case of Herlihy, its just as much about the connection to Kirkland & Ellis as it is about the paper. And had you gone to my site and read the entire article I wrote, you would have seen I linked to WND. I didn’t know there was a golden rule to link to all sources in the comments section and if you are going to hold me to that, then you had better take a good look in the mirror.

    The “connection” is again, extremely paranoid. What you are saying is that there is a conspiracy between a former student at Chicago-Kent School of Law, Kirkland Ellis, and Obama that has been ongoing for at least three years.

    Kirkland has hundreds of lawyers. One of them is Herlihy, who has not been there for long. She wrote a note for a law review about the natural born citizen clause. One partner at Kirkland served a relatively minor role on the Obama campaign. Somehow to you this is enough of a connection to believe WND’s hints about some conspiracy between the three of them. Did Obama, a sitting US senator, approach a student at a law school and ask her to write an article advocating the abolition of the natural born citizen requirement in order to marshall support for his own candidacy? Did Kirkland Ellis, before hiring Herlihy, order her to write a note about this in order for this one partner on the campaign to have a better chance of having his preferred candidate win, months before he even announced his candidacy?

    If so, why did they pick a law school student, instead of say, any actual legal scholar? After all, you believe that every single one of them are saying nothing about Obama’s continued usurption of the presidency. Surely an article written by a respected legal scholar would carry more weight than a note written by a student.

    And again, you were lazy. You saw that WND’s link was broken, and you just assumed deliberate bad faith. It took me a single google search to find the note on Kent’s website. They scrubbed nothing.

    Your posts and allegations you have made on this website repeatedly demonstrate an extreme paranoia; you’re looking for elephants in mouseholes.

  234. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: Linda, Does this sound familiar?

    I’ve been noted to quote from there now and then.

    Blacklion,

    I can not say why westlaw shows what it does. My guess is they reference every little time it shows in a case, some cases several times. As far as the very 1st commentaries on American law:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19032717 Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story( founder of Harvard Law School): ‘Commentaries on the Constitution’ 4th Addition; Volume 1: Rules of Interpretation begin on page 315 of the PDF/page 294

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19033071 Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story( founder of Harvard Law School): ‘Commentaries on the Constitution’ 4th Addition; Volume 2

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19033238 Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story( founder of Harvard Law School): A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution for use in Schools and Home Libraries

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19033837 Discourse Upon the Inauguration of Justice Joseph Story Dane Professor of Law, Harvard Law School 1829

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19034031 The Works of the Honourable James Wilson Volume 1

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19034195 The Works of the Honourable James Wilson Volume 2

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19034456 The Works of the Honourable James Wilson Volume 3

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886 Are Persons Born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens Thereof – George D. Collins

    http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm Blackstone

    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm Vattel

    http://books.google.com/books?id=qekJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false Federalist Papers

    or read/link to them all here. Some are slow to load, so going to the link is the faster track:

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/understanding-your-constitution-historical-references/

    And I must tell you all, this is just the tip of the iceberg as to the historical research I have compiled, most of it is kept soley on back-up USB. A couple other great sites to visit, which most of you should be aware if you are speaking the truth as to your knowledge are the Avalon Project through Yale University & the U of Chicago law School.

    To qwerty, you questioned the word ‘eyota’ I used. Well, if you had grown up in the scandinavian upper midwest as I had, you would be familiar with it. You won’t find it in the dictionary, just as you won’t find the word ‘birther’ that you al came up with to try and diminish us as crazy kooks. Who’s the kook now?

  235. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: Are you referring to Pidgeon being legal cousel for “Defend Marriage Washington?”

    Aaah, no and since when am I at your beckon call. Besides, you have the inside track to pj lawyers, go ask them, they were there when it was 1st revealed.

    to qwerty,

    You sure like to name call and acuse people. It is the classic Alinsky tactic, attack, demean & destroy. Well it won’t work with me and if you had one ounce of initiative, you would be researching so you could debate intelligently instead of asking to copy someone elses homework. We’re debating citizenship definitions and all you can come back with is I am paranoid. Well, I am not paranoid, I am wise to Obama’s citizenship problem and that obviously strikes deep.

    to blacklion,

    All the links to Justice Story’s commentaries & works as well as Wilson’s, Vattel, Blackstone’s commentaries and an online readable pdf of the Federalist papers are at my website under the page: Understanding Your constitution: Historical References.

  236. 12/11/2009? says:

    I passed the bar in 1996 on the first try.* (I left another career). My student comment was published in a respectable law journal. I was employed at one of the state agencies for over a year and a half before my husband talked me into staying home. He didn’t like watching me cry every day when I had to leave the baby with a friend. Other children followed. We didn’t want to hand them off to others to raise. My husband works his tail off for our family now.

    I remain an attorney on inactive status in good standing. (My state is not as lenient for the requirements of returning to active status as the State of Illinois- not that it matters to me at this point in my life).

    I only speak as a layperson now, when I choose to speak. I don’t have the time or the proper resources to answer as an attorney. (My experience centered on the law specific to the agency that I worked for as well as employment law and some other interesting areas). It’s been almost 10 years since I have been in “lawyer mode.” I think there are exceptionally smart people here (and I don’t claim to be one); their background is irrelevant to me. I have no desire to go over to Politijab to take on the lawyers there. I have seen some of them here.

    This is who they remind me of. The Bar Association held its annual summer picnic during my clerkship tenure (at the trial court level- where the action really lies). The five clerks working for the various judges were invited to attend and mix with the county lawyers. We were looked through as if we were transparent or as an annoying piece of lint that needed flicked off clothes. None of us were seeking jobs from these guys. We all had our own plans and just wanted to have some conversation. One of those clerks is now a big time lawyer for the NLRB in Washington. I think she could do a little looking down her nose about now. Of course the lawyers at Politijab are smart and accomplished. But, someone should let them know that their excrement does stink.

    I noticed that no on has responded to John since he revealed his background, particularly with quo warranto, in his well-spoken polite manner.

    *My school is in the first tier here, not in the top or bottom: http://www.lawschool100.com/

  237. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    You sure like to name call and acuse people. It is the classic Alinsky tactic, attack, demean & destroy. Well it won’t work with me and if you had one ounce of initiative, you would be researching so you could debate intelligently instead of asking to copy someone elses homework. We’re debating citizenship definitions and all you can come back with is I am paranoid. Well, I am not paranoid, I am wise to Obama’s citizenship problem and that obviously strikes deep.

    I have called you paranoid and lazy. I stand by those statements.

    Paranoid: You have posted and defended your allegation that every single member of Congress, every single state and federal judge, and every single current legal scholar are conspiring to keep silent about what you believe to be an obvious point of law.

    You also believe that since at least 2006, then-Senator Obama apparently got in contact with a law school student and influenced her to write a note in a law review advocating the repeal of the natural born citizenship clause through constitutional amendment. Your basis for believing some conspiracy: the fact that the author now works at a major law firm, and a co-worker at that firm played a relatively minor role in Obama’s campaign. Somehow this had some effect on the perception of the natural born citizen clause, you don’t really do anything other than make passive aggressive hints at what you believe here.

    Neither of these allegations pass even the laugh test. I’m a fierce advocate of free speech, and there are plenty of legitimate grounds to oppose President Obama’s policies.

    However, there is no policy difference that lends any credence to these theories. There’s really no better way to describe it than paranoia. You literally have stated that you believe that everybody in a position of power or influence is covering up because of a political agenda. You believe that parties separated by two degrees are all working together with the intent of perpetrating a massive fraud.

    Lazy: First of all, an essential element of our judiciary is that the opinions of cases are publicly available. Given that we have a common law system, where court cases rely on the opinions that came before, to provide effective representation a lawyer must be able to know the holdings and reasonings of prior cases. The US does a very good job in making cases available to the public; LEXIS and Westlaw particularly do good jobs of this.

    In support of Stephen Pidgeon’s bona fides, you cite to a case that you say (and that his CV says) overturned an election in Alaska. This case is not available in any standard format. You claim to have come across this decision, but then tell the reader to ask Mr. Pidgeon for the case himself, when you apparently know what this decision already said, as you claim to have seen it earlier this year. Presumably that would mean you would have at least some idea of where to obtain the opinion. This is intellectual laziness. When you are citing a proposition that you have support for, and the other party asks you for that support after making good faith effort, you are either being obstructionist or intellectually lazy.

    In addition, you accused Chicago-Kent Law School of “scrubbing” a law review note. I assume you did this because the WND article that you quoted verbatim contained a link that wound up going nowhere. You first of all assumed that WND had the right link in the first place, and then assumed (either without checking at all or doing a very bad job) that the reason the link went nowhere was to perpetuate a cover-up. I found the law review article on the law school’s website in about two minutes. But instead you chose to accuse the school of “scrubbing” the article, presumably in support of this conspiratorial political agenda. This is pure intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

    I also note that you had no response to Jill Pryor’s law journal note from 20 years ago, in which she stated that all those born in the US are natural born citizens, and that that issue is well settled. She also provided copious support for that point of law. Certainly the Obama Conspiracy doesn’t go back to 1988, does it? Have any response to her note?

  238. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    You have posted and defended your allegation that every single member of Congress, every single state and federal judge, and every single current legal scholar are conspiring to keep silent about what you believe to be an obvious point of law.

    You qwerty are a liar, just as your dear savior. I have never said anything of the sort and this just goes to show low you will sink. Get over yourself.

    Neither did I ever say the Obama contacted a law student in 2006, I only referenced the paper she wrote and then the connection to Kirkland & Ellis. Affiliations are how you get to know who you are dealing with.

    As far as Jill Pryor, I give you this little compilation of Congressional history to change A2 & immigration laws, and even one to change the status of anchor babies, so that they would all become NBC’s, retroactively. Now why would they have made all these attempts if they did not know the truth.

    Congress was set in 2007 to bestow ‘natural born’ citizenship on ALL anchor babies through their Immigration Reform legislation. (110th Congress) S. 1348

    Congress was moving to change Immigration & Naturalization laws so the every child born overseas to 1 citizen parent & 1 foreign parent would forever be deemed a ‘natural born’ citizen. (101st Congress) H.R. 1380, (99th Congress) H.R. 2535,

    Congress had a bill waiting to come out of committee in February of 2008 that would change the citizenship laws of all children born to US parents serving in the military abroad(off US & US Territory soil) so that those children would now become natural born citizen at birth, but instead of following through with it, Congress sets the bill aside and passes a public resolution that holds one former military personnel’s citizenship in higher regard than all the others that are currently serving as if this person had some supremacy over the others. S. 2678

    bill introduced to Congress in 2004 to specifically change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ from what the Framers meant it to be at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. S. 2128

    numerous attempts to remove the words ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II of the constitution in regards to Presidential qualifications so that ALL anchor babies could someday become President, regardless if their parents are still here illegally? (93rd Congress)HJ Res 325, HJ Res 880, HJ Res 890, HJ Res 896, HJ Res 993, HJ Res 1051, (94th Congress) HJ Res 33, HJ Res 86 (95th Congress) HJ Res 38 (106th Congress) HJ Res 88 (108th Congress) HJ Res 59, HJ Res 67, HJ Res 104 (109th Congress) HJ Res 2,HJ Res 15, HJ Res 42

    ALL these prior efforts were retroactive to ALL children born, that are alive today in the US and abroad.

    And this is the abbreviated/shortened version.

    Lazy, I think not. You will NOT find this compilation of the Congressional record anywhere else because no one ever took the exhaustive time to put it all together & discuss it in its context…yet I did.

    Hmmmmmmmmmm…what you say now

  239. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    To all the koo-aide drinkers,

    If you want Pidgeons credentials, then get off your duff and do the homework. I have them on usb back-up, but you wouldn’t believe me anyway, so I will not waste my time going thru the files. What I will tell you is that it was a recent Alaskan election case he litigated and won. Go find it for yourself.

    BTW, you all seem to have the inside track to the lawyers at politijab, I have debated them extensively in the past at other sites, so go cry to them for further information if you think it is so valuable in defining ‘natural born’. They all quit debating me because they could not refute my research and what’s even more funny, it was always they that left the debate 1st and only after their numerous attempts at changing the subject as you are.

  240. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    You qwerty are a liar, just as your dear savior. I have never said anything of the sort and this just goes to show low you will sink. Get over yourself.

    Let’s just see what you said earlier:

    qwertyman says:There is not one judge, member of Congress or current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of Wong or Elg.

    ROFL, I agree, there are none that will put the country above their political agenda

    There are no legal scholars who “will put the country above their political agenda.” Every member of Congress, judge and legal scholar in the country is staying silent due to their political agenda.

    Neither did I ever say the Obama contacted a law student in 2006, I only referenced the paper she wrote and then the connection to Kirkland & Ellis. Affiliations are how you get to know who you are dealing with.

    Then make your point. Why is it important that a student in law school wrote a note about the natural born citizenship clause and now works in one of the biggest law firms in the country, a law firm in which one partner which she may or may not even work with played a relatively minor role on the Obama campaign?

    Lazy, I think not. You will NOT find this compilation of the Congressional record anywhere else because no one ever took the exhaustive time to put it all together & discuss it in its context…yet I did.

    Hmmmmmmmmmm…what you say now

    I say that not a single one of those proposals on your list, either here or on your blog, make one iota (note correct spelling) of difference to Obama, who was born in Honolulu, had a citizen mother, and a father who was in the country legally.

    Not a single one of those bills does the slightest thing to contest Pryor’s well documented assertion that it’s well-established that those born on US soil are natural born citizens (with the exceptions of children of foreign diplomats, invading armies, and maybe undocumented immigrants.

  241. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    ” Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 3:34 am
    To all the koo-aide drinkers,

    “If you want Pidgeons credentials, then get off your duff and do the homework. I have them on usb back-up, but you wouldn’t believe “me anyway, so I will not waste my time going thru the files. What I will tell you is that it was a recent Alaskan election case he litigated and won. Go find it for yourself.”

    Translation: Does not exist.

    “BTW, you all seem to have the inside track to the lawyers at politijab, I have debated them extensively in the past at other sites, so go cry to them for further information if you think it is so valuable in defining ‘natural born’. They all quit debating me because they could not refute my research and what’s even more funny, it was always they that left the debate 1st and only after their numerous attempts at changing the subject as you are.”

    Whatever you say……….ROTFL

  242. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    2004: Sen. Nickles, in his speech when introducing the S. 2128, announced that:

    “There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of a judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ‘natural born’ means.

    2000: Mr.(Congressman) Candy who is chairing the subcommittee on the Constitution opens by stating:

    “The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.”

    2008: S. 2678

    “Congress finds and declares that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: ‘Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces’.”(emphasis added)

    So if we take McCaskill’s words ‘shall include’ and the singular use of ‘citizen’ we can conclude that Congress was aware of the Congressional history of the term ‘natural born’ and was looking for an out for McCain. But Obama, seizing his opportunity to ride the wave, rushed right over to McCaskill’s office and requested to be assigned as a co-sponsor of the legislation the very next day. Or was McCaskill the ‘fall gal’ all along? Did Obama & the Democratic elite know ahead of time of Obama’s ineligibility problem and used McCaskill or did she sign on to the corruption of her own volition? This we may never know.

    Because as precedent shows in WKA, SCOTUS doesn’t always believe Congress says what they mean, so they interpret things that best suit their own personal gains in certain cases.

  243. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    If Jill Pryor or any of the kool-aide drinkers other scholars were the ultimate source for interpretaion of NBC, the issue would have been resolved decades ago.

    If Laurence Tribe, Obama’s Constitutional professor and now his Constitutional legal advisor for the White House had a leg to stand on, all his testimony before committees during the past 3 decades would have gotten the language clarified, but it did not. Instead he was only able to direct the path to usurp the Constitution in a non-binding resolution that is worth less than the 1 cent piece of paper it is printed on.

    Why is that? Could it be as Congressman Candy said in 2000, in rebutle to Barney ‘I Frankly think he is just nuts, that the NBC clause is a National Security issue? Exactly.

    The 2000 testimony is also where the most current and extensive testimony resides on the subject in Congress..and BTW…the testimony all goes back to reference Wilson, Story and all those other dead guys that founded this Great Nation that you all seem to disregard.

    If all those guys were wrong, then why have all attempts to change the language of A2 for the past 36 years failed?

    Maybe because being President is not a right as the left has always relied on in their testimony? You Betcha!

    But, I would sure like to hear what you have to say as to why all the liberal attempts have failed.

  244. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=51
    The Honorable Orrin Hatch
    United States Senator
    Utah
    October 5, 2004
    “What is a natural born citizen? “Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” But a child who is adopted from a foreign country to American parents in the United States is not eligible for the presidency. That does not seem fair or right to me.”

    “Similarly, it is unclear whether a child born to U.S. servicemen overseas would be eligible. Most academics believe that these individuals would be eligible for the Presidency, but I note that some academic scholars disagree. A recent article in Green Bag, a journal that specializes in Constitutional law, quotes an 1898 Supreme Court case that the natural born citizen clause “was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” “

  245. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: Whatever you say……….ROTFL

    Hey, you were the one that suggested I go to them, so you obviously are working both sites. Or did you forget that fact?

  246. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue, so if that testimony from Hatch in 2004 that referenced WKA was the guiding force in defining NBC, why did it die in committee to only come back in 2008 and then brushed under the rug & replaced with S Res 511 to sanitize McCain’s ineligibility?

    You still have not answered the question. Why have all the attempts died? Why have they not been brought to the floor for a real vote and sent to the states for ratification?

  247. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3697
    The Honorable Don Nickles
    United States Senator
    Oklahoma
    October 5, 2004

    “On February 25, 2004, I introduced The Natural Born Citizen Act along with my colleagues Senator Landrieu and Senator Inhofe. This bill defines the term “natural born citizen” as used in the Constitution as a child born in the United States, a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen, and a child born abroad and adopted by a U.S. citizen. If passed, this bill would put an end to the speculation and clarify who is eligible to run for president of our great country.”

    “It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President. However, many Americans would probably be surprised to learn that a constitutional question remains as to whether children born abroad to a U.S. citizen serving in the military or serving at a Government post are not clearly, indisputably, eligible to seek the highest office in our land. Nor is it clear whether a child born overseas to a citizen traveling or working abroad is eligible to run for President. There are strong legal arguments that say these children are eligible to run for President, but it is certainly not an inarguable point. The Natural Born Citizen Act would make it clear that these children would be considered “natural born” citizens within the meaning of the Constitution.”

  248. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3697
    The Honorable Don Nickles

    It still doesn’t change anything, this bill died in committee, never to see the light of the publics eyes for a vote. It carries no weight of the law, it is only opinion of one person, just as I have testimony of those in Congress who claim the opposite.

    Also, Inhofe is the grandfather of an internationally adopted child and Landrieu hails from Jindal’s territory, Jindal was born to parents who were foreign students.

  249. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3886
    The Honorable John Conyers
    United States Representative
    Michigan
    October 5, 2004

    “It is important to point out that the distinction between natural born and foreign born citizens is unique, unwarranted, and antiquated in our country. In every other respect, the United States treats its citizens, those natural-born and foreign-born, the same. By having this one limitation, we are denying ourselves exemplary leaders. In fact, some foreign-born citizens are our country’s greatest public servants, including two sitting governors, two current cabinet members, and two recent secretaries of state.”

    “There also are 700 foreign-born citizens who have received the Medal of Honor and more than 12.5 million foreign borne citizens who are ineligible to seek the presidency. A 2002 Pentagon study reports that more than 30,000 foreign-born citizens are currently serving in the U.S. military. Allowing the United States to be a better country because of the contributions that foreign-born citizens make, and then not allowing them to fully participate in all aspects of society, is un-American.”

    “I realize that constitutional amendments are rare and that those proposed should be subject to great scrutiny. I, for one, truly respect our Constitution and am hesitant to see it amended. Therefore, it is after great consideration and with the utmost gravity that I introduced my own amendment.”

    “I am hopeful that my colleagues in Congress will properly consider the amendment and realize that every citizen of the United States should be entitled to dream of becoming President.”

  250. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    You see Sue, I am not for the right or the left, my only concern at this point is the preservation of our Republic & its Constitution as well a limited government as layed out in it. And if we have to vote out the entire lot in DC, then so be it.

    Every American should be worried about this quote from Tribe, who is Obama’s closest advisor:

    “What I am hoping is that people will come to see that we’re all engaged in the same game and that the political reality of the Constitution, which is not confined to the written text, is an equal-opportunity reality.”

    This guy is driving every illegal act Obama is making.

  251. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    “It is important to point out that the distinction between natural born and foreign born citizens is unique, unwarranted, and antiquated in our country.”

    Sue, there you go again, quoting those who think the dead guys that fought a bloody war so that we could live in a free nation have no relevence to American history or its future.

    And again, it never made it out of committee for the public to vote on it which goes to show that this is not a civil rights issue, it is a National Security issue.

  252. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    2000: Balint Vazsonyi, of the Center for American Founding who immigrated in 1959

    “The Constitution, which created a country unlike any other, also brought forth a Nation populated by people who are unlike any other. It is as if an umbrella had been erected over this country inviting all the people of the world to come here and become something else than they were in the moment of arrival…Indeed, Americans are different. I noticed this soon after I had arrived in this country 41 years ago. I daresay, I have spent a great deal of my life trying to understand, first of all, in what way Americans are different and why, but the fact remains that they are…So when the framers of the Constitution made this provision, perhaps they were already aware of the fact, as indeed perhaps instinctively or through inspiration they were aware of so many other things, that already then Americans were different because they did something nobody else had done before them…One of the best examples of that is precisely Congressman Frank’s resolution. It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency…I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust—to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution.”

    “I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for…Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with…The question of foreign influence has already been discussed. I would just like to add that having grown up in Hungary, I would find it very difficult to make decisions—not so much affecting Hungarians, but those toward whom Hungarians hold an animus. What if somebody of a certain birth would have to just express an opinion about immigration quotas from a country with which the native land had been at odds? This is just a tiny example. Of course, the matter of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is much more important…To say that the world is a more peaceful place today is a very temporary condition. It can turn into something else tomorrow or the day after. The constitutional provisions are not there to serve this week or next week. They have served this country for over 200 years, and I hope and we all hope that they will continue to do so…So I would like to conclude with a general comment on constitutional amendments. I believe they are rarely necessary, hardly ever justified, and perhaps entirely untimely right now, when Americans seem to be considering even the very nature of this country, whether it is a Republic or a democracy. Therefore, with due respect to the proposal, I would like to cast a vote for rejecting it.”

    “It is well known that the Founding Fathers were mindful in the extreme of foreign influences, and the dangers therefrom to the Republic. While experience has shown that a native-born Chief Executive is not necessarily immune to foreign influence, the odds are certainly more favorable if the president is an American plain and simple, who has never been, and is not at the time of taking office, anything else…Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to ”take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Mr. Chairman, it is an incontrovertible fact that the inhabitants of most countries are not only unfamiliar with what we call the Rule of Law, but find the concept virtually incomprehensible. Again, it is a miracle that so many immigrants are able to operate within the American system of laws, contracts, and agreements on a handshake…Equally of concern is the new appetite for, and silent acceptance of, dual citizenship. It would be naive at best to believe that neither has any bearing on what used to be unconditional loyalty and commitment to America…Those who favor the proposed amendment will no doubt point to exceptional persons of their acquaintance who, in their view, would fulfill any and all expectations with regard to the office of president, though being of foreign birth. Yet the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind. Among other things, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be applicable to all circumstances at all times.”

    So we have an immigrant testifying before Congress, an immigrant who knows more about American history and the intent of the founding fathers that most natural born ciitizens. What an embarrassment this is to our education system and to the extent of corruption in DC.

  253. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    A1 S2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    A1 S3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    A2 S1: 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.

    Sue, can you please tell me your definition of the these 2 types of citizenship as it applied when the Constitution was drafted? They were put there for a reason and they were differentiated for a reason? What is that reason?

  254. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3885
    Professor John Yinger
    Professor
    Syracuse University
    October 5, 2004

    A Simple Matter of Equal Rights:
    Let Naturalized Citizens Run for President

    John Yinger
    Trustee Professor of Public Administration and Economics
    The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University

    “The Grandfather Clause

    The first source of evidence about the Founders’ views concerning the treatment of naturalized citizens comes from the presidential eligibility clause itself, which reveals that the Founders did really not want to prevent all naturalized citizens from running for President. To be specific, this clause grants presidential eligibility to any “Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

    “This “grandfather” clause gave presidential eligibility to tens of thousands of naturalized citizens, included seven of the people who signed the Constitution. If the Founders thought that, among people meeting the fourteen-year residency requirement, naturalized citizens were inherently unqualified to be President or that naturalized citizens were inherently more likely than natural-born citizens to be subject to foreign influence, then they would not have included this provision.”

    “According to this clause, presidential eligibility was granted to all naturalized citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1789. Based on information available from the U.S. Census, I estimate that roughly 60,000 foreign-born American citizens were eligible to run for President in the elections of 1796 and 1800. Moreover, about 1,500 of these people were born in France and about 10,000 were born in Great Britain, countries that were at odds with the United States in those years.”

    “Thus, the grandfather clause granted presidential eligibility to about 60,000 foreign-born citizens, including citizens from countries in conflict with the United States. The Founders’ ambivalence about limiting presidential eligibility to natural-born citizens is evident in the presidential eligibility clause itself for anyone to see.”

  255. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3883
    Professor Akhil Amar
    Southmayd Professor of Law
    Yale Law School
    October 5, 2004

    “Only the Presidency and Vice Presidency were reserved for birth-citizens and even this reservation was softened to recognize the eligibility of all immigrants who were already American citizens in 1787—men who had proved their loyalty by coming to or remaining in America during the Revolution.”

    “a natural born Citizen”

    “Early America’s evident concerns about presidential dynasties also lurked beneath Article II’s most questionable eligibility rule: its requirement that a President be a “natural born Citizen”—that is, a citizen at the time of his birth.”

  256. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3885

    Good one, I see your Yinger and raise you the founder of Harvard Law School:

    Justice Joseph Story, Founder & Professor of Harvard Law School
    Commentaries on Constitution 1833

    Volume 3, Section 73: § 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.

  257. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    “Sue, can you please tell me your definition of the these 2 types of citizenship as it applied when the Constitution was drafted? They were put there for a reason and they were differentiated for a reason? What is that reason?”

    Linda,

    Natural born citizen = born in U.S., citizenship of parents is not a factor.

    Natural born = birthright citizen = native born citizen = citizen at birth.

  258. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    In reagrds to Professor Akhil Amar, Lets begin with his opening testimony:

    “In a land of immigrants committed to the dream of equality, the Constitution’s natural born clause seems, well, unAmerican.”

    There’s that civil rights claim again.

    “Under the famous English Act of Settlement of 1701, no naturalized subject in England could ever serve in the House of Commons, or Lords, or the Privy Counsel, or in a wide range of other offices. The Constitution repudiated this tradition across the board, opening the House, Senate, Cabinet, and federal judiciary to naturalized and native alike”

    If this was the case, then why the distinction between qualifications for Congress & the Executive Branch?

    “Why, then, did generally pro-immigrant Founders exclude later immigrants from the presidency? If we imagine a poor boy coming to America and rising through the political system by dint of his own sweat and virtue only to find himself barred at the top, the natural-born rule surely looks anti-egalitarian. But in 1787, the more salient scenario involved the possibility that a foreign earl or duke might cross the Atlantic with immense wealth and a vast retinue, and then use his European riches to buy friends on a scale that virtually no homegrown citizen could match”

    Ah, can you say Marxist George Soros and all his foreign money and influences. The founders were wise men and Amar should have stopped when he still held some credibility.

    “Modern Americans can best honor the Founders’ generally egalitarian vision by repealing the specific natural-born rule that has outlived its original purpose.”

    He gives no reference to any founders having this claim, but we do have this from Washington’s farewell address:

    “If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

    As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government…

    Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…”

    “Nor would an amendment, if successful, be the first time that Americans have tweaked the Founders’ rules of presidential eligibility. Though the Constitution never said in so many words that only men could be President, it did consistently use the words “he” and “his”—and never “she” or “her”—to describe the President.”

    This is where he totally goes off point, and up to this late point in his argument, he has yet to quote one US Founder or any US Justice or Commentary on US Law. He bases his entire argument on colonial law that was thrown out and replaced with law for a Republic of people as sovereigns, not subjects. For the most part, he speaks of his opinion without historical reference to written case, law commentary precedent.

    I see you also replied to the difference between the citizenship qualification, however you did not differentiate between them. They can not be the same, no matter how hard you try to re-work the wording. They are 2 distinct paths to US citizenship, one having no more rights than the other. Want to try again?

    >i>Natural born citizen = born in U.S., citizenship of parents is not a factor.

    Natural born = birthright citizen = native born citizen = citizen at birth.

  259. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Amar also clearly misquotes the Constitution and tries, like a true progressive activist, to miscontrue the words of the Founders which also lends him no credibility:

    “Nor would an amendment, if successful, be the first time that Americans have tweaked the Founders’ rules of presidential eligibility. Though the Constitution never said in so many words that only men could be President, it did consistently use the words “he” and “his”—and never “she” or “her”—to describe the President.”

    A1 S2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    A1 S3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    A2 S1: 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.

    In not one place do the framers use the words he, she or any gender specific phrase. The guy is dillusional.

  260. 12/11/2009jvn says:

    I will give you this Linda – you blow a lot of smoke!

    But most of it is to hide the fact that you want to “win” a different argument than the one you claim to be winning.

    You’ve spent much time here recently trying to show some insidious connection between what you apparently see as attempts by some legislative evildoers to weaken the NBC clause to allow Americans born overseas and those foreign born who are adopted by American citizens while infants to run for President and the conspiracy to “hide” the President’s ineligibility which is being participated in by every state election official in all 50 states, every member of Congress, every member of the past Electoral College, everyone who ever had knowledge of the President’s past, all current and former state officials in Hawaii, every current member of the federal and state judiciary, including the SCOTUS and oh, so many, many, more…

    And you combine this hysteria with what is, at best, a disingenuous reading of case law…

    It all adds up to… smoke.

    It’s good to have a hobby to keep you busy while your husband is on the road.

    I am glad that this is your hobby instead of wasting your time working to get Republicans elected to office.

    You can keep right on beating this dead horse right here, that has sooooo much impact. The President is probably shaking in his boots right now knowing you’re here doing this yeoman’s work.

    And, for the record, anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen at their birth – even those you derisively call “anchor babies…” Get over it!

  261. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    jvn, I have been around here for a long time, I just never engaged the kool-aide drinkers until now.

    As far as blowing smoke, if what I have is smoke, then give me the fire instead of insults & accusations because all you have given to the debate is your opinion with no facts to back it up.

    Atleast Sue & blacklion are giving it the proper effort. What’s your excuse?

  262. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Yes, Linda or Pidgeon,

    There are two distinct paths to citizenship in U.S.

    1. “Natural born citizen”, citizen at birth and native born citizen, born is U.S., born on U.S. soil.

    2. Naturalized citizen.

    You are the one who is trying to make a third type of citizen that does not exist, except in Donofrio’s and your mind. So, who is delusional?

    “Justice Joseph Story, Founder & Professor of Harvard Law School
    Commentaries on Constitution 1833″

    In the comment you cite by Justice Story, you failed to provide the link. I see no mention that natural born citizen = two citizen parents anywhere in the comment. However, I do see this:

    “who were born in a foreign land,”

    President Obama was not born in a foreign land. He was born in Hawaii, U.S.A. and is a natural born citizen.

  263. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “I see you also replied to the difference between the citizenship qualification, however you did not differentiate between them. They can not be the same, no matter how hard you try to re-work the wording:

    Since you are so smart, why don’t you “differentiate between them” and cite your source for us. Oh, wait…….your information is “archived” and you cannot locate your source. Translation = does not exist. Please, cite your source to “differentiate natural born, native born and citizen at birth” for us.

  264. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: Yes, Linda or Pidgeon,

    There are two distinct paths to citizenship in U.S.

    1. “Natural born citizen”, citizen at birth and native born citizen, born is U.S., born on U.S. soil.

    2. Naturalized citizen.

    I have not corresponded with Pidgeon in months, and he certainly has a full plate and not the time nor the inclination to sit here and debate. I do however have hours of audio of all his interviews in the past year. The most recent one from a few weeks ago.

    <I.You are the one who is trying to make a third type of citizen that does not exist, except in Donofrio’s and your mind. So, who is delusional?

    I asked for you to define 3 types of citizenship that are used in the Constitution for qualification purposes, yet you are not able to define them both. You can not define a term by using the term as the definition. I am not an idiot nor was I born yesterday.

    “Justice Joseph Story, Founder & Professor of Harvard Law School
    Commentaries on Constitution 1833″

    In the comment you cite by Justice Story, you failed to provide the link. I see no mention that natural born citizen = two citizen parents anywhere in the comment. However, I do see this:

    “who were born in a foreign land,”

    President Obama was not born in a foreign land. He was born in Hawaii, U.S.A. and is a natural born citizen.

    I never said Obama was born in a foreign land, but he was born to a foreign father and when the Cosntitution was drafted, wife & children followed the condition/citizenship of the husband/father, so what is the definition of natural born as it pertains to A2?

    The 1st Commentary by Story that is posted, includes his Commentary on interpreting the Constitution. My guess is all progressive liberal activists, especially those who studied the law avoid it like the plague.

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/understanding-your-constitution-historical-references/

    In the meantime, here is another snippet of an article from Donofrio, but the link is to a law review published in the American Law Review by Attorney George Collins. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review. The law review is 8 pages and written in the summer of 1884

    ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

    The definition of “natural born citizen” was notcreated by Vattel in his treatise, “Law of Nations.” That treatise simply discussed the established body of law known as “the law of nations”. The definition of natural born citizen discussed in Vattel’s treatise was actually the definition established by the body of law known as “law of nations”.

    Attorney Collins makes all of this quite clear in the article below. Now please review Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

    The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;

    The capital letters are not in reference to Vattel’s treatise, but they are in reference to the body of law Vattel wrote about – the actual “law of nations”. And that body of law – according to Attorney Collins as well as Vattell – held that a “natural born citizen” was somebody with connections to the nation for having been born on the soil as well as having been born of citizen parents. In Article 1, Section 8, we therefore have a direct recognition that the framers respected the law of nations.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886

    Now can we get back to a legitimate debate on the subject without attacks?

  265. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda/Pidgeon,

    “The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;

    The capital letters are not in reference to Vattel’s treatise, but they are in reference to the body of law Vattel wrote about – the actual “law of nations”. And that body of law – according to Attorney Collins as well as Vattell – held that a “natural born citizen” was somebody with connections to the nation for having been born on the soil as well as having been born of citizen parents. In Article 1, Section 8, we therefore have a direct recognition that the framers respected the law of nations.”

    Gee, I guess they just forgot to include this very important Constitutional citizenship influence in all the school and college govt./civic/politics textbooks. Shocking!

    BTW, a PJ’er remembers on Ed Hale/Plains Radio claimed Pidgeon had overturned an Alaskan election results. Hey, remember the 10K supporters donated to Pidgeon and he promised an accounting? Did you donate and did you ever get an accounting?

    “Now can we get back to a legitimate debate on the subject without attacks?”

    Debate isn’t legitimate if you don’t cite your sources. I treat you the way you treat me, nothing more.

  266. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    sis,

    You have a very active imagination. I gave you what you needed to know of the Pidgeon case and if you can not find it, then you are not very resourceful. Like I said, the info came some 10 – 11 months ago, is on usb archive and I have no inclination anymore to go out of my way, other than what is available on my screen and uploaded at this time for those who only wish to attack and not debate like adults.

    And I wonder just who’s site that is that I refer to all the time.

    Oh, I know, it’s mine and if you bothered to search it or actually read the historical material, you would find artlicles where I openly disagree with Donoforio & Pidgeon.

    Like I said, I am on the side of the Constitution & the American Law as adopted by Americans for Americans, not the British.

    The only dog I have in this hunt is the one to make sure my grandchildren grow up in the same free country I did as well as keeping the corruptocrats in DC from bankrupting us and parking our wheels.

  267. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    It is fascinating how many people fail to use the full title of de Vattels treatise:

    “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns.”

    The writing was a philosophical treatise, not a legal reference or a compilation of international law. It’s simply the musings of a Swiss philosopher.

    It is utter nonsense to say the use of the phrase “law of nations” in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution means the founders used de Vattel’s ideas to write Article II, Section 1. People who do this are deliberately preying on the ignorance of others to make their point.

    The US Constitution was written in a way that average people of the time could read it and understand it. People of the time knew and understood, like most of us still do today, that “natural born citizen” meant someone born in this country. Continuing to insist otherwise is just word games.

  268. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “I never said Obama was born in a foreign land, but he was born to a foreign father and when the Cosntitution was drafted, wife & children followed the condition/citizenship of the husband/father, so what is the definition of natural born as it pertains to A2?”

    Are you serious? The Constitution, when drafted also allowed slavery and did not allow women to vote. Your point?

  269. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    Amar also clearly misquotes the Constitution and tries, like a true progressive activist, to miscontrue the words of the Founders which also lends him no credibility:

    In not one place do the framers use the words he, she or any gender specific phrase. The guy is dillusional.

    Linda, when you make factual claims, you should really try to make sure your facts are accurate. Let’s take a look at Article II of the Constitution.

    Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

    The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

    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.

    In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

    The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

    Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

    Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    The constitution never used a gender specific pronoun to describe the president? This isn’t your blog, WND or FreeRepublic. Some people here take the time to check your facts, especially when it takes about 5 seconds to see that your facts are entirely false.

    In not one place do the framers use the words he, she or any gender specific phrase. The guy is dillusional.

    I count at least 16 places where the framers use the word he or his. I didn’t see any where the framers used her or she.

    But then again, you’re the sort of person who thinks that if a link from WND doesn’t work, that means that a law school has “scrubbed” a publicly available law review note, instead of, you know, checking the law school’s website.

    But you didn’t say Amar was delusional, just dillusional. Maybe you meant to say that he likes pickles?

  270. 12/11/2009keokuk says:

    Amar also clearly misquotes the Constitution and tries, like a true progressive activist, to miscontrue the words of the Founders which also lends him no credibility:

    “Nor would an amendment, if successful, be the first time that Americans have tweaked the Founders’ rules of presidential eligibility. Though the Constitution never said in so many words that only men could be President, it did consistently use the words “he” and “his”—and never “she” or “her”—to describe the President.”

    A1 S2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    A1 S3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    A2 S1: 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.

    In not one place do the framers use the words he, she or any gender specific phrase. The guy is dillusional.

    Huh? How do you figure that “in not one place do the framers use the word he, she or any gender specific phrase”? The Constitution repeatedly uses gender-specific phrases when referring to the president:

    Article 2 Section 1 Clause 7: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:…”

    “The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them. ”

    Article 1 Section 2: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

    He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

  271. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 8:41 am
    *I gave you what you needed to know of the Pidgeon case and if you can not find it, then you are not very resourceful.*

    I think it is you who has an over-active imagination. The record of a case in which an election was overturned would be readily available. It would have been national news! It is not a legitimate debate if your only defense for your arguments is “look it up yourself”. You would be disqualified from even a 6th grade debate.

    There are two categories of citizen in the United States: natural-born and naturalized. You and yours have yet to show where you derive a third type other than by playing word games.

  272. 12/11/2009keokuk says:

    You have a very active imagination. I gave you what you needed to know of the Pidgeon case and if you can not find it, then you are not very resourceful. Like I said, the info came some 10 – 11 months ago, is on usb archive and I have no inclination anymore to go out of my way, other than what is available on my screen and uploaded at this time for those who only wish to attack and not debate like adults.

    Respectfully, if it is so easy to find, then I would have expected you to provide a citation for it by now as I asked earlier. I have been searching LexisNexis and Westlaw (which easily comprise the largest databases of legal cases available) fairly diligently and have been completely unable to find anything remotely resembling this case. That doesn’t mean that it’s not out there, but it means that it may not be published and can therefore be extremely difficult to find. Could you at least tell me which court actually decided it? Was it the Alaska Supreme Court? The Alaska Court of Appeals? A trial level court? A municipal court?

    I’m not trying to be difficult, but I have experience in tracking down hard-to-locate legal sources and I’m still really struggling to find this.

  273. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: Debate isn’t legitimate if you don’t cite your sources. I treat you the way you treat me, nothing more.

    Sue, you have not given me any links, or even quotes to any historical references until I posted all the Congressional records that I had complied on the subject. I have cited all my sources, either in the comment or in a link in the comment.

    Gee, I guess they just forgot to include this very important Constitutional citizenship influence in all the school and college govt./civic/politics textbooks. Shocking!

    No, what is shocking is that it used to be taught, and obviously you are atleast a generation behind me, thus you were not taught to look for material any further than the liberal garbage they put in front of you. As parents, we made sure our children did not just rely on that crap to learn their heritage & history of our country.

    Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story( founder of Harvard Law School): A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution for use in Schools and Home Libraries

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19033238

  274. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “those who only wish to attack and not debate like adults.”

    I do believe you’ve done some attacking yourself. To ask you to provide the source for something you cite as being factual is not an unreasonable request, nor is it attacking you.

  275. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    If Jill Pryor or any of the kool-aide drinkers other scholars were the ultimate source for interpretaion of NBC, the issue would have been resolved decades ago.

    So your response to Jill Pryor’s assertion that the issue is resolved is an ad hom attack. She provides sources for her assertion ranging over the entire 20th century, but you attack her (and everybody cited in her footnote) as “kool-aide drinkiers.”

    That in no way is a cogent or logical response to what she’s said. There’s a reason that not a single member of Congress, not a single judge, and not a single current legal scholar agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause, and it’s not that they’re all conspiring to keep silent as part of a political agenda.

    But, I would sure like to hear what you have to say as to why all the liberal attempts have failed.

    See, the reason Sue then cites the multiple attempts by Republicans to amend the natural born citizen requirement is to show that when you call these proposed amendments “liberal attempts,” you are once again both intellectually lazy and paranoid. It’s not as though this information was impossible to find out. Right wing Republicans like Don Nicholls and Orrin Hatch have advocated for the repeal of the natural born citizen clause. They didn’t need the help of a student’s law review note to get them to make those statements in public.

  276. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “No, what is shocking is that it used to be taught, and obviously you are atleast a generation behind me, thus you were not taught to look for material any further than the liberal garbage they put in front of you. As parents, we made sure our children did not just rely on that crap to learn their heritage & history of our country.”

    I challenge you to find one school or college textbook from your generation or mine that states that a natural born citizen is required to have two citizen parents.

  277. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    You all need to get over the Alaskan case or is it that it is that threatening to you?

    I know Pidgeon litigated the case, but did he do it solo? I have no idea at this time and frankly, it matters not where the current case is concerned, so why dwell on it.

    Because it is a way for you to distract from the real issue. The case had nothing to do with citizenship, but it sure was a good one where election law is concerned.

  278. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue,

    Have you a reply to the Collins Law Review yet? I expect the Story Commentary will take you a while to get through.

  279. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: I challenge you to find one school or college textbook from your generation or mine that states that a natural born citizen is required to have two citizen parents.

    Like I said, I was not taught strictly by government issued propaganda. But then, we country folk tend to do things and say things that are not the norm for city folk.

    And all the material I have linked to has been available for any person for well over a century.

  280. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 9:09 am
    *You all need to get over the Alaskan case or is it that it is that threatening to you?*

    It demonstrates that you make assertions of fact and then are unable to back them up. You’re trying to distract from the real issue that you can’t back up what you say about what makes a natural born citizen. Untruthful in one thing, untruthful in all, right?

  281. 12/11/2009jvn says:

    Linda –

    You have claimed to have followed this blog for some time without commenting, so I presume that you have seen my actual discussions of the subject.

    From the point of view of those of us who are living in the real world, the discussion is simple.

    Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen. That was the way most states judged citizenship at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and it was codified further by the 14th Amendment, and affirmed by the Supreme Court many times, with the leading precedent being Wong Kim Ark.

    That the President is eligible is demonstrated by the vote of the Electoral College and the unanimous affirmation and certification of that vote by the Congress.

    The President’s eligibility is further demonstrated by the fact that the SCOTUS not only attended and conducted his swearing in, but they also have rejected the opportunity to grant any of these cases a hearing.

    The Indiana Appeals Court gives an excellent summation on the law relating to the NBC clause and conludes:

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those ‘born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.’ ”

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    These are facts, as opposed to what you are offering, which has been defined by the Indiana court as: “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions.”

    In other words, smoke…

  282. 12/11/2009sharon2 says:

    “It’s not as though this information was impossible to find out. Right wing Republicans like Don Nicholls and Orrin Hatch have advocated for the repeal of the natural born citizen clause.”

    – Why would they have a need to do that if the definition of NBC is as broad as you believe?

  283. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 9:17 am
    *Like I said, I was not taught strictly by government issued propaganda. But then, we country folk tend to do things and say things that are not the norm for city folk.*

    In other words, you can’t show where you were ever taught that natural born citizen meant 2 citizen parents. “I’m just country folks” game is a palinistic ploy to equate proper education with “citified” elitism.

    I’ll give you a hint – the first place the “natural born citizen should mean 2 parents who are citizens” premise appeared was in an exotic legal theory posited by Leo Donofrio in June 2008.

  284. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    In the meantime, here is another snippet of an article from Donofrio, but the link is to a law review published in the American Law Review by Attorney George Collins. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review. The law review is 8 pages and written in the summer of 1884

    ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

    Note that this was written over a decade before Wong, and his arguments mirror the dissent in that case. His argument is also rooted in blatant racism, xenophobia and sexism which would never be the basis of any holding in any court of law today.

    Now it is evident that such persons [the Chinese] are utterly unfit, wholly incompetent, to exercise the privileges of an American citizen….

    …yet under the common law rule the children of all persons, irrespective of race, who were born within the United States would be citizens.

    His argument that citizenship is derived SOLELY from the father is one that has not been cited in a single court in the US, not in a single jurisdiction, since discussed in Wong’s dissenting opinion.

    He also had a hilarious career of getting himself disbarred and convicted of multiple felonies, but that’s fairly irrelevant.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=2410

    The point being decided against him, he endeavored to prove that the Grand Jury which indicted him was not a legalized inquisitorial organization. Neither was this point well taken….

    His trial began in June, 1905,…he failed to appear……He was subsequently traced to Victoria, B.C….On March 10, 1906, he was sentenced to serve fourteen years in State Prison. He appealed….On June 5 Collins applied to Governor Gillett for a pardon, which was denied, and on June 17 he was removed to San Quentin Prison, where he was immediately put to work in the jute mill.

    Collins tried to escape custody twice during the San Francisco earthquake.

    Along the way, at least two prisoners hoped the earthquake and fire would work in their favor. The more desperate of the two was local attorney and notorious bigamist George D. Collins, who was already convicted of perjury and sentenced to the maximum sentence of fourteen years in State Prison. Apparently not optimistic of his chances on appeal, Mr. Collins attempted to escape twice during the long evacuation.

    Your citation to Collins as some sort of proof of the natural born citizenship clause is like citing a law review article from 1940 as proof that separate but equal is currently good law.

    Your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause has been a dead letter for over a century.

  285. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    sharon2 says:
    December 11, 2009 at 9:21 am
    *Why would they have a need to do that if the definition of NBC is as broad as you believe?*

    Why indeed. Why don’t you call Sen. Hatch’s office and ask. You can’t think of any non-natural-born citizens the Republicans might want to make qualified to be Presidential candidates? Arnold Schwarzenegger is the first to come to mind. In years gone by, perhaps Henry Kissinger. Use your imagination. The point is, the idea of eliminating the natural born citizen requirement is not some fancified liberal elitist idea.

  286. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Qwertyman,

    “See, the reason Sue then cites the multiple attempts by Republicans to amend the natural born citizen requirement is to show that when you call these proposed amendments “liberal attempts,” you are once again both intellectually lazy and paranoid. It’s not as though this information was impossible to find out. Right wing Republicans like Don Nicholls and Orrin Hatch have advocated for the repeal of the natural born citizen clause. They didn’t need the help of a student’s law review note to get them to make those statements in public.”

    I guess Linda thinks Don Nicholls and Orrin Hatch are “liberals?”

  287. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Sue says:
    December 11, 2009 at 9:29 am
    *I guess Linda thinks Don Nicholls and Orrin Hatch are “liberals?”*

    Mind you, Orrin Hatch did pal around with Ted Kennedy! Apparently he fails the ideological purity test.

  288. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    You all need to get over the Alaskan case or is it that it is that threatening to you?

    I know Pidgeon litigated the case, but did he do it solo? I have no idea at this time and frankly, it matters not where the current case is concerned, so why dwell on it.

    Because it is a way for you to distract from the real issue. The case had nothing to do with citizenship, but it sure was a good one where election law is concerned.

    Why dwell on it? Because you’ve cited it as an example of Pidgeon’s bona fides. I agree with keo. I’ve made a good faith effort to find this case. Pidgeon’s CV says it was Sigler v. State, a case in Alaska. He provides no citation, no year, not even where the case was heard. It could be that this case was actually extremely minor and was thus never reported by the two biggest case reporting companies in the US. The opinion also appears on no google search.

    It could be this is a very minor case. It could be that Alaska has some weird stuff going on with its reporting system. It could also be that the case settled, and thus there is no opinion.

    Either way, sitting there saying “haha, I have this on USB, just look harder,” is purely asking us to take you at your word. After your “Kent SCRUBBED the article!” among other debacles, I’m not going to take you at your word.

    Upload the case to scribd. You could apparently do this in two minutes. Pidgeon hasn’t gotten back to me. Cases should be available to the public, so you would actually be doing many people a service.

    - Why would they have a need to do that if the definition of NBC is as broad as you believe?

    Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    Like I said, I was not taught strictly by government issued propaganda. But then, we country folk tend to do things and say things that are not the norm for city folk.

    So apparently rural South Dakota is at least a century behind the rest of the country in its understanding of citizenship law. Alright then.

  289. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Sharon2,

    “Why would they have a need to do that if the definition of NBC is as broad as you believe?:

    Duh! Because natural born citizen does not include naturalized citizens like Arnie the Gov. of California.

    Two types of citizens in U.S.
    1. Born in U.S.-natural born citizens
    2. Naturalized–immigrate to U.S. and become citizens

    Where is Arnie from? Austria? I can’t remember.

  290. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Understanding American Law From the one who was only 2nd to Madison in drafting the Constitution.

    Justice James Wilson, Commentaries on American Law 1791

    Law & Liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge…The science of law should, in some manner, and in some degree, be the study of every free citizen, and of every free man. Every free citizen and every free man has duties to perform and rights to claim. Unless, in some measure, and in some degree, he knows those duties and those rights, he can never act a just and independent part…the general and most important principles of law are not to a very great distance from common comprehension.

    Wilson on Blackstone:

    his principles, while they are not objects for immitation, will furnish excellent materials of contrast. On every account, therefore, he should be read and studied. He deserves to be much admired, but he ought no to be implicitly followed.

  291. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Sharon 2,

    There were also some individuals who have adopted foreign born children and felt they should also be included as “natural born citizens”, thus making the phrase “anybody in America can grow up to be President” true.

  292. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: I guess Linda thinks Don Nicholls and Orrin Hatch are “liberals?”

    BINGO! They may claim to be, but their voting record and stance on issues is not that of the true conservative, thus the reason the GOP is in the $h*t house.

  293. 12/11/2009jvn says:

    Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Understanding American Law From the one who was only 2nd to Madison in drafting the Constitution.

    Justice James Wilson, Commentaries on American Law 1791

    Law & Liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge…The science of law should, in some manner, and in some degree, be the study of every free citizen, and of every free man. Every free citizen and every free man has duties to perform and rights to claim. Unless, in some measure, and in some degree, he knows those duties and those rights, he can never act a just and independent part…the general and most important principles of law are not to a very great distance from common comprehension.

    Wilson on Blackstone:

    his principles, while they are not objects for immitation, will furnish excellent materials of contrast. On every account, therefore, he should be read and studied. He deserves to be much admired, but he ought no to be implicitly followed.

    ——————————————————————

    Linda –

    That sounds like something you might put in an Amicus brief asking a court to overturn the decision on Wong Kim Ark.

    It offers no legal support that your theory of “it takes two citizen parents to make an NBC” is current law.

    Just smoke…

  294. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    “Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 9:17 am
    *Like I said, I was not taught strictly by government issued propaganda. But then, we country folk tend to do things and say things that are not the norm for city folk.*”

    Newflash Linda, I am about as “country folk” as one gets. So, don’t imply that all “country folk” believes your BS.

  295. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 9:39 am
    *Understanding American Law From the one who was only 2nd to Madison in drafting the Constitution.*

    The Indiana Court of Appeals was specifically addressing arguments just like yours:

    “To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true”
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
    What matters is what the Supreme Court found in Wong Kim Ark – A child born inside the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents. It doesn’t matter what writings of the time say.

  296. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    qwerty,

    Tribe relied on Brennan’s dessenting opinion to get S Res passed, so according to your guys standards ALL opinions dessenting and otherwise are fair game.

    Tribe was outted for plagerism, not once but twice in his law reviews over the past 2 decades. He should have been charged, but being the ‘One’ to the ‘One’ & the’One’s’ party( there really is no difference, they are all ‘One’ there now), it was swept under the rug.

    Tribe now has a personal key to the WhiteHouse which is full of thiefs, marxists/communist terrorists, tax cheats, child porn advocates and child sex advocates.

    Your response was so typical and expected. Can’t come back with legitimate law, so attack, atack, attack.

  297. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    “Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 9:11 am
    Sue,

    Have you a reply to the Collins Law Review yet? I expect the Story Commentary will take you a while to get through.”

    I don’t need to reply. Qwertyman replied.

  298. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Sue says:
    December 11, 2009 at 9:52 am
    *Newflash Linda, I am about as “country folk” as one gets. So, don’t imply that all “country folk” believes your BS.*

    Sue! Big props, you’re outstanding.

  299. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “I know Pidgeon litigated the case, but did he do it solo? I have no idea at this time and frankly, it matters not where the current case is concerned, so why dwell on it.”

    You are the one who cited this lawsuit as factual evidence that Pidgeon is a legitimate constitutional lawyer. Problem is, you can’t back up your claim by producing your source. Since you cannot produce the link to the lawsuit and probably never could, you state, “so why dwell on it.” To funny.

  300. 12/11/2009sharon2 says:

    The lifelong dream of Orin Hatch: for either Arnie or Kissinger to be President. Alrighty then…

    Lawyers can make arguments in the alternative. I think WKA means “X” as regards the definition of natural born citizen and any other ruling erodes the Constitution. Distinguish the case. It is not directly on point. But prepare for an alternative argument. Even if the Court (talking about Supremes) does find that under WKA the parentage of the child is irrelevant, the Court should break with that case for X reasons. There are different Justices now, some of them pretty clear where their decision would lie (Ginsberg, Breyer and likely Sotomayor), others not.

    That is what lawyers are supposed to do when they believe in something.

    [too funny Sue- not to funny. Were this someone with whom he disagreed, Sis would have been hammering you about your education- just pointing out the hypocrisy not that I find you stupid as you find the people who disagree with you]

  301. 12/11/2009MGB says:

    sise said to me, “You said you thought poor people should receive help, but they have to beg for it, and humbly enough. That said everything I needed to know about you. It matters not what’s in your wallet or what you give to charity, you’re mean-spirited and unkind and not reluctant to show it.”

    sise, you are a truly hateful and sorry person. You persist in misinterpreting what I say in the worse possible way imaginable. You impute to me whatever negative motivations that you can possibly make up. Why? Because I diagree with you about Obama’s eligibility? Can you EVER take people at face value and address only what they say? MUST you rewrite and deliberately misinterpret everything I say, simply because you don’t like how I think and because you’ve placed me into some negative category that exists only in your mind?

    I did NOT say what you claim that I said. Anybody who cares can go back through the comments and read EXACTLY what I said and see that I NEVER said what sise infers from my comments.

    sise, could you stop pigeon-holing your opponents? Could you stop stereotyping? An open-minded, mature person does not sort everyone into categories and then dismiss those he’s decided aren’t in the “correct” box. An open-minded person does not stuff others into cubbyholes labeled “good” and “bad”. He does not categorize others into “Republican” (with no evidence) and “the good guys.” You know what this behavior is known as? Being PREJUDICED.

    qwertyman: thank you. I agree that there could be a better system. I disagree that what’s being proposed will be that better system. You said, “A pure free market does not provide sufficient access to health care for all Americans. There are 40 million Americans without health care today; one in seven children have no health insurance.”

    The 40 million has been revised to exclude illegal aliens.

    It’s not true that any Americans have no “health care”. They may have no insurance, but they have and do receive health care. This is why there are not-for-profit hospitals. This is why they don’t pay taxes, because they do, indeed must, give charitable care. I know someone who had bypass surgery. No insurance. Doctors did the surgery and the hospital provided the resources for free. I know another who had retinal reattachment. Same story. All done free. People DO get health CARE. ERs MUST accept everyone, regardless of status.

    Should we have a system that makes sure that everyone has insurance. YES. But, again, what is being proposed now in Congress is not the solution. There are other solutions, but those with other ideas have been shut out or ignored.

  302. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    Your response was so typical and expected. Can’t come back with legitimate law, so attack, atack, attack.

    What in the world are you talking about? I honestly don’t even know what you’re responding to with this last post. It does, however, contain an absolutely irrelevant series of ad hom attacks.

    You cite a law journal article by the losing attorney in Wong in support of the current legitimacy of your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause. At the same time, you dismiss the author of a law review note who provided significant support for her assertion that it’s well settled that those born on US soil are natural born citizens by not responding to anything she actually said, except to call her a crank and to cite a judge’s commentaries from 80 years before Wong.

    You decry Orrin Hatch and Don Nicholls as liberals because they proposed an amendment that you disagree with. You may have other reasons, but you haven’t elaborated.

    I ask you to provide me the name of a single judge, member of Congress or current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause, and you respond by saying that every last one of them are keeping silent to promote their political agenda instead of their country.

    You provide citations to various proposed bills and amendments to expand the definition of natural born, or even repeal the requirement altogether, but not a single one of them would have an affect on Obama’s circumstances of his birth. Do you think that Congress would allow those born abroad of one citizen parent to be natural born citizens, while those born domestically of one citizen parent were not?

    But instead you couch your ignorance in an anti-intellectual, anti-urban passive aggressive tone, essentially saying “We don’t learn things the same way you indoctrinated [apparently every single legal scholar is indoctrinated] fancy city-folk do – and that means we’re right.”

    Paranoid and intellectually lazy.

  303. 12/11/2009sharon2 says:

    MGB,

    Reasonable people know what you are talking about.

  304. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Sharon2,

    “too funny Sue- not to funny. Were this someone with whom he disagreed, Sis would have been hammering you about your education- just pointing out the hypocrisy not that I find you stupid as you find the people who disagree with you]”

    My comment to Linda has nothing to do with her intelligence. My comment was regarding her honesty and credibility. Generally, when someone asks you to cite your source, most people comply with the request. Here is my comment to Linda:

    “Linda,

    “I know Pidgeon litigated the case, but did he do it solo? I have no idea at this time and frankly, it matters not where the current case is concerned, so why dwell on it.”

    You are the one who cited this lawsuit as factual evidence that Pidgeon is a legitimate constitutional lawyer. Problem is, you can’t back up your claim by producing your source. Since you cannot produce the link to the lawsuit and probably never could, you state, “so why dwell on it.” To funny.”

    I suggest you find anywhere on this blog where I have called somebody stupid, dumb, ignorant., etc.,etc. Now, granted, I may have referred to someone as being a “birther”, but by the same token, I’ve been called an “obot and get paid by President Obama.” I also make sarcastic remarks as others do, including you. BTW, Sise has called me out when she doesn’t agree with something I say.

  305. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    You all can keep quoting that bloviating & corrupt Indiana case all you want. It is nothing more than just another tainted case opinion from an activist judge.

    I also did not offer the quotes from Wilson in reference to any case brief, I merely put them out there for readers to see what was in the minds of the Founders when they drafted the Constitution. Looking at all the backlash, it is my guess none of you have any intention of learning for yourself, out of the shadow of party politics, the history of our country.

    If you all ever come up with something of substance that has teeth to it, I will be shocked and I certainly will not hold my breath for it to happen.

    citizen: One born to American parents on foreign soil( citizen by statute) or one who is naturalized, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution: one who marries an American and they reside in America.

    native: one born on US soil to foreigners, regardless of parents immigration intentions or legal residencey status (modern morf of WKA to usurp the ‘natural born’ path because it wasn’t fair)

    natural born: born on US soil to parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty ( per the 39th Congress, this has never been changed to this date )

    You were cordial for a while, but I do not comment just to argue for the sake of arguing and it is obvious none of you have anymore to give to the debate as you have come full circle in your replies thus have not yet been able to either refute the Founders or correctly define the 2 very distinct and different citizenships that are required for holding US elected offices.

  306. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Sharon 2,

    Actually, I used the word stupid when I referred to Sarah Palin’s and her MD’s advice/decision regarding her medical situation in Texas. But, I believe my comment was “there is just no other way to put this as it is just stupid…..” or pretty close and I stand by my opinion/comment.

  307. 12/11/2009AnotherReader says:

    MGB,

    You should realize by now that sise’s only goal here is to mock and ridicule all who oppose the liberal/progressive agenda. There is no point in attempting honest debate with him or any of the other opposition posters here. Their only goal here is to wear you down and chase you away.

    Oh and for those of you who questioned my comments regarding the Dem’s being in trouble, I suppose you have seen the recently released polls that confirm they are in huge trouble? Of course, I’m sure you don’t care or don’t believe them. Much like Gibb’s comment comparing to kids with crayons, you only cite them when they confirm your own position. I personally love the insane arrogance that the progressives ooze from their pores.

  308. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman: thank you. I agree that there could be a better system. I disagree that what’s being proposed will be that better system. You said, “A pure free market does not provide sufficient access to health care for all Americans. There are 40 million Americans without health care today; one in seven children have no health insurance.”

    The 40 million has been revised to exclude illegal aliens.

    It’s not true that any Americans have no “health care”. They may have no insurance, but they have and do receive health care.

    I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here.

    This is why there are not-for-profit hospitals. This is why they don’t pay taxes, because they do, indeed must, give charitable care. I know someone who had bypass surgery. No insurance. Doctors did the surgery and the hospital provided the resources for free. I know another who had retinal reattachment. Same story. All done free. People DO get health CARE. ERs MUST accept everyone, regardless of status.

    Yes, ERs must accept anybody who comes in. However, this is not an efficient use of resources. We could better promote the health of the populace and save money through giving people access to an affordable means of obtaining preventative care. I was training for a marathon recently when I had a couple of days with pain in my foot. Instead of waiting to see how things would go if I just let it wait, I went to get it checked out. Turned out I had suffered a stress fracture. Nothing too serious, but it was treated easily and I was back on training schedule in four weeks. If I hadn’t had insurance, the one day would have cost me at least several hundred dollars. Instead, I paid $20 for a co-pay and $20 for a boot. This was by far the easiest solution for myself, the insurance company, the doctors, the hospital, and society. But I don’t think you disagree with any of this either.

    Should we have a system that makes sure that everyone has insurance. YES. But, again, what is being proposed now in Congress is not the solution. There are other solutions, but those with other ideas have been shut out or ignored.

    I’m glad to hear you say you think we should have a system where everybody has health insurance. I really don’t think we’re all that far apart on this issue – now it’s just a question of how we get there.

    Frankly, there is a lot in this bill that I don’t like. Too much of this seems like a gift to private health insurance companies at the expense of you and me.

    One thing that was in the House bill that I absolutely support is a prohibition on the use of rescission by health insurance companies except in the case of deliberate and deceitful misrepresentation. It’s a common practice for health insurance companies to deny coverage to a person about to undergo cancer treatment for very minor undisclosed issues. We see examples such as a woman denied breast cancer treatment because she hadn’t disclosed an acne condition on her application. Another was denied insurance because her pregnancy was considered a pre-existing condition.

    How do you think we should provide a system that guarantees that all Americans have access to affordable health insurance?

  309. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “You all can keep quoting that bloviating & corrupt Indiana case all you want. It is nothing more than just another tainted case opinion from an activist judge.”

    Not just one judge but three judges, unanimous decision. Here is the link to their bios. Judges Brown, Crone and May.

  310. 12/11/2009sharon2 says:

    That Sarah Palin, her MD and now you are, and there is just no other way to put this, incredibly stupid.

  311. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: My comment to Linda has nothing to do with her intelligence. My comment was regarding her honesty and credibility. Generally, when someone asks you to cite your source, most people comply with the request.

    Now, there’s a true liberal response. Take a jab at the person who has actually brought forward concrete evidence to back her claims while at the same time, hiding the fact that you are not innocent in not citing your source.

    Other than Stephen Pidgeon’s credentials & case history, especially the Alaskan election law case, I have given you links to everything. I cited Pidgeon as my source, you all have his e-mail and if you are too lazy or stubborn to write him for the info as I did, then that is your problem, not mine. You were the one to bring Pidgeon into the conversation and you even commented as if you thought I was he. You really have a low opinion of conservatives, but hey, atleast you stay true to form.

  312. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    natural born: born on US soil to parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty

    There is not a single current member of Congress, judge or legal scholar who agrees with the definition as you just proposed it. Black’s Law Dictionary, a leading secondary source of law, and often cited by all Justices on the Supreme Court, says:

    natural-born citizen. A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.

    Further, you fail to come up with any cogent response to Jill Pryor’s note other than to launch a ridiculous ad hom attack. Every one of these legal scholars who have an understanding of constitutional law are keeping silent about the ineligibility of President Obama because they have a political agenda. Every court who has had one of these cases has been corrupt.

    Have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor? Perhaps there’s no conspiracy, no corruption, no secret political agenda involving perhaps every single law school professor in the US. Perhaps the natural born citizen clause has simply been well known and understood for over a century. Perhaps there’s nothing to your passive aggressive hints that there’s something going on between a sitting US Senator, a law school student, and a major law firm to write a law school note that would apparently retroactively make two very conservative Republican senators advocate the repeal of the natural born citizen clause. Perhaps the questions that were present in the 18th and 19th centuries have been resolved, and have been so for over a century now.

    Other than Stephen Pidgeon’s credentials & case history, especially the Alaskan election law case, I have given you links to everything. I cited Pidgeon as my source, you all have his e-mail and if you are too lazy or stubborn to write him for the info as I did, then that is your problem, not mine. You were the one to bring Pidgeon into the conversation and you even commented as if you thought I was he. You really have a low opinion of conservatives, but hey, atleast you stay true to form.

    You have said multiple times that you have the case on a USB. I’m the one who posted the link to his list of “publications,” many of which are columns on WND. I’ve sent the guy an email and asked for the case, but gotten no response yet.

    How about you provide everybody a service and upload the case to somewhere like scribd?

    Though I suppose it would be easier to continue to make ad hom attacks as a substitute for actual arguments.

  313. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “citizen: One born to American parents on foreign soil( citizen by statute) or one who is naturalized, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution: one who marries an American and they reside in America.

    native: one born on US soil to foreigners, regardless of parents immigration intentions or legal residencey status (modern morf of WKA to usurp the ‘natural born’ path because it wasn’t fair)

    natural born: born on US soil to parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty ( per the 39th Congress, this has never been changed to this date )”

    Cite your source. A credible source, not Donofrio or Pidgeon.

  314. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    “Other than Stephen Pidgeon’s credentials & case history, especially the Alaskan election law case, I have given you links to everything. I cited Pidgeon as my source, you all have his e-mail and if you are too lazy or stubborn to write him for the info as I did, then that is your problem, not mine. You were the one to bring Pidgeon into the conversation and you even commented as if you thought I was he. You really have a low opinion of conservatives, but hey, atleast you stay true to form.”

    No, you haven’t. No, I don’t have his e-mail but by the same token, I don’t want his e-mail. You stated you had the information but now say you don’t. Actually, you were the one who brought Pidgeon up as I recall, stating what a good constitutional lawyer he was. But, I could be wrong–I will check.

    No, I don’t have a low opinion of anyone. I am neither liberal/or conservative; more middle of the road. And, it depends on the subject. Lazy, stubborn–you don’t have a very high opinion of liberals then?

  315. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    “sharon2 says:
    December 11, 2009 at 11:03 am
    That Sarah Palin, her MD and now you are, and there is just no other way to put this, incredibly stupid.”

    Yep, and I already posted this–my comment was to MGB. And, I stand by my comment because I am a health care professional. Any MD who would advise her patient to get on a plane from Texas to Alaska after she had reported to her MD that she was leaking amniotic fluid and having contractions that were different from the previous Braxton Hicks contractions she was previously having and not refer her patient to a OBGYN doc in Texas to be medically evaluated is stupid. Especially when her patient is 44 years old and the baby has been dx. as down syndrome–high risk pregnancy and infant. A health care professional cannot dx. someone over the telephone.

  316. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    “Sue says:
    December 11, 2009 at 10:59 am
    Linda,

    “You all can keep quoting that bloviating & corrupt Indiana case all you want. It is nothing more than just another tainted case opinion from an activist judge.”

    Not just one judge but three judges, unanimous decision. Here is the link to their bios. Judges Brown, Crone and May.”

    Forgot to include the link:

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/appeals/judges.html

  317. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    Qwerty says,
    “How do you think we should provide a system that guarantees that all Americans have access to affordable health insurance?”

    Yes, I’d like to hear your ideas also.

  318. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “Should we have a system that makes sure that everyone has insurance. YES. But, again, what is being proposed now in Congress is not the solution. There are other solutions, but those with other ideas have been shut out or ignored.”

    I beg to differ with you. The Republican party did not come up with anything until late in the game and what they did come up with was a joke. Personally, I’m angry at both parties because health care reform is probably one of the most important issues facing this nation. Neither party is acting like mature adults because it is a political game to both of them. Neither party has the best interests of Americans as their top priority. Some elected officials in both parties get campaign funds from big insurance companies. The Republican Party wants the Democrats to fail for political reasons, not because it is in the best interests of Americans, therefore, they stall and say no to everything–even some good ideas. Ditto for the Dems.

  319. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    Have you ever actually met someone who was an illegal alien? (Mexico)

  320. 12/11/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE Phil:

    […] As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama’s eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama’s own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a “natural born citizen” as required for the presidency. […]

    Nice, very nice, and fully justified action – while I hope that the dealers in cause will be righted in the court, we cannot but rejoice the ramification of the case into Obama’s illegitimacy situation – essentially going down to the so common, so vast spread, so oft-asked and so legitimate request: SHOW THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

    No frontal, judicial attack on Obama’s illegitimacy will be ever successful in courts, courts deflecting it for whatever reasons – yet, legitimate cases, civil AND CRIMINAL! in which the plaintiffs have unquestionable standing, and where OBAMA’s (il)legitimacy is a side, yet essential matter, will eventually do it –

    Al Capone was nailed for tax evasion, not murders –
    Obama’s debacle will come via the dealers’ or other cases’ secondary probatory actions –

    Nicely advancing situation – can’t be a better proof of that than the Obamaton’s helplessness & irritation –

    Regards -

  321. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    qwerty,

    The definition of indoctrinated:

    To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.

    You seem to have been indrinated well. I was lucky to be able to get thru the system unscathed.

    As far as Hatch & the others you think I should hold in a true conservative light, sorry, but while they may be somewhat of conservatives, there is so much more of the Constitution that they miss the mark on.

    and qwerty, you stated: Linda, when you make factual claims, you should really try to make sure your facts are accurate. Let’s take a look at Article II of the Constitution.

    I did make a factual claim as it pertained to the topic that was being discussed, I quoted the clauses I was referring to, which was the qualification clause that was being discussed in the congressional hearing that Amar testified in. Amar was the one that went off track away from the qualification/cicitzenship topic and tried to misconstrue the subject by using a womens lib stance. First rule of testifying and litigating a case per current SCOTUS interviews & have seen and heard, stay on topic and use clear & concise logic. If Amar had understood American law as it existed when the Constitution was drafted, he never would have gone there, as it has nothing to do with defining citizenship. Instead he relies on what he thinks the Founding Fathers felt. He was making a plea for a civil right where there is none and it is because of these unsubstantiated testimonies from thsoe of the left that rely on emotion not the law, that ALL acts to change the Constitution have failed & meet their demise in committee behind closed doors.

    I already gave you testimonly with facts from one American History Scholar that went up againt Amar & Yinger, here is another:

    Forrest McDonald, historian and professor of history at the U of Alabama. McDonald starts out by agreeing with Chairman Candy then goes on to cite supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his testimony…

    “Debates about electing the President raged until early September, less than 2 weeks before the Convention adjourned. Then Pierce Butler, an Irish-born delegate, came up with a cumbersome plan that overcame the objections to all earlier proposals. This was the electoral college system. The system was so diffuse that it would be virtually impossible, given the primitive communications then available, for foreign agents to corrupt it. But for good measure Butler’s proposal included the restrictive language, ”no person except a natural-born citizen…To appreciate the significance of the Constitution’s restriction of presidential eligibility to natural born citizens, it is useful to place the requirement in historical perspective. Americans of the founding generation were extremely distrustful of executive authority because experience with colonial governors had convinced them that executive power was inherently inimical to liberty, because they felt betrayed by George III, and because they considered a strong executive to be incompatible with the republicanism they embraced when they declared their independence in 1776. As a consequence, their revolutionary state constitutions provided minimal executive branches, and the first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation, established no executive arm…By the time the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, difficulties undergone during and after the war for independence had convinced most public spirited men that an energetic national executive was necessary, but they approached the problem cautiously, and at least a third of the delegates to the Convention favored a plural executive in the interest of safety. The others endorsed a single executive, not least because all understood that George Washington, whom everybody trusted, would be the first occupant of the office…But Washington could not serve forever, and the delegates groped almost desperately to devise a suitable way of choosing his successors. The search took up more of the debates than any other subject the Convention faced. Most delegates favored having Congress elect the president, but that would make the executive department dependent upon the legislative unless the president were ineligible for reelection, but ineligibility would necessitate a dangerously long term—six or seven years being the common suggestion. The greatest fear was of corrupt influences upon the election, particularly from abroad…That language was adopted without a single dissenting voice, nor did anyone speak in its support. Its meaning and rationale went without saying. As Joseph Storey later explained in his famous commentaries, the phraseology ”cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office and interposes a barrier against . . . corrupt interferences of foreign governments…Now, the question before the subcommittee is not the original purpose of the clause, but whether it has outlived its usefulness. The circumstances that prevailed at the time of the founding have changed. Yet it seems to me on balance that conditions in the foreseeable future warrant a continuation of the caution shown by the framers…Take the matter of the possible corruption in the electoral process. The system is still structurally diffuse, but in practice it might as well be centralized, given modern techniques of communication and the instant portability of money, the most potent corrupting influence. Presidential candidates spend scores of millions of dollars. Just consider the prospective influence of a few billion dollars, a sum well within the means of a number of countries, any one of which, while unwilling to risk such a sum on a natural-born American, might be eager to support a candidate who had been born and raised in their country…The original Constitution contemplated a relatively weak Presidency, but the office has become the most powerful in the world, and safeguards surrounding it are therefore more indispensable than ever. The one area of Presidential authority that is virtually unchecked and uncheckable is the President’s power as Commander in Chief…Let us consider a few scenarios, starting with an extreme example. The espionage agencies of some countries have occasionally employed agents under deep cover who might not be activated for decades. It is not difficult to imagine such an agent being elected to an office of trust, but a Senator is 1 of 100, and a Representative is 1 of 435. What check is there on a President who is 1 of 1, except for the constitutional restriction?… In the role of Commander in Chief, it is not enough to be above reproach. One must be above the suspicion of reproach…In conclusion let me say that on this as on other constitutional questions, we are best guided by the wisdom and prudence of the Founding Fathers. The amendment process is not to be taken lightly, nor should it be used for political or electioneering purposes. The structure created by the Constitution has stood the test of time and continues to stand as the truest foundation for our freedom.”

    McDonald stays on point, he cites American Law makers, a Supreme Court Justice who studied the american Law under thos ethat wrote it as well as documents from the Framers of the Constitution. He did use feelings or emotions as the basis to his testimony, he only used law & definitions that were well known at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    You may win cases in courts with activist judges using feelings and emotions, but I wouldn’t suggest using it on the SCOTUS until you are sure you can count on 5 votes, and at this time there is not.

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument

  322. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue, the source for my definitions all come from Congressional records, bills and committee hearing testimony since 1973. I gave you 15 references. It is up to you to go look them up, read them and their footnotes.

  323. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    I like how you all cite your sources without direct links to the information, but you expect me go to archives not on my computer, upload them from back-up, then cut and paste them here.

    bwahahahahahahah…get them the same way I did, you know where the e-mail adress is, go use it. what are you so scared of, being associated with a conservative?

  324. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Sue says:
    December 11, 2009 at 11:50 am
    MGB,

    Have you ever actually met someone who was an illegal alien? (Mexico)
    ___________________________________

    I have, I have 2 nieces that are not nautural born because their father disregarded US law and violated his visa, thus ruining any chance he had for naturalization. He tried molesting another niece, he got sent up the river, Daschle got him out, INS shipped him back to Mexico where he is free & still preys on innocent children and the Mexican authories do nothing but turn a blind eye.

    I have nothing against legal immigrants who follow the law, as I also have family who immigrated legally from Mexico and they as I feel the same…the illegal immigrants have broken the law with their very 1st footstep on US soil, they trash our country & disregard our laws and expect us to give them the same rights as those who come here legally.

    Oh, yeah, like the Founding Fathers would have put up with his nonsense, let alone adopt a Constitution that included rights for law breakers and said, heck yeah, they can become President someday too.

    Like I said, dillusional is what any law professor or judge is who thinks this.

  325. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    You seem to have been indrinated well. I was lucky to be able to get thru the system unscathed.

    Well, I was at least educated to the point where I can consistently spell correctly. What a coincidence it must be that absolutely every legal scholar, member of Congress, and judge for the past century has been indoctrinated with some apparently anti-American agenda?

    Paranoid.

    I did make a factual claim as it pertained to the topic that was being discussed, I quoted the clauses I was referring to, which was the qualification clause that was being discussed in the congressional hearing that Amar testified in. Amar was the one that went off track away from the qualification/cicitzenship topic and tried to misconstrue the subject by using a womens lib stance. First rule of testifying and litigating a case per current SCOTUS interviews & have seen and heard, stay on topic and use clear & concise logic. If Amar had understood American law as it existed when the Constitution was drafted, he never would have gone there, as it has nothing to do with defining citizenship. Instead he relies on what he thinks the Founding Fathers felt. He was making a plea for a civil right where there is none and it is because of these unsubstantiated testimonies from thsoe of the left that rely on emotion not the law, that ALL acts to change the Constitution have failed & meet their demise in committee behind closed doors.

    This is what Amar said:

    Though the Constitution never specifically said that only men could be president, and it never specifically banned women from running the way it banned those under 35, it did consistently use the words “he” and “his”— and never “she” or “her”—to describe the president.

    And of course he’s right. The Constitution uses he or his over a dozen times to describe the president in Article II, never she or her.

    McDonald stays on point, he cites American Law makers, a Supreme Court Justice who studied the american Law under thos ethat wrote it as well as documents from the Framers of the Constitution. He did use feelings or emotions as the basis to his testimony, he only used law & definitions that were well known at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    McDonald’s testimony was in opposition to repealing the natural born citizen clause. Nowhere does he agree with your interpretation of what it means. If he did, how come he’s never stood up and said that Obama was ineligible during his candidacy or presidency?

    You are citing arguments against repealing the natural born citizenship clause and attempting to pass it off as proof that the natural born citizen clause excludes President Obama. I suppose I should expect as much from somebody who thinks that because a WND link didn’t work, that a law school deliberately “scrubbed” a publicly available law review note from its website in some apparently conspiratorial coverup.

    I like how you all cite your sources without direct links to the information, but you expect me go to archives not on my computer, upload them from back-up, then cut and paste them here.

    bwahahahahahahah…get them the same way I did, you know where the e-mail adress is, go use it. what are you so scared of, being associated with a conservative?

    Yes, I would. Pidgeon doesn’t keep the case on his website, it’s not reported on any major law reporting site, and not available on several google searches. You said you have the case on a USB. To get your USB, put it on your computer, and upload the case to scribd and post a link should take you about ten minutes, tops. And that way, the next time you come across some “o-bot” who starts doubting you, you can just post the link and say “See! He did win a case!”

    For the third time, I emailed Pidgeon last night. I still have no response from him. Why don’t you stop playing coy and either provide a link or recognize that after you’ve been caught falsely accusing a law school of deliberately scrubbing a law review note that people are not going to automatically take you at your word.

    Edit: spelling delusional wrong again. Really? Did you just not bother to read what I’d written there? Do you still think those law professors are really big pickle fans? Or are you acting like a typical birther, sticking to your belief that it’s actually spelled dillusional despite what that conspiracy of dictionaries and English scholars say?

  326. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    Has Donofrio and Pidgeon filed their lawsuits yet? I thought they were going to file them this week?

  327. 12/11/2009Sue says:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/11/obamas-birth-announcement-in-1961-confirmed/
    STAR BULLETIN EDITION OF AUG. 14TH, ON FILE AT BERKELEY IDENTICAL TO PUBLISHED IMAGES
    by John Charlton
    “(Dec. 11, 2009) — The Post & Email has just received PDF files from a highly credible source, establishing that the birth annoucement in the Star Bulletin Edition of Aug. 14, 1961, for Barack Hussein Obama, is authentic.”

    more link at top

    Imagine that!

  328. 12/11/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE qwertyman:

    […] natural born: born on US soil to parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty […]
    vs
    […] natural-born citizen. A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government. […]

    Qwerty, pray – will you tell us your view on the following hypothetical situation:
    a) A Swedish citizen woman, pregnant with a Palestinian man, enters the US embassy in Bielorussia for asking something. It happens that while she is there (minutes after her entrance), she gives birth to a child –
    b) Is that child a natural-born US citizen since he/ she was born within the jurisdiction of the US national government? And would the circumstances the child was born in make her/him eligible for the US presidential position?
    (Many other parentage combinations available)

    Looking forward –

    Regards -

  329. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    a) A Swedish citizen woman, pregnant with a Palestinian man, enters the US embassy in Bielorussia for asking something. It happens that while she is there (minutes after her entrance), she gives birth to a child –
    b) Is that child a natural-born US citizen since he/ she was born within the jurisdiction of the US national government? And would the circumstances the child was born in make her/him eligible for the US presidential position?
    (Many other parentage combinations available)

    You asked me this exact question before. I said I wasn’t sure, others have said that embassies don’t count as US territory for the purposes of citizenship. The US Code seems to agree with that.

    But much more relevant is your second question. The answer to that question is that say those parents from A instead gave birth in the US while there on vacation with a legal visa, that child would be born a US citizen, and eligible for the presidency if that child lives to the age of 35 and spends at least 14 years in the US.

    While you are in the US, you are subject to US jurisdiction. If you commit a crimes while in Alabama, you can be subject to being charged. Under civil procedure, you can be served with a lawsuit any time you are in a particular jurisdiction where the case would be held. While you are in the US, you are subject to its jurisdiction, unless you are a foreign diplomat. Thus, if a child is born in the US, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the US at birth, and thus a US citizen at birth, and thus a natural born citizen.

  330. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    sharon2 says:
    December 11, 2009 at 10:18 am
    *disagreed, Sis would have been hammering you about your education- just pointing out the hypocrisy not that I find you stupid as you find the people who disagree with you*

    Sue said she was as “country folk” as anyone, she didn’t say she was uneducated.

  331. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Fot those of you not quite equiped to see the forest for the trees, Pidgeon’s site is not his legal site, it is where he publishes articles and information pertaining to his christian teachings and constitutional issues.

    I can’t believe I had to point that out to you. BTW…no response as to the Tuan Anh Nguyen and where current Scotus Justices sit as to citizenship? Or was that too much work for you too?

  332. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 11:05 am
    *Other than Stephen Pidgeon’s credentials & case history, especially the Alaskan election law case, I have given you links to everything. I cited Pidgeon as my source, you all have his e-mail and if you are too lazy or stubborn to write him for the info *

    This is a link to a court’s decision:
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    If Steve Pidgeon was involved in a case in which a court decided to overturn an election, you could give us a link to a court decision as well.

    All your references to papers, treatises, congressional records etc are meaningless because they conflict with the United States Supreme Courts interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen.

  333. 12/11/2009jvn says:

    Linda –

    How much more in the way of “teeth” do we need when the SCOTUS has refused to hear any of these cases, every court has shot them down, every appellate court has shot them down, no one in any official capacity has challenged the President’s eligibility, every state election official, every state governor, every member of the electoral college and every member of Congress has certified to that same thing?

    You’ve got nothing but smoke… :)

    Mis –

    What’s the point of asking about the NBC status of someone born in a US embassy overseas?

    Is someone who was born under those conditions running for President?

  334. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 1:45 pm
    *Tuan Anh Nguyen*

    Nguyen was born in Vietnam to a Vietnamese mother and an American father who were unmarried. His case is completely different from Obama. Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii, which even in 1961 was within the borders of the United States. He is a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of his parents or their marital status. His parents were married in case you were going to try and play that game too. Wong Kim Ark decision applies to Barack Obama. It didn’t apply to Nguyen because he wasn’t born in the US, and even though his father was a citizen, his parents were unmarried. The SC affirmed the gender distinction the Congress had legislated between unmarried American fathers and American mothers and passing on their citizenship to children born overseas.

    Is Leo going to try to argue Nguyen applies in this case? Oh goodie! This should be hilarious. I think it’s another opportunity for the USA’s to say “Nuts!”

  335. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    Fot those of you not quite equiped to see the forest for the trees, Pidgeon’s site is not his legal site, it is where he publishes articles and information pertaining to his christian teachings and constitutional issues.

    Again you apparently assume that nobody will actually check your facts. This is Pidgeon’s site:

    http://www.stephenpidgeon.com/

    The title that pops up is “Stephen Pidgeon
    Attorney at Law, P.S.”

    His “column du jour” among other things, contains his legal analysis as to why dollar bills are not legal currency.

    The bottom of the front page says “Do not hesitate to make contact by e-mail to attorney@stephenpidgeon.com

    In what way is this not a website advertising a lawyer?

    I guess you’re going to continue to refuse to help anybody out and upload a document that you have on a UBS. Instead you’re going to mock everybody else like a little child who has a toy that she’s not going to share with anybody else.

    I can’t believe I had to point that out to you. BTW…no response as to the Tuan Anh Nguyen and where current Scotus Justices sit as to citizenship? Or was that too much work for you too?

    Sorry, I don’t have time to respond to every single “fact” you attempt to put out there.

    Tuan Anh Nguyen has absolutely no relevance to a person born within the US. Nguyen was born in Vietnam to an unmarried couple, and only the father was American.

    It’s like you take any decision or bill that does anything to restrict who can become a citizen of the US and apply that to the natural born citizen clause. You take testimony of a professor opposed to repealing the natural born citizen clause an attempt to cite him in support of your definition of the natural born citizenship clause.

    And of course, you trash the author of a law review note written 20 years ago as a “kool aid drinker” because she had the audacity to say that it’s well settled that anybody born in the US is a natural born citizen. Worse, she backed it up with sources going back more than a generation.

    The courts are also corrupt. Dozens of courts across the country, filled with federal judges enjoying lifetime appointments (why are they lifetime appointments? To avoid pressure from the other branches from influencing decisions) are all being pressured into making corrupt decisions.

    Every single law professor, member of Congress, judge and legal scholar in the country is keeping silent about the definition of natural born citizen that you were taught in rural South Dakota many decades ago in order to perpetrate a massive fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and to promote a political agenda. Worse, many of these same people engaged in this conspiracy create plausible deniability by bitterly opposing virtually every one of Obama’s policies.

    There’s no way this could be sheer paranoia. After all, it’s not paranoia if they are all actually out to defraud the people, right?

  336. 12/11/2009John says:

    ?,

    Refreshing!

    I certainly can relate to the “their-kaka-doesn’t-stink” types you speak of in your post. I too have no use for them. Don’t want to be around them, no matter how important, famous, or intelligent, they may be in their field. Just way too “plastic” for me.

    Starting law school at the age of 36 back in 1985, I had a younger friend who played the part completely with the expensive shoes, shirts, pants, haircut, etc., and “ACT.” He was so good at the “act,” he too could easily crash a White House function uninvited. Though his GPA was even lower than my 2.7 at graduation, he COULD play the part and it got him through many doors.

    Eventually he moved to Las Vegas, and first started working in Oscar Goodman’s office, got married, and eventually passed the bar. Oscar’s office had pictures of all the old Mob bosses he represented during his lawyering days. He fit right in with the plastic types, and even worked his way up into those “higher eschelon” social circles there in Vegas.

    I’d rather ride with a good farmer friend of ours from King City, MO, in one of his 18-wheelers hauling hogs, after a lunch of “rocky mountain oysters” and beer, with him blowing cigarette smoke continuously the whole time we are on the road, than hang around with individuals like my old law school friend and his “friends.”

    My wife is an OB/GYN, and she too is “country.” Both of us don’t have any “professional” types as close friends. All of our friends are the down-to-earth types the plastic types would rather not have to look at, much less consider. We prefer to hang around with good, honest, working people one can trust to do right when no one else is looking.

    He ended up being what I describe as the text book case of satyriasis, hooking anything he could get his hands on at anytime, anywhere: clients, news anchors, legal products sales ladies, etc. Even got arrested picking up an undercover female vice cop hooking outside his office on Las Vegas Blvd. one night. He got out of that somehow through his plastic connections. Had a severe gambling problem on top of that too. He ended up divorcing his wife and marrying his secretary after she got the breast implants he wanted her to have installed first. That’s the last we’ve heard from his ex-wife since leaving Vegas back in 1997.

    As an engineer, I tend to look at things with 100% contrast, no gray areas. After my first semester Contracts I class, our Contracts II class [with the same instructor as Contracts I] was reviewing the three essay exam questions we had to answer in the first exam. I got a “D” along with five others, there were several people who flunked, and no one got an “A.” One student asked the instructor what was wrong with his answer. Instructor told him to read his answer aloud. Everything the student read was essentially exactly what I had in my answer – all the black letter law, etc. It was the instructor’s answer that cemented my view of law school from that point onward. He said, “Everything you have there is correct. It’s just not what I was looking for.” WOW! What a bunch of BS I immediately thought. That impression stuck with me all the way through to graduation!

    If you have any interest in reading the filings in my pending quo warranto case, have Phil send you the hyperlinks to my “hidden” web pages along with my e-mail address. I’d like to hear you take on my case as it stands.

  337. 12/11/2009keokuk says:

    Everything the student read was essentially exactly what I had in my answer – all the black letter law, etc. It was the instructor’s answer that cemented my view of law school from that point onward. He said, “Everything you have there is correct. It’s just not what I was looking for.” WOW! What a bunch of BS I immediately thought. That impression stuck with me all the way through to graduation!

    I’m a little curious: Why do you find that to be BS? In law school, I found that when most people did poorly on exams, it was not because they did not know or explain the law effectively but because they did not answer the question that was asked. For example, in my first year, on our section’s Torts exam, many people got bad grades because they read the fact pattern, saw a clear case for negligence and wrote a detailed and probably correct analysis of the negligence issues. But the problem was that the professor didn’t ask about negligence; he asked us to identify and discuss three specific intentional torts (assault, battery, and IIED if I recall correctly). So in that sense, many people did very poorly because they gave information was correct but that was not asked for.

    In short, most people who do poorly in law school don’t do poorly because they know too little, but instead do poorly because they don’t understand how to filter out what they need to answer the question from everything that they have learned.

    Are you saying that the problem was this type of thing, or am I misunderstanding your complaint?

  338. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    John says:
    December 11, 2009 at 2:42 pm
    *Starting law school at the age of 36 back in 1985*
    Yesterday you said you don’t know that much about the law, especially not about procedures. If you have been out of law school 20 years, is it that you have just not been practicing law? It’s very confusing.
    *have Phil send you the hyperlinks to my “hidden” web pages along with my e-mail address. *
    Aren’t you proud enough of your work to give us all a link?
    * ka ka*
    Well, I never said mine don’t stink, but there’s something kind of smelly about the story you’re telling.

  339. 12/11/2009John says:

    keokuk,

    I would be guessing to try and remember exactly what the problem was, but as I recall, it was not that we did not answer the question asked with the requisite black letter law involved, but that he was looking for some kind of unique, outside-the-box, esoteric-type answer. Out of approximately 40 students in that class, I’d say that approximately 1/3rd to 1/2 had a smiliar answer. That’s okay though. It’s like my wife always said, “You know what they call the person who graduated last in her medical school class? Doctor.”

    The way I saw it, from what he said, “It’s just not what I was looking for.” I thought to myself, now, how in the world am I supposed to be able to read his mind to answer in a way that satisfies what he was “looking for.” That to me is like the court telling me last year that I could not have a writ of mandamus, because I had a “future” remedy in quo warranto available – and that was handed down before the general election by the common pleas court and upheld by the appellate court, in light of a prior Ohio Supreme Court decision that held a writ of mandamus cannot be denied a petitioner entitled to it based upon reasoning that he/she may have a “future” remedy available.

    How could those two courts know I would live long enough to lose the election, and then become eligible to apply for a quo warranto writ? My constitutional rights WERE clearly denied by existing Ohio election law, allowing Democrat and Republican candidates to challenge an independent’s candidacy but not the other way around. They couldn’t.

    It was an easy way to dispose of a legitimate case without having to address the constitutional issues with existing law that favor the two-party system. Plus, I had no second right of appeal to the Supreme Court, which court would not even have to look at my case, in addition to the cost to me if I took a chance to have the Supreme Court agree to look at it. No. They knew exactly what they were doing. They ushered me down a procedural gauntlet that would be nothing more than a craps shoot for me from that point onward.

  340. 12/11/2009ballantine says:

    Linda,

    “Forrest McDonald, historian and professor of history at the U of Alabama. McDonald starts out by agreeing with Chairman Candy then goes on to cite supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his testimony…”

    How exactly does this support the birther definition? I see no definition of the term “natural born citizen.” Merely reciting that some delgates feared foreign influence does not mean they adopted the birther definition. In fact, if you read from the debates, you would see that many important founders, like Madison, didn’t fear foreign influence at all and the ones that did only proposed a native birth requirement (which was defined as a discirmination by place of birth). No one mentioned anything about parentage or de Vattel. This was because at such time allegiance by defined by place of birth and those born in America were not considered foreigners. According to Story:

    “Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign…” Justice Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)

    Story himself called the presidential natural born citizenship requirement a “native citizen” requirement. Speaking of the presidency, he said:

    “It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1842 ed.). Justice Story had previously called children of aliens “native-born citizens.” See, McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, 356 (1824).

    The bottom line is unless you can show any legal authority in the founding period or the early republic defining natural born citizen other than with respect to native-birth or the english common law, your argument is frivolous . Simply citing people who fear foreigners without defining NBC means nothing. Here is some help on your research:

    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statments of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788).

    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

    “”That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

    “The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.” Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

    “Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

    “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.” Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

    “Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.” Lysander Spooner, The Unconstituionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

    “It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.” The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

    “But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…” Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg. 208 (February 1854).

    “This is called becoming naturalized; that is, becoming entitled to all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens, or citizens born in this country.” Andrew White Young, First lessons in Civil Government, pg. 82 (1856).

    “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dredd Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

    “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …” Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)

    “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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

    “in like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen ; but the power of naturalization, which, under the king, each colony had claimed to regulate by its own laws, remained under the confederacy with the separate states.” George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866)

    “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)

    “A Natural Born Citizen.” — Not made by law or otherwise, but born… “Natural Born Citizen” recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born to a country do constitute the nation, and, as individual, are natural members of the body politic…Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen.” George Washington Paschal, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED, (1868)

    I can keep listing authority all day if you like.

  341. 12/11/2009John says:

    siseduermapierda,

    That’s correct. I’m not lying to you sis, or making any of this up out of thin air. Why would I do that?

    Do a Google search yourself and find some articles on my case. There are some published. If you find them, you find me. Then I’ll give you the link to the filings. Make a game out of it. Think of some search words to use that would narrow it down. Use this to refine your investigative skills. John is my middle name.

    I graduated from law school in 1988, Entered the Ohio bar in May 1989. Handled four cases as a sole practitioner for less than a year, then headed for Yokota AB, Japan, with my wife as a “dependent husband.” [I hate that, being the MCP that I am. That’s: Male Chauvinist Pig (MCP).]

    Spent four years in Japan, then headed for Ramstein AB, Germany, for three years, then back to Nellis AFB near Las Vegas, then McConnell AFB, Kansas, then Scott AFB, IL, until my wife retired in February 2003. So, during all that time I did not really practice law at all in Japan and Germany. Mainly drank beer with my cousins in Germany. Worked with my brother in our manufacturing company once we got back to the States. Did not use my legal license again until I did simple things like bond hearings, etc., when filling in for prosecutors in our county prosecutor office, where I worked as an investigator for three and half years.

    I’m just a jack-of-many-trades, and definitely not a master of any. The only law I know, and that is no where on the level of those who do it for a living, is that wherein I have been personally involved since 1989. Quo warranto because I have been doing research on it since Fall 2008, and involved in an active case since February 2009, for myself, not Obama’s situation.

    Research I love to do. It’s the only thing I can “brag” about from law school. I got the highest grade (93) out of both night and day school students in my class year in our Legal Writing class for my Moot Court brief. One other person out of about 100 total students, got a 91. All the rest were “Bs” and lower. I would have had a higher grade if I had spent more time proofing my brief instead of worrying about my partner’s brief, since I was doing the typing for both of us.

    I really like doing research/investigation which is why I would rather be on the street as and investigator or cop than sitting behind a desk piled with paperwork as a patent attorney, which is what I was originally aiming at when I started law school. Law enforcement police-type work is much more interesting and important, in my opinion, than working as an attorney or judge. You have to be all things to all people all the time, and it is very satisfying to be able to help people who need it.

    It is getting pretty boring on the streets at night now because it costs too much for people to be driving around in the middle of the night. Everybody is becoming more poor as weeks go by. Thefts, burglaries, and armed home invasions are increasing because of the economic conditions. The benefit is that those who are driving around in the middle of the night are easier to keep an eye on. Nobody is moving anymore past midnight and 0500 hours. Only saw three or four cars during that time the last night I worked mid-shift from midnight to 0500 hrs.

  342. 12/11/2009MGB says:

    Another Reader and Sharon 2: Thanks. And thanks for being reasonable. They won’t wear me down OR chase me away. Too bad for them. Ain’t gonna work, TTTs.

    I guess now we’re down to 20 questions. Have I met illegal aliens? Yep. To recap prior questions: Am I on Medicare? No. Do I employ people? No. Can I ask questions of my own that you will answer? Somehow I think not.

    You don’t want to know my solutions to the health care situation; all you want to do is pile on. There’s no crisis in health care. The status quo is better than screwing up the entire system and bankrupting the country while we’re at it.

    Can you all come up with something besides the WH talking point about how the Republicans haven’t a solution? It’s a lie.

    We know the talking points by now. We can review them in Robert Creamer’s book, in case we forget.

    In any case, outside interests wrote the health reform bill (Apollo Project, anyone?); they debate (aka, arm twist, bribe, threaten) the bills behind LOCKED, closed doors, no Republicans allowed in; AND they do it IN SECRET despite Obama’s promise during the campaign that health care reform would be hashed out on CSPAN with input from all and for all Americans to see.

  343. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    You don’t want to know my solutions to the health care situation; all you want to do is pile on. There’s no crisis in health care. The status quo is better than screwing up the entire system and bankrupting the country while we’re at it.

    Wait, I thought we agreed that the status quo is not good, that it’s the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, and that we should have some means of providing access to affordable health insurance for all Americans.

    I honestly don’t want to pile on. I think you and I share a significant amount of common ground, and maybe we can reach some sort of agreement. You want to see some systems where all Americans are insured. So do I. That’s most of the way there – it’s just a question about the means to get there. I also fully agree with you that the bill before Congress as currently constituted is far from the best way of achieving this goal.

  344. 12/11/2009brygenon says:

    qwertyman noted:

    Right wing Republicans like Don Nicholls and Orrin Hatch have advocated for the repeal of the natural born citizen clause.

    And Hatch’s testimony included:

    What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” — Orrin Hatch, Senate Judiciary Committee, 5 Oct 2004

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=51

  345. 12/11/2009Margie says:

    The Law of Nations…..The natives or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As a society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, this child naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    The U.S. Constitution. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.

  346. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    John says:
    December 11, 2009 at 3:46 pm
    * Can you guess who I am?*
    * That to me is like the court telling me last year that I could not have a writ of mandamus, because I had a “future” remedy in quo warranto available – and that was handed down before the general election by the common pleas court and upheld by the appellate court, in light of a prior Ohio Supreme Court decision that held a writ of mandamus cannot be denied a petitioner entitled to it based upon reasoning that he/she may have a “future” remedy available.

    How could those two courts know I would live long enough to lose the election, and then become eligible to apply for a quo warranto writ? My constitutional rights WERE clearly denied by existing Ohio election law, allowing Democrat and Republican candidates to challenge an independent’s candidacy but not the other way around. They couldn’t. *

    Gosh, when you put it that way, you sound like Carol Greenberg. But Carol Greenberg’s not an attorney, because when she posted here in March she didn’t understand that her case was a civil case.

  347. 12/11/2009John says:

    siseduermapierda,

    I’m not Carol.

    My genotype is “xy.”

    Jennifer Brunner’s office was a little bit upset when the local Board of Elections agreed with me, and said in a written answer that, as an independent, I was “disenfranchised” under the current election laws. Ouch!

    It didn’t matter. No one really cares one way or another.

    Just shut up; pay your taxes like a good automaton; die; and, “get the hell out of our hair.”

    The partisans will do anything to keep their two-party juggernaut in place without any viable competition.

  348. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Ballantine,

    I appreciate your list of definitions, however they are all over the map. Do you not comprehend what you read?

  349. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    qwerty say: Tuan Anh Nguyen has absolutely no relevance to a person born within the US. Nguyen was born in Vietnam to an unmarried couple, and only the father was American.

    Too bad you think you know it all just because you read the book cover aka listen to the audio. Your loss.

  350. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    siseduermapierda says: Is Leo going to try to argue Nguyen applies in this case? Oh goodie! This should be hilarious. I think it’s another opportunity for the USA’s to say “Nuts!”

    You sure assume alot from a little. I never said Nguyen had anything to do with defining NBC. I referred to SCOTUS.

  351. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 8:00 pm
    *Too bad you think you know it all just because you read the book cover aka listen to the audio. Your loss.*

    Not sure what game you are trying to play. Maybe you can get the hopes up of the faithful, but you’re not fooling anyone with the ability to read, video or no video. Tuan Anh Nguyen was born in Vietnam to a Vietnamese mother and US Citizen father who were unmarried. Congress passed legislation making rules about this specific situation. The Supreme Court validated the law with their decision that Nguyen is not a natural born citizen. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The Supreme Court found in Wong Kim Ark that a person born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents. It is the Wong Kim Ark decision that applies to Barack Obama, who was born within the US. Trying to draw a parallel between Barack Obama and Nguyen is laughable and utterly disingenuous. But really, I hope Leo tries this in his case because the comic relief is welcome. Leo knows Obama was born in Hawaii.

  352. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    qwerty: For the third time, I emailed Pidgeon last night. I still have no response from him

    So he is suppose to be at your beckon call too? You all are just to hillarious if you think you should be kowtowed to on your time.

  353. 12/11/2009Linda says:

    Hmmm, I wonder what Ginsberg thinks an NBC is, or Thomas or Scalia, etc, etc?

    qwerty says they all believe as he does. OK, go ahead and keep that dillusional thought. I was throwing you a bone, but if your not hungry enough to take it, then its your loss.

  354. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    It’s 8PM Friday, the work week’s over. Where’s that case Leo and Steve were going to file this week?

  355. 12/11/2009siseduermapierda says:

    JOhn Said:

    “xy”

    Well, hmmm, Ohio cases, that leaves David M Neal, a businessman and Daniel Spuck, a current guest of the Pennsylvania corrections system.

  356. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    So he is suppose to be at your beckon call too? You all are just to hillarious if you think you should be kowtowed to on your time.

    No, I don’t expect him to get back to me immediately on something like that. You suggested that I email the guy and ask for a copy of the case. I did. I took your advice and now you’re criticizing me for doing so.

    I shouldn’t have had to waste his time though, considering that you have said that you have the case on a UBS yourself. If you have that UBS, it should take no more than ten minutes to take the case and upload it to a site like scribd. So instead of resolving the whole situation, it’s been a back and forth with you for 24 hours now when it could’ve been done in ten minutes.

    Hmmm, I wonder what Ginsberg thinks an NBC is, or Thomas or Scalia, etc, etc?

    qwerty says they all believe as he does. OK, go ahead and keep that dillusional thought. I was throwing you a bone, but if your not hungry enough to take it, then its your loss.

    Well based on the oral argument in Nguyen alone I have no idea what Thomas thinks. He virtually never speaks. If you found something in the transcript, please let me know.

    However, here’s what Scalia says:

    I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

    They did not want that.

    They wanted natural born Americans.

    Doesn’t seem to apply to Obama.

    And Ginsburg:

    I know that the Solicitor General took the line in its brief that there are only two kinds of citizens… born in the United States, and everybody else for constitutional purposes is naturalized.

    My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents.

    I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States, but is that his correct status?

    Again, inapplicable to President Obama.

    But then again, they were just keeping quiet about their true beliefs in this 2001 case in order to make sure that 7 years later, a guy who was then an obscure state-senator who only had one citizen parent would be able to squeak into office. Because Scalia is the sort of justice who does not publicize his views on the law. And of course, every single law professor in the country has been keeping quiet on this issue for about a century, making sure to lay enough of a groundwork of “kool aid” so that a note written 20 years ago could later be cited in support of the proposition that this entire theory you are advocating has been a dead letter for over a century.

  357. 12/11/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    I suspect “Linda” is going to tell you that President Obama or his supporters has “scrubbed” those “multiple law review articles.”

    I think you need to stop being so rude as to put words into other peoples’ mouths.

    -Phil

  358. 12/11/2009Phil says:

    jvn,

    I will give you this Linda – you blow a lot of smoke!

    But most of it is to hide the fact that you want to “win” a different argument than the one you claim to be winning.

    And you combine this hysteria with what is, at best, a disingenuous reading of case law…

    It all adds up to… smoke.

    It’s good to have a hobby to keep you busy while your husband is on the road.

    I am glad that this is your hobby instead of wasting your time working to get Republicans elected to office.

    You can keep right on beating this dead horse right here, that has sooooo much impact. The President is probably shaking in his boots right now knowing you’re here doing this yeoman’s work.

    First of all, the commentary that Linda and Dennis have both recently brought to my blog is absolutely and fundamentally phenomenal, regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with their conclusions. I am exceptionally proud to have both of them opining about their views on eligibility and what not.

    Secondly, as I’ve said in the past, so I’ll say again: it absolutely amazes me how a blog such as mine in the midst of the ocean we call the blogosphere could attract so much attention over eligibility. If there was no “there” there, why would anyone care? What — my blog is so important that it must be monitored by the opposition to make sure that I’m not spewing too much vileness against what is otherwise a non-issue to them? Hardly..

    Thirdly, yes, dear ol’ HistorianDude had apparently shown back up as SanDiegoSam, and has once again been banned. However, that certainly has not stopped said individual from trying and trying again; I’ve had to ban at least one other attempt by them because of their sheer ass-hattery. I don’t mind being annoyed by some opposition commenters, but if you’re not willing to carry on a reasonable conversation without ending up going so personal that you end up running folks off my site, then I have a problem with that.

    -Phil

  359. 12/11/2009Phil says:

    jvn,

    That the President is eligible is demonstrated by the vote of the Electoral College and the unanimous affirmation and certification of that vote by the Congress.

    Wrong. The 2008 Joint Session of Congress never certified any candidate to be eligible, and you will be hard-pressed to find anywhere in the Constitution or federal statute that says that a Joint Session of Congress convened to certify the Electoral College vote is tasked with simultaneously certifying a candidate’s eligibility.

    In fact, while it is required for the Vice President to ask for objections for a given candidate, it is not required for anyone to lodge an objection against any candidate. Therefore, even where eligibility has a chance to be considered, it is not a requirement. After all, such an objection is not wholly constrained to a candidate’s eligibility; it could simply be an objection to process or any other reason.

    The President’s eligibility is further demonstrated by the fact that the SCOTUS not only attended and conducted his swearing in, but they also have rejected the opportunity to grant any of these cases a hearing.

    Again, wrong. Please cite the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution or federal statute that stipulates that the Supreme Court, Chief Justice and/or any Associate Justice certifies the eligibility of a President by virtue of attending an Inauguration or swearing in the President-Elect.

    Regarding the rejection of a number of eligibility-based cases at Conference, there was nothing that SCOTUS needed to consider, as none of the petitioners, then to date, had standing to bring their actions to full Court consideration at any lower level, much less at SCOTUS. There was no “reject[ing] an opportunity;” there was simply following the law.

    -Phil

  360. 12/11/2009jvn says:

    Now Phil, there you go being disingenuous again.

    First off, of you read Federalist #68 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm) you will find that the duty to make sure the President is qualified belongs to the Electoral College.

    Here is a pertinent quote: “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

    It is the task of the Congress to certify that the Electoral College has appropriately and constitutionally voted and counted their votes.

    The process was followed and no objection was made, therefore no member of Congress nor any member of the Electoral College had any objection to the President’s eligibility.

    As to the SCOTUS. If you study their history, they have taken cases that contained what they deemed to be important constitutional questions without regard to smaller issues such as format or standing. That’s the truth. If you believe that the SCOTUS would let someone who they believed was not eligible to be President serve based on a technical issue, you have already lost your belief in the American way of life…

  361. 12/11/2009Phil says:

    jvn,

    Now Phil, there you go being disingenuous again.

    First off, of you read Federalist #68 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm) you will find that the duty to make sure the President is qualified belongs to the Electoral College.

    Here is a pertinent quote: “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

    Speaking of “there you go again,” well, there you go again! While the Federalist Papers are absolutely crucial to understanding the context of the Constitution, it is but the context of the Constitution as it was written.

    Now, when you can show me where the pull-quote exists either in the Constitution, per se, or federal statute (as in, binding law), then you might have a point to make in this respect.

    It is the task of the Congress to certify that the Electoral College has appropriately and constitutionally voted and counted their votes.

    Again — show me the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution or in federal statute where the Joint Session of Congress is to do anything but certify the Electoral College votes. I have read nowhere, to date, in the Constitution or federal statute that such certification implies that the Electoral College constitutionally performed any other duty than to vote for a candidate under the auspices of their respective States.

    The process was followed and no objection was made, therefore no member of Congress nor any member of the Electoral College had any objection to the President’s eligibility.

    Excellent. Finally, a correct statement. Of course, all that this means is exactly that — nobody objected to any candidate during the Joint Session. This does not mean, necessarily, that all candidates were actually qualified for the office of the presidency.

    As to the SCOTUS. If you study their history, they have taken cases that contained what they deemed to be important constitutional questions without regard to smaller issues such as format or standing. That’s the truth. If you believe that the SCOTUS would let someone who they believed was not eligible to be President serve based on a technical issue, you have already lost your belief in the American way of life…

    Sorry, no. I do not believe that the American Judiciary has the “energy” to bring cases unto itself, and I do not believe that the Judiciary is capricious and arbitrary to the point of picking and choosing cases based on anything other than the law.

    Remember — there is currently no law that enforces presidential eligibility, nor is there any law that stipulates exactly what documentation and to what extent said documentation would substantiate an individual’s credentials for eligibility.

    -Phil

  362. 12/11/2009qwertyman says:

    As to the SCOTUS. If you study their history, they have taken cases that contained what they deemed to be important constitutional questions without regard to smaller issues such as format or standing. That’s the truth. If you believe that the SCOTUS would let someone who they believed was not eligible to be President serve based on a technical issue, you have already lost your belief in the American way of life…

    And perhaps the biggest example of this is Bush v. Gore, where the court could have easily refused to hear the case on political question doctrine.

    However, it was amusing to see Scalia and Thomas voice perhaps the most expansive interpretation of the equal protection doctrine in Supreme Court history.

    I think you need to stop being so rude as to put words into other peoples’ mouths.

    Phil, Linda accused a law school of scrubbing a law review note. Sue didn’t put those words into Linda’s mouth, Linda typed them herself.

    Secondly, as I’ve said in the past, so I’ll say again: it absolutely amazes me how a blog such as mine in the midst of the ocean we call the blogosphere could attract so much attention over eligibility. If there was no “there” there, why would anyone care? What — my blog is so important that it must be monitored by the opposition to make sure that I’m not spewing too much vileness against what is otherwise a non-issue to them? Hardly.

    I think this site has fierce debate because this is perhaps the only site run by somebody who has doubts about President Obama’s eligibility that doesn’t block or ban comments from those who disagree. Syc doesn’t allow comments that disagree with his views, nor does the racist hate site FreeRepublic, nor did Donofrio’s website, nor does Apuzzo, nor does WND.

    This is perhaps the only site where the allegations of birthers can be directly refuted and debated. Of course, any doubters are always welcome at sites like politijab or obamaconspiracy, and we see some come along once in a while. As far as I know, neither site has ever banned or censored comments.

    For myself, pointing out the fundamental logical flaws, rampant paranoia and intellectual dishonesty/laziness of people like Linda is a lot more fun than what I should be doing right now.

  363. 12/12/2009Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    Phil, Linda accused a law school of scrubbing a law review note. Sue didn’t put those words into Linda’s mouth, Linda typed them herself.

    While I may have missed that part of the conversation, Sue has more than enough history on my site to show that she can be just a bit over the top with the tone of her comments.

    And it appears I may have to start calling individuals on their tone from time to time; see below…

    This is perhaps the only site where the allegations of birthers can be directly refuted and debated. Of course, any doubters are always welcome at sites like politijab or obamaconspiracy, and we see some come along once in a while. As far as I know, neither site has ever banned or censored comments.

    And I can assure you, this site is a benevolent dictatorship and not a democracy. As such, while I have prided myself on having an open site, I fear it’s becoming somewhat too open in the sense that good, honest and civil debates tend to wind down into ad hominem attacks, especially — and unfortunately — on the part of the opposition.

    I have already banned one user, and I periodically delete comments that I deem to be uncivil or the like. It’s not fun, but I’m also not going to tolerate tone and verbiage that goes “too far.”

    For myself, pointing out the fundamental logical flaws, rampant paranoia and intellectual dishonesty/laziness of people like Linda is a lot more fun than what I should be doing right now.

    As an example, I really think you need to tone down your rhetoric just a bit. You don’t have to agree with what Linda says, and you can question her bona fides or opinions all you wish. But to imply that she is “paranoid” or is of “intellectual dishonesty/laziness” is over the top.

    You don’t know her personally (I think that’s a pretty good presumption on my part), so I don’t think you are in possession of enough facts in real life to make such an allegation.

    So, stop. Get back to the discussion at hand. If you don’t agree with someone, then just say so; don’t run their character into the ground.

    Oh, yes — and if it sounds like I’m coming to the aid of like-minded individuals, guess what — you’ve discerned correctly! It may be unfair, completely biased, but this is my site, and that’s how I’m going to roll.

    -Phil

  364. 12/12/2009Howard Appel says:

    “Linda says:
    December 11, 2009 at 3:34 am

    To all the koo-aide drinkers,

    If you want Pidgeons credentials, then get off your duff and do the homework. I have them on usb back-up, but you wouldn’t believe me anyway, so I will not waste my time going thru the files. What I will tell you is that it was a recent Alaskan election case he litigated and won. Go find it for yourself.

    BTW, you all seem to have the inside track to the lawyers at politijab, I have debated them extensively in the past at other sites, so go cry to them for further information if you think it is so valuable in defining ‘natural born’. They all quit debating me because they could not refute my research and what’s even more funny, it was always they that left the debate 1st and only after their numerous attempts at changing the subject as you are.”

    Please forgive if I am coming late to the party, but I decided to do as Linda suggested and review the reported (and unreported) cases. Guess what, Stephen Pidgeon appears (as attorney of record or otherwise) in exactly one case in any Alaskan appeals court, that being State v. Sigler, which is copied in its entirety below (all two paragraphs). In that case, Mr. Pidgeon appeared as an appellee. The Alaskan Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was moot, in that the Alaskan legislature had already changed the law upon which the original suit was based.

    I don’t see how this case is supposed to demonstrate the incredible legal abilities of Mr. Pidgeon.

    State v. Sigler
    Not Reported in P.2d, 1990 WL 10515514
    Alaska,1990.
    Feb 28, 1990

    Term Link to next search term
    Not Reported in P.2d, 1990 WL 10515514 (Alaska)
    Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

    NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION

    Supreme Court of Alaska.
    STATE of Alaska and Lieutenant Governor Stephen McAlpine, in his official
    capacity of Director of Elections, Appellants,
    v.
    William J. SIGLER, John Ward, and Stephen Search Term Begin Pidgeon, Search Term End Appellees,
    and
    Daniel DeNardo, Tuckerman Babcock, and Bull Moose Party, Appellee-Intervenors.
    No. S-2988.
    No. 3AN-88-8695 Civil.
    Feb. 28, 1990.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Douglas J. Serdahely, Judge.
    Jonathan B. Rubini, Special Counsel, Grace Berg Schaible, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellants.
    William J. Sigler, Anchorage, pro se.
    John Ward, Anchorage, pro se.
    Wayne A. Ross, Cheri C. Jacobus, Ross, Gingras, Bailey & Miner, Anchorage, for Appellee-Intervenors Bull Moose Party.
    Kenneth P. Jacobus, Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin, Anchorage, for Appellee-Intervenors Bull Moose Party and Tuckerman Babcock.
    Daniel DeNardo, Anchorage, pro se.

    Before: MATTHEWS, Chief Justice, RABINOWITZ, BURKE, COMPTON and MOORE, Justices.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT [FN*]

    FN* Entered pursuant to Appellate Rule 214.

    This appeal challenging the constitutionality of the June 1 filing deadline for third-party candidates in primary elections was filed in September 1988. An election was held in November 1988. Appellees’ names appeared on the ballot; they were not elected. In May 1989 (effective May 1, 1990), the State legislature amended AS 15.25.150, abolishing the June 1 filing deadline and replacing it with an August 1 cutoff date, an extension of some two months beyond the deadline for filing declarations of candidacy in the major party primaries. AS 15.25.040; AS 15.25.150. Accordingly, the challenge to the constitutionality of the June 1 deadline is now moot. See Hayes v. Charney, 693 P.2d 831, 834-35 (Alaska 1985); Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 53 (Alaska 1971).
    While we express no opinion on the constitutionality of the new filing deadline, it is clear that the extension of the filing period materially alters both the interests served and the burdens imposed by the statutory scheme. The parties have not briefed, and the superior court expressly declined to consider, the constitutionality of “a filing deadline for third-party candidates considerably closer to the general election.” Because substantially different considerations may be presented under the new statute, we decline to render a decision in this matter under the “public interest exception” to the mootness doctrine. See Hayes, 693 P.2d at 834.
    The appeal is dismissed as moot.
    Alaska,1990.
    State v. Sigler
    Not Reported in P.2d, 1990 WL 10515514 (Alaska)
    END OF DOCUMENT

  365. 12/12/2009Howard Appel says:

    Linda, further to my comment re Mr. Pidgeon’s litigation record re Alaskan elections, please note that I did what you suggested and got off my duff and searched. I also did a search of US 9th Circuit and US Sup. Ct. decisions and did not find any other relevant cases.

    Accordingly, as I have done what you suggested and searched, I would appreciate your providing a citation to the case where Mr. Pidgeon successfully litigated the reversal of an election. If you refuse to provide the citation, I can only assume that is not because you desire that I “get off my duff” and find it myself, but that it does not exist.

    Respectfully yours,

    Howard Appel
    Boalt Hall, 1991.

  366. 12/12/2009bystander says:

    Linda, I am embarrassed for you. Either come clean about the link or go away. You have continued to mock people about their intellectual laziness whilst they wipe the floor with you, having done all the research you apparently failed to do. If you are the Pidge – this is a preview of the fun you will have in court. If you are not, you need to approach everything you read at his site with extreme scepticism.

  367. 12/12/2009theOriginalist says:

    born citizen – a citizen at birth
    natural born citizen – a natural citizen at birth

    nat·u·ral
    adj.
    1. Present in or produced by nature

    A natural citizen is one who acquired citizenship by an act of nature rather than an act of man. In other words, a natural citizen is a citizen by natural law as opposed to positive law. By definition, no act of man can give a person natural citizenship. Anyone made a citizen by the passing of a law or by the ruling of a court is not a natural born citizen because those are acts of man and not of nature. Therefore statutory citizens are not natural born citizens and neither are 14th amendment citizens.

    Words have meaning. The word ‘natural’ is in the Constitution. The word cannot be ignored nor can its meaning.

  368. 12/12/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    “While I may have missed that part of the conversation, Sue has more than enough history on my site to show that she can be just a bit over the top with the tone of her comments.”

    I don’t quite know where you are coming from with this. I do not feel my “tone” has been over the top. Linda has suggested that websites have been scrubbed when it has been proven otherwise.

    I really don’t quite know what I can do about my “tone”. However, all anyone needs to do is ask me to clarify my comment, which I will more than happy to do.

  369. 12/12/2009brygenon says:

    Phil wrote,

    As an example, I really think you need to tone down your rhetoric just a bit. You don’t have to agree with what Linda says, and you can question her bona fides or opinions all you wish. But to imply that she is “paranoid” or is of “intellectual dishonesty/laziness” is over the top.

    Phil, in this very thread, Linda wrote:

    You all can keep quoting that bloviating & corrupt Indiana case all you want.

    “Bloviating” is her opinion, and if she wishes to insult the Court that is her right. “Corrupt” is something else entirely. Where was the evidence of any corruption? I do not merely disagree; I think making up such a charge is unacceptable behavior, and deserves at least to be described in the harshest of terms, such as defamation, false witness, and lie.

  370. 12/12/2009Sue says:

    MGB says:
    December 11, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    “I guess now we’re down to 20 questions. Have I met illegal aliens? Yep. To recap prior questions: Am I on Medicare? No. Do I employ people? No. Can I ask questions of my own that you will answer? Somehow I think not.”

    Sure, ask me anything. If you ask something that is too personal, I will simply state that I would prefer not to answer your question. The reason I asked you if you knew any illegal aliens is because in the area where I live, there are several farms/ranches/dairies that do hire them. We don’t and never have. Their children attend school and you get to know the families because of this. While I certainly don’t agree with them being here illegally, I can understand their reasons for risking their lives to come to America. I have not “walked in their shoes”, therefore, I do not know what I would do given the same circumstances.

    “You don’t want to know my solutions to the health care situation; all you want to do is pile on. There’s no crisis in health care. The status quo is better than screwing up the entire system and bankrupting the country while we’re at it.”

    The status quo is going to bankrupt the country. Individuals who do not have health care go to ER’s for treatment for ear infections and minor illnesses that drive the cost of your health insurance up. As unemployement increases, there will be an even higher incidence of this. So, I believe we need to find some solutions to health care.

    “Can you all come up with something besides the WH talking point about how the Republicans haven’t a solution? It’s a lie.”

    No, that was not a lie. The Republican party did not provide their “plan” for health care until late in the game. I read their plan and it stunk–but so does the one before the senate right now.

  371. 12/12/2009siseduermapierda says:

    bystander says:
    December 12, 2009 at 2:18 am
    *If you are the Pidge –*

    Not Pidgeon, but you may recall “PatriotLinda” from South Dakota from the old Plains Radio. Not so much a Pidgeon, as a bird of a feather. By the way, Steve Pidgeon still owes the Plains Radio crowd an accounting of where he spent their $10,000.

  372. 12/12/2009siseduermapierda says:

    theOriginalist says:
    December 12, 2009 at 2:24 am
    “natural”

    Natural born citizen = native = citizen at birth. Citizens of the US are either natural born or naturalized. Only two types, no magical third type. No one touting the “but there’s a special class of Article II, Section 1 citizen” has been able to show otherwise. It’s wishful thinking.

  373. 12/12/2009Manchurian Messiah says:

    I AM BRITISH AND LOYAL TO THE CROWN AND HER MAJESTY, QUEEN ELIZ. II.

    WHY DO YOU THINK I GAVE HER MY SPEECHES ON iPOD, AND BOWED?

    IF LEO AND PIDGEON CATCH ME, I AM DONE…HISTORY! WE MUST DELAY.

    MM

  374. 12/12/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE Sue (active member of the Probama Red Herrings Sellers Association) –

    “The Post & Email has just received PDF files from a highly credible source, establishing that the birth annoucement in the Star Bulletin Edition of Aug. 14, 1961, for Barack Hussein Obama, is authentic.”

    Sue, I must say that I am impressed by your steadfast producing of non-evidence regarding Obama’s place and date of birth, non-evidence for long debunked –
    Said newspaper announcement(s) in Honolulu were just a re-publishing of a list done by the Hawaii HD, forwarded by that department, list wholesale describing BIRTH REGISTRATIONS at that institution, AND NOT ONLY BIRTHS THAT OCCURRED AT ONE OR ANOTHER hospital there –

    Can you show in the announcement the Hospital where the alleged birth occcurred?
    Nope, and we’re at square one again – the growing suspicions regarding Obama’s presidential illegitimacy (and the ensuing complications caused by this serious situation), can be assuaged only by the production of the full format document ($15 fee) that details Obama’s birth – be it in Kenya, on a raft off-shore Somalia, in Seattle, or in Hawaii –

    And this is exactly what Obama and you Obamatons fight – the release of the, quite likely proof, that Obama is not a legitimate president –

    Your mention of the Hawaii paper announcement is, evidence-wise value, par to Sise’s constant invokation of the Hawaii HD Index Data – that is, NOTHING –

    Regards -

  375. 12/12/2009siseduermapierda says:

    misanthropicus says:
    December 12, 2009 at 9:04 am
    “The Post & Email has just received PDF files from a highly credible source, establishing that the birth annoucement in the Star Bulletin Edition of Aug. 14, 1961, for Barack Hussein Obama, is authentic.”

    So someone finally did what I suggested months ago and actually went to the library and looked up the microfiche. So now we have it, the birth announcement is authentic. And it was a birther who found it! No denying it now!

    *Your mention of the Hawaii paper announcement is, evidence-wise value*

    Sorry Miserable, contemporaneous birth announcements are considered a primary source for birth information. Find a Hawaiian birth announcment from the same time period that lists a hospital. Oh, don’t waste your time, you won’t find one. The hospital is not important. What is important is the date and the city/state. Charles Lincoln knows it. Ms Tickly knows it. Leo knows it. Born in Hawaii means Natural Born Citizen. The Jig is Up.

  376. 12/12/2009Phil says:

    bystander,

    Linda, I am embarrassed for you. Either come clean about the link or go away.

    Linda is welcome on this site. If you don’t like the way Linda conducts herself, that would be your problem, not hers.

    (Like I said in previous commentary, I’m being serious about better moderating my site. Do take heed.)

    -Phil

  377. 12/12/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    Phil,

    “While I may have missed that part of the conversation, Sue has more than enough history on my site to show that she can be just a bit over the top with the tone of her comments.”

    I don’t quite know where you are coming from with this. I do not feel my “tone” has been over the top. Linda has suggested that websites have been scrubbed when it has been proven otherwise.

    I really don’t quite know what I can do about my “tone”. However, all anyone needs to do is ask me to clarify my comment, which I will more than happy to do.

    Be sure to view my updated Site Comment Policy page. I think it provides more than ample response to your push-back (besides — I get tired of saying the same thing over and over again).

    -Phil

  378. 12/12/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Phil, in this very thread, Linda wrote:

    You all can keep quoting that bloviating & corrupt Indiana case all you want.

    “Bloviating” is her opinion, and if she wishes to insult the Court that is her right. “Corrupt” is something else entirely. Where was the evidence of any corruption? I do not merely disagree; I think making up such a charge is unacceptable behavior, and deserves at least to be described in the harshest of terms, such as defamation, false witness, and lie.

    Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the concept that individuals make all sorts of claims all the time; it doesn’t necessarily make them true. I see opposition commenters say all sorts of things regarding Mr. Obama’s credentials that are simply being pulled out of their butts.

    However, the overall point here is that I think I’ve made myself quite clear how I am moderating my site. For your own reference, here’s my updated Site Comment Policy page. It can be seen under the About tab on my home page. As such, how I moderate my site is not up for debate; it simply is what it is.

    -Phil

  379. 12/12/2009misanthropicus says:

    TE SIserda –

    […] contemporaneous birth announcements are considered a primary source for birth information. Find a Hawaiian birth announcment from the same time period that lists a hospital. Oh, don’t waste your time, you won’t find one. The hospital is not important. What is important is the date and the city/state. […]

    Heh-heh-heh – Sise, a nice coffee and you comment sure opened a nice morning (PST) for me –

    1) “birth announcements are considered a primary source for birth information” – way too general statement: where, what kind of paper, what content, etc?
    Also, can I use a newspaper announcement for getting a driver’s licence or a passport?
    Besides Laputa, and Obamanistan, where exactly? Enlighten us –

    2) “Find a Hawaiian birth announcment from the same time period that lists a hospital.” – now this is even clumsier – no, probably you cannot find one, and this fact doesn’t lessen a iota the fact that the Hawaii newspapers in that period had this type of information provided by the HD, lists which where wholesale compilations of birth ANNOUNCEMENTS registered with them, and NOT ONLY BIRTHS OCCURRED IN HAWAII –
    In order to provide his presidential legitimacy, Obama must show his long lorm birth certificate, situation which he keeps dodging, and you Obamatons, keep trying to obfuscate –

    Hey, and your Index Data theory nicely adds to this “non-evidence” production –

    Regards -

  380. 12/12/2009siseduermapierda says:

    misanthropicus says:
    December 12, 2009 at 11:00 am
    *Obama must show his long lorm birth certificate*

    No, no he doesn’t. Just as always, you have yet to show where there is a requirement for a President to show a birth certificate, let alone whatever it is you call a long form, which you have yet to explain. No, there’s nothing that requires him to show you anything.

  381. 12/12/2009bob strauss says:

    sise, It is the candidates duty to prove they qualify for the job, in the case of Obama, they meaning, Pelosi and others fraudulently stated he was eligible even though they had seen no proof that he was.

  382. 12/12/2009siseduermapierda says:

    bob strauss says:
    December 12, 2009 at 12:27 pm
    sise, It is the candidates duty to prove they qualify for the job

    If that’s true you could easily point us to where we can find this requirement for a candidate to prove he is qualified for the job. The election was over a year ago. Obama has been President for 11 months. You have never been able to show any requirement for candidates to prove their eligibility. The reason you can’t find it there is no requirement for the candidates to prove they are eligible. Now, if you would like to make it a requirement, call your Congressman or Senator and ask him to introduce a bill. Oh! There is one? Why are none of its sponsors promoting it? Why is it laying idle in Rules Committee? What is and What you wish were so are two different things.

  383. 12/12/2009qwertyman says:

    As an example, I really think you need to tone down your rhetoric just a bit. You don’t have to agree with what Linda says, and you can question her bona fides or opinions all you wish. But to imply that she is “paranoid” or is of “intellectual dishonesty/laziness” is over the top.

    Fair enough. I’ll tone it down. However, as to paranoid, it’s not name-calling, it’s not a substitute for actual argument. What Linda has been saying (every single member of Congress, judge and legal scholar are “putting their political agenda above their country” and speaking out about what she believes natural born citizen to mean) is simply paranoid. The thought that hundreds of elected representatives, hundreds of judges, and thousands of law professors, authors and constitutional scholars around the country are all working together to suppress an obvious truth to support President Obama, whom a large percentage of them do not support in any way? If you have a word beyond paranoid to describe a view like that I’m definitely open to hearing it.

    Howard, thanks for finding that case! I guess I need to work on my Westlaw searching skills. It seems entirely possible that Pidgeon and his other co-litigators successfully negotiated or lobbied for a new election law, and then the case was dismissed by the court as moot. Really can’t tell from the opinion though.

  384. 12/12/2009John says:

    siseduermapierda,

    Excuse me for interrupting here, but to try and answer your statement/question: “If that’s true you could easily point us to where we can find this requirement for a candidate to prove he is qualified for the job.”

    This is part and parcel of the quo warranto procedure, which is why the Relator has to have “standing” to bring the suit. The suit is civil in nature and is directed specifically at the alleged usurping office holder. It is a personal civil suit between the person(s) with standing – the Relator(s) – and president-elect Obama. Obama will have to hire his own personal attorney and will not be able to use a “government” attorney to handle that case for him. The reason Obama will have to prove his eligibility is because the burden of proof will be upon him to do so in that action.

    The Relator [having standing] makes his case as to why Obama is not legally qualified. That will be, in Obama’s case, that he is not a “natural born citizen,” which is a specific necessary requirement in the Constitution for one to be eligible to be a legally qualified candidate to run for the office of President. Obama will have to answer the complaint, proving that he was/is qualified to have been a valid candidate, refuting with authenticated evidence every argument/issue presented as to why he was/is not.

    I haven’t the slightest clue about the procedure, protocol, and paperwork, whereby a candidate for president goes about proving he/she meets the requirements to be a valid candidate. On the local county level, however, under Ohio law, the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) spells out specific requirements that one has to satisfy to be able to legitimately qualify to run for office.

    In my case, there is a whole list of requirements that had to be met to qualify specifically listed in the ORC. Most of these requirements are satisfied by the candidate swearing by signed affidavit, at the end of his signed petitions, that he/she is qualified to be a candidate. The candidate swears that he meets the qualifications necessary to be a valid candiate, under penalty of law, which penalty is a 5th degree felony for falsification of said document in Ohio.

    So, if, in fact, Obama is not qualified, and there are others who may have known that he wasn’t, every one of those individuals may be guilty of a crime under federal law (Maybe RICO? Don’t know). I have not looked at that issue to see what, if any, law on the books deals with falsification of presidential election information.

    The local Board of Elections accepts that affidavit as “proof” that the person submitting it is valid in ALL respects to run for the office. Unless there is a written “protest” brought under the existing elections laws, that candidate will end up on the ballot unchallenged. If that candidate then gets elected, and either he mistakenly thought he/she was qualified, or, he/she deliberately mislead the Board of Elections into thinking he/she was qualified, that candidate elected is what is called in the law a “usurper” of the position. He/she is not legally elected, which underlying “defect” or disqualification existed long before he/she was certified and sworn into position as president-elect. Thus, it is “the cart before the horse” kind of a situation. If the “horse” doesn’t exist, then the “cart” is going nowhere, so to speak. Or, a skyscraper [president-elect] erected [somehow] on quicksand [not a valid candidate, lacking the qualifications necessary to have been on the ballot in the first place]. It [Obama] WILL fall down.

    What the Relator has to prove in the quo warranto action is that the elected candiate was not LEGALLY qualified to even run for that position by being put on the ballot in the first place. If it can be shown that LEGALLY the usurper was not qualified, then the usurper is “ousted” from office, and then it all proceeds onward from there under whatever laws exist that spell out the procedure used to determine who then legally gets the seat after the usurper is ousted.

    Most likely, in Obama’s case, that will be a special election, with no Democrat on that ballot. So, you can see the political power interests at stake here. It may have the potential to completely dissolve the Democrat Party in the end.

  385. 12/12/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE siseduermapierda:

    … wiggle, wiggle…
    […] contemporaneous birth announcements are considered a primary source for birth information. Find a Hawaiian birth announcment from the same time period that lists a hospital. Oh, don’t waste your time, you won’t find one. The hospital is not important. What is important is the date and the city/state. […]

    … Sise, you still don’t dare to answer my questions I posted before regarding your above statement:
    1) “birth announcements are considered a primary source for birth information” – way too general statement: where, what kind of paper, what content, etc?
    Also, can I use a newspaper announcement for getting a driver’s licence or a passport?
    Besides Laputa, and Obamanistan, where exactly? Enlighten us –

    2) “Find a Hawaiian birth announcment from the same time period that lists a hospital.” – now this is even clumsier – no, probably you cannot find one, and this fact doesn’t lessen a iota the fact that the Hawaii newspapers in that period had this type of information provided by the HD, lists which where wholesale compilations of birth ANNOUNCEMENTS registered with them, and NOT ONLY BIRTHS OCCURRED IN HAWAII –

    Hey, and your Index Data theory nicely adds to this “non-evidence” production –

    Regards -

  386. 12/12/2009qwertyman says:

    Most likely, in Obama’s case, that will be a special election, with no Democrat on that ballot. So, you can see the political power interests at stake here. It may have the potential to completely dissolve the Democrat Party in the end.

    I don’t understand this logic. I don’t understand how you go from “Obama is not qualified for office,” and instead of having Vice President Biden take over for the remainder of the term, you not only have a special election, you prevent the party who received the majority of voters at the Congressional and presidential level in the last election banned from fielding their own candidate in a special election. If you can point me to any precedent or statutory authority that would demand that sort of result, please let me know. You seem to have at least some knowledge of the procedure here.

    However, a court ordering those steps to be taken would be causing the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. There is no conceivable way in which any court is going to cause that sort of crisis when there is at least a definition of the natural born citizen clause that applies to President Obama, which there clearly is. Courts are naturally wary of their undemocratic nature, and they are going to be especially reluctant before ordering the nullification of 70 million votes just a year ago.

  387. 12/12/2009sisduermapierda says:

    qwertyman says:
    December 12, 2009 at 3:40 pm
    *I don’t understand this logic.*
    No logic, pure delusion. Of course if the President is impeached or otherwise unable to complete his term of office, the Vice President becomes President. These whackos want to pretend the election never happened and everything that has happened since Jan 20th would be wiped away – *poof* the Chrysler dealers would have their franchises back *poof* all the millions of people who’ve lost their jobs since Jan 20th would be back at their old jobs *poof* we would begin as anew. (You can dream up these fantasies when you’re in a place where you have a LOT of time on your hands.)

  388. 12/12/2009siseduermapierda says:

    13 months since the election, 11 months since the Inauguration and you haven’t managed to change the truth – Obama Was Born In Hawaii!

    “Hawaii abuzz about Obama’s expected holiday return”
    A visit would be Obama’s first as president to Hawaii, where he was born and spent many of his childhood years.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_hawaii

    “Obamas spending Christmas in Hawaii ”
    Obama was born in Hawaii and spent much of his childhood there.
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1922866,CST-NWS-obama06.article

    Aloha Hawaii! Here come the Obamas!

  389. 12/12/2009keokuk says:

    I don’t understand this logic. I don’t understand how you go from “Obama is not qualified for office,” and instead of having Vice President Biden take over for the remainder of the term, you not only have a special election, you prevent the party who received the majority of voters at the Congressional and presidential level in the last election banned from fielding their own candidate in a special election. If you can point me to any precedent or statutory authority that would demand that sort of result, please let me know. You seem to have at least some knowledge of the procedure here.

    I agree, especially when considering that the Constitution explicitly spells out the methodology for presidential elections, including when they can permissibly be held. Unlike congressional elections or local elections, there is no legal mechanism for a “special election” for the presidency.

    Further, I don’t understand how one can argue that Democrats would be denied ballot access. Presidential elections are not a single election but instead exist as 51 separate elections in each state and DC. In a state like New Jersey, where the Supreme Court has held that there is a right for both parties to have a candidate on the ballot even if strict interpretation of election laws indicates otherwise (see New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson, 814 A.2d 1028 (N.J. 2002)), I don’t see how this supposed no-Democrat election would be allowed.

    It seems to me that the most likely outcome would be President Biden.

  390. 12/12/2009John says:

    qwertyman,

    I haven’t the slightest clue what will happen when Obama is removed by a successful quo warranto suit. All I know about is how an actual quo warranto case would proceed, because of my current direct involvement in one.

    This definitely is a case of first impression with respect to the office of president. So what happens from beginning to end will be a “first” for everyone involved.

    Before getting to who would take Obama’s place, somebody has to have enough standing to get a quo warranto case into court. In most instances, quo warranto actions are brought by the unsuccessful candidates running for the same office.

    Under Ohio law, the case law appears to dictate that if there are only two candidates running for the same office seat, and the one who is unqualified wins the election, is sued under quo warranto and found to be a usurper, then the other qualified candidate’s votes are the only ones that count in that election, and he/she wins. Obviously, Ohio law does not dictate what would happen in Obama’s case, but that is how other elections work with ousted candidates under past decades-settled State court case law.

    If there are more than two candidates running for the same seat, the winner is found to be ineligible as a valid candidate after a successful quo warranto action, then there is a run-off between the surviving candidates who were valid candidates to qualify to be on the ballot. The candidate’s votes, the one who loses a quo warranto action, his/her votes just don’t count for anything because he/she should have never been on the ballot at all.

    It is my opinion, that if, in fact, someone with standing does get a case into court to challenge Obama’s legitimacy as a candidate prior to the November 2008 election, and there were others involved who knew Obama was not eligible, yet they actively took steps to “sneak” him through the process, then it is my belief that they too should be prosecuted to the full extent possible for complicity to any violations of criminal statutes, for having helped cause such a mess for all of us.

    I’m sick and tired of CORRUPTION throughout all government, State and Federal, from top to bottom. The overwhelming majority of politicans seem to be there to line their own pockets at “our” expense. Everyone proven to be involved ought to hang from the nearest tree or telephone pole until dead. That’s how I really feel about it.

    I’ve been registered as an independent ever since I got out of Vietnam. Both parties are one and the same to me. Nevertheless, anyone who is intellectually honest about Obama’s personal history has to admit that something does not “smell” right somewhere back there about his candidacy.

    Whatever happens, we out here in the country are prepared for the worst case scenario. On board ship, we were always holding emergency and casualty drills in the engine room and reactor plant to be prepared for the worst case scenario possible – a reactor meltdown. Anything falling short of the worst case scenario was easily acceptable being thoroughly prepared for the worst.

  391. 12/12/2009Benaiah says:

    ObamAzzam the American offers ‘condolences’ for innocent victims
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/12/afghanistan.alqaeda/index.html

    “We express our condolences to the families of the Muslim men, women and children killed in these criminal acts and we ask Allah to have mercy on those killed and accept them as shohadaa (martyrs)…”

    “We also express the same in regard to the unintended Muslim victims of the mujahedeen’s operations against the crusaders and their allies and puppets, and to the countless faceless and nameless Muslim victims of the murderous crusades…”

    Allahu Akhbar
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24002947/Allahu-Akhbar

  392. 12/12/2009Benaiah says:

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

  393. 12/12/2009keokuk says:

    I haven’t the slightest clue what will happen when Obama is removed by a successful quo warranto suit. All I know about is how an actual quo warranto case would proceed, because of my current direct involvement in one.

    Earlier, you said this:

    Most likely, in Obama’s case, that will be a special election, with no Democrat on that ballot.

    If you “haven’t the slighest clue what will happen when Obama is removed by a successful quo warranto suit,” what was your basis for speculating on the “most likely” outcome in the event of such a removal?

  394. 12/12/2009qwertyman says:

    I haven’t the slightest clue what will happen when Obama is removed by a successful quo warranto suit. All I know about is how an actual quo warranto case would proceed, because of my current direct involvement in one.

    This definitely is a case of first impression with respect to the office of president. So what happens from beginning to end will be a “first” for everyone involved.

    So when you say what would most likely happen would be a special election where the Democratic Party would be BANNED from fielding a candidate, it isn’t necessarily what’s most likely to happen, but what you would most like to see happen.

    Under Ohio law, the case law appears to dictate that if there are only two candidates running for the same office seat, and the one who is unqualified wins the election, is sued under quo warranto and found to be a usurper, then the other qualified candidate’s votes are the only ones that count in that election, and he/she wins. Obviously, Ohio law does not dictate what would happen in Obama’s case, but that is how other elections work with ousted candidates under past decades-settled State court case law.

    If there are more than two candidates running for the same seat, the winner is found to be ineligible as a valid candidate after a successful quo warranto action, then there is a run-off between the surviving candidates who were valid candidates to qualify to be on the ballot. The candidate’s votes, the one who loses a quo warranto action, his/her votes just don’t count for anything because he/she should have never been on the ballot at all.

    All of that is very interesting, and I wish you luck in your own action. However, there are a couple of key differences between your situation and a quo warranto action against the President:

    1. The President runs on a ticket with the Vice President; everything you’ve stated about your own case suggests that you were not running as part of a ticket.
    2. The Constitution, particularly the 25th Amendment, contains detailed provisions on what is to happen if the President is unable to continue his or her duties. If the Vice President and a majority of either the Cabinet or Congress is unable to fulfill the duties of the presidency, the Vice President assumes office.

    It is my opinion, that if, in fact, someone with standing does get a case into court to challenge Obama’s legitimacy as a candidate prior to the November 2008 election, and there were others involved who knew Obama was not eligible, yet they actively took steps to “sneak” him through the process, then it is my belief that they too should be prosecuted to the full extent possible for complicity to any violations of criminal statutes, for having helped cause such a mess for all of us.

    I agree, if Obama and others acted with knowledge that he was ineligible for the presidency but was “snuck” through anyway, they should be prosecuted.

    There’s the two traditional arguments made by birthers about President Obama’s ineligibility for office.

    1. He was not born in the US.
    2. Even if he was born in the US, he doesn’t fall under the definition.

    I would say that you couldn’t hold anybody liable if Obama were to be found ineligible under argument #2, since there is obviously more than enough of an argument out there to show that Obama could have justifiably relied on Supreme Court and other precedent to run for president in good faith.

    That wouldn’t necessarily apply if there was intentional falsification of a birth certificate. If there was indeed some massive conspiracy to defraud the public, all involved should be punished.

    I’m sick and tired of CORRUPTION throughout all government, State and Federal, from top to bottom. The overwhelming majority of politicans seem to be there to line their own pockets at “our” expense. Everyone proven to be involved ought to hang from the nearest tree or telephone pole until dead. That’s how I really feel about it.

    I don’t know your true identity, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find out. You really shouldn’t be advocating the murder of all of our national politicians publicly, especially considering that you’ve been a candidate for office yourself.

    I have a deep belief that a key step to solving this problem of corruption would be to mandate publicly funded elections. That way somebody like yourself who would want to bring forth new ideas would not be facing an extremely steep money gap from those established people at the top. It would also prevent politicians on all levels from kowtowing their policies to the desires of corporations, trial lawyers, and other huge contributors to campaigns. Publicly funded campaigns could provide much more equal access to the public and ensure that the full marketplace of ideas gets an opportunity to be heard. How do you feel about that?

    I’ve been registered as an independent ever since I got out of Vietnam. Both parties are one and the same to me. Nevertheless, anyone who is intellectually honest about Obama’s personal history has to admit that something does not “smell” right somewhere back there about his candidacy.

    Thank you for your service. I agree with you that both parties are largely out for their own interests rather than the good of the country – if the Democratic Party truly felt that this health care reform was the most important issue, they should be willing to pass a major reform, even if it came at the cost of their reelection.

    However, I disagree with you that something does not “smell right” about President Obama’s background. And honestly, it’s counterproductive to call me and an overwhelming majority of Americans intellectually dishonest for feeling that way. As a candidate, Obama scanned and posted his birth certificate on the internet and let third parties inspect it for themselves. Birth announcements, multiple statements from the Department of Health, statements from several family members, and the absolute lack of evidence to suggest that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii are more than enough for a person to come to a good-faith conclusion that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  395. 12/12/2009Practical Kat says:

    John wrote:

    Under Ohio law, the case law appears to dictate ….

    Ohio has a specific statutory scheme that dictates procedures for quo warranto in that state; see: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2733

    Ohio statutory law has no bearing on federal law or the law of any other jurisdiction.

  396. 12/12/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE qwertyman:

    […] However, a court ordering those steps to be taken would be causing the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. There is no conceivable way in which any court is going to cause that sort of crisis when there is at least a definition of the natural born citizen clause that applies to President Obama, which there clearly is. Courts are naturally wary of their undemocratic nature, and they are going to be especially reluctant before ordering the nullification of 70 million votes just a year ago. […]

    Qwerty, you said this before, and I fully agree with you (after all judge Carter was pretty clear on this: “You ask me to….” – and this acknowledgement comes from a card-carrying, rabid birther.

    However, I think that many here, either Obamatons or birthers are gunning for things too close, in terms historical – i.e. many Obamatons’ fear is that the conservative demons will somehow manage to drag Obama in court in this matter BEFORE the end of his term, while many birthers fear that that slippery devil will make it one way or other out from their cunning juridical mousetraps.

    I think, that the matter will be politically consumed before any major, major, truly consequential move in this direction might proceed – and this will be strictly conditioned by the powers to be in the Democrat Party (the ones who let Obama fly in the first place), who will have to persuade him not to run for a second term, since the circumstances of the 2012 election will be very different of 2008, political carrectness/transformational presidency-wise, and this issue could lead well beyond an electoral debacle to the implosion of the Democrat party.

    And Obama’s gracious stepping aside will be rewarded with (in the worst outcome of the issue) with a tender slap over the hand, and everything will be forgotten, forgiven – Republicans and conservatives going for the deal as well. (Remember the Senate hearing on Bill Clinton’s impeachment? When Jessie Helms put his sun glasses on his nose, I knew that Schmuko will go free. And he has – and so might Obama).

    So, probably we’ll end up with a sort of acknowledgement of a… kind of… sort of… little constitutional transgression that came from too much love for America, Barry will continue warming seats in countless boards and maybe will get a 7/24 channel for himself… and that’s it…

    Regards -

  397. 12/12/2009John says:

    qwertyman,

    I hate having to repeat what I said, especially when it is in print. Re-reading posts several times and thinking about what one is reading usually keeps one from changing what was said; putting words into another’s mouth; or proffering something, that was not said, along the lines of what the reader conjures up in his/her mind while reading.

    As I said in my last post, I haven’t the slightest clue what is going to happen, even with a quo warranto attempt. All I know is what I do know about a quo warranto action. To waste time debating things that I have no knowledge or control over is fruitless, in my opinion. It’s whatever the final court is going to say is what will stick.

    There are a lot of differences between my State case and a Federal case involving a president-elect, but that does not mean such action is not possible against a president, particularly Obama. What the writ of quo warranto is about substantively is the same under federal, state, and common law.

    Where have I advocated the “murder of all of our national politicians,” or even one for that matter? Wow! I’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws at least four times, the last two as a peace officer. Nevertheless, I still support the death penalty for criminals who are sentenced to such punishment.

    If civil war starts for any reason, you can be sure our present system of laws and punishment will no longer exist, but will be replaced with summary judgments executed by whatever political band of fighters has the upper hand, which is why upholding the Constitution and laws is so important. If the Constitution and laws don’t mean anything, then we already have tyranny with anarchy waiting in the wings.

    Have no fear, my fingerprints and identity are on record in more than a handful of federal, state, and local databases [not criminal]. Things scanned on the internet for others to peruse for authenticity is useless to me. I could take your signature off of anything you have ever signed anywhere, and sign it with a ball point pen on one of your checks or other official documents, and nobody would be able to tell for certain that it was not you who signed it.

    Please don’t thank me for my service. I did it because I felt it was my duty to do such at the time. I’d do it again, when and if needed. My time in Vietnam sure did open up my eyes. I’m just thankful that I’m not serving now under a president that may not even be legally president. And to think that it could be Biden next, that does make me sick to my stomach.

    If all the controversy surrounding Obama doesn’t throw up a red flag for you, coupled with his reluctance to address it and definitively put the controversy to rest, sure does “smell” to high heaven to everyone I know, plus quite a few who voted for Obama. If the shoe fits, wear it, I was always told. My opinions and beliefs mean absolutely nothing to anyone else. When we punch out, we do so on our own.

    The real issue is, you don’t want to be dead wrong, because you are going to be “dead” a whole lot longer than you will ever breathe air here on earth. So, just how important is this controversy to any individual, compared to where one is going to be FOREVER? Even 1000 years, or 500 years? It just doesn’t matter on that level of life!

  398. 12/12/2009qwertyman says:

    As I said in my last post, I haven’t the slightest clue what is going to happen, even with a quo warranto attempt. All I know is what I do know about a quo warranto action. To waste time debating things that I have no knowledge or control over is fruitless, in my opinion. It’s whatever the final court is going to say is what will stick.

    So you haven’t the slightest clue what is going to happen. On multiple occasions you have said this:

    Most likely, in Obama’s case, that will be a special election, with no Democrat on that ballot.

    But if you’re willing to admit that you were dead wrong in saying that earlier we could just put that up as a possibility based on speculation and move on.

    Where have I advocated the “murder of all of our national politicians,” or even one for that matter? Wow! I’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws at least four times, the last two as a peace officer. Nevertheless, I still support the death penalty for criminals who are sentenced to such punishment.

    If civil war starts for any reason, you can be sure our present system of laws and punishment will no longer exist, but will be replaced with summary judgments executed by whatever political band of fighters has the upper hand, which is why upholding the Constitution and laws is so important. If the Constitution and laws don’t mean anything, then we already have tyranny with anarchy waiting in the wings.

    Where did you advocate for the murder of politicians? Here:

    The overwhelming majority of politicans seem to be there to line their own pockets at “our” expense. Everyone proven to be involved ought to hang from the nearest tree or telephone pole until dead. That’s how I really feel about it.

    I really do not understand why I see “idle discussion” about the possibility of civil wars so much on sites like this and other birther sites. Frankly it’s disturbing.

    If all the controversy surrounding Obama doesn’t throw up a red flag for you, coupled with his reluctance to address it and definitively put the controversy to rest, sure does “smell” to high heaven to everyone I know, plus quite a few who voted for Obama. If the shoe fits, wear it, I was always told. My opinions and beliefs mean absolutely nothing to anyone else. When we punch out, we do so on our own.

    The real issue is, you don’t want to be dead wrong, because you are going to be “dead” a whole lot longer than you will ever breathe air here on earth. So, just how important is this controversy to any individual, compared to where one is going to be FOREVER? Even 1000 years, or 500 years? It just doesn’t matter on that level of life!

    Just because it “smells” to you and your friends does not mean that 1. it actually smells; and 2. actually smells to a majority of people. Polls have actually consistently shown that unless you’re a Republican in the South, it is very unlikely that you buy into the conspiracy theories about Obama’s birthplace.

    And again, there is more than enough evidence out there for a person to conclude in good faith that President Obama was born in Hawaii. There is absolutely no evidence that suggests otherwise.

    And lastly, are you suggesting that those who oppose birthers are going to go to hell for that belief?

    “how important is this controversy to any individual, compared to where one is going to be FOREVER?”

    You seem to think that there can be nobody who honestly does not buy into this controversy except through a fierce political agenda, doing so in bad faith, and that it constitutes a mortal sin. With an outlook like that, it makes it easy to see why you didn’t win your election.

  399. 12/12/2009sharon2 says:

    “Polls have actually consistently shown that unless you’re a Republican in the South, it is very unlikely that you buy into the conspiracy theories about Obama’s birthplace.”

    – Would the statistics of those who have actually filed suit (and their attorneys) bear out that poll?

    Let’s look at the the three most well-known attorneys that you term birthers.

    Berg: Democrat (I think he is from Philadelphia, not sure, but he’s no southerner)

    Taitz: I don’t know her official party affiliation but I have read that she has donated to the Democratic party in the past. She is no southerner.

    Donofrio- I think he is an independent and he is not a southerner.

    I don’t think that you’ll find that all of the plaintiffs fit your statistic either.

    Let’s look at some well-known figures who have said it is alright to question (no matter what their own personal beliefs are):

    Lou Dobbs Sarah Palin Chuck Norris and apparently now Sean Hannity

    You can insult them as you are want to do, but you can’t deny that these public figures whose names are of record are not southern Republicans. They may be Republicans (except now Dobbs is calling himself an Independent), but they do not fit the stereotype your poll presents.

    “Everyone proven to be involved ought to hang from the nearest tree or telephone pole until dead.”

    I don’t like to speak for others but when I see a statement such as this, I don’t take it literally. At least he wanted to give the accused some kind of due process if you were to take the words at face value.

    I think you use that poll to tick off Phil.

  400. 12/13/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE qwertyman RE John:

    […] Polls have actually consistently shown that unless you’re a Republican in the South, it is very unlikely that you buy into the conspiracy theories about Obama’s birthplace. […]

    Qwerty, now you go even lower than Siserda, and this is not little thing – still, maybe you want to examine this situation in the following (and correct) light:

    1) What is called “in the South” is an USA area which has maintained more than other areas in the country a sense of nationhood, they have a significantly longer cultural tradition and sense of identity than most living in this country – and take this from a Californian (and topping this, one living in Los Angeles) –

    A “Southerner” is more American than a New Yorker or a Los Angeles inhabitant or other cosmopolitan populations where the old-timers’ identities have been destroyed by the immigrant stampede, and where the cultural makeup of the new population hardly favors interest or sympathy for the American history and for the quality of political proceedings in the country –

    And this situation actually adds lots of merits to what you appear to consider a flaw in the Southerners’ mental make-up – yes, they care about who and by what means one is and has became a US president –
    And conversely, no one gives a shit in Los Angeles or New York about who and by what means Obama has became US president –

    2) “[…] And lastly, are you suggesting that those who oppose birthers are going to go to hell for that belief? […]
    “how important is this controversy to any individual, compared to where one is going to be FOREVER?”

    What is so disturbing in regarding this Obama affair under the eternity’s light? If this offends you, then what you will say about what Krauthammer (mercilessly) said about Obama: “The only thing that he will be remembered for is that he was elected.”
    Mount Rushmore? Or a decaying “Yes we can!” T-shirt in a cesspool? Your bet here –

    3) […] With an outlook like that, it makes it easy to see why you didn’t win your election. […]
    Stop obsessing about the past election – that’s over, it’s past, the Democrats won, now we’re looking at 2010 and 2012, and the the prospects for Democrats are terrible –
    And when it comes to liberals (this comprises the Obamatons, obviously), those prospects are simply odious – you yourself eloquently waxed about the possibility of the Democrat Party explosion in the incoming political cycle – and this as a DIRECT consequence of having Obama in the front seat you guys granted him –

    4) As far as your wanton remark about a civil war – no, that won’t happen. However, the present conflict and the incoming strife could be anytime removed by the simple production of a Birth Certificate – FIFTEEN DOLLARS FEE. Yet not sight of that – so far –

    I think Marcus Aurelius said that the leader (political man) is judged by the consequences of his actions –
    And Obama prefers (and you approve) to put the country through this misery instead of paying a FIFTEEN DOLLARS FEE – FIFTEEN DOLLARS FEE –

    Qwerty, since Roget’s doesn’t charge user fees, and shamelessness (at least amongst Obamatons) enhances one’s prestige, feel free to use the words “morality”, “resposibility” and “statemanbship” in your further discourse about dba Obama –

    Regards –

    PS – By the way, you still hasn’t come with a comparison about “Six Degrees Of Separation” and dba Obama’s career -

  401. 12/13/2009KJ says:

    qwerty:

    And honestly, it’s counterproductive to call me and an overwhelming majority of Americans intellectually dishonest for feeling that way.

    Does your reference to an “overwhelming majority” refer to the number of people who voted for Mr. O last November? Have you checked out the polls lately? Can you honestly believe that an overwhelming majority of voters feel the same way today about Mr. O’s ability to govern as they did last November?

    Do you suppose that the people who have had their eyes opened by actual actions of this administration which are so different from what they expected are now thinking that they were duped? Many people, including myself, believe that the amount of public money that has been spent or allocated for spending (wasted?) by this Congress and this President is outrageous and some even believe it borders on treason because of the damage it could do to the country long term. Just today, I became aware that another shell game $500 billion planned for 2010 spending on government operations (not including the war) had passed the House was up for a vote today (a Saturday again!) in the Senate, where it passed on a party line vote. And where is the promised TRANSPARENCY? Bills pushed through the Congress without a chance for even the members of Congress to review what they were voting on. Closed door sessions that shut out Republicans when bills were written? CLEAN GOVERNMENT PROMISES? No lobbyists? Mr. O brings in his personal lawyer to serve as White House council? Why?

    Once a person believes that a leader has been dishonest big time, doesn’t that person begin to doubt other things that the leader has told him? Here I am referring to both Mr. O and Ms. Pelosi, who had a big hand in getting Mr. O nominated in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that she or anyone else on the DNC vetted him and that HRC was screwed by her own party. If you didn’t study the policies of the Democratic Party closely, and closely watch what happened during the Convention in Denver, you might want to check out http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

    And then there is the admitted fact that Mr. O didn’t write Dreams as he claimed during the campaign, but his good friend, talented writer, and neighbor Bill Ayres wrote it for him. Another “little” lie? But that book is about all that the public was allowed to know about Mr. O’s history. How big of a lie is it? Did you see Soviet Union flags being waved in the crowd at the big Chicago party on Election Night 2008 on a major TV network, too? (The network wasn’t Fox because we don’t get Fox.)
    http://www.americanthinker.com/jack_cashill/
    Literary Lion Obama Will Roar No More

    What else were we not told even when the questions were asked? Why were we not allowed the answers to our questions before Election Day? Why did no one bother to investigate?

  402. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    WOW, I didn’t realize so many were so concerned about ones opinion & I must have said something that got a few shacking in their knickers.

    From ‘The Green Bag’ on Justice James Wilson:

    The documents of the period are replete with testimony that the patriotic men of his time knew and valued his worth. It will be through the historian of the future that Americans will fully learn how much they owe this wonderful man…

    The mere journal of the Continental Congress, while he was a delegate, is a startling index of how he labored and of what he did. It discloses that his influence constantly increased, and that gradually he became a member of every committee of vital importance and served on more than did any other delegate. That this is not generally known is no doubt owing to the fact that the indexing of the journal and other documents of the period is most deficient, necessitaing a painstaking reading of the body of the record in order to get even clues to what he did.

    I could go on, but the fact is, Justice James Wilson’s 1791 Commentaries on our American Law/ The Constitution as adopted & ratified are the definitive tools to interpreting the Constitution. It was to he & James Madison that Justice Joseph Story referred to for his works. There is a multiude of ‘Green Bag’ articles from the 20th century but if any one is in the Phili area, there is microfiche of letters & journals kept by Franklin, Wilson & Hamilton, etc, etc that will shed a lot more light on this subject at the U there.

  403. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    For those still wondering about Pidgeon & Alaska. The info is in an audio file on an older post at my webste. If you want the information bad enough, your welcome to search my site for it.

    BTW…I had a lovely day with my daughter, we got to spend a bit of time with the granddaughter and 2moro is work day. We’ll be busy in the shop transferring loads & getting drivers off for their last runs before Christmas, so have a lovely day.

    Linda

  404. 12/13/2009John says:

    qwertyman,

    I could spend some time responding to your last post point by point. Your last post, however, made it perfectly clear to me that you are, quite frankly, as you state, disturbed. I believe you.

    The way you twist posted content to fall in line with your true feelings, and your internal mental thought compass, is very revealing, at least to me. If I were in your shoes, I too would be extremely disturbed with the way current events could possibly play out in time, particularly if I lived in a large metropolitan area.

    You said: “[T]here is more than enough evidence out there for a person to conclude in good faith that President Obama was born in Hawaii.” “Evidence???” Good faith? I’ll wait for the quo warranto court to determine the genuine evidence.

    I’ll tell you what is the best stand alone second-hand “evidence” I’ve ever heard from first-hand e-mail. My brother’s best friend, Terry, has missionary friends that have been in Kenya for years. He’s in contact with them by e-mail weekly. Last year when I was making the rounds in my own campaign, I stopped in to see Terry. I had not yet been exposed to Obama’s birth place controversy. When Terry (R) and I started discussing Obama, that is when Terry told me that his longtime Catholic missionary friends, in Kenya, had been asking him by e-mail what was wrong with everyone back in the States. They said everyone in Kenya knows Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.

    So, sorry to disagree with your evaluation of the kind of information that is acceptable “evidence” for you, but I place more confidence and weight in what those missionary friends relayed to Terry through e-mail as much better and more accurate “evidence” of the truth, prior to a quo warranto court determination of authenticated evidence – in my opinion.

  405. 12/13/2009nmeagent says:

    The British common law basically defined a natural born subject as one born within the jurisdiction of the crown, regardless of parentage (with only a few of exceptions that do not apply to Obama). Since we inherited our common law system from the British, I believe we inherited this definition of ‘natural born’ along with it.

    From US vs. Wong Kim Ark:

    “The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance\u2014also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’\u2014of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,\u2014as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’\u2014and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects.

    “The supreme court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr. Justice Gaston, said: ‘Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the king of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens.’ ‘Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European king to a free and sovereign state.’ ‘British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen;’ ‘and all free persons born within the state are born citizens of the state.’ ‘The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from the man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the state.” State v. Manuel (1838) 4 Dev. & b. 20, 24-26.”

    (and there’s a lot of similar discussion there, of course…)

    It strains credibility at the very least to suggest that the ‘natural born’ designation was birthed (pun intended) in a vacuum, so to speak, at the time of the writing of the Constitution and that it means something entirely different than the common law precedent. The fact that the Constitution didn’t define it explicitly leads me to believe that its meaning was so blatantly obvious at the time that doing so was considered unnecessary. It would have been nice if it were more explicit, here and perhaps in a couple of other places like Article I Section 8.

    Anyway, the distinction between natural born and otherwise in Article II was probably to deny naturalized citizens (foreign nationals granted citizenship) the ability to become president. This was likely deemed sufficient at the time to prevent foreign influence, intrigue, and whatnot.

    Before the names fly, let me just say that I’m by no means a ‘liberal’ (except classically) and I despise Obama’s policies and general philosophy just about as much as anyone possibly can. Not much would make me happier than to find some technicality by which to throw the bastard out of office. However, unless it can be proved somehow that he wasn’t born within the US or the various applicable territories, the non-natural born citizen argument probably has no merit.

  406. 12/13/2009Alabambie says:

    Is our President affected by other countries because how he grew up?

    From what I’ve read here and other places, he’s been around the world

    because of different happenings and has lived and visited in

    different countries when he grew up and he’s had different parents.

    You guys seem to argue about a lot of things here and it all sounds

    good and interesting but it’s confusing, so I want to know if

    you think he’s a good President for us, I mean, for the U.S.?

    Thanks for reading my question! It’s kinda scary not knowing what’s

    true and what is not… Thanks again.

  407. 12/13/2009theOriginalist says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    Natural born citizen = native = citizen at birth. Citizens of the US are either natural born or naturalized. Only two types, no magical third type. No one touting the “but there’s a special class of Article II, Section 1 citizen” has been able to show otherwise. It’s wishful thinking.

    You have defined ‘born citizen’ only while neglecting to acknowledge the contribution of the word ‘natural’ to the meaning. You have futher confused the issue by introducing the word ‘native’ which does not appear in the Constitution no less in the clause under discussion. ‘Natural born citizen’ is a noun phrase consisting of the noun ‘citizen’ qualified by TWO adjectives, ‘born and ‘natural’. Born means at birth. Natural means by nature, as opposed to by an act of man such as by statute. Just as not all disasters are natural disasters and not all rights are natural rights, not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. The word ‘natural’ was written into Article II, Section I, Clause V of the Constitution by the hand of the framers. You may not ignore it, even though doing so helps your argument.

  408. 12/13/2009DCA says:

    “born means at birth. Natural means by nature, as opposed to by an act of man such as by statute. Just as not all disasters are natural disasters and not all rights are natural rights, not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens.”

    So what is an UN-natural birth exactly? Citizenship IS a MAN-made concept that does NOT exist in nature. Nature is completely indifferent to laws of men – the laws of nature are about just chemistry, physics, and biology in action.

    Under US law there are only TWO categories (see Ark and 14th admt, etc). Natural and Naturalized citizenship are BOTH are acts of human law. All citizens born within the territory of the US are natural born citizens.

    Please provide an example of a US citizen born within the US who is NOT a natural citizen? Also by what process is this fact established after birth in the US? What records are used? What agencies oversee this process? When is citizenship conferred after an UN-natural birth?
    Be specific and show us the application process.

  409. 12/13/2009siseduermapierda says:

    theOriginalist says:
    December 13, 2009 at 9:09 am
    *You have defined ‘born citizen’ only while neglecting to acknowledge the contribution of the word ‘natural’ to the meaning. *

    Actually I have neglected nothing. You’ve tried to invent a third “special” category. You are wrong.

    Citizens of the United States are either natural born or naturalized. I am correct and completely supported by the US Constitution, US statute and US legal precedence.

  410. 12/13/2009qwertyman says:

    Does your reference to an “overwhelming majority” refer to the number of people who voted for Mr. O last November? Have you checked out the polls lately? Can you honestly believe that an overwhelming majority of voters feel the same way today about Mr. O’s ability to govern as they did last November?

    You see, you’re conflating opposition to President Obama’s policies and agenda with a belief that he’s not eligible for the presidency. There are many, many conservative Republicans who bitterly oppose Obama while nonetheless acknowledging that he is the legitimate president.

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705321969,00.html

    While only 9 percent of Utahns overall don’t believe the president was born in the United States, 13 percent of Utah Republicans say he wasn’t born here.

    Seventeen percent of “strong Republicans” say he wasn’t born here.

    And 18 percent of those who said they are “very conservative” claim he wasn’t born here, Jones found.

    Eighty-nine percent of Utah Democrats say Obama is a born American; 69 percent of political independents believe so.

    Besides being more Republican, Jones found that those who don’t believe Obama was born in the United States, or don’t know, are middle-aged, lower-income and haven’t gone to college.

    I’ll tell you what is the best stand alone second-hand “evidence” I’ve ever heard from first-hand e-mail. My brother’s best friend, Terry, has missionary friends that have been in Kenya for years. He’s in contact with them by e-mail weekly

    I count five hands there: you, your brother, your brother’s best friend, your brother’s best friend’s missionary friends, and the Kenyans your brother’s best friend’s missionary friends talk to. I typically don’t place too much weight on what I hear fifth-hand, but that’s your prerogative.

    And this situation actually adds lots of merits to what you appear to consider a flaw in the Southerners’ mental make-up – yes, they care about who and by what means one is and has became a US president –
    And conversely, no one gives a shit in Los Angeles or New York about who and by what means Obama has became US president –

    Apparently you are in LA and you care. I thought you got offended when people swear on this website. The polls say what they say. But it’s not just all Southerners who doubt Obama’s eligibility, but mostly Southern Republicans. What a coincidence that Republicans who live in the states that most opposed Obama during the campaign also believe that he is ineligible for office in the first place. What a coincidence that a series of states with poor education and a long history of racism doubt that the first African-American president is not serving legitimately.

    And sharon, your individuals do nothing to discount or disprove that trend. Orly, Leo, Phil and all the non-southern-Republican birthers could fit comfortably in that 10-20% of everybody else.

    What is so disturbing in regarding this Obama affair under the eternity’s light? If this offends you, then what you will say about what Krauthammer (mercilessly) said about Obama: “The only thing that he will be remembered for is that he was elected.”

    Krauthammer’s making a political prediction. He’s one of those guys who was completely wrong about the Iraq war every single step of the way though, so I’m not sure how credible he should be as a predictor of the future.

    At least, though, Krauthammer isn’t saying that people who believe that President Obama is eligible for office may be going to hell for reaching that conclusion.

    And Obama prefers (and you approve) to put the country through this misery instead of paying a FIFTEEN DOLLARS FEE – FIFTEEN DOLLARS FEE –

    Name a single birther suit that would have been satisfied with the production of any documents. Every single birther suit has alleged that Obama was ineligible for office regardless of where he was born. You yourself have said that on many occasions as well. So when you say that producing another birth certificate could end “this misery” it’s a blatant lie, because he could provide you any documentation you want and it would not be enough for you.

    Bills pushed through the Congress without a chance for even the members of Congress to review what they were voting on. Closed door sessions that shut out Republicans when bills were written? CLEAN GOVERNMENT PROMISES? No lobbyists? Mr. O brings in his personal lawyer to serve as White House council? Why?

    I agree with much of what you said here, except that I note that Harriet Miers was also President Bush’s personal lawyer before serving as White House counsel.

    I do want to note it’s been about 24 hours since Phil said I should tone down the rhetoric and not say that a belief that every member of Congress, every judge at the state and federal level, and every single legal scholar in the country are conspiring to not speak out about the Taitz-Donofrio interpretation of natural born citizen being correct to promote a political agenda is paranoid.

    In the past 24 hours, I’ve been called Unamerican (or at least less of an American than a Southern Republican), shameless, intellectually dishonest, disturbed, and told that I might be going to hell for expressing my opinion that President Obama is eligible for office.

  411. 12/13/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Leo and Pidgeon did not file a case for the Chrysler dealers in SDNY this week as promised.

    Nathan Deal didn’t send a letter to President Obama either.

    Self-serving Huffery and Puffery. It’s about pandering to a small segment of Americans whilst smearing our President.

  412. 12/13/2009Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    Fair enough. I’ll tone it down. However, as to paranoid, it’s not name-calling, it’s not a substitute for actual argument. What Linda has been saying (every single member of Congress, judge and legal scholar are “putting their political agenda above their country” and speaking out about what she believes natural born citizen to mean) is simply paranoid. The thought that hundreds of elected representatives, hundreds of judges, and thousands of law professors, authors and constitutional scholars around the country are all working together to suppress an obvious truth to support President Obama, whom a large percentage of them do not support in any way? If you have a word beyond paranoid to describe a view like that I’m definitely open to hearing it.

    In the future, stop at your first two words, “Fair enough.”

    If you want to play psychologist, psychiatrist or psychoanalyst, do it elsewhere.

    Thank you.

    -Phil

  413. 12/13/2009Phil says:

    As an FYI…

    I haven’t the slightest clue about the procedure, protocol, and paperwork, whereby a candidate for president goes about proving he/she meets the requirements to be a valid candidate.

    As I’ve documented on my site, the degree to which any presidential candidate is determined to be eligible is merely a self-ascribing document upon which they declare themselves to be eligible to a given political party. There is currently no background documentation required by law to substantiate the claim.

    -Phil

  414. 12/13/2009Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    I don’t understand this logic. I don’t understand how you go from “Obama is not qualified for office,” and instead of having Vice President Biden take over for the remainder of the term, you not only have a special election, you prevent the party who received the majority of voters at the Congressional and presidential level in the last election banned from fielding their own candidate in a special election. If you can point me to any precedent or statutory authority that would demand that sort of result, please let me know. You seem to have at least some knowledge of the procedure here.

    I’m not sure that I completely agree with an analysis that somehow says that there would need to be some sort of special election in the case of Mr. Obama being conclusively shown to be ineligible for the presidency, because I would think that being declared a non-natural born citizen would simply render the President the equivalent of being incapacitated and Mr. Biden would become President.

    Since there is no crime for being ineligible for the presidency, Mr. Obama would then simply no longer be President, by definition. However, if in the course of such a theoretical case the Court finds that fraud was involved in Mr. Obama’s ascendancy, then one would be getting into certain crimes, such as who knew he was ineligible and when did they know (that’s where I think the idea of the Democrat Party falling apart comes into play).

    However, a court ordering those steps to be taken would be causing the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. There is no conceivable way in which any court is going to cause that sort of crisis when there is at least a definition of the natural born citizen clause that applies to President Obama, which there clearly is. Courts are naturally wary of their undemocratic nature, and they are going to be especially reluctant before ordering the nullification of 70 million votes just a year ago.

    I disagree that such a Court order would be tantamount to causing another Civil War. Since these issues don’t exist in a vacuum, the truth of the matter is that any such case being considered by the Court would be fully covered by the media, and everyone would know about it, including whatever remedies the petitioners were seeking. So, the speculation would be rampant, but would be based on what the Court is being asked.

    Remember, the Court would have to refer an official finding of ineligibility to the Legislative branch for further action; the Court cannot constitutionally remove a sitting President (this point must be agreed upon by those who are strict constitutionalists such as myself). Once such a referral were to be made to the Legislative branch, it would then be up to Congress to draw up paperwork concerning the then-President’s official incapacity to hold office (just because it would have never been done before doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be an orderly transfer of power from one officeholder to another).

    Alternatively, in the case of a quo warranto petition (depending on its exact verbiage), I don’t see matters proceeding any differently, with the exception that the Defendant — in this case, the President — would have the onus to prove that he is the rightful officeholder. Frankly, I would hope that the petition would request background documentation substantiation, because it could be conceivable to simply say, “Since I received x-number of votes via the Electoral College, and since Congress certified that vote count, I am the President.”

    As far as your number of votes point, the bottom line is that if a candidate were determined to be ineligible, then all those individuals who voted for the ineligible candidate would then have been disenfranchised by the political party of note, per se, and not by the Court (if the party knew what it was doing, then they would then be in deep political doo-doo).

    -Phil

  415. 12/13/2009Phil says:

    sisduermapierda,

    These whackos want to pretend the election never happened and everything that has happened since Jan 20th would be wiped away…

    First of all, tone down the rhetoric. If you have a point to make, do make it; take everything else off site.

    Secondly, unless you can quote anywhere on my site where either myself or someone has specifically said that the 2008 General Election never happened, then I don’t think you really have a solid, rational basis, making your point, well, irrational, per se.

    Thank you.

    -Phil

  416. 12/13/2009Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    I do want to note it’s been about 24 hours since Phil said I should tone down the rhetoric and not say that a belief that every member of Congress, every judge at the state and federal level, and every single legal scholar in the country are conspiring to not speak out about the Taitz-Donofrio interpretation of natural born citizen being correct to promote a political agenda is paranoid.

    In the past 24 hours, I’ve been called Unamerican (or at least less of an American than a Southern Republican), shameless, intellectually dishonest, disturbed, and told that I might be going to hell for expressing my opinion that President Obama is eligible for office.

    I thought you had a reasonable disagreeable post up until these two last paragraphs in the comment. It’s almost as if you really want me to do something about your commentary, as in, get rid of it or your representation on my site.

    I don’t like whining (want some cheese with that?); I get enough of it from my children. I expect individuals to act like adults on my site. As such, it’s also not a good thing to be continually pushing back against the moderator who has already made it quite clear what the expectations are.

    As the benevolent dictator here, I’ll give you another chance. All you have to do is express your disagreement by making your point and then moving on.

    Maybe I’m not saying this in the English language? Hmmm..

    -Phil

  417. 12/13/2009Phil says:

    siseduermapierda,

    Leo and Pidgeon did not file a case for the Chrysler dealers in SDNY this week as promised.

    Nathan Deal didn’t send a letter to President Obama either.

    Self-serving Huffery and Puffery. It’s about pandering to a small segment of Americans whilst smearing our President.

    Would you like some cheese with that whine?

    -Phil

  418. 12/13/2009Sue says:

    “nmeagent says:
    December 13, 2009 at 2:46 am
    Before the names fly, let me just say that I’m by no means a ‘liberal’ (except classically) and I despise Obama’s policies and general philosophy just about as much as anyone possibly can. Not much would make me happier than to find some technicality by which to throw the bastard out of office. However, unless it can be proved somehow that he wasn’t born within the US or the various applicable territories, the non-natural born citizen argument probably has no merit.”

    I think you are probably correct and the recent Indiana Appeals Court decision (unanimous decision of 3 judges), confirms what appears to be your educated opinion.

    “However, unless it can be proved somehow that he wasn’t born within the US or the various applicable territories,”

    Based upon the evidence so far presented by the birthers, in my opinion, this is a dead end also. The courts are also a waste of time and money, in my opinion. But, it is their time and the tax payer’s money. I also believe that the “courts” may become less tolerant of these lawsuits in the future. Based upon the evidence I have seen to date, President Obama was born in Hawaii.

  419. 12/13/2009MGB says:

    Here is the fuller quote from Orrin Hatch, with my commentary interspersed:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.

    [What about a child of foreign diplomats? A child of two non-citizens? Clearly, this is not a precise statement on Hatch’s part because he did not mention well-accepted exceptions.]

    But a child who is adopted from a foreign country to American parents [plural] in the United States is not eligible for the presidency. That does not seem fair or right to me.

    Similarly, it is unclear whether a child born to U.S. servicemen overseas would be eligible. Most academics believe that these individuals would be eligible for the Presidency, but I note that some academic scholars disagree. A recent article in Green Bag, a journal that specializes in Constitutional law, quotes an 1898 Supreme Court case that the natural born citizen clause ‘was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.’

    I have proposed a constitutional amendment, S.J. Res. 15, to address this issue. The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment would amend the Constitution to permit any person who has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years to be eligible for the Presidency.”

    Clearly, the CONTEXT for the Hatch quote was his concern for allowing immigrants, now long-time citizens, to become POTUS. Notice that he’s proposing a Constitutional Amendment, because he knows a Senate resolution is not sufficient to define or redefine natural born citizenship. Hatch also admits that the precise definition is in dispute among legal scholars.

  420. 12/13/2009MGB says:

    For anyone who cares, because it’s proof of nothing, nobody has gone to a library to look at the microfiche with the birth announcements.

    As with the original image that turned up on a blog, yet another anonymous person claims to have contacted a library in Berkeley, CA, which made copies from a microfilm and sent the copies to that person, who then sent the copies in digital format to John Charlton at his blog. Anywhere in this sequence of alleged events, someone could be pulling a fast one. So here we have yet another digital image, subject to modification, posted on a blog by an anonymous person.

    As for Free Republic being a racist or hate site: Anybody can comment there. Anybody can post comments there under any name. Therefore, it’s as likely that someone trying to besmirch the site posted “cherry-picked” inflammatory or racist comments, as it is that the person who posted those comments actually meant what was said.

  421. 12/13/2009jvn says:

    Let’s see.

    No state election official questioned the President’s eligibility, not even in those Republican states won by McCain.

    No member of the Electoral College, each of whom were presented with thick packets of “information” by the “birther” movement, challenged the President’s eligibility, not even those who voted for McCain.

    Not a single member of Congress has said that the President is not eligible, nor did any of them raise an objection to the veracity, legality and constitutionality of the electoral vote when that was before them (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/01/09/its_official_congress_certifies_obamas_victory/). Even the GOP members of Congress, some of them deeply conservative, were unanimous in their support of the President’s qualifications and election.

    Not a single member of the judiciary at the state or federal level, most of whom were appointed by either Bush I or Bush II has expressed anything beyond contempt for these cases. The most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States have declined to join the “birther” cause, and have refused to grant any of these cases a hearing before the SCOTUS – WHICH THEY COULD DO IF ALL FOUR OF THEM VOTED TO DO SO.

    The President is serving. The economy is turning around. The world is embracing US foreign policy again, health care reform is closer to being passed than at any time in history, and we are finally taking the appropriate steps to protect the environment. The country is slowly recovering from the Bush administration’s mismanagement.

    The “birther” movement is comprised of a relative handful of people, many of whom never come out and claim that the President is not eligible, but express that they are “not sure” that he is, which is political opportunism at it’s finest. In any event, the movement has lost every case, and is not taken as credible by any legal scholar, right or left.

    So which group is it that’s whining?

    :)

  422. 12/13/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “Hatch also admits that the precise definition is in dispute among legal scholars.”

    The dispute among legal scholars is children born overseas. This statement by Hatch says it all.

    ““What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”

    If you will note, he makes no mention of the “parents have to be citizens BS” because this requirement does not exist. My suggestion would be to write Congressman Hatch and ask him. BTW, my son’s Govt./Politics college textbook says the same thing, as does his Republican college professor.

  423. 12/13/2009misanthropicus says:

    Re Qwertyman Re Misanthropicus:

    Qwerty, I am harvesting from your ample answer the elements that address my prior post (I am not Sharon);

    * misanthropicus: […] And Obama prefers (and you approve) to put the country through this misery instead of paying a FIFTEEN DOLLARS FEE – FIFTEEN DOLLARS FEE – […]
    Qwerty: […] Name a single birther suit that would have been satisfied with the production of any documents. Every single birther suit has alleged that Obama was ineligible for office regardless of where he was born. You yourself have said that on many occasions as well. So when you say that producing another birth certificate could end “this misery” it’s a blatant lie, because he could provide you any documentation you want and it would not be enough for you. […]

    Qwerty, your answer is just a hypothesis – how could I name someone who would be disatisfied with the outcome of a legal action which compelled Obama to produce his long form BC when all actions in this direction were dissmissed on technicalities and never reached the point you invoke (yes, standing, or jurisdiction IS a technicality).
    Your hypothetical positing of this matter is not a reasonable defense of Obama’s actions – if he shows the document in cause, and someone is not satisfied with that, well, that might justify what you invoke –

    But ’till then, NO ONE EVER SAW OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND HE IS RESISTING ANY ATTEMPT TO SQUEEZE THAT DOCUMENT FROM HIM –

    So, I’ll close with my remark from my previous post regarding this: the present conflict and the incoming strife caused by it could be anytime neutralized by the simple production of a Birth Certificate – FIFTEEN DOLLARS FEE. Yet not sight of that – so far –

    I think Marcus Aurelius said that the leader (political man) is judged by the consequences of his actions –
    And Obama prefers (and you approve) to put the country through this misery instead of paying a FIFTEEN DOLLARS FEE – FIFTEEN DOLLARS FEE – show me his statemaship and patriotism –

    Regards -

  424. 12/13/2009siseduermapierda says:

    John says:
    December 13, 2009 at 2:08 am
    *My brother’s best friend’s missionary friends say everyone in Kenya says*
    *the best stand alone second-hand “evidence” I’ve ever heard from first-hand e-mail*

    That’s called “hearsay”. It isn’t admissible. There’s no such thing as “stand-alone, second-hand evidence”.

  425. 12/13/2009MGB says:

    Sue, and yet the Lindsey Graham quote contains the exception for children of foreign diplomats. So even Graham and Hatch don’t agree. Not EVERY child born in the U.S. IS a natural born citizen.

  426. 12/13/2009jvn says:

    MGB –

    Whoever said that EVERY child born in the United States was an NBC?

    The 14th Amendment is clear, take a look…

  427. 12/13/2009qwertyman says:

    I disagree that such a Court order would be tantamount to causing another Civil War. Since these issues don’t exist in a vacuum, the truth of the matter is that any such case being considered by the Court would be fully covered by the media, and everyone would know about it, including whatever remedies the petitioners were seeking. So, the speculation would be rampant, but would be based on what the Court is being asked.

    I didn’t say that such a finding by the court would be tantamout to causing a civil war, I said it would cause the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War.

    As far as your number of votes point, the bottom line is that if a candidate were determined to be ineligible, then all those individuals who voted for the ineligible candidate would then have been disenfranchised by the political party of note, per se, and not by the Court (if the party knew what it was doing, then they would then be in deep political doo-doo).

    A court is not going to disenfranchise the votes of 70 million people unless the case is absolutely slam dunk without any room to avoid the question. For example, they are not going to say that dual citizens are not natural born citizens because there is a definition of natural born citizen that Obama clearly falls under. The only way a court is going to declare Obama ineligible for office is if there is a clear finding of fraud about where he was born, and that he knew about it at the time.

    I expect individuals to act like adults on my site.

    So do I. I’m just pointing out that when you say the propensity for harsh rhetoric comes overwhelmingly from those who oppose birthers, I think you are overlooking just how nasty the rhetoric from the other side gets. I have never said or hinted that birthers are going to go hell, and I don’t believe that anybody who opposes birthers has either.

    Qwerty, your answer is just a hypothesis – how could I name someone who would be disatisfied with the outcome of a legal action which compelled Obama to produce his long form BC when all actions in this direction were dissmissed on technicalities and never reached the point you invoke (yes, standing, or jurisdiction IS a technicality).

    Have you really forgotten all those times Orly Taitz has said it doesn’t matter if Obama was born in the Lincoln Bedroom? Leo has said on his site explicitly that he doesn’t care where Obama was born. Phil Berg has said Obama lost his citizenship in Indonesia. Apuzzo has mimicked Donofrio’s argument almost exactly.

    There is not a single birther suit that would be satisfied through production of every document asked for.

    As for Free Republic being a racist or hate site: Anybody can comment there. Anybody can post comments there under any name. Therefore, it’s as likely that someone trying to besmirch the site posted “cherry-picked” inflammatory or racist comments, as it is that the person who posted those comments actually meant what was said.

    MGB, are you saying that every one of those blatantly racist comments was posted by somebody who is posting racist comments in order to make Freep look bad?

    First of all, these were dozens of posters in the first several threads I found, each going back no more than a week. Secondly, it seems that every one of those posts is still up and all those users are still in good stead, meaning that the moderators found no problem with any of those posts or posters.

    If say, half of those posters have been members of FreeRepublic for at least 3 years, would you agree that there’s a significant percentage of racist posters on Freep?

  428. 12/13/2009qwertyman says:

    As with the original image that turned up on a blog, yet another anonymous person claims to have contacted a library in Berkeley, CA, which made copies from a microfilm and sent the copies to that person, who then sent the copies in digital format to John Charlton at his blog. Anywhere in this sequence of alleged events, someone could be pulling a fast one. So here we have yet another digital image, subject to modification, posted on a blog by an anonymous person.

    Then take the initiative. Do this yourself. If it’s that imporatnt to you, ask someone to do this for you. Better yet, take a trip to Hawaii. But to sit there saying that now the P&E is an obot site because they’ve confirmed what’s been on the web for over a year is incredulous. Because from the way you say this, the only way you would believe that birth announcement is if you saw it personally. You’ve pre-determined that you are going to distrust and believe fraudulent or forged anything that supports the position that Obama was born in Hawaii. The only way you’ll ever be satisfied is if you see everything for yourself. So go ahead and do it.

  429. 12/13/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE Qwertman Re Misanthropicus:

    Misanthropicus: […] Qwerty, your answer is just a hypothesis – how could I name someone who would be disatisfied with the outcome of a legal action which compelled Obama to produce his long form BC when all actions in this direction were dissmissed on technicalities and never reached the point you invoke […]
    Qwerty: […] Have you really forgotten all those times Orly Taitz has said it doesn’t matter if Obama was born in the Lincoln Bedroom? Leo has said on his site explicitly that he doesn’t care where Obama was born. Phil Berg has said Obama lost his citizenship in Indonesia. Apuzzo has mimicked Donofrio’s argument almost exactly. […]

    There is not a single birther suit that would be satisfied through production of every document asked for.

    Qwerty, you can’t do better that repeating your non-argument in this matter?

    We simply don’t know whether a birther would or would not be satisfied by a court-compelled production of Obama’s long fom BC – we simply don’t, and this simply doesn’t matter.
    Your quoting Orly, Leo or Apuzzo is irrelevant.
    The fact that we don’t know this, or that this might be true or not, is not a legitimate reason to obstruct those who want, and have the right as voters and tax-payers to see whether the one in which they invested votes and money had the right to run for the US presidency, and is a now a legitimate US president –

    Nope, so the concerted actions for trying to force Obama reveal his true vital data will continue – and, as Obama’s numbers are irreversibly sinking, there is less and less understanding for his constant attempt at deflecting this matter –

    Mane, tekel, fares – and the walls of Jericho didn’t fall at the first blare of horns –

    Regards -

  430. 12/13/2009qwertyman says:

    Qwerty, you can’t do better that repeating your non-argument in this matter?

    We simply don’t know whether a birther would or would not be satisfied by a court-compelled production of Obama’s long fom BC – we simply don’t, and this simply doesn’t matter.
    Your quoting Orly, Leo or Apuzzo is irrelevant.
    The fact that we don’t know this, or that this might be true or not, is not a legitimate reason to obstruct those who want, and have the right as voters and tax-payers to see whether the one in which they invested votes and money had the right to run for the US presidency, and is a now a legitimate US president –

    Misanthro, you said this:

    the present conflict and the incoming strife caused by it could be anytime neutralized by the simple production of a Birth Certificate

    As shown by every single birther suit to date, “the simple production of a Birth Certificate” wouldn’t neutralize anything.

    Anybody on this site who has claimed that a natural born citizen means the child of two citizens, or that dual citizens cannot be natural born citizens, are saying by definition that where Obama was born is not sufficient to prove his eligibility. You yourself have claimed this two citizen definition on many occasions. For you to turn around now and say that if you yourself could see Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaiian archives you would be “neutralized” strains credibility.

    Voters don’t have a right to see a presidential candidate’s birth certificate. You have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice, and Congress has the right to object to a president elect under the 20th Amendment. There are also provisions under the 25th Amendment to remove a president unable to serve, and a president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

  431. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    Phil,

    I want to thank you for allowing this much, heated at times, debate to continue.

    The work day went fast as there is nothing that gets a person moving at mock speed as the fact of working in frigid temps. Thus this allowed me to resume my search through my archives for the most damming law review/commentary on American Law per the US Cosntitution & later Acts by Congress.

    When we look to define NBC, we can not limit our search, we must included all historical evidence as it pertains to naturalization. Here are the key notes made by Kent whom, I might add, the liberal progessives like to quote as their source for defining the different paths to citizenship.

    James Kent, Commentaries 1:397–98; 2:33–63 / 1826 1827

    By the Constitution of the United States, Congress have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.

    (snip)

    We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant.

    To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law,

    under the well known name of corporations.

    There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,
    and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.

    (1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation.

    (2.) An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. There are some exceptions, however, to this rule, by the ancient English law, as in the case of the children of public ministers abroad, (provided their wives be English women,) for they owe not even a local allegiance to any foreign power.

    ThIs Commentary also refers to natural born and is quite clear that the definition of natural born, according to English Common law, to be

    “children of persons,” both the father and mother, in imitation of the statute of 25 Edw. III.

    The Commentary refers to several case laws and for those still clinging to the WKA ruling, if this ever makes it to the light of a court room to be litigated at length, you can bet that all this will come to light and it will be very damaging to your case because as of yet, you have not come up with anything to refute our definition of NBC, which was the same definition per the statute of 25 Edw. III and thus was common knowledge at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and therefore the 2 distinct paths to citizen as required for public office, i.e. Congress & the Executive Branch, very much have 2 very distinct & different definitions.

    And ‘YES’, there is a type of citizen called native, one who does not owe total and complete allegiance to the US at the time of their birth. The native is a citizen of the soil or a resident citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but that native is not nor ever will be a natural born citizen.

    This is my conclusion and I welcome your rebutle and efforts to refute it, but please do not come back at me with opinions or WKA as your justification. Go find me the evidence from other founders that refute what I have found.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships21.html

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_17s15.html

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships15.html

  432. 12/13/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 13, 2009 at 5:10 pm
    *This is my conclusion. Don’t come back to me with WKA.*

    Your conclusion conflicts with the Constitution, US law and legal precedence. The 14th amendment defines two and only two types of citizen: natural born and naturalized. USC 8 1401 describes what makes a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court concluded in the case of Wong Kim Ark that a child born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents. Because your conclusion and your sources conflict with a US Supreme Court decision, even if you got past the issues of standing and justiciability, your case would fail. Especially after the appeals court decision in Ankeny, which is now another legal precedent. Since you realize your conclusion can’t hold up if Wong Kim Ark is considered, then you also realize you would fail in a real courtroom. You wrote a fancy theory that might pass with people who don’t understand what case law is, but never in a real court. Just like Leo’s theories.

  433. 12/13/2009qwertyman says:

    Linda,

    Quote mining is not nice.

    Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation. If a person was born here before our independence, and before that period voluntarily withdrew into other parts of the British dominions, and never returned; yet, it has been held, that his allegiance accrued to the state in which he was born, as the lawful successor of the king; and that he was to be considered a subject by birth.

    It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural born subjects owe an allegiance, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be devested by any act of their own.

    This provision leaves us likewise in doubt, whether the act intended by the words, “children of persons,” both the father and mother, in imitation of the statute of 25 Edw. III.; or the father only, according to the more liberal declaration of the statute of 4 Geo. II. This clause differs from the preceding one, in being without any restriction as to the age or residence of the child; and it appears to have been intended for the case of the children of natural born citizens, or of citizens who were original actors in our revolution, and therefore it was more comprehensive and more liberal in their favour. But the whole statute provision is remarkably loose and vague in its terms, and it is lamentably defective in being confined to the case of children of parents who were citizens in 1802, or had been so previously. The former act of 29th January, 1795, was not so; for it declared generally, that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” And when we consider the universal propensity to travel, the liberal intercourse between nations, the extent of commercial enterprise, and the genius and spirit of our municipal institutions, it is quite surprising that the rights of the children of American citizens, born abroad, should, by the existing act of 1802, be left so precarious, and so far inferior in the security which has been given, under like circumstances, by the English statutes.

    Again, if you can find a single legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause, please let me know.

  434. 12/13/2009Sue says:

    “MGB says:
    December 13, 2009 at 2:58 pm
    Sue, and yet the Lindsey Graham quote contains the exception for children of foreign diplomats. So even Graham and Hatch don’t agree. Not EVERY child born in the U.S. IS a natural born citizen.”

    Per the Constitution:

    http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
    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.”

    In the original Constitution qualifications to be President, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is not included.

    Where is this phrase added? 14th Amendment:

    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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    However, the 14th Amendment is not clear on the definition of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark interpretes or defines what “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
    U.S. Supreme Court
    U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    “Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics : “British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. ‘Permanent’ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes ‘temporary’ allegiance to the crown. ‘Natural- born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.’ The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: ‘(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [169 U.S. 649, 658] person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.’ ‘(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.’ And he adds: ‘The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of Enl and; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.’ Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.”

    “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.”

    If you will note, SCOTUS clearly interpretes or states that there are two and only two exceptions to “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    “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.”

    I’d bet money that Hatch and Graham agree on the two exceptions to “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Hatch simply did not include the two exceptions in his comment and Graham only included one of the exceptions in his comment.

    Wong Kim Ark has been a SCOTUS precedent since March 28, 1898. If Congress had disagreed with SCOTUS interpretation, there are two courses of actions:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
    “In response to concerns over illegal immigration in the United States (and the associated fear that children of illegal immigrants could serve as links to permit citizenship for family members who would otherwise be ineligible), bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and have sought to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens. No such bill has ever come close to being enacted; even if one did, it would presumably achieve its intended result only if the Supreme Court, in a new case, were to conclude that Wong Kim Ark had been wrongly decided. Some attempts have also been made to supersede Wong Kim Ark by amending the Constitution itself, but no such amendment has ever been approved by Congress in order to be voted upon by state legislatures.”

    In my opinion, Congress will have to Amend the Constitution to exclude children who are born in U.S. whose parents are illegal immigrants from being “natural born citizens” based upon this SCOTUS decision.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

    “Wong Kim Ark was also cited in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a Supreme Court decision which struck down a Texas state law that had sought to deny public education to undocumented alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents — not children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents). The court’s majority opinion in Plyler said that, according to the Wong court, the 14th Amendment’s phrases “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and “within its jurisdiction” were essentially equivalent and that both referred primarily to physical presence. It held that illegal immigrants residing in a state are “within the jurisdiction” of that state, and added in a footnote that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”[6]”

    However, IANAL, so I’m going to ask the lawyers at PJ if my “opinion” is valid.

  435. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    qwertyman says: Quote mining is not nice.

    I did not ‘quote mine’ as you charge me to have, what I did was quote the Edw. III statute that defined what a naturtal born subject was at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    Blackstone himself concurred with this definition in his Commentaries.

    Further more, I gave the links for all readers to research for themselves and if anyone is ‘quote mining’ it is you. It is a long and exhastive commentary, as well are the other 2 links that it references to and they all come to the same conclusion,

    Native does not equal natural born and as Kent put it, Natives are:

    artificial persons created by law

    Thus there can be nothing natural about a native born person’s citizenship, they aquire it through naturalization under US laws if they so desire.

  436. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    Qwerty,

    You also pointed this out:

    If a person was born here before our independence, and before that period voluntarily withdrew into other parts of the British dominions, and never returned; yet, it has been held, that his allegiance accrued to the state in which he was born, as the lawful successor of the king; and that he was to be considered a subject by birth.

    You can not use reference to those born before our Independence as definition to claim Obama is an NBC, Obama himself has claimed nothing more than being ‘Native’, one born to the soil and he also admits that he was subject to British jurisdiction/British laws when he was born, thus Kent’s definition of the ‘Native’ that was an ‘artificial person created by law’ is not going to make your case.

    C’mon man, give me case law & commentary that I have not shown, prove me wrong, I challenge you.

  437. 12/13/2009qwertyman says:

    I did not ‘quote mine’ as you charge me to have, what I did was quote the Edw. III statute that defined what a naturtal born subject was at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    The very sentence you quoted has Kent state that he was uncertain about which statute was more relevant to the US. I quoted the full sentence in its context.

    Blackstone himself concurred with this definition in his Commentaries.

    Further more, I gave the links for all readers to research for themselves and if anyone is ‘quote mining’ it is you. It is a long and exhastive commentary, as well are the other 2 links that it references to and they all come to the same conclusion,

    Blackstone? What are you talking about?

    The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

    Vattel, sections 213, 215, also makes the father’s condition the natural one of the child though he recognizes the power of positive laws to change the rule. But the English common law rule seems to have reversed this order and to have made the place of birth the controlling consideration to be overruled only by positive statutes such as that of 25 Edw IIl st 2 and those following which gave citizenship to the children of English fathers born abroad. To this day not only are all persons born within the United Kingdom ipso facto entitled to all the civil privileges conferred by the British character but our law holds that they cannot divest themselves of that character by any act of theirs.” (Westlake 12; Maedonald’s Case, 18 State Trials 857; Udny v Udny, 1 HL Cas 441). And this was the doctrine of the American courts down to a very recent period. They held to indefeasible allegiance, even while the legislature provided and the courts themselves administered oaths of naturalization. (2 Kent 42 49; Wharton’s Am State Trials 655. See Holmes note to 2 Kent 49). By the common law, allegiance is not a matter of individual choice It attaches at the time and on account of birth and under circumstances in which the family owe allegiance and is entitled to protection. A person may be domiciled in one place or country and owe allegiance to and be a citizen of another. The fact that plaintiff’s grandfather made his permanent domicile in Canada does not of itself prove him to be an alien. Even if he was regarded as a British subject this would not necessarily make him an alien. The laws of the United States determine what persons shall be regarded as citizens irrespective of such persons pleasure or the laws or pleasure of any other government (Seevers J in State v Adams 45, Iowa 99 101 24 Am Dec 760). A. removed to Canada in 1790. His son was born there in 1795, his grandson in 1834. The two latter came to Iowa that year and have resided there ever since. Held that the grandson was a citizen by virtue of the Act of 1802 (US Rev Stats 2172). “Children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens thereof”. Seevers J., cites also as authorities Calais v Marshficld, 30 Me 511, Peck v Young 26 Wend NY 613, Inglis v Sailors Snug Harbor 3 Pet 99 7 L Ed 617. But this would not apply to a colored man born of slaves who emigrated to Canada. (People v Board of Registration of Detroit 26 Mich 51 12 Am Rep 297). By the common law a child born within the allegiance of the United States is born a subject thereof without reference to the political status or condition of its parents (McKay v Campbell 1871, Fed Cas No 8840, 2 Saw 118; Lynch v Clarke 1 Sand Ch NY 583). Aliter as to an Indian child. (Lynch v Clarke 1 Sand Ch NY 583). In Lynch v Clarke, the point decided was that Julia Lynch, born in New York in 1819, of alien parents temporarily there,who returned to Ireland when she was a few months old was a citizen of the United States. This question is very fully argued on pages 588-637. The abandonment of the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance by England and the United States destroys the force of this reasoning and seems to leave no presumption in favor of either the citizenship by birthplace or that by inheritance. The American born child of an English native subject domiciled in America is a subject of both countries. (Cranworth LC in Dawson v Jay 3 De Gex M & G 764 772 1853). A man may at the same time enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments. (Rutledge CJ in Talbot v Janson 3 Dall 138 169 1 L Ed 543 556 HAMMOND)

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/blackstone-children-of-aliens/

  438. 12/13/2009sharon2 says:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/11/obamas-holiday-bribes/

    How lovely . . .

  439. 12/13/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 13, 2009 at 6:27 pm
    *C’mon man, give me case law & commentary that I have not shown, prove me wrong, I challenge you*

    The commentary is irrelevant. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of what is a natural born citizen is to be found in Wong Kim Ark. You’re also ignoring the Constitution, and US statute. Your argument fails.

  440. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    qwerty embolds this view…

    To this day not only are all persons born within the United Kingdom ipso facto entitled to all the civil privileges conferred by the British character but our law holds that they cannot divest themselves of that character by any act of theirs.

    Qwerty, I concur, Obama, himself, has proclaimed that he was infact a natural born ‘British’ subject, per the British nationality Act of 1948, thus Obama’s citizenship was not under the complete jusrisdiction of the US when he was born per requirements of the 14th…

    Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have natural allegiance in mind since under common law it did not always matter who owed allegiance in advance.

    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

    Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

    Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have natural allegiance in mind since under common law it did not always matter who owed allegiance in advance.

    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

    Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

    http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

  441. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    [Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.

    To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;…]

    [F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]

    [Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.

    Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885#

  442. 12/13/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 13, 2009 at 6:57 pm
    *federalistblog*

    Again you cite writings that conflict with the Constitution, US statute and the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen. YOur argument fails.

  443. 12/13/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 13, 2009 at 7:01 pm
    *[Blackstone Commentaries (1765)*

    More writing that conflicts with the Constitution, US statute and the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen. YOur argument fails. You do realize this is exactly what Ankeny and Kruse did, right?

  444. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    siseduermapierda says: The commentary is irrelevant. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of what is a natural born citizen is to be found in Wong Kim Ark. You’re also ignoring the Constitution, and US statute. Your argument fails.

    sis, please cite where Grey in the WKA decision outright says: therefore WKA ia a ‘natural born citizen’ because this is the conclusion:

    The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    and this from Grey’s discussion of the decision:

    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 Coke, 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

    No where does Grey say that WKA ia a natural born citizen, he only states that the WKA is a citizen with all the rights of the NBC, but then again, being President is not a right, it is a job one mst qualify for or there wouldn’t have been requirements written in the Constitution. The fact is, not all NBC’s can become President when they want to either.

    They must wait until they have qualified.

  445. 12/13/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 13, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    *No where does Grey say that WKA ia a natural born citizen, he only states that the WKA is a citizen with all the rights of the NBC*

    Of course he does! You are being utterly disingenuous if you’ve read the entire decision. Grey spends page after page discussing the meaning ans history of the phrase “natural born citizen”. He then concludes:

    “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    There are only two kinds of citizen: natural born and naturalized. The Court found Wong to be a Natural Born Citizen. Your misinterpretation of the decision and misrepresentation of it by parsing little snippets that you think sound good may work with the faithful who want to believe there’s some way to get rid of Obama. It won’t work with people who understand the decision and its history. It won’t work in a court of law.

  446. 12/13/2009qwertyman says:

    http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

    Subject to the jurisdiction includes everybody except diplomats. If you are in this country, you are subject to the jurisdiction of this country. If you are in Germany, you are subject to jurisdiction of Germany.

    Thus if you are born in the US, unless your parents are foreign diplomats, then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US when you’re born.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/exploring-the-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-thereof-clause/#more-1592

    Those that are left out of this construct are the children of diplomats, children of invading armies, born on foreign vessels, expatriates and Native Americans (though this last one was later repealed by statute). Everybody else in the territory of the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

    Edit:

    sis, please cite where Grey in the WKA decision outright says: therefore WKA ia a ‘natural born citizen’ because this is the conclusion:

    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.

    Tell me how this would not apply to Wong or to Obama.

  447. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    siseduermapierda says: *[Blackstone Commentaries (1765)*

    More writing that conflicts with the Constitution, US statute and the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen.

    Please expand on what you mean by this. Our law is not English Law interpretted by Blackstone, so this comment to me is utterly without comprehension in light of what was already recorded for study by students of American Law:

    Wilson(founder of Harvard Law School) on Blackstone’s Commentaries:

    his principles, while they are not objects for immitation, will furnish excellent materials of contrast. On every account, therefore, he should be read and studied. He deserves to be much admired, but he ought no to be implicitly followed.

  448. 12/13/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 13, 2009 at 7:46 pm
    *Please expand on what you mean by this.*

    The US Constitution in the 14th amendment says there are two kinds of citizen: natural born and naturalized.

    US Code 8 1401 tells us who are the natural born citizens.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

    The Supreme Court found in Wong Kim Ark a child born within the borders of the US is a natural born citizen regardless of his parents’ status. In other words, simply being born within the US puts the child under the jurisdiction of the US, if the parents aren’t diplomats.

    In the Ankeny decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined that persons born within the borders of the US are also natural born citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the status of their parents. They basically said, a natural born citizen is a natural born citizen.
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Writings you may find or cite that conflict with these are irrelevant because they don’t carry the weight as the Constitution, the statutes and the case law.

  449. 12/13/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE Qwertyman RE Misanthropicus:

    1) […] As shown by every single birther suit to date, “the simple production of a Birth Certificate” wouldn’t neutralize anything. […]

    Qwerty, even if this were true, it still wouldn’t matter – after all, the object of most lawsuits you mentioned is the production of that very paper Obama doesn’t want to produce. Once the BC is produced via court intervention, the matter will closed one way or another –
    You simply cannot testify in the court that you will not say anything in your defense because you won’t be believed anyway, can you?
    There is an entire body of guarantors in this enterprise that can insure that if Obama produces his authentic BC, the paper’s data will be given full credence, either way, credence then amplified by media –

    2) […] There are also provisions under the 25th Amendment to remove a president unable to serve, and a president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. […]

    Pefectly true, and a good step for avoiding this terrible situation would be for Obama to demolish all suspicions about his illegitimacy by producing the document in cause –
    Otherwise, he will be exposed to the damaging fallout of other lawsuits like the car dealers’ and the police pension funds, which are solid cases and which in order to be properly scrutinized by the court will have to address Obama’s legitimacy as America’s CEO –
    As I keep saying, Al Capone wasn’t nailed for murders but for tax evasion – and while frontal assaults on his legitimacy problem won’t work, the fully warranted cases like the dealers’ and the police pension funds’ will pry open the Hawaii HD vault –

    I’ll remind you this –

    Regards -

  450. 12/13/2009Phil says:

    jvn,

    Let’s see.

    No state election official questioned the President’s eligibility, not even in those Republican states won by McCain.

    No member of the Electoral College, each of whom were presented with thick packets of “information” by the “birther” movement, challenged the President’s eligibility, not even those who voted for McCain.

    Not a single member of Congress has said that the President is not eligible, nor did any of them raise an objection to the veracity, legality and constitutionality of the electoral vote when that was before them (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/01/09/its_official_congress_certifies_obamas_victory/). Even the GOP members of Congress, some of them deeply conservative, were unanimous in their support of the President’s qualifications and election.

    Not a single member of the judiciary at the state or federal level, most of whom were appointed by either Bush I or Bush II has expressed anything beyond contempt for these cases. The most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States have declined to join the “birther” cause, and have refused to grant any of these cases a hearing before the SCOTUS – WHICH THEY COULD DO IF ALL FOUR OF THEM VOTED TO DO SO.

    You have correctly stated a reasonable set of events that have occurred, to date, regarding the President and his ascendancy to power. The problem is that just because nobody questioned the President’s bona fides doesn’t necessarily mean that said President is, in fact, eligible for the presidency.

    And I think this fact leads to your end remark:

    So which group is it that’s whining?

    As far as I can see, the only folks whining are the ones who constantly wonder why folks like me are questioning this President. It’s almost as if this President should not be questioned, because those whining folks think he shouldn’t be questioned.

    Ah, well. The nice thing is I’ve created a virtual lobby at my site wherein I’ve set up a table with quite the assortment of cheeses to go with that whine.

    ;)

    -Phil

  451. 12/13/2009Sue says:

    qwertyman,

    “Thus if you are born in the US, unless your parents are foreign diplomats, then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US when you’re born.”

    Wasn’t there three exceptions stated in Wong Kim Ark? One that is no longer relevant today?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
    “Opinion
    Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.”

    Rationale
    “The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, according to the court’s majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The majority held that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4]) – and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong’s situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that “…during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China”.

    “Since Wong (according to the majority opinion) was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law “cannot control [the Constitution’s] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions.”

    The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause did not state “except for Article II, Section I, clause 4.”

    http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
    “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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  452. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    qwertyman says:Tell me how this would not apply to Wong or to Obama.

    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.

    Because of this part of WKA rukling: whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    Obama’s father was neither permanently domiciled as a resident of the US, and further, Grey does not state WKA ia a natural born, but a citizen witht he same rights as the natural born citizen. As far as English Commom law:

    Custis v. Lane

    3 Munf. 579 Va. 1813 : With respect to the right of a citizen, or subject, of a foreign government, to intermeddle with the civil polity of Virginia, and, especially, to exercise the all-important function of legislation, the matter cannot admit of a possible doubt. Such subjects, or citizens, cannot exercise this inestimable right, as they owe to the commonwealth no corresponding duties, and would not be amenable to the laws by them enacted. They cannot exercise this right in person, for their personal attendance may be necessary, at the same time, in their own country; and, besides, in time of war, they would be prohibited from coming here for the purpose.

    You can not ne a NBC and still owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty as stated in the historical archives & Congressional records for the 14th.

    Jusrisdiction & Allegiance can not be divest of each other, they are one in the same where citizenship is concerned. Complete allegiance to the jurisdiction of the USA, in all areas, local, state, national & political as in what the 14th states, not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

    If Obama had been born out of wedlock, no father listed & no divorce papers proving that Obama Sr was his father, there would be no controversy. But since his parents were married and it is recorded that at the time of his birth that Obama’s father was a temporary alien not permanently domiciled in the US, Obama for political & all other puposes, was subject to the British Crown & thus lacked that crucial requirement of one not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

  453. 12/13/2009Sue says:

    “As I keep saying, Al Capone wasn’t nailed for murders but for tax evasion – and while frontal assaults on his legitimacy problem won’t work, the fully warranted cases like the dealers’.”

    Very doubtful, if Donofrio and Pidgeon actually ever file anything.

    “and the police pension funds’ will pry open the Hawaii HD vault -”

    You might want to pull up the briefs and look at the question presented. It does not appear to be a constitutional case but rather a very technical appeal based on bankruptcy law.

    However, IANAL so perhaps the lawyers who comment would be so kind as to give us their legal opinion.

  454. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    The problem with all of you using the 14th as your major ticket to your argument, let me remind you that the 14th was adopted ot keep the states from withholding rights to the newly emancipated slaves. It’s purpose was not to define NBC, and you can not make the claim that citizen=natural born in all cases, because it does not.

    Grey in the WKA decision did not declare WKA to be a NBC, he said he had all rights of NBC.

    I still don’t see how you think you can justify this as meaning anything other than it does in light of the entire opinion. This was discussed by current SCOTUS justices during the Nguyen case. The 2 main topics were:

    jus soli (right of birthplace) and jus sanguinis (right of blood)

    Now, no SCOTUS case has ever difinitively determined how they pertain to NBC, they all conclude resort must be had elsewhere, however what they have all done is fall short of finding the plaintiff/defendent in all cases where one or both of the parents was a foreigner a natural born citizen, they only go as far as to say that they have the same rights. On the other case, in Perkins v Elg, it was definitively decided and cited in the decision that elg was a natural born citizen because both her paernts were US citizens at the time of her birth, something all the other cases lacked.

  455. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    siseduermapierda says: The US Constitution in the 14th amendment says there are two kinds of citizen: natural born and naturalized.

    It does?

    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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    born does not = natural born and you have misquoted the 14th for your own political view.

  456. 12/13/2009Manchurian Messiah says:

    YOUR QUESTION IS MOOT, AS I AM NOT PRESIDENT!

    I GREATLY ENJOYED MY ’60 MINUTES’ FAME.

    WHAT A NATURAL-KENYAN SMILE!!

    MM

    Alabambie says:
    December 13, 2009 at 3:34 am
    Is our President affected by other countries because how he grew up?

    From what I’ve read here and other places, he’s been around the world

    because of different happenings and has lived and visited in

    different countries when he grew up and he’s had different parents.

    You guys seem to argue about a lot of things here and it all sounds

    good and interesting but it’s confusing, so I want to know if

    you think he’s a good President for us, I mean, for the U.S.?

    Thanks for reading my question! It’s kinda scary not knowing what’s

    true and what is not… Thanks again.

  457. 12/13/2009Sue says:

    “Obama’s father was a temporary alien not permanently domiciled in the US, Obama for political & all other puposes, was subject to the British Crown & thus lacked that crucial requirement of one not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”

    I do not believe your above statement is factual.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

    “6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing “That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . ” was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.”

    Page 307 U. S. 326″

    “This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.”

    Definition of “foreign nationals.”

    http://www.statelawyers.com/Practice/Practice_Detail.cfm/PracticeTypeID:52
    Immigration & Naturalization Law

    “U.S. Immigration Law deals with issues relating to foreign nationals who come to this country either temporarily or permanently, including the associated legal rights, duties, and obligations of aliens in the United States. It also deals with the application processes and procedures involved with naturalization of foreign nationals who wish to become U.S. citizens, as well as dealing with legal issues relating to people who are refugees or asylees, people who cross U.S. borders by means of fraud or other illegal means, and those who traffick or otherwise illegally transport aliens into the United States.”

    What is a Foreign National?

    “In the United States, like many other countries, native people (people born in the United States) are considered citizens. You are also considered a citizen of the United States if you are born overseas but one or both of your parents is a U.S. citizen, or if you came from another country and go through the process of naturalization-applying for and meeting the requirements for naturalized citizenship. If you are not a U.S. citizen, then you are considered a foreign national or alien. Aliens are categorized as: resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, documented (legal) and undocumented (illegal).”

    I do believe President Obama’s father would have been considered a legal temporary foreign national subject to the jurisdication of U.S. while he attended college in U.S.

    Also, President Obama’s father was not a foreign diplomat or a member of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory.

    However, IANAL so an opinion from one of the competent lawyers that comment here would be appreciated.

  458. 12/13/2009qwertyman says:

    On the other case, in Perkins v Elg, it was definitively decided and cited in the decision that elg was a natural born citizen because both her paernts were US citizens at the time of her birth, something all the other cases lacked.

    The Supreme Court in Perkins affirmed the lower court’s opinion.

    From the lower court:

    The law of England, as of the time of the Delcaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States.

    Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1938)

    No reference to parentage, no reference to dual citizenship. There is absolutely nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion that challenges the appellate court’s interpretation of natural born citizen.

  459. 12/13/2009Sue says:

    “born does not = natural born and you have misquoted the 14th for your own political view.”

    I disagree. Natural born citizen = native born citizen = citizen at birth. The courts used these terms interchangeably.

  460. 12/13/2009theOriginalist says:

    DCA says:
    Natural and Naturalized citizenship are BOTH are acts of human law.

    Things can be the result of human acts or they can be natural. Reason dictates they cannot be both as that would constitute a contradiction.

  461. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    qwertyman says: Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1938)
    No reference to parentage, no reference to dual citizenship. There is absolutely nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion that challenges the appellate court’s interpretation of natural born citizen.

    Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.

    In 1928, shortly before Miss Elg became twenty-one years of age, she inquired an American consul in Sweden about returning to the United States and was informed that if she returned after attaining majority she should seek an American passport…

    ‘The term ‘dual nationality’ needs exact appreciation. It refers to the fact that two States make equal claim to the allegiance of an individual at the same time. Thus, one State may claim his allegiance because of his birth within its territory, and the other because at the time of his birth in foreign territory his parents were its nationals. The laws of the United States purport to clothe persons with American citizenship by virtue of both principles.’

    The opinion does not discuss the right of election of a native citizen of the United States when he becomes of age to retain American citizenship and does not refer to the repeated rulings of the Department of State in recognition of that right, the exercise of which, as we have pointed out, should not be deemed to be inconsistent with either treaty or statute. We are reluctant to disagree with the opinion of the Attorney General, and we are fully conscious of the problems incident to dual nationality and of the departmental desire to limit them, [307 U.S. 325, 349] but we are compelled to agree with the Court of Appeals in the instant case that the conclusions of that opinion are not adequately supported and are opposed to the established principles which should govern the disposition of this case. 31

    Nor do we think that recent private acts of Congress32 for the relief of native citizens who have been the subject of administrative action denying their rights of citizenship, can be regarded as the equivalent of an Act of Congress providing that persons in the situation of the respondent here have lost the American citizenship which they acquired at birth and have since duly elected to retain. No such statute has been enacted…

    The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414)

    As I have shown, the case did report on her parents and the case did report on dual citizenship. But at the time of majority, those that held dual citizenship and were taken abroad as a child had to renounce their allegiance to the foreign soveriegnty before regaining thier American citizenship & American passport. To think this was not required of those living in the US who held dual citizenship is being naive and grossly incompetent.

    Congress drafting the 14th clearly concluded that suject to the jusrisdiction meant not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty as recorded in earlier posts with links. This was confirmed in Minor and the Fuller court, with thte help of Grey’s blatent disregard of Congress’s euling took it upon themselves to rewrite the law, by claiming a person born to foreigners to be a citizen.

    So qwerty, on its face, your statement is out falsified.

  462. 12/13/2009Linda says:

    Sue says: I do not believe your above statement is factual.

    You have not shown how so. You show a link to naturalization as if Obama’s father was a naturalized citizen. More smoke and I can’t believe you still continue to hang onto this fact.

    Obama’s father was here on a temporary student visa with orders to return and work for the Kenyan government when he finised his schooling, in which he did.

    As far as the foreign parent/American parent analogy, citizen
    yes’, natural born owing no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, ‘no’.

    You see for me, I could care less about the birth certificate and though I have reported on it, I have never claimed that he was born in Kenya. Obama = native born and as Kent defined native born = artificial persons created by law

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships21.html

    Why have any naturalization laws at all it its a free for all on citizenship. You all make it sound like we just one big global landing strip for all humankind. To this you are sorely mistaken.

  463. 12/13/2009qwertyman says:

    The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414)

    As I have shown, the case did report on her parents and the case did report on dual citizenship. But at the time of majority, those that held dual citizenship and were taken abroad as a child had to renounce their allegiance to the foreign soveriegnty before regaining thier American citizenship & American passport. To think this was not required of those living in the US who held dual citizenship is being naive and grossly incompetent.

    So qwerty, on its face, your statement is out falsified.

    My statement was referring to the quote from the lower court. Do you think that I am the stupidest person in the world, to post a quote from a court about the definition of natural born citizen and when I then say that it doesn’t discuss parentage or dual citizenship, that I am referring to the Supreme Court’s opinion generally? Of course the Supreme Court discussed parentage and dual citizenship.

    But as the Supreme Court said, the lower court “declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”

    On what grounds?

    The law of England, as of the time of the Delcaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States.

    Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1938)

    “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… since as before the Revolution.” United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866).

    A person has allegiance at birth to the place where they are born. Born in the allegiance includes everybody but the children of foreign diplomats (who do not have allegiance to the US, but to the country their parents represent) and in 1866, Native Americans (since repealed by statute).

    Congress drafting the 14th clearly concluded that suject to the jusrisdiction meant not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty as recorded in earlier posts with links. This was confirmed in Minor and the Fuller court, with thte help of Grey’s blatent disregard of Congress’s euling took it upon themselves to rewrite the law, by claiming a person born to foreigners to be a citizen.

    Your interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof would constitute the greatest breach of national sovereignty in American history. Every country in the world have veto power over who could and could not be an American citizen at birth, much less eligible for the presidency.

    Italy grants citizenship to the grandchildren of citizens. If you have an Italian grandparent, and both your parents were born in the US, does that mean that you’re not a citizen because you have allegiance to a foreign country?

    Israel grants citizenship to every Jew in the world. Are all Jewish Americans actually not American citizens unless they are naturalized?

    If Kim Jong Il granted North Korean citizenship on every American tomorrow, would that mean that absolutely every American was henceforth no longer American citizens?

    Your argument has devastating implications for the future of this country. To be an American citizen, according to your argument, no other country can have a statute that grants you citizenship to their country.

  464. 12/14/2009Sue says:

    “Why have any naturalization laws at all it its a free for all on citizenship. You all make it sound like we just one big global landing strip for all humankind. To this you are sorely mistaken.”

    Actually, I believe that you are the one that is mistaken.

  465. 12/14/2009qwertyman says:

    You all make it sound like we just one big global landing strip for all humankind.

    Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

  466. 12/14/2009kj says:

    Phil said:

    Since there is no crime for being ineligible for the presidency, Mr. Obama would then simply no longer be President, by definition.

    Just think, if he were ever found to be ineligible for the presidency and thus never the president, he would not have legal protection for his “acts” while occupying the Office of the President and would be open to thousands of lawsuits.

  467. 12/14/2009theOriginalist says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    “You are wrong… I am correct …”

    That being the basis of your position, there is no need to discuss the issue further.

  468. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    qwerty,

    we are NOT discussing citizen, we are discussin natural born citizen. When will you grasp the concept that there are 2 distinct definitions as layed out in the Constitution as qualifications for Congress & the Executive. If the Framers had intended for anyone born on US soil to be President, regardless of their citizenship aka dual nationality after the Declaration of Independence. Why the need for the grandfather clause at all? Your logic makes no sense in light of this.

    You can qoute British laws all you want, but besides the revolutionary war, the founders didn’t fight another bloody war to force England’s hand to relinquish the hold they were still trying to force on the new American citizens. By your logic, the war of 1812 was for naught and the prince himself could have come over and had his child born on American soil and be able to be president some day. The founders knew of the devasting harm this would cause and took care. Only through time and ideolgues who wish for that all powerful monarchy to return, has the citizenship laws been usurped over the last century & half.

    I am wondering, how much have you studied American history and the men who drafted the Constitution? My guess is not much because all you can cite is the usual from mrconspiracy’s site and other left-wing ideologues. You have not brought one piece of historical evidence to the table that has not been out there like I have. You obviously have not gotten into the minds of those historical figures and early American law professors by reading their works.

    Were they all core conservatives. Absolutely not. Especially Wilson, who if he had his way, would have put more power in the central government, but he understood the history of the past that was used to help write a Constitution for citizens who were sovereigns, not subjects. All the early law professors quote Cicero, Puffendorf, Aristotle, as well as Vattel’s translation of the law of nations as the guiding forces to American law & our Constituion. And all the while, they promote the study of Blackstone & his commentaries on English law, admire him, but at the same time advocating that they should not be implicity implied where it pertains to American law.

    It just doesn’t get any plainer than that. Study the English, admire them, but as for we & our new country, we have made our own laws and they are not that of Brits. America as a sovereign nation was the new experiment put in place for the free man, not the subject whose freedoms were handed down to him by some heirarchy.

  469. 12/14/2009qwertyman says:

    we are NOT discussing citizen, we are discussin natural born citizen.

    And while doing so, you proposed a definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” from the 14th Amendment that would constitute a complete breach of national sovereignty.

    When will you grasp the concept that there are 2 distinct definitions as layed out in the Constitution as qualifications for Congress & the Executive. If the Framers had intended for anyone born on US soil to be President, regardless of their citizenship aka dual nationality after the Declaration of Independence. Why the need for the grandfather clause at all? Your logic makes no sense in light of this.

    That’s right, any American citizen could eventually become a member of Congress. Only a natural born citizen can become president. There is no other classification of citizen mentioned in the Constitution. This third classification of native born citizens as some distinct class from natural born citizens is not supported by the Constitution nor of any statute or case.

    Why the need for the grandfather clause? Because many of the Framers were born outside United States territory, particularly Alexander Hamilton.

    You can qoute British laws all you want, but besides the revolutionary war, the founders didn’t fight another bloody war to force England’s hand to relinquish the hold they were still trying to force on the new American citizens. By your logic, the war of 1812 was for naught and the prince himself could have come over and had his child born on American soil and be able to be president some day. The founders knew of the devasting harm this would cause and took care. Only through time and ideolgues who wish for that all powerful monarchy to return, has the citizenship laws been usurped over the last century & half.

    You’d prefer to return to a pre-Civil War conception of citizenship? I suppose that’s a brave thing to say. There are many people who would disagree with you.

    An English prince who had a child born on American soil would not be able to have that child get elected president some day; that Price would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US while on its territory, as an agent of a foreign government.

    At some point you also have to trust in the democratic process.

    And all the while, they promote the study of Blackstone & his commentaries on English law, admire him, but at the same time advocating that they should not be implicity implied where it pertains to American law.

    It just doesn’t get any plainer than that. Study the English, admire them, but as for we & our new country, we have made our own laws and they are not that of Brits. America as a sovereign nation was the new experiment put in place for the free man, not the subject whose freedoms were handed down to him by some heirarchy.

    The reason that it seems that I post materials that you’ve seen over and over again is because what I post is are the commentaries and cases that have become the leading cases on citizenship and the working definition of natural born citizen.

    There is not a single judge, member of Congress, or current legal scholar who agrees with your definition of the natural born citizen clause, and it’s not that they’re all conspiring together to promote a political agenda.

    And when you say that English common law “should not be implicity [sic] implied where it pertains to American law,” it seems to betray a lack of understanding about the meaning of implicitly.

    Implicitly means:
    1. implied, rather than expressly stated: implicit agreement.
    2. unquestioning or unreserved; absolute: implicit trust; implicit obedience; implicit confidence.

    Just because we should not follow common law principles unquestioningly does not mean that we never follow common law principles. We follow common law in many respects. A great deal of property law, contract law, wills, estates, torts, criminal law, are all derived from English common law. Another area where common law has been used to derive our understanding of law is in the definition of natural born citizenship.

    I’ve studied American history and law enough to have knowledge of what I’m talking about, such that I would never say that thousands of law professors all throughout the country are conspiring to keep silent about some true definition of natural born citizen.

    You could not get all law professors to agree on the definition of the word law, but they all seem to agree that anybody born in the US with at least one citizen parent is a natural born citizen.

  470. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    theOriginalist says:
    December 14, 2009 at 1:38 am
    “the basis of your position”

    The basis of my position is as follows and it is correct:

    – The Constitution defines two, two and only two kinds of citizen: natural born and naturalized.
    – The US Code 8, 1401 details who is a natural born citizen
    – In the decision in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court affirmed that a child born within the borders of the US is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents, unless they are diplomats. because being born within US border puts the child within the jurisdicition of the US.
    – The Indiana court of appeals confirmed that the 14th amendment and Wong Kim Ark also determine who is a natural born citizen for Article II, Section 1 purposes. In other words, a natural born citizen is a natural born citizen.

    An argument using writings of founders, legal scholars is a failure when they conflict with the Constitution, US law and legal precedent. That’s why Arkeny failed. That’s why Leo fails. That’s why PLinda fails.

  471. 12/14/2009Sue says:

    “It just doesn’t get any plainer than that. Study the English, admire them, but as for we & our new country, we have made our own laws and they are not that of Brits. America as a sovereign nation was the new experiment put in place for the free man, not the subject whose freedoms were handed down to him by some heirarchy.”

    I believe this contradicts your statement above.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/the-early-states-and-english-common-law/
    The early States and English Common Law December 14, 2009

  472. 12/14/2009Sue says:

    “Congress drafting the 14th clearly concluded that suject to the jusrisdiction meant not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”

    Where is this “clearly concluded” by Congress in the Constitution?

  473. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 14, 2009 at 2:02 am
    * America as a sovereign nation was the new experiment put in place for the free man, not the subject whose freedoms were handed down to him by some heirarchy.*

    To suggest Americans abandoned all things British after the Revolution is complete poppycock and not supported by history. You can easily find that the state constitutions for many of the original states around 1776 to 1780s specifically incorporated existing law into their constitutions. Existing law would have been the English common Law. Some expressly cite incorporation of the English Common Law. None completely repudiated it. For example New Jersey 1776:

    XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practised in this Colony,shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a
    future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are
    repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal,forever.
    http://www.state.nj.us/njfacts/njdoc10a.htm

    The other states’ original constitutions are just as easily found.

  474. 12/14/2009Black Lion says:

    Sue says:
    December 13, 2009 at 9:14 pm
    “As I keep saying, Al Capone wasn’t nailed for murders but for tax evasion – and while frontal assaults on his legitimacy problem won’t work, the fully warranted cases like the dealers’.”

    Very doubtful, if Donofrio and Pidgeon actually ever file anything.

    “and the police pension funds’ will pry open the Hawaii HD vault -”

    You might want to pull up the briefs and look at the question presented. It does not appear to be a constitutional case but rather a very technical appeal based on bankruptcy law.

    However, IANAL so perhaps the lawyers who comment would be so kind as to give us their legal opinion.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Sue, the “epic fail” for Leo and Pidgeon is that they seem to have a short memory. If you recall the situation regarding both GM and Chrysler back in 2008 was that everyone expected that both companies would have to be liquidated and sold off in pieces. No expert believed that either company would be able to secure private debtor-in-possesion financing if they had to file for bankruptcy. Thus, without a bailout or post-filing government financing, no one involved in the process thought they could survive as ongoing entities or be successful in the long term.

    So due to the economic climate Chrysler and GM were forced to restructure, which involved closing dealerships. And since both companies were in Chpt 11, they were allowed to do whatever it took to emerge as viable enterprises. Leo’s problem will occur when he attempts to link unrelated events together to make a case that the President is unqualified. Legally this would be a difficult case to make. In addition even if the case is made it would probably not survive a motion to dismiss.

    Leo’s unrelated events, which include the following….1) implying that the White House decided which dealerships to close, 2) that said dealerships were closed for political reasons, 3) and finally making the claim that the government did not have the right to use TARP funds to bailout GM or Chrysler. Then he would attempt to state through a QW statute that the President needs to prove that he is the President because the plaintiffs feel that he is a usurper and did not have the right to do what we claim he did, even though we have not proved that the President did what he is accused of doing. Talk about a fishing expedition.

    Which all means that if Leo and Steve ever get around to filing their case it would be a one of those exotic and unique conceptual legal theories that Leo talked about. Which means lets make something up and see if it works. I don’t see any Judge falling for Leo’s latest attempt to rewrite the law.

  475. 12/14/2009Transparasaurus Rex says:

    The legislation going to the Oval Office today has “something for everyone, a comedy tonight…” and, according to AP reports, an appeals process for dealerships closed by GM and Chrysler. Perhaps the D.C. “protected elected” are trying to legislate their way around existing legal challenges. Legalized law-breaking? Bending the constitutional curve? JR High student councils do better work. The only thing Transparent about the current crop in DC is its lack of transparency. Disingenuous to a fault and dangerous to America.

  476. 12/14/2009theOriginalist says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    “it is correct:”

    If you say so.

    You use your way to find the meaning of the Constitution. I prefer Thomas Jefferson’s way. You will forgive me if I grant him greater authority than you on the interpretation of the Constitution.

    “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”

    Correspondence and Miscellanies From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson. (Boston: Gray & Bowan, 1830)

  477. 12/14/2009keokuk says:

    The Supreme Court will not hear Indiana Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/121409zor.pdf

    09-285
    IN POLICE PENSION TRUST, ET AL. V. CHRYSLER LLC, ET AL.

    The motion of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950).

  478. 12/14/2009Black Lion says:

    Transparasaurus Rex says:
    December 14, 2009 at 11:00 am
    The legislation going to the Oval Office today has “something for everyone, a comedy tonight…” and, according to AP reports, an appeals process for dealerships closed by GM and Chrysler. Perhaps the D.C. “protected elected” are trying to legislate their way around existing legal challenges. Legalized law-breaking? Bending the constitutional curve? JR High student councils do better work. The only thing Transparent about the current crop in DC is its lack of transparency. Disingenuous to a fault and dangerous to America.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Everyone forgets that the problem is that Chrysler would have been liquidated if the government hadn’t stepped in. After secured creditors were paid with Chrysler’s assets, how much would have been left to pay dealers? I doubt much. Secondly the power of a federal bankruptcy judge allows him to bypass any possible conflicts by state laws and cancel any contracts that may be prohibitive in restructuring and making the new company a viable entity.

    There already have been a number of lawsuits filed by pension funds, etc. which made similar arguments about the government using TARP funds, and to date all of them have been tossed. There is the one that is currently in front of the SCOTUS, but that will probably get tossed also…

  479. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    theOriginalist says:
    December 14, 2009 at 11:09 am
    * I prefer Thomas Jefferson’s way. *

    Of course you’re free to prefer whatever you want. But it’s not how our legal system works. The judicial branch interprets our Constitution and laws. The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Constitution, the 14th amendment to mean that a natural born citizen is a person who is born here regardless of the status of his parents. The Indiana Court of Appeals has interpreted the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark to also apply to Article II, Section 1 regardless of anyone’s Correspondences and Miscellanies.

  480. 12/14/2009Black Lion says:

    keokuk says:
    December 14, 2009 at 11:13 am
    The Supreme Court will not hear Indiana Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/121409zor.pdf

    09-285
    IN POLICE PENSION TRUST, ET AL. V. CHRYSLER LLC, ET AL.

    The motion of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950).
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Not surprising. Leo and Pidgeon’s suit, if it is ever filed, will suffer the same fate. Dismissal. A bankruptcy judge can cancel any contracts he feels necessary in regards to a company that has entered bankruptcy. That fact is difficult to overcome. The same with what entities are allowed to receive the TARP funds. There is no legal case for Leo at all. Which is probably why we have not seen a filing yet regarding this issue.

  481. 12/14/2009John says:

    Phil,

    Good point. That is probably the way it would proceed, the court would find Obama not eligible to be a valid candidate, issue the writ, which Congress would then take and execute to oust Obama as “disabled” from continuing in office.

    As far as what becomes “evidence” in the quo warranto action, the rules of procedure would control what becomes evidence through discovery. That is one reason why I’d personally prefer to see a “third party” or “interested party” as the Relator with standing to bring the suit. If Holder or the new U.S. attorney filed the case, there might arise “the appearance” of conflict, where it could be argued discovery may not be as “intense” and thorough as it would be under a non-government entity bringing the suit.

    That alleged archived old newspaper article out of that Nairobi, Kenya, newspaper, Sunday Standard, with title, “Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate”, if genuine, would most likely be valid evidence under the historical record evidence rule.

  482. 12/14/2009John says:

    siseduermapierda,

    You are correct. What I heard from Terry is not admissible evidence in any sense, and is not technically second or first-hand, as I put it down in print. For me, however, that information is much more solid than all of the other internet “evidence,” considering my knowledge of Terry’s integrity, and the integrity of those who would be his friends. Those Kenyans, who the missionaries have dealt with over the years, why would the majority of that local indigenous population, and a newspaper like the Sunday Standard, hold that Obama is Kenyan-born? Maybe the grandmother’s statement that she was present at his birth in Kenya started it all from what was just one of her dreams?

    We don’t know, and won’t know until a court gathers the facts for authentication and evaluation. There is enough “smoke” out there for someone with standing to bring the quo warranto suit in the D.C. District Court. If it does turn out that Obama is Kenyan-born, or does not meet the requirement of “natural born citizen,” as defined by the court, then he is absolutely no different than Arnold Schwarzenegger, who also is not eligible to be president.

  483. 12/14/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman said, “MGB, are you saying that every one of those blatantly racist comments was posted by somebody who is posting racist comments in order to make Freep look bad?

    First of all, these were dozens of posters in the first several threads I found, each going back no more than a week. Secondly, it seems that every one of those posts is still up and all those users are still in good stead, meaning that the moderators found no problem with any of those posts or posters.

    If say, half of those posters have been members of FreeRepublic for at least 3 years, would you agree that there’s a significant percentage of racist posters on Freep?”

    I’m saying exactly what I said and no more. In a world of anonymous blogs with anonymous posters, there can be and probably are persons who post their true thoughts while others are pretenders who post only to discredit, misdirect, mislead, sow controversy, divide and conquer, ad infinitum. That’s what I’m saying. We don’t know who anybody is and we don’t REALLY know that what they write on blogs is what they believe.

    I can’t “agree” that there’s a “significant percentage of racist posters” on ANY site without knowing HOW MANY posters there are on the site. There are thousands of posters at Free Republic. Perhaps millions. I don’t know the exact numbers and I really don’t care. I also don’t know how that site works, whether it’s moderated or whether they have a means to report offensive, racist, or threatening comments. If they do and if you are offended, then avail yourself of the process and let us know whether or not the comments were edited or deleted. If not, then you can perhaps come back and make the claim that the site, itself, is racist, if you provide the comment in question and if we agree that it says what you interpret it to say.

  484. 12/14/2009Black Lion says:

    John says:
    December 14, 2009 at 11:50 am

    That alleged archived old newspaper article out of that Nairobi, Kenya, newspaper, Sunday Standard, with title, “Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate”, if genuine, would most likely be valid evidence under the historical record evidence rule.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    John, it would not be admissible. First of all the original AP article mentioned nothing about being Kenyan born. So the court, under the FRE, would request the originally article from the AP and the writer. It would not request anything from the Kenyan newspaper because they were not the original authors of the article…

    The original article from the AP went as follows…You can look it up yourself…

    Senate Candidate Quits Amid Furor
    By Maura Kelly Lannan, Associated Press Writer|June 27, 2004

    CHICAGO — Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan dropped out of the race Friday amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days.

    “It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race,” Ryan, 44, said in a statement. “What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign — the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.”

    The campaign began to come apart Monday after the release of embarrassing records from Ryan’s divorce. In those records, his ex-wife, “Boston Public” actress Jeri Ryan, said Ryan took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans, and tried to get her to perform sex acts with him while others watched. Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one “avant-garde” club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable.
    Ryan said it was “truly outrageous” that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records. “The media has gotten out of control,” he said.

    Top Illinois Republicans immediately began the work of selecting a new candidate. Their choice will be an instant underdog against Democratic state Sen. Barack Obama for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

    “I feel for him actually,” Obama said on WLS-AM. “What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody.”

    Ryan had faced mounting pressure to quit from party leaders, who met several times the last few days to discuss whether the campaign could survive.

    Ryan conducted an overnight poll to gauge his support. After reviewing the results, his advisors told him the only way to survive would be to wage a negative and expensive response.
    “Jack Ryan made the right decision. I know it must have been a difficult one,” said House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who made his feelings known by canceling a fundraiser with Ryan.
    Ryan was a political neophyte, a millionaire investment banker who left business four years ago to teach at an all-boys parochial school in Chicago. He spent $3 million of his own money to win the primary.

    With his good looks and Harvard background, Ryan was seen as the party’s best hope for revitalizing the Illinois GOP, which lost control of the governor’s office and nearly every statewide office two years ago in the wake of a corruption scandal involving then-Gov. George Ryan. The former governor, who has since been indicted, is not related to Jack Ryan.

    During the primary, Ryan waved off rumors of damaging sex allegations in his divorce records, assuring officials there was nothing to worry about. But the Tribune and Chicago TV station WLS sued for the records’ release, and a California judge unsealed them against the couple’s wishes.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/27/news/adna-ryan27

    Another version of Lannan’s article, dated June 26, 2004, can be seen here:
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=20040626&id=gAQHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-zsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6867,7970675

    As you can see it looks the like the part about being “Kenyan born” was added by the Kenyan newspaper. Also some other parts of the article were changed from the AP version to the Kenyan one. So ti was not directly taken from the AP copy. Why the article was changed by the Kenyan newspaper is anyone’s guess but for the birthers to use this as some sort of “holy grail” document regarding that the media knew that President Obama was born in Kenya is ridiculous. As with all of the other birther “so called evidence”, it falls apart under additional scrutiny.

  485. 12/14/2009Black Lion says:

    John says:
    December 14, 2009 at 12:15 pm
    siseduermapierda,

    You are correct. What I heard from Terry is not admissible evidence in any sense, and is not technically second or first-hand, as I put it down in print. For me, however, that information is much more solid than all of the other internet “evidence,” considering my knowledge of Terry’s integrity, and the integrity of those who would be his friends. Those Kenyans, who the missionaries have dealt with over the years, why would the majority of that local indigenous population, and a newspaper like the Sunday Standard, hold that Obama is Kenyan-born? Maybe the grandmother’s statement that she was present at his birth in Kenya started it all from what was just one of her dreams?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    John, I find that interesting. No one is questioning the veracity of your friends, but it makes no sense. For instance did any of these so called Kenyan’s provide any sort of evidence? A picture? A document? All you had is someone telling your friends that the President was born there. And for the record Obama’s step-grandmother never claimed that he was born in Kenya. Ron McRae did. He was a so called “missionary” that claims that she said that. But the tape and transcript states she said Hawaii. So again you are only left with some people that are making the claim without any legitimate evidence.

    Secondly you state “For me, however, that information is much more solid than all of the other internet “evidence”, I find that interesting. The state of HI released a statement that the Barack Obama was born in HI. There are newspaper announcements that support that statement that have been verified. You have vital records that Leo and Miss Tickly verified that the state of HI was on file. That is not “internet evidence” but an acutal released document by a state official. You have the word of some Kenyans that told your friends. Not even close.

    In addition there has been no evidence that his mother ever visited Kenya or any part of Africa. No passport records, no airplane records, nothing at all. The story never made sense. Why would a woman that was so far along in her pregnancy travel from the US to a third world country, that barely had any running water or decent medical facilites. Why would she decide to go to Kenya when she knew that she would have to be in a plane for over 24 hours, most not by jet but propeller type planes? It just did not make any sense. Just like the story the Kenyans told your friends doesn’t pass the smell test. Kind of like the “Marine” that claims he met Obama in 1980 and this individual told him that he was born in Mombassa. These stories defy belief.

  486. 12/14/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman said, “But to sit there saying that now the P&E is an obot site because they’ve confirmed what’s been on the web for over a year is incredulous.”

    qwertyman, I can’t believe that I have to say this to you yet again, but please STOP mischaracterizing what I say and reading more into what I said than what I DID say.

    I NEVER said that P&E is an “obot site”. I am incredulous that you continue to misrepresent and rewrite what I say. However, knowing you, perhaps I should not be incredulous, even though it’s quite incredible that you persist.

  487. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    John says:
    December 14, 2009 at 12:15 pm
    *Maybe the grandmother’s statement that she was present at his birth in Kenya*

    But, she never said that.

    The only “smoke” anywhere was invented. And like smoke, it hasn’t withstood even mild scrutiny.

  488. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    John says:
    December 14, 2009 at 12:15 pm
    *We don’t know, and won’t know until a court gathers the facts for authentication and evaluation.*

    The courts don’t gather facts. A plaintiff doesn’t file suit with no evidence. When a plaintiff files a complaint they have to be able to show sufficient proof of their claim to support a cause of action in order for the case to proceed. Standing, justiciability, reasonable cause of action – without all 3 a case won’t proceed. If you don’t know going in, no court will let you gather facts in discovery. Where’d you say you went to law school?

  489. 12/14/2009keokuk says:

    That alleged archived old newspaper article out of that Nairobi, Kenya, newspaper, Sunday Standard, with title, “Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate”, if genuine, would most likely be valid evidence under the historical record evidence rule.

    My memory might be sketchy and I haven’t had a chance to look it up, but doesn’t FRE 803 indicate that for that rule to apply, the record must be at least 20 years old?

  490. 12/14/2009MGB says:

    Sue: What your extensive quote has shown is that Obama was a British Subject AT birth.

  491. 12/14/2009John says:

    Transparasaurus Rex,

    “Legalized law breaking?”

    That is exactly what happened in my local county quo warranto case. The candidate, in 2000, did not meet all the requirements to be a valid legal candidate in that 2000 election, because he lacked the educational credentials necessary to qualify. Since nobody ever challenged his candidacy through established procedures for doing such, they instead had him indicted for falsification of his election documents, specifically the affidavit where he swore that he was qualified to be a candidate for the office. That criminal process took place from December 2002, through October 2003. He was found “not guilty,” and had his criminal trial record sealed. He never went on to get additional education to satisfy what the Code required.

    So, just prior to the 2004 election, in December 2003, a State Representative friend, in the same political party, engineered an amendment to the Code that reduced the amount of educational credentials required to become a qualified candidate exactly down to his level of credentials. That amendment was attached to an “emergency” bill which was signed into law just days before his petitions were due in to the Board of Elections to qualify as a primary candidate in 2004.

    Here specific legislation was passed, solely for the benefit of one individual, to make him technically and legally eligible to be a qualified candidate. Out of the 88 counties in Ohio in 2004, there were 31 contested elections for that position in those 31 counties, including ours. Not one of the other 30 counties had one candidate that benefited from that emergency legislation. Furthermore, not one of those other 30 county candidates would have been aware of that legislation in time to apply it to his/her candidacy, because it was not published until after election deadline dates for qualification in the 2004 elections.

    This is the type of political corruption, used to cover-up illegal existing conditions, that should be deemed illegal itself, in my opinion. It’s the “change-the-rules-as-we-go-along” for the benefit of the party in power. They both do it, which is why, I believe, in my opinion, we find ourselves in the mess we are in nationally today.

  492. 12/14/2009MGB says:

    Linda quoted: “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 Coke, 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.”

    What I read from this is that WKA is a citizen and if he has children here, THEY are NATURAL-BORN citizens. The judge made the distinction between WKA and HIS children born here. Thank you, Linda, for finding this quote.

  493. 12/14/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman, I can’t believe that I have to say this to you yet again, but please STOP mischaracterizing what I say and reading more into what I said than what I DID say.

    Fair enough you didn’t call P&E an o-bot site. Apologies. You only said you either don’t believe Charlton when he says he got independent confirmation of the birth announcements or that he’s being fooled.

    Anywhere in this sequence of alleged events, someone could be pulling a fast one. So here we have yet another digital image, subject to modification, posted on a blog by an anonymous person.

    In a world of anonymous blogs with anonymous posters, there can be and probably are persons who post their true thoughts while others are pretenders who post only to discredit, misdirect, mislead, sow controversy, divide and conquer, ad infinitum. That’s what I’m saying. We don’t know who anybody is and we don’t REALLY know that what they write on blogs is what they believe.

    I can’t “agree” that there’s a “significant percentage of racist posters” on ANY site without knowing HOW MANY posters there are on the site. There are thousands of posters at Free Republic. Perhaps millions. I don’t know the exact numbers and I really don’t care. I also don’t know how that site works, whether it’s moderated or whether they have a means to report offensive, racist, or threatening comments. If they do and if you are offended, then avail yourself of the process and let us know whether or not the comments were edited or deleted. If not, then you can perhaps come back and make the claim that the site, itself, is racist, if you provide the comment in question and if we agree that it says what you interpret it to say.

    FreeRepublic has a “Report Abuse” button at the bottom of each of its posts. It’s a very tightly moderated and censored site, at least if you espouse a view that the moderators disagree with. They purged hundreds of posters who sympathized with Rudy Giuliani last year.

    Again, all of those posts were from what I found in the first couple of threads I happened to come across when I was looking. I checked all the threads again earlier today, and they’re all still up. None of the posts have been removed and none of the posters have been disciplined, as far as I can tell. On a site with thousands of posters, are you saying that I should be the one person to enforce whatever rules about racist posts they have?

    Let’s start with something basic though – would you agree that at least many of those posts I copied show a racial bias?

  494. 12/14/2009MGB says:

    Sorry. It was Grey, not the judge. The system would not allow me to edit my previous comment.

  495. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    MGB says:
    December 14, 2009 at 1:17 pm
    *What I read from this is that WKA is a citizen and if he has children here, THEY are NATURAL-BORN citizens.*

    That is incorrect. One can pick and parse from a Supreme Court decision to find tidbits you like and try to convince yourself the Supreme Court didn’t decide what they decided. But there is no doubt that the Court affirmed in their decision that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

    “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

  496. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    qwertyman says:
    December 14, 2009 at 1:21 pm
    *Fair enough you didn’t call P&E an o-bot site. Apologies. You only said you either don’t believe Charlton when he says he got independent confirmation of the birth announcements or that he’s being fooled.*

    So now we know there’s microfiche of the two papers inside the continental US. Can’t say ” well, I can’t travel to Hawaii” now. Who’s gonna go to Berkeley and have a look? It’s got to be another birther. You don’t even believe when a birther hires someone to go get copies. So go yourself.

  497. 12/14/2009theOriginalist says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    Of course you’re free to prefer whatever you want. But it’s not how our legal system works

    I fear you may be right about how our system now works. Perhaps the time has come to stop pretending that the Constitution represents the ultimate law of the land and admit it has been supplanted by the judiciary. Then we can put the Constitution up on ebay and use the proceeds to pay down the national debt. We might as well put it to good use.

  498. 12/14/2009John says:

    Black Lion,

    Thanks for the information. I had not seen those “originals.” I have a friend [ex-AF judge] who is thoroughly familiar with the FRE, whereas I am not.

    It is odd that so many Kenyans view Obama as being Kenyan-born. I wonder why they are so adamant about that, to the point where they would title the article the way they did. To me, this is like all the hearsay stories we get from the street. Most of the time a lot of it turns out to be accurate enough, providing us with very good leads to collect some real evidence.

    As far as the Chrysler bankruptcy lawsuit, somehow producing standing for a quo warranto case, I think you are correct. That will not happen. I still think that the only individuals who would have the best chance to establish standing would be all the other unsuccessful candidates for president in the November election.

    It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in time. As it proceeds onward, we on patrol continually discuss what would happen in the “worst case scenario” situation.

  499. 12/14/2009MGB says:

    Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

    This is a poem on a statue that is a gift from France. It isn’t enshrined in law or the Constitution, so we are not a “global landing strip,” even if some wish we were.

  500. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    theOriginalist says:
    December 14, 2009 at 1:40 pm
    *stop pretending that the Constitution represents the ultimate law of the land and admit it has been supplanted by the judiciary*

    Well, that’s rather dramatic considering the role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws, including the Constitution, and apply it to the facts in each case. If you want to take that responsibility away, then there’s no reason for them to exist.

  501. 12/14/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman, again, deliberately misquotes: “You only said you either don’t believe Charlton when he says he got independent confirmation of the birth announcements or that he’s being fooled.”

    I said nothing of the kind. I did not say I don’t believe Charlton, although I am open to the possibility that he’s being fooled. If you want to address what I said, then please quote me instead of wrongly paraphrasing my point, because you simply don’t get my points.

  502. 12/14/2009MGB says:

    sise quoted: “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    A CITIZEN of the US. NOT a natural born citizen of the US. IF there’s no distinction, then why did Grey make the same distinction between that particular citizen and his “issue”, who WOULD be natural born citizens? Not simple citizens, like he.

  503. 12/14/2009qwertyman says:

    I said nothing of the kind. I did not say I don’t believe Charlton, although I am open to the possibility that he’s being fooled. If you want to address what I said, then please quote me instead of wrongly paraphrasing my point, because you simply don’t get my points.

    You unnecessarily assume bad faith on my part. Everything from your post about the P&E independently confirming the Hawaii birth announcements suggests that you didn’t buy it. There was nothing in your post that suggested that you now believe that the birth announcements are legitimate. Again, if I have misinterpreted your post, I apologize.

    This is a poem on a statue that is a gift from France. It isn’t enshrined in law or the Constitution, so we are not a “global landing strip,” even if some wish we were.

    The poem was written by an American and written as a fundraiser put on by an American, and engraved on the Statute by an American, and has served as inspiration for millions of immigrants seeking a better life than what they have in their own homelands.

  504. 12/14/2009John says:

    siseduermapierda,

    Every piece of evidence that has been gathered in my case is submitted to the court. It becomes part of the record. In that sense, the court “gathers’ all the evidence. It’s the court record that contains all the evidence in the case. It is the court that determines what is acceptable evidence, just like it will be the courts that determine whether or not someone has standing to bring a quo warranto in D.C. District Court. Just like it will be the D.C. District Court that determines everything related to such case: if it has jusridiction, if there is standing, evidence, etc., if a case is filed there.

    You, I, or anyone else posting on this forum don’t have any control over what a court will do with this matter. What is suspect to me with regard to this subject matter, is not necessarily suspect [raises suspicions] to you or others. You have the complete right to argue from your perspective and opinion, the same as I, or anyone else. Are you correct? Is Linda correct? Black Lion? Qwertyman? Me? Who decides? I can say you are completely correct in everything you say, siseduermapierda, and it would not affect me one way or another, because it just doesn’t matter what you or I think. Time, events, and the courts will determine what happens, when it happens.

    Be satisfied that we have a have a pretty good system of avenues with procedures and methods to satisfy controversies under our Constitution and laws. If a majority of people lose faith in this system, for whatever reason, then I personally think we, as a nation, could be in big trouble, such as, the “worst case scenario” kind of trouble. Again, completely and solely my thought and opinion.

  505. 12/14/2009Black Lion says:

    John says:
    December 14, 2009 at 1:41 pm
    Black Lion,

    Thanks for the information. I had not seen those “originals.” I have a friend [ex-AF judge] who is thoroughly familiar with the FRE, whereas I am not.

    It is odd that so many Kenyans view Obama as being Kenyan-born. I wonder why they are so adamant about that, to the point where they would title the article the way they did. To me, this is like all the hearsay stories we get from the street. Most of the time a lot of it turns out to be accurate enough, providing us with very good leads to collect some real evidence.

    As far as the Chrysler bankruptcy lawsuit, somehow producing standing for a quo warranto case, I think you are correct. That will not happen. I still think that the only individuals who would have the best chance to establish standing would be all the other unsuccessful candidates for president in the November election.

    It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in time. As it proceeds onward, we on patrol continually discuss what would happen in the “worst case scenario” situation.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    John, no problem. I wasnt’t sure if you had read the original article or not. Once you see the original, especially the copy that is not digital, you can see that the Kenyan paper altered the article. I think they did it for some sort of misplaced nationalistic pride. That someone who was the son of a Kenyan was able to achieve such a high office in one of the leading countries in the world. I am just speculating however. No one but the editor of the paper will ever know.

    As far as the Chrysler issue, I agree. Leo’s theory does not take into account the power of the bankruptcy judge to do what they feel is in the best interests of making the company viable. His entire premise is based on speculation and conjecture, which is why I don’t think it will survive a motion to dismiss.

    Like you said it will be interesting to see what happens. The first step will be Leo actuallt filing the suit, which he has not done as of yet. By the way I wanted to let you know that I respect the civility of our exchange.

  506. 12/14/2009GeorgetownJD says:

    Linda writes:

    “Congress drafting the 14th clearly concluded that suject [sic] to the jusrisdiction [sic] meant not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty … .”

    ____________________

    Actually, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first clause of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment means presence within the dominions of the United States and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered. In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 905, 906 (C.C. Cal. 1884).

    IOW, birthright citizenship is granted to all those born on U.S.
    soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, save for children of diplomats.

    For a constitutional scholar’s take on the issue, see Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Guarantee By Elizabeth Wydra, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (May 2009), available at http://www.acslaw.org/files/Wydra%20Issue%20Brief.pdf.

    “The Reconstruction Framers’ intent to grant citizenship to all those born on U.S. soil, regardless of race, origin, or status, was turned into the powerfully plain language of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: “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.”
    The text of the ratified Citizenship Clause embodies the jus soli rule of citizenship, under which citizenship is acquired by right of the soil (contrasted with jus sanguinis, according to which
    citizenship is granted according to bloodline). Birthright citizenship is a form of “ascriptive” citizenship because one’s political membership turns on an objective circumstance—place of
    birth. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment is not the only place in the Constitution that reflects the notion that citizenship can accrue from the circumstances of one’s birth: Article II of the Constitution, provides that any “natural born citizen” who meets age and residency requirements is eligible to become President. Just as the Citizenship Clause sets forth birth on U.S soil as the condition for citizenship—not race or bloodline—Article II specifies that the relevant qualification for the presidency of the United States is birth-conferred citizenship, not any particular ancestry.

    “This understanding of the Constitution’s treatment of citizenship has held for more than a century. Case law just after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment interpreted the Citizenship Clause to confer automatic citizenship on persons born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status. In the 1886 case of Look Tin Sing, the court held that a child of Chinese parents—who still retained their status as Chinese citizens, despite their presence in the United States—was a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause because he was born on U.S.
    soil. As the court stated plainly, “It is enough that he was born here, whatever was the status of his parents.””

  507. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    John says:
    December 14, 2009 at 2:11 pm
    *Every piece of evidence that has been gathered in my case is submitted to the court. It becomes part of the record. In that sense, the court “gathers’ all the evidence.*

    No,John, the court absolutely does not gather evidence. YOU gather evidence. The court isn’t holding your evidence for you. You may have submitted copies of documents as attachments to your filings, but you or your attorney have the original evidence. The court’s only role is to determine if the evidence is admissible once it is determined that you have standing, the case is justiciable and you have sufficient cause of action.

  508. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    MGB says:
    December 14, 2009 at 1:56 pm
    *A CITIZEN of the US.*

    No MGB, “at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States” means a natural born citizen. There are ONLY TWO kinds of citizens – natural born and naturalized. Wong has to be one of those two. The court didn’t say he was naturalized did they? They said he was a citizen at the time of his birth – natural born – there’s no other option. To try to say the court did not affirm he was natural born is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it is shocking. Most recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals specifically told you that you are wrong:

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    What part of that sentence is unclear to you? A child born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of his parents.

  509. 12/14/2009John says:

    Black Lion,

    Thanks again.

    That’s it. Was it just misplaced nationalistic pride or was it indicative of what underlies the controversy? If it was the latter, then the process will play out in time, one way or another.

    I guess I lean toward where there is “smoke” there is some kind of “fire,” from my time as investigator in the prosecutor’s office and as an intel analyst.

    When I would have four or five, completely unconnected, individuals come into my office for discussion of their own problem, and then I would hear the same thing about something else from each, completely unrelated to the present discussion, that kind of information raised a “flag” for me.

    When I worked as an intel analyst, with what was then called an SCI clearance, I’d go through all the case records and information that came from all the different sources, HUMINT, etc. I was looking for common threads of information that would begin to expose the “picture” I was investigating or looking for at the time. Sometimes that would lead to other surprise discoveries. The problem with these kinds of things is that it does take a lot of time, effort, and money, to do a good thorough investigation.

    Civility of exchange. All I was concerned with putting on this board is what I do know about quo warranto, since I am directly involved in that kind of a case myself, albeit on the State level rather than federal. There is “meat” on the “bones,” but I expected most would throw the bones [my opinion] out and just eat the meat.

  510. 12/14/2009John says:

    siseduermapierda,

    “Every piece of evidence that has been gathered [by my and my opponent’s side] in my case is submitted to the court. It becomes part of the record. In that sense, the court [as repository of that evidence] “gathers” all the evidence [into one location – the case record].”

    Yes, we absolutely gathered all the evidence we submitted to the court, for the record. Every piece of evidence, submitted to the court, is being “held” within that case record. If the court finds some evidence inadmissible down the road, it is still part of the record, but not admissible. If we don’t submit some of the material we gathered under the discovery rules, it does not become part of the record. Original evidence was gathered, by us, from those entities that held the items we needed/wanted to prove our case. We used the discovery process, authority and procedures, under the court’s rules, to obtain that evidence. The court determined it had jurisdiction, and that I had standing, way before we got to the discovery stage of the case.

  511. 12/14/2009Black Lion says:

    John says:
    December 14, 2009 at 3:11 pm
    Black Lion,

    Thanks again.

    That’s it. Was it just misplaced nationalistic pride or was it indicative of what underlies the controversy? If it was the latter, then the process will play out in time, one way or another.

    I guess I lean toward where there is “smoke” there is some kind of “fire,” from my time as investigator in the prosecutor’s office and as an intel analyst.

    When I would have four or five, completely unconnected, individuals come into my office for discussion of their own problem, and then I would hear the same thing about something else from each, completely unrelated to the present discussion, that kind of information raised a “flag” for me.

    When I worked as an intel analyst, with what was then called an SCI clearance, I’d go through all the case records and information that came from all the different sources, HUMINT, etc. I was looking for common threads of information that would begin to expose the “picture” I was investigating or looking for at the time. Sometimes that would lead to other surprise discoveries. The problem with these kinds of things is that it does take a lot of time, effort, and money, to do a good thorough investigation.

    Civility of exchange. All I was concerned with putting on this board is what I do know about quo warranto, since I am directly involved in that kind of a case myself, albeit on the State level rather than federal. There is “meat” on the “bones,” but I expected most would throw the bones [my opinion] out and just eat the meat.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    John, the fact is that when the smoke clears there is not one piece of admissible evidence that even suggests that the President was born in Kenya. Not one. Think about that. In the last 2 years the amount of people that have been looking to find something have not been successful. Just because a bunch of people say something doesn’t always make it so. Every Keynan could say that the President was “Kenyan born” and it wouldn’t matter. From your days in the prosecutor’s office you should know more than anyone that witness testimony is usually the most unreliable of all sorts of evidence, due to how susceptible to suggestion most people can be.

    Remember just because someone refuses to release information doesn’t automatically make that person guilty. Especially since every has a presumption of innocence in this country. So if you look at it again you have a situation where there is not one piece of admissible evidence, and on the other you have a statement by a state of HI official, contemporaneous birth announcements, and the COLB. Since you are a lawyer and a former investigator which side is more credible? Especially when you take any personal feelings out of the equation.

    You probably know more about the qup warranto statute than I. However I think you might not realize that the federal statute is different and the job of President is the only one that is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Especially when it comes to removing the President. That is why legally I don’t think that Leo will be successful regarding the QW statute. Even without the QW his case would be difficult due to the law that allows the bankruptcy judge ultimate discretion in decision making when it comes to companies like Chrysler that have entered bankruptcy restructuring. So there is no meat for Leo, just some bone and gristle.

  512. 12/14/2009theOriginalist says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    “Well, that’s rather dramatic considering the role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws, including the Constitution, and apply it to the facts in each case. If you want to take that responsibility away, then there’s no reason for them to exist.”

    The way things work is that if a court holding contradicts the Constitution, the holding takes precedence over the Constitution and becomes the law of the land. If what the Constitution says doesn’t matter then there’s no reason for the Constitution to exist.

  513. 12/14/2009Sue says:

    John,

    “It is odd that so many Kenyans view Obama as being Kenyan-born. I wonder why they are so adamant about that, to the point where they would title the article the way they did. To me, this is like all the hearsay stories we get from the street. Most of the time a lot of it turns out to be accurate enough, providing us with very good leads to collect some real evidence.”

    This article may help you to understand the “Kenyan view” of President Obama.

    http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1144026569&cid=15
    Say what may, Obama is Kogelo’s son ruling the greatest nation on earth
    Published on 18/10/2009
    By Judy Munyinyi-Mumo
    excerpts
    “Obama doesn’t have to have been born in Kenya to get the privilege of calling Kogelo home. And even though, legally, the Government of Kenya does not recognise him as Kenyan that is of little consequence to his family here.”

    “So, was Barack H Obama Jr born in Kenya? No. But believe it or not, the President of the most powerful nation in the world is still from a sleepy little village in Kenya called Kogelo.”

  514. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    theOriginalist says:
    December 14, 2009 at 3:43 pm
    *The way things work is that if a court holding contradicts the Constitution, the holding takes precedence over the Constitution*

    The role of the courts is to interpret the laws and Constitution as they apply to a particular case. By definition, an interpretation is not a contradiction. It’s that you disagree with their interpretation.

  515. 12/14/2009Georgetown1 says:

    Hey Sue,
    I find it unusual that an O supporter would tell the truth but here it is as she sees it:

    Indiana Mom:
    “live birth certificate or not =he’s a citizen. and his mother DID live here 5 years prior -they weren’t in Kenya that long -her citizenship was always United States -just because she was visiting kenya does not mean she didn’t live in the united States – They granted the certificate based on that -she can’t help where she had the baby -and they don’t take U.S. citizenship away from the baby because mom was somewhere else when she had him -it was done within the given period of time you have to file for the birth certificate in those cases where the mom happens to give birth outside her own country -it’s based on mom -not dad -mom gives birth –

    I am convinced he was born in Kenya!

  516. 12/14/2009Black Lion says:

    Linda writes:

    “Congress drafting the 14th clearly concluded that suject [sic] to the jusrisdiction [sic] meant not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty … .”
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Linda, you may want to review the Yale Law review article by Jill Pryor…It may help…

    “Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution” has never been, completely understood. It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.” But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent,” qualifies/as natural born has never been resolved.”

    “The guiding principle of nationality law in England was that anyone born on British soil, with few exceptions, was a “natural-born British subject.”

    http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

  517. 12/14/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE qwertyman RE ?:

    […] Everything from your post about the P&E independently confirming the Hawaii birth announcements suggests that you didn’t buy it. There was nothing in your post that suggested that you now believe that the birth announcements are legitimate. […]

    Qwerty, you like Sise, keep trying to instill in this discussion the notion that the Hawaii newspapers announcements have a probatory value – no, those ads don’t have probatory value, because:

    … it’s been discussed and proved (on this site and elsewhere) that the Hawaii newspapers in that period had this type of vital information information directly provided by the HD, lists which where wholesale compilations of birth ANNOUNCEMENTS registered with them, and NOT ONLY BIRTHS OCCURRED IN HAWAII –

    Yes, the Hawaii newspapers announcements DESCRIBE BOTH children born in Hawaii AND CHILDREN REPORTED AS BORN IN HAWAII – quite likely Obama’s case.

    And more about the legitimization power of such a newspaper announcement – can you tell me where exactly in America can I get a DL or a passport, a newspaper birth announcement being my proof that I am eligible for that?

    Please enlighten us – excited in California -

  518. 12/14/2009Black Lion says:

    Linda writes:

    “Congress drafting the 14th clearly concluded that suject [sic] to the jusrisdiction [sic] meant not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty … .”
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Linda, in addition you may want to reread what Justice Story said in the WKA ruling regard allegiance…

    “Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.”

    In simple terms, the debates and various statements, in and out of context are all very interesting, but the actual words incorporated into the 14th Amendment are what are determinative. The key clause reads “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Now supposing one really wanted to exclude the children of aliens and dual citizens. One could accomplish that by inserting a single 4-letter word so that the clause would read -”and subject to the SOLE jurisdiction thereof”. Then the clause would be clear; if you fall under any other jurisdiction (as would most children with even a single alien parent), sorry, no automatic citizenship for you.

    But the clause of course doesn’t say “SOLE jurisdiction”, it simply says “jurisdiction”, meaning that the child can have multiple other citizenships by birth without impacting their US citizenship by birth (natural born citizenship). Whatever the intent might have been, you are stuck with the actual words that made it into the final version. Thus, in order to restrict US citizenship by birth (natural born citizenship) and forbid birthright US citizens from holding other citizenships would require amending the 14th Amendment.

    If you recall the Constitution mentions “natural born citizen” but does not define its meaning. As such the Courts have ruled quite consistently that one has to look at common law of those days to understand its meaning. The meaning was found in WKA to be guided by English Common law which was largely used to determine citizenship. As such, anyone born on US soil was not only a citizen, but also a natural born citizen. The same logic which led the court to determine that WKA was a citizen leads to the other inevitable conclusion that such a citizen could in fact run for president. Courts and legislative and legal opinions all clearly support this.

    In other words, the 14th Amendment merely clarified the meaning of terms used in Article II that:

    “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.”

    Subject to the jurisdiction has to be interpreted by realizing that this was added to specifically exclude children born to foreign dignitaries, invading military and Indians not taxed. Jurisdiction and allegiance go hand in hand with location of birth.

  519. 12/14/2009Black Lion says:

    misanthropicus says:
    December 14, 2009 at 4:33 pm
    RE qwertyman RE ?:

    […] Everything from your post about the P&E independently confirming the Hawaii birth announcements suggests that you didn’t buy it. There was nothing in your post that suggested that you now believe that the birth announcements are legitimate. […]

    Qwerty, you like Sise, keep trying to instill in this discussion the notion that the Hawaii newspapers announcements have a probatory value – no, those ads don’t have probatory value, because:

    … it’s been discussed and proved (on this site and elsewhere) that the Hawaii newspapers in that period had this type of vital information information directly provided by the HD, lists which where wholesale compilations of birth ANNOUNCEMENTS registered with them, and NOT ONLY BIRTHS OCCURRED IN HAWAII –

    Yes, the Hawaii newspapers announcements DESCRIBE BOTH children born in Hawaii AND CHILDREN REPORTED AS BORN IN HAWAII – quite likely Obama’s case.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Misanthropicus, question. In your response you stated that “it’s been discussed and proved (on this site and elsewhere) that the Hawaii newspapers in that period had this type of vital information information directly provided by the HD, lists which where wholesale compilations of birth ANNOUNCEMENTS registered with them, and NOT ONLY BIRTHS OCCURRED IN HAWAII.” Do you have an example of a birth of someone that was born elsewhere and received a COLB from the state of HI that stated the place of birth being in HI? I don’t recall seeing one. And Sun Yat-sen doesn’t count because he received a COHB (certificate of hawaiian birth), which was different and that document was issued before HI was a state. We are talking about since the statehood era.

    This is important because the law allowing foriegn registrations was not in effect until 1981. The old law regarding registering Hawaiian Births, where someone would get a COHB was in effect only until 1972. So unless you can show us a birth announcement in the newspaper of someone that was not born in HI but had their announcement in the paper like President Obama’s, then you point has not been proven.

    And under the FRE the newspaper announcments, because they are over 20 years old, could have probative value and could be admissible in an evidentary hearing.

    You also state “Yes, the Hawaii newspapers announcements DESCRIBE BOTH children born in Hawaii AND CHILDREN REPORTED AS BORN IN HAWAII – quite likely Obama’s case.” Do you have some evidence that makes you feel that President Obama’s birth was one that was reported and not one that actually occured? I mean admissibe evidence, not answering a question with a question like “what hospital” or “who has come forth to state that his birth occured”. That is not evidence, it is speculation. Not admissible. This is about evidence and not about personal opinion. Because if you have some evidence, I am sure the rest of the group would love to see it.

  520. 12/14/2009John says:

    Black Lion & Sue,

    I’ve seen too many cases botched for different reasons, most as a result of bad investigations and evidence preservation. I’ve seen some thrown intentionally for several reasons. Witness testimony is pretty “iffy” at best on the stand. Nevertheless, I’m for letting it go through the established processes. If someone with standing thinks he/she has a good case, then the only way that will be determined is by following through with it as far as it can go.

    As far as those who “hide” stuff, I would readily produce my birth certificate, my old passports, and give permission for any investigator to have access to my educational paperwork, etc., without reservation, execpt for redaction of SSN, etc. No probem whatsoever if I were running for, or in, public office.

    Transparency. Where have I heard that? I know I’ve heard that in the last year or so.

    That makes sense to me, Sue, when one considers the customs, traditions, and values, of others. If Obama is accepted as Kenyan, because his biological father was Kenyan, then I guess that could also be a factor that could play into how a court may define what “natural born citizen” means within a quo warranto case.

    Quo warranto. I believe that the D.C. Code speaks for itself, president or otherwise.

  521. 12/14/2009Sue says:

    John,

    “As far as those who “hide” stuff, I would readily produce my birth certificate, my old passports, and give permission for any investigator to have access to my educational paperwork, etc., without reservation, execpt for redaction of SSN, etc. No probem whatsoever if I were running for, or in, public office.”

    President Obama did produce a copy of his COLB online and Phil Berg sued him. Now, as I understand it, you are a lawyer. Question. If you were representing President Obama during the election campaign and after the election, do I understand correctly, as a lawyer, you would have advised President Obama to produce all the documents Berg demanded in the lawsuit?

  522. 12/14/2009theOriginalist says:

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    Issue

    The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case, was called upon to decide whether an American-born person with a foreign national father could constitutionally be considered a natural born citizen and be eligible to serve as President of the United States.

    Opinion

    Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power, becomes a natural born citizen of the United States at the time of birth and qualifies under Article II, Section I, Clause V of the United States Constitution to serve as President of the United States.

    *hehe*

    I am posting this version of the Wong Kim Ark decision here as a courtesy to the readers.

  523. 12/14/2009theOriginalist says:

    As a further courtesy, here is Article II Section I Clause V of the United States 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.

  524. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    blacklion,

    I do not need to go to some uotdated, old article of one Jill Pryor, when I have a more recent dated, Sept. 2008, article from law professor Solum of the U of Chicago. Solum was a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School.

    Solum quotes from Blackstone:

    But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception.

    Thus without exception, Obama was a ‘natural born’ British subject at birth, but Blackstone also stated that a natural born subject:

    cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once

    Solum goes on:

    If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents(plural) would have qualified.

    The fact of the matter is, is that the Brits were greedy for money/commerce & with the losses of citizens due to the many wars & the impending revolution, they needed to refill thier military coffers with young men which consequently led to the war of 1812.

    One can not rely on only citizenship case law, law commentaries and such. One has to look at the entire scope of history before the revolution and it was common knowledge in those days that a ‘natural born’ Brit was one born to parents(plural) on Brit soil. Now where have we heard that before? Oh I know, the Law of Nations and had you done any study of British common law, you would see that in their early years, they also relied on the law of nations for their foundation.

    But I guess that is too far out of your realm of comprehension.

  525. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    I’d also like to make another notation. Over the weekend I posted 20th century quotes from “The Green Bag”, a legal entity in which the liberal progressives like to quote all the time, but for some reason they did not take note of that post. I wonder why?

    Could it be that they know they are grasping at straws when they claim those dead revolutionaries knew nothing about the laws & Constitution they they drafted.

    tee hee hee

  526. 12/14/2009keokuk says:

    I do not need to go to some uotdated, old article of one Jill Pryor, when I have a more recent dated, Sept. 2008, article from law professor Solum of the U of Chicago. Solum was a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School.

    University of Illinois. Not University of Chicago. They’re different schools.

    Also, if you are genuinely interested in finding out the answer to this question, then you should not limit yourself to reading the “more recent dated” article. You have given no reason for dismissing the Pryor piece other than that it is older. If you want to actually argue against it, then please do, but it seems as if you are just being lazy and don’t want to actually address the arguments by reading the piece.

    Solum goes on:

    If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents(plural) would have qualified.

    It’s a lot more convincing when you alter the language to include “(plural)” even though that’s not in the actual article. If his argument is so convincing, then why not let it stand on its own? Why do you need to alter it to suit your own purposes? And why didn’t you make clear that you were adding the language in question?

    It’s especially ironic that you would cite to the Solum piece when his conclusion is that many aspects of the definition of a natural born citizen cannot be determined today because modern circumstances prevent direct applicability to an originalist definition of the term. His entire purpose in writing the piece is to make clear that the definition is rather ambiguous when taking the entirety of history into account. And yet you inexplicably take that conclusion to mean that we should only rely on Vattel, even though Solum says no such thing?

  527. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    keoku,

    what is especially surprising is that you like to pick apart other people, but you still have not refuted it.

    common knowledge at the time, people knew in the beginning of the English monarchy, both parents had to be citizens but then king g changed all that, so that only the father had to be a NBS for the child to be a british NBS, but also, you still have no explanation or anything to refute the part of English common law that stated that natural born subjects could not hold allegiance to 2 sovereignties/masters.

    How do you justify your reasoning that british common law is the source for our definition & that citizen=subject and citizen=natural born citizen when clearly, in light of the most quoted and used british legal mind, you definition does not match that of early english common law.

  528. 12/14/2009Sue says:

    theOriginalist says:

    “As a further courtesy, here is Article II Section I Clause V of the United States 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.”
    (mark through natural born)

    Amended as provided by the framers of the Constitution by the 14th Amendment:

    http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev
    “Article V
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm
    How To Amend the US Constitution

  529. 12/14/2009keokuk says:

    How do you justify your reasoning that british common law is the source for our definition & that citizen=subject and citizen=natural born citizen when clearly, in light of the most quoted and used british legal mind, you definition does not match that of early english common law.

    Because I reject your premise. The Blackstone quote says no such thing. I haven’t offered a refutation because there is nothing there to refute.

    You took a half of a sentence and left out its full context, which reveals that it does not actually support the position that you claim it does. Just like you added the word “plural” to one quote to make it more supportive of your claims, you then sliced out parts of sentences and paragraphs that were unfavorable to your position. Also interestingly, despite your earlier espousing of the Solum piece, you now seem to have nothing to say about it since I pointed out that it contradicts your central argument about a clear definition of natural born citizenship.

    If you just care about winning an argument, then please by all means continue to do what you are doing by slicing apart quotes and adding extra words to them so that they support your position. But if you are interested in an actual discussion, then please try to be honest about the claims you are making.

  530. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:

    When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.

  531. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 14, 2009 at 6:15 pm
    *the Law of Nations

    had you done any study of British common law, you would see that in their early years, they also relied on the law of nations for their foundation.*

    You must be joking. The British common law dates back to the Magna Carta signed in 1215. Emmerich deVattel was a philosopher. His book is a treatise of philosophical musings about the law, not a legal dictionary or compendium of laws. The full title of the work you are referring to is “The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns.” It was written in 1758. Suggesting the British used DeVattel’s writing to develop the common law “in their early years” is not only ridiculous, it’s physically impossible unless deVattel was a time-traveler.

  532. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    keokuk says: You took a half of a sentence and left out its full context,

    And you keokuk have been around this thread to know I previously posted the entire quote, so the same goes…

    you have nothing to refute as the mere foundation of NBS as adopted England is that of the law of nations, which is the definition adopted by our laws. Period.

  533. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    siseduermapierda,

    Vattel did not write the laws of nations, he merely interpretted them from earlier history, but had you actually studied history, you would have known that.

  534. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 14, 2009 at 7:23 pm
    *Vattel did not write the laws of nations, he merely interpretted them from earlier history, but had you actually studied history, you would have known that.*

    You are confused about what is the law of nations. It’s not some guide book, it’s a phrase. No matter how much history you know or read, or how many writings you quote, you can’t change the simple fact, the Supreme Court affirmed in Wong Kim Ark that a child born within the borders of the United States is a Natural Born Citizen regardless of the status of his parents. The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded this was true for Article II, Section 1 eligibility. Obama was born in Hawaii. He’s eligible.

  535. 12/14/2009T Rex says:

    Maybe some believe the problem was that Chrysler may have been liquidated if the government hadn’t stepped in. And Panic Ensued!!
    “After secured creditors were paid with Chrysler’s assets, how much would have been left to pay dealers?” Honestly, we will never know.
    “Secondly the power of a federal bankruptcy judge allows him to bypass any possible conflicts by state laws and cancel any contracts that may be prohibitive in restructuring and making the new company a viable entity.” And if that had happened, then some dealers who were well-managed and weathered the storm may have made it. Instead we got an artificial market correction. Ask Geithner about IMF Indonesia 1990s about how that worked out for everyone: his IRS peccadillos pale in comparison. Forget IRS: he runs Treasury! But, speaking of federal bankruptcy judges, the real crime and fraud being perpetrated and the most egregious use of TARP is what may be coming as OUR funds are repaid. Congress votes Their Will and the Obamanator signs another check, instead of paying down the deficit. Same ‘Stuff’, Different Day. The transparency is blinding me!!

  536. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    sis, you are so utterly uneducated and you need to give it up. You have made it full circle back to the Indiana decision, lol.

    Thus it seems, you have nothing more to offer than what you read on the internet from your progrssive blogs such as mrconspiracy or politijab.

    I’ll engage you again if you ever come up with anything new.

  537. 12/14/2009keokuk says:

    You have made it full circle back to the Indiana decision, lol.

    Thus it seems, you have nothing more to offer than what you read on the internet from your progrssive blogs such as mrconspiracy or politijab.

    Wow. A complete contradiction in consecutive sentences. Unless I missed something and the Indiana court is now a progressive blog, I don’t understand how both of these sentences can be true at the same time.

  538. 12/14/2009John says:

    Sue,

    For me, that COLB produced onliine proves absolutely nothing.

    Lawyer or not, my view is that if you are running for public office, then everything pertaining to one’s eligibility to run for office is fair game. I answered each and every question up front without hiding anything as a candidate. If my quo warranto is successful, anything pertaining to my past candidacy should be no different than it would have been prior to the election. I can think of nothing that I would hide from the public as far as questions aimed at my qualifications and suitability for the office. Why would I hide something like that, unless I had something to hide? If I were not qualified to run, I wouldn’t even consider it as a possibility.

    As Obama’s attorney, I would probably confidentially know the truth, and thus advise him to keep quiet. There are so many potential “pitfalls” regarding the “natural born citizen” clause compared to the “real” historical Obama we know from the media, if it does get into court. There is no way to determine how a court will define that requirement in the Constitution. How it does, and what the final evidence discloses about Obama’s actual citizenship, is too unpredictable, no matter how much we all speculate from each of our perspectives.

    Why people run for office, knowing they are not qualified, but continue on anyway, is evidence to me of an individual with absolutely no integrity. I would not want that type of individual in office anyway. If they are going to lie about that, what are they going to do in office? As a good chief of police friend of my says, “A leopard [Tigers too, as in Woods] does not change its spots.” Exceptions are rare.

    If this controversy ever does end up in court, and if Obama is found to have not been qualified, we have a much bigger problem than Obama. If he could get that far, that would indicate to me such a pervasive deterioration of trustworthiness in government to possibly spawn a civil war in and of itself. It could end up in chaos. Or perhaps, it may end up in chaos no matter which direction this mess takes. I’ve even seen an article on the internet suggesting that Obama is accumulating 200,000 troops for unrest in the U.S. Is this true? Who knows for sure.

    I haven’t the slightest clue what’s going to happen. All of us like-minded individuals out here in the boonies have a tendency to prepare for worst case scenarios, usually power outages, violent storms, etc. There are also a lot of individuals who are of the mindset, “That can’t happen here. This is America.” They are the ones whith their “heads in the sand” who think that the recession is over, that the dollar is sound, etc. For me, they are the ones living in the fantasy world.

    While in the service I was stationed out of Long Beach, CA. I can’t imagine living out there when things finally collapse. That will be like one of those anarchy movies in a real life nightmare. One time, during the four years and two months, minus the year and seven months I was on WestPacs in Vietnam, there was a trucking strike out in LA. The shelves in the grocery stores were bare within two days or so of food, and were not being reshelved because the trucks were not running. My Karmann Ghia could get about 100 miles on a tank of gas. Just about enough distance to get into the desert around San Bernadino, without any traffic jams on the way. Reality usually does not set in until it is too late to compensate, especially for those too disturbed to contemplate the possibilities.

    Three Dollar General stores in our county broken into last night. I don’t see anything getting any better soon, but rather worse than they are now. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it from my perspective.

    Hope I’m completely wrong, but think not. All just my personal opinion and overall view of the world as I see it today.

  539. 12/14/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 14, 2009 at 8:07 pm
    *I’ll engage you again if you ever come up with anything new.*

    I don’t need anything new.I don’t need to engage you again. I win. 1. The 14th amendment.
    2. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of natural born citizen as it relates to children born within the borders of the United States
    3. The appeals court conclusion that the same Supreme Court decision also applies to natural born citizen as described in Article II, Section 1.

    Legal Precedence. They all support Barack Hussein Obama II being a natural born citizen and eligible to be President. No more is needed. The fact you don’t understand that shows it is you who is utterly uneducated, PatriotLinda.

  540. 12/14/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    …jus soli (right of birthplace) and jus sanguinis (right of blood)…no SCOTUS case has ever definitively determined how they pertain to NBC, they all conclude resort must be had elsewhere…Linda

    Linda is offering a spirited defense but it is a futile defense, and she has unknowingly conceded why her defense is futile. Linda admits “resort must be had elsewhere…” but is unaware that SCOTUS has told us exactly where that resort is to be found.

    Since no definition exists in the constitution or federal law of a natural born citizen, by virtue of Erie v. Tompkins (SCOTUS 1938) upholding Article X of the US Constitution (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people“) courts must defer to 28 USC 1652:

    “The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.

    The opinions of debaters and scholars throughout history are irrelevant; Erie v. Tompkins requires federal courts to specify the constitutional and statutory instruments (federal or state) for every rule of decision; given state law incorporates English common law (for example, Hawaii Revised Statutes §1-1), it is the inalienable common law right of every person to be considered a natural born citizen of the state in which they were born. No statute has ever withdrawn this right and the XIV Amendment restated it.

    There is nothing in the Hawaii constitution or law which discriminates between types or classes of citizens: consequently all citizens born in Hawaii (subject to age, residency etc. provisions) are eligible to every statewide and federal elective office in the Union, including the Presidency. Any proposition outside this definition will not be entertained by SCOTUS.

    To disprove this contention Linda must demonstrate that: the Constitution or federal law defines natural born citizen; or Article X does not reserve powers to the states; or Erie v. Tompkins does not require courts to specify the constitutional and statutory instruments (federal or state) for every rule of decision; or State law (including Hawaii) does not incorporate English common law; or common law does not define a natural born citizen of a state as any citizen born in the state. Any one point disproved will suffice; but if not even one can be disproved then Linda‘s defense fails. The problem is that each point is a pillar of American jurisprudence, so for Linda to attempt to disprove them is attempting the impossible.

    Furthermore, Obama Jr. never received British citizenship by descent from his father (Obama Sr.). British law deemed any statutory marriage Sr. contracted with a woman other than his lawful customary wife (Kezia Aoko) as bigamous and any resulting children illegitimate: therefore Obama Jr. was excluded from British citizenship by the operation of Section 32(2) of the British Nationality Act, 1948. Obama Jr. cannot be said to be a dual citizen or to have owed any kind of allegiance to Britain at birth.

    Details at http://tinyurl.com/y9tpajl and http://tinyurl.com/TRSol-29040

    For Donofrio to continue to argue his case solely on the foregoing is to seek a humiliation even more crushing than he experienced in December 2008. Unfortunately, Donofrio is a very stubborn individual who has refused to discuss facts contrary to his pet theories, however politely offered; but he might be saved from conclusive ignominy if his quo warranto suit were ever to reach trial. Obama’s 1961 vital records do not legally establish his birth in Hawaii (being only “FILED”, not “ACCEPTED”), otherwise they would have been produced already. Given Obama’s attorneys would be unable to prevent his 1961 vital records from being admitted as evidence, once those records are seen by a court it would have to rule that Obama did not meet the requirement of Article 2(1)(5) at birth.

    “Why would she decide to go to Kenya…it just did not make any sense.Black Lion

    Perhaps being [tricked into believing she was lawfully?] married to a completely dedicated Kenyan nationalist, who wanted to return home to Kenya after the charismatic leader of Kenyan nationalism (Jomo Kenyatta) was emerging from detention to a hero’s reception over the course of the summer of 1961 after seven years in prison, would have been sufficient motivation for SAD to follow her “husband”. Whether it happened or not, and we certainly have no knowledge of where Obama Sr. and SAD were located in that mysterious summer of 1961, it still is the kind of reason which makes sense, the kind of reason that Black Lion would like people to believe could not possibly exist.

    …vital records that Leo and Miss Tickly [had] verified [by] the state of HI [as being] on file. That is not “internet evidence” but an actual released document by a state official.Black Lion

    It’s refreshing to see that Black Lion has ceased disputing the authenticity of Hawaii DoH UIPA responses.

    Donofrio was informed that something was on file for Obama from before August 10, 1961. MissT was informed that document(s) had been submitted to amend Obama’s birthdate. Some UIPA requesters have been informed that Obama’s birth record was a delayed filing and other UIPA requesters have been informed the delayed filing had no substantiating documentation as required by law (“FILED”, but not “ACCEPTED”). The delayed and amended alleged COLB posted by Obama did not have printed on its face a summary of the reasons for amendment and did not indicate it was delayed, both of which omissions are illegal. For some reason, whoever attempted to register Obama’s birth never returned with affidavits or documents to legally complete the process: and a registration that has merely been filed and not accepted is never going to be legal proof of birth in Hawaii. That’s why nobody has been allowed to see it.

    And, as Black Lion now agrees, “that is not “internet evidence” but actual released documents by a state official” and confirmable with Hawaii DoH as such.

  541. 12/14/2009Sue says:

    John,

    “As Obama’s attorney, I would probably confidentially know the truth, and thus advise him to keep quiet.”

    So, you are alleging that Obama’s attorneys know he is not eligible?

    “There are so many potential “pitfalls” regarding the “natural born “citizen” clause compared to the “real” historical Obama we know from the media, if it does get into court.”

    Looking very doubtful. Judge Carter’s recent decision pretty much says it all.

    “There is no way to determine how a court will define that requirement in the Constitution. How it does, and what the final evidence discloses about Obama’s actual citizenship, is too unpredictable, no matter how much we all speculate from each of our perspectives.”

    I disagree. Several of the recent court decisions has indicated very clearly how the courts will define the “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution.

  542. 12/14/2009Sue says:

    ““…vital records that Leo and Miss Tickly [had] verified [by] the state of HI [as being] on file. That is not “internet evidence” but an actual released document by a state official.” Black Lion

    It’s refreshing to see that Black Lion has ceased disputing the authenticity of Hawaii DoH UIPA responses.

    Donofrio was informed that something was on file for Obama from before August 10, 1961. MissT was informed that document(s) had been submitted to amend Obama’s birthdate. Some UIPA requesters have been informed that Obama’s birth record was a delayed filing and other UIPA requesters have been informed the delayed filing had no substantiating documentation as required by law (”FILED”, but not “ACCEPTED”). The delayed and amended alleged COLB posted by Obama did not have printed on its face a summary of the reasons for amendment and did not indicate it was delayed, both of which omissions are illegal. For some reason, whoever attempted to register Obama’s birth never returned with affidavits or documents to legally complete the process: and a registration that has merely been filed and not accepted is never going to be legal proof of birth in Hawaii. That’s why nobody has been allowed to see it.

    And, as Black Lion now agrees, “that is not “internet evidence” but actual released documents by a state official” and confirmable with Hawaii DoH as such.”

    I’m a bit confused. If Donofrio has this “official evidence from the Hawaii DOH” that proves President Obama’s birth certificate was amended/delayed/never “accepted”, why hasn’t Donofrio filed a lawsuit? Why did Donofrio delete his blog?

  543. 12/14/2009theOriginalist says:

    Sue says:

    Amended as provided by the framers of the Constitution by the 14th Amendment:

    “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ** are Article II, Section I, Clause V natural born citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside and eligible to be President of the United States.

    ** voided by WKA

    You’re right! *slaps forehead* I totally forgot about the 14th amendment. Back in 1868 the reconstructionists wanted to change the eligibility requirements for president so they amended the Constitution to make it happen. Thank you for the reminder. I’ve taken the liberty of posting that amendment above.

  544. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    This is a long post, but it is necessary.

    Letters of Delegates to Congress
    1774-1789
    Edited by Paul H. Smith, et al. (1976-93) “
    http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol02.html , in “Volume 02” is Benjamin Franklin’s letter dated December 9, 1775 to Charles William Frederic Dumas.

    I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.

    FACT: By 1775, Vatell’s book “Law of Nations” was in the hands of the members of the Continental Congress, and throughout the Colonies.

    In his introduction to “Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness: How the Natural Law Concept of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Inspired America’s Founding Fathers” (published in FIDELIO Magazine, Vol . VI No.1 , Spring, 1997), Robert Trout explained.
    http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/index.html

    The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz’s influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle {against} the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, “The Law of Nations,” guided the framing of the United States as the world’s first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel’s {The Law of Nations,} more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.

    And further…

    Vattel’s “The Law of Nations,” was the most influential book on the law of nations for 125 years following its publication. The first English translation appeared in 1759. Numerous editions of {The Law of Nations} were printed in England during the Eighteenth century, which were widely read in the American Colonies, along with editions in the original French. The first American edition appeared in 1796. The book was reprinted nineteen times in America by 1872. It was reprinted at least fifty times in the years following its 1758 publication. By comparison, Hugo Grotius, who is currently described as the founder of modern international law, was reprinted only around five times during the hundred years following the appearance of Vattel’s work. Grotius’ fame had waned in the Nineteenth century, but was resurrected in the opening decades of the Twentieth century, through the efforts of especially the British and the Dutch. Grotius was, then, falsely promoted as the main representative of the law of nations as based on natural law, to serve as an Aristotelian foil for the establishment of an international law which was based upon Lockean positivism.

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
    -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

    “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
    -Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

    These are but a few of what I have and as you can see, the SCOTUS clearly defined NBC in Minor v Happersett, which was decided 24 years prior to WKA and also Vattel’s interpretation of Laws of Nations was in the hands of the framers at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, thus confirming everything I have reported.

    But, what those of you who think WKA was a just decision I refer you to this:

    http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm

    More troubling than his rejection of the persua­sive dicta from Slaughter-House, though, was the fact that Justice Gray also repudiated the actual holding in Elk, which he himself had authored. After quoting extensively from the opinion in Elk, including the portion, reprinted above, noting that the children of Indians owing allegiance to an Indian tribe were no more “subject to the jurisdic­tion” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment than were the chil­dren of ambassadors and other public ministers of foreign nations born in the United States, Justice Gray simply held, without any analysis, that Elk “concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.”[19]

    By limiting the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause to the children of diplomats, who neither owed alle­giance to the United States nor were (at least at the ambassadorial level) subject to its laws merely by virtue of their residence in the United States as the result of the long-established international law fic­tion of extraterritoriality by which the sovereignty of a diplomat is said to follow him wherever he goes, Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate what he seemed to have understood in Elk, namely, that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the more complete, alle­giance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified, on the other.

    This was the 1st decision authored by Grey who was appointed by a Brit. It will be interesting to see if Sotomayor follows that lead and waits some 28 years before ovderturning her own decision, or if she goes rogue early on.

  545. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    Now permit me to add these 2 additions recently acquired:

    http://www.archive.org/details/resolutionsofins00inst

    LAW AND PROCEDURE VOLUME VII (1903)
    WILLIAM MACK And HOWARD P. NASH
    THE AMERICAN LAW BOOK COMPANY

    1.Children Of ALIENS. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen.

    but had Obama’s mother not married her Kenyan lover, then this would have applied:

    http://www.archive.org/details/cyclopedialawan00mackgoog

    RESOLUTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1916)

    Article 2. An illegitimate child which, during its minority, is acknowledged by its father only, or simultaneously by its father and its mother, or whose parentage is settled by the same judgment with regard to both, follows the nationality of its father on the day of its birth; if it has been acknowledged only by its mother, it takes the nationality of the latter, and retains it even when its father recognizes it later.

  546. 12/14/2009Sue says:

    Repost of GeorgetownJD’s comment who is a lawyer.

    “GeorgetownJD says:
    December 14, 2009 at 2:52 pm
    Linda writes:

    “Congress drafting the 14th clearly concluded that suject [sic] to the jusrisdiction [sic] meant not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty … .”

    ____________________

    Actually, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first clause of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment means presence within the dominions of the United States and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered. In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 905, 906 (C.C. Cal. 1884).

    IOW, birthright citizenship is granted to all those born on U.S.
    soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, save for children of diplomats.

    For a constitutional scholar’s take on the issue, see Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Guarantee By Elizabeth Wydra, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (May 2009), available at http://www.acslaw.org/files/Wydra%20Issue%20Brief.pdf.

    “The Reconstruction Framers’ intent to grant citizenship to all those born on U.S. soil, regardless of race, origin, or status, was turned into the powerfully plain language of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: “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.”
    The text of the ratified Citizenship Clause embodies the jus soli rule of citizenship, under which citizenship is acquired by right of the soil (contrasted with jus sanguinis, according to which
    citizenship is granted according to bloodline). Birthright citizenship is a form of “ascriptive” citizenship because one’s political membership turns on an objective circumstance—place of
    birth. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment is not the only place in the Constitution that reflects the notion that citizenship can accrue from the circumstances of one’s birth: Article II of the Constitution, provides that any “natural born citizen” who meets age and residency requirements is eligible to become President. Just as the Citizenship Clause sets forth birth on U.S soil as the condition for citizenship—not race or bloodline—Article II specifies that the relevant qualification for the presidency of the United States is birth-conferred citizenship, not any particular ancestry.

    “This understanding of the Constitution’s treatment of citizenship has held for more than a century. Case law just after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment interpreted the Citizenship Clause to confer automatic citizenship on persons born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status. In the 1886 case of Look Tin Sing, the court held that a child of Chinese parents—who still retained their status as Chinese citizens, despite their presence in the United States—was a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause because he was born on U.S.
    soil. As the court stated plainly, “It is enough that he was born here, whatever was the status of his parents.””

  547. 12/14/2009Sue says:

    theOriginalist,

    You might want to read GeorgetownJD’s comment who btw, is a lawyer. Repost below.

    “GeorgetownJD says:
    December 14, 2009 at 2:52 pm
    Actually, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first clause of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment means presence within the dominions of the United States and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered. In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 905, 906 (C.C. Cal. 1884).

    IOW, birthright citizenship is granted to all those born on U.S.
    soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, save for children of diplomats.

    For a constitutional scholar’s take on the issue, see Birthright Citizenship: A Constitutional Guarantee By Elizabeth Wydra, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (May 2009), available at http://www.acslaw.org/files/Wydra%20Issue%20Brief.pdf.

    “The Reconstruction Framers’ intent to grant citizenship to all those born on U.S. soil, regardless of race, origin, or status, was turned into the powerfully plain language of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: “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.”
    The text of the ratified Citizenship Clause embodies the jus soli rule of citizenship, under which citizenship is acquired by right of the soil (contrasted with jus sanguinis, according to which
    citizenship is granted according to bloodline). Birthright citizenship is a form of “ascriptive” citizenship because one’s political membership turns on an objective circumstance—place of
    birth. The text of the Fourteenth Amendment is not the only place in the Constitution that reflects the notion that citizenship can accrue from the circumstances of one’s birth: Article II of the Constitution, provides that any “natural born citizen” who meets age and residency requirements is eligible to become President. Just as the Citizenship Clause sets forth birth on U.S soil as the condition for citizenship—not race or bloodline—Article II specifies that the relevant qualification for the presidency of the United States is birth-conferred citizenship, not any particular ancestry.

    “This understanding of the Constitution’s treatment of citizenship has held for more than a century. Case law just after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment interpreted the Citizenship Clause to confer automatic citizenship on persons born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status. In the 1886 case of Look Tin Sing, the court held that a child of Chinese parents—who still retained their status as Chinese citizens, despite their presence in the United States—was a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause because he was born on U.S.
    soil. As the court stated plainly, “It is enough that he was born here, whatever was the status of his parents.””

  548. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    GeorgetownJD refers us to an opinion based on current attempts to justify the anchor baby syndrome currently sweeping the nation. And talk about ‘mining’, Wydra completely leaves out this discussion from the Congressional Globe:

    Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it renders the entire “subject to the jurisdiction” clause redundant. Anyone who is “born” in the United States is, under this interpre­tation, necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Yet it is a well-established doc­trine of legal interpretation that legal texts, includ­ing the Constitution, are not to be interpreted to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to absurd results.[2]See, e.g., Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995) (“this Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant”); see also Richard A. Posner, Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of Statutes and the Constitution, 37 Case. W. Res. L. Rev. 179 (1989).

    The “subject to the jurisdiction” provision must therefore require something in addition to mere birth on U.S. soil. The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides the key to its meaning. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”[3] As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child’s par­ents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents’ home country was not entitled to claim the birth­right citizenship provided by the 1866 Act.[3]14 Stat. 27, ch. 31 (April 9, 1866).

    When pressed about whether Indians living on reservations would be covered by the clause since they were “most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military,” for example, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” juris­diction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”[4] And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”[5] (i.e., under the 1866 Act). That meant that the children of Indians who still “belong[ed] to a tribal relation” and hence owed allegiance to another sovereign (however dependent the sovereign was) would not qualify for citizenship under the clause. Because of this interpretative gloss, provided by the authors of the provision, an amendment offered by Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin explicitly to exclude “Indians not taxed,” as the 1866 Act had done, was rejected as redundant.[6]

    The interpretative gloss offered by Senators Trumbull and Howard was also accepted by the Supreme Court—by both the majority and the dis­senting justices—in The Slaughter-House Cases.[7] The majority in that case correctly noted that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”[8] Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Brad­ley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitu­tionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which pro­vided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.[9][4]Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2893 (May 30, 1866).[5]Id., at 2890.[6]Id., at 2892–97; see also Peter H. Schuck & Rogers M. Smith, Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Pol­ity 72–89 (1985).[7]The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1872).[8]Id., at 73 (emphasis added).[9]Id., at 92–93 (Field, J., dissenting).

    Wydra also heavily relies on WKA, but what is even more absurd id the messiah followers whio continuaslly go to opinions of foreigners aka aliens to justify their messiah’s citizenship. That in itself is hillarious.

    As for the most current legislation, 1993-current in which she does not explain nor either break down, you can read it all here:

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

    I took the time to lay them out since the followers of the obamamessiah won’t because of all of them have died a quick and utterly constitutional death in committe just as they should have.

    http://www.archive.org/details/resolutionsofins00inst

    LAW AND PROCEDURE VOLUME VII (1903)
    WILLIAM MACK And HOWARD P. NASH
    THE AMERICAN LAW BOOK COMPANY

    1.Children Of ALIENS. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen.

    but had Obama’s mother not married her Kenyan lover, then this would have applied:

    http://www.archive.org/details/cyclopedialawan00mackgoog

    RESOLUTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1916)

    Article 2. An illegitimate child which, during its minority, is acknowledged by its father only, or simultaneously by its father and its mother, or whose parentage is settled by the same judgment with regard to both, follows the nationality of its father on the day of its birth; if it has been acknowledged only by its mother, it takes the nationality of the latter, and retains it even when its father recognizes it later.

    But fear not, as soon as the messiah forces his decisions for our health on us, and he gets his tax & charade passed, they will go after their dreams of citizenship for all illegal aliens.

  549. 12/14/2009Linda says:

    So basically, what GeorgetownJD and Wydra want you to believe is that the authors of the 14th Amendment didn’t mean what they wrote or mean what they said as recorded in the Congressional record. Resort must be had elsewhere, i.e. failed legislation that died in committe and never saw the light of a ballot box.

  550. 12/15/2009Sue says:

    ” Linda says:
    December 14, 2009 at 10:38 pm
    Now permit me to add these 2 additions recently acquired:

    http://www.archive.org/details/resolutionsofins00inst

    LAW AND PROCEDURE VOLUME VII (1903)
    WILLIAM MACK And HOWARD P. NASH
    THE AMERICAN LAW BOOK COMPANY

    1.Children Of ALIENS. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen.

    but had Obama’s mother not married her Kenyan lover, then this would have applied:

    http://www.archive.org/details/cyclopedialawan00mackgoog

    RESOLUTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1916)

    Article 2. An illegitimate child which, during its minority, is acknowledged by its father only, or simultaneously by its father and its mother, or whose parentage is settled by the same judgment with regard to both, follows the nationality of its father on the day of its birth; if it has been acknowledged only by its mother, it takes the nationality of the latter, and retains it even when its father recognizes it later.”

    You believe the above applies to President Obama’s citizenship? 1903 and 1916?

  551. 12/15/2009Linda says:

    Sue, Unless the A1 & A2 of the Constitution have been amended and unless the 14th has been amended without my knowledge, I certainly do.

    The problem with your rebutles is that you offer nothing to substantiate your case that is not refutable by actual law, case law or Congressional record.

  552. 12/15/2009Sue says:

    “Linda says:
    December 15, 2009 at 12:51 am
    Sue, Unless the A1 & A2 of the Constitution have been amended and unless the 14th has been amended without my knowledge, I certainly do.

    The problem with your rebutles is that you offer nothing to substantiate your case that is not refutable by actual law, case law or Congressional record.”

    I simply asked a question, no rebuttal involved whatsoever.

  553. 12/15/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    http://www.archive.org/details/resolutionsofins00inst

    LAW AND PROCEDURE VOLUME VII (1903)
    WILLIAM MACK And HOWARD P. NASH
    THE AMERICAN LAW BOOK COMPANY

    1.Children Of ALIENS. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen.

    but had Obama’s mother not married her Kenyan lover, then this would have applied:

    http://www.archive.org/details/cyclopedialawan00mackgoog

    What a mess. First, Linda has her links interchanged. More importantly, she omitted the part that applies to President Obama:

    ” III. CITIZENSHIP HOW ACQUIRED
    A. By Place of Birth — 1. WITHIN TERRITORIAL CONFINES — a. General Rule. Children born within a country, of parents who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizen of such country; and this includes children born within the limits of the United States of Chinese parents domiciled in this country, but it does not necessarily include the children of born in this country of Indian parents.”

    The part she quotes is under the next section, “B. By Parentage”. President Obama was born in the U.S., so he was born a citizen as described in section “A”.

    Linda gets debunked, this time by her own reference.

  554. 12/15/2009Linda says:

    The part she quotes is under the next section, “B. By Parentage”. President Obama was born in the U.S., so he was born a citizen as described in section “A”.

    Linda gets debunked, this time by her own reference.

    I do?

    A. quotes part of the 14th as well as the law of nations and B. defines who those parents are, so in context of the law, Obama would not have been a citizen, even after the WKA decision. WKA did not change the law, it has been used to usurp it for 111 years.

    I’ll give you this though, your desperation is amusing. Thanks for the chuckle.

  555. 12/15/2009brygenon says:

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    Phil, in this very thread, Linda wrote:

    You all can keep quoting that bloviating & corrupt Indiana case all you want.

    “Bloviating” is her opinion, and if she wishes to insult the Court that is her right. “Corrupt” is something else entirely. Where was the evidence of any corruption? I do not merely disagree; I think making up such a charge is unacceptable behavior, and deserves at least to be described in the harshest of terms, such as defamation, false witness, and lie.

    Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the concept that individuals make all sorts of claims all the time; it doesn’t necessarily make them true.

    That’s your excuse???

    I see opposition commenters say all sorts of things regarding Mr. Obama’s credentials that are simply being pulled out of their butts.

    Reality, Phil: Two reporters for the University of Pennsylvania’s FactCheck.org inspected and photographed Obama’s COLB, so you featured an article accusing them of being political operatives working for Obama’s campaign. If you are in a quest for truth, as you say, why put those lies about the reporters on your blog?

    However, the overall point here is that I think I’ve made myself quite clear how I am moderating my site. For your own reference, here’s my updated Site Comment Policy page. It can be seen under the About tab on my home page. As such, how I moderate my site is not up for debate; it simply is what it is.

    Ah, well, when I suggest that lying is unacceptable behavior, I’m not trying to debate your authority over your blog.

  556. 12/15/2009Linda says:

    brygenon, you stated: “Where was the evidence of any corruption?”

    It was in the very fact that Grey was appointed by Usurper Chester Arthur and the fact the Grey overturned his own ruling in Elk wherein he relied on the law of nations & the Congressional records of the 1866 Act & the 14th Amendment.

  557. 12/15/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    The part she quotes is under the next section, “B. By Parentage”. President Obama was born in the U.S., so he was born a citizen as described in section “A”.

    Linda gets debunked, this time by her own reference.

    I do?

    A. says ‘parents’ and B. defines who those parents are, so in context of the law, Obama would not have been a citizen, even after the WKA decision.

    Ah, good tactic: snip the quotes and the link. Make it inconvenient for people to check. It’s Cyclopedia of law and procedure, Volume 7 By William Mack, Howard Pervear Nash, pages 137-139
    http://books.google.com/books?id=rHs8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137

    ” III. CITIZENSHIP HOW ACQUIRED
    A. By Place of Birth — 1. WITHIN TERRITORIAL CONFINES — a. General Rule. Children born within a country, of parents who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizen of such country; and this includes children born within the limits of the United States of Chinese parents domiciled in this country, but it does not necessarily include the children of born in this country of Indian parents.”

    WKA did not change the law, it has been used to usurp it for 111 years.

    Linda there’s a fundamental principle of law that you seem not to understand: You don’t always get your way. You may not like U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but you cannot overturn a prevailing Supreme Court precedent with e-tantrums.

  558. 12/15/2009Linda says:

    brygenon,

    You can not read one part of the law and disreagrd the parts of the law and the parts of the Congressional records that define the contents of that law. That is where you fall short in your efforts to make your case.

    If WKA was the conclusive decision, then why was Elg redeemed her natural born citizenship, why was WKA not deemed a natural born citizen and why was Elk not granted citizenship?

  559. 12/15/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    brygenon, you stated: “Where was the evidence of any corruption?”

    It was in the very fact that Grey was appointed by Usurper Chester Arthur and the fact the Grey overturned his own ruling in Elk wherein he relied on the law of nations & the Congressional records of the 1866 Act & the 14th Amendment.

    Linda, you had written:

    You all can keep quoting that bloviating & corrupt Indiana case all you want.

    The case is Ankeny v. Daniels, before the Court of Appeals of Indiana. I asked where is the evidence of corruption, and obviously you have none.

    When did fabricating accusations become acceptable behavior?

  560. 12/15/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    brygenon,

    You can not read one part of the law and disreagrd the parts of the law

    That’s what you, Linda, did, and what I proved you did. You found a reference that listed several ways of acquiring citizenship. Barack Obama acquired his under the first of those ways, “A. By Place of Birth”. You omitted that part to (mis)quote a clause under “B. By Parentage”.

    Understand Linda, when you snip it just means the text won’t appear in your follow-up. It’s still there in your cited reference, pages 137-139
    http://books.google.com/books?id=rHs8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137

    and the parts of the Congressional records that define the contents of that law. That is where you fall short in your efforts to make your case.

    Isn’t it great playing judge? You get to win every time. Alas, your jurisdiction is your own imagination. In the real Congress and the real Courts, edibility deniers lose every single time.

    If WKA was the conclusive decision, then why was Elg redeemed her natural born citizenship, why was WKA not deemed a natural born citizen and why was Elk not granted citizenship?

    Already answered by obots, but even better: a real court explained the WKA precedent; see: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf And Linda, when you call it “corrupt”, that tells us nothing about the Court, and everything we need to know about you.

  561. 12/15/2009Linda says:

    I stated the evidence of corruption that was quoted in the Ankeny case:

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China…

    But this was not before the Indiana court cited this:

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts….Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

    But what the court omits is the fact that the Minor case cites the law of nations.

    So, my statement stands on its own merit with the evidence I have brought forward. The Indiana court disregarded the Congressional records, they seem to have purposely disregarded the definition the Minor case used & went to foreign law to ‘mine’ for a definition for US natural born citizen that would serve, what one can only conlude, their personal political views, but a better question to ask is, why did they omit the Elk case?

    Because Grey in writing the WKA deciding opinion, overturned his & his own courts decision in the Elk case.

  562. 12/15/2009Linda says:

    brygenon,

    You also assume my beef with the Ankeny decision is soley targeted at your messiah.

    As I have stated in the past, but I guess it bears repeating, I am in the fight for the Constitution & the our nation’s sovereignty, not for partisan politics.

  563. 12/15/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    I stated the evidence of corruption that was quoted in the Ankeny case:

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China…

    But this was not before the Indiana court cited this:

    I did not ask for more amateur legal analysis. You described it as “corrupt”, a very serious charge, if true. Where’s the evidence?

  564. 12/15/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    brygenon,

    You also assume my beef with the Ankeny decision is soley targeted at your messiah.

    To avoid any misunderstanding, I quoted what you actually did say.

    Don’t confuse the issues. For months we obots have been explaining what the controlling precedent is and what it means for Obama’s eligibility. Then a unanimous three-judge panel of a state appeals court told you the same thing. The issue on which I’m challenging you is not your legal analysis, but your allegation of corruption.

    As I have stated in the past, but I guess it bears repeating, I am in the fight for the Constitution & the our nation’s sovereignty, not for partisan politics.

    I don’t see how that motivated nor excuses fabricating an accusation of corruption.

  565. 12/15/2009Linda says:

    brygenon,

    You implied that the discussion of WKA was not in the opinion. It Was.

    The court also cites Congressional records, but uses the excuse that the plantiffs did not submit them, so they do not cite them. However, they do go out of their way find sources for their english common law theory, that they certainly would have to had looked, up as their argument for their decision.

    It utterly makes no sense, it is a blatent cover-up. As any rational thinking person knows, where politics & government are concerned aka ‘Watergate’, its the cover-up that is held accountable for the corruption, not the actual corruption itself.

  566. 12/15/2009jvn says:

    How interesting that Leo had the time to write an “expert” analysis on the Indiana Pension Fund case but has not yet found the time to prepare his own filing…

  567. 12/15/2009John says:

    Sue,

    Just got in from another night on the “ghost town” streets between 0000 hrs and 0500 hrs. Again only saw about four cars, two of which are the newspaper delivery guys we see every night, and a couple of tractor trailer rigs, and one repo man, an ex-cop from Virginia out of Cincinnati. They didn’t get “our” Family Dollar last night.

    Whether Obama’s attorneys actually know if he is not eligible or not, doesn’t matter. I think they would not want him to say or produce anything, because there is no way to be sure just how the court will define “natural born citizen.” If they define it as a person born in the States to two U.S. citizens, then Obama may have a problem. If it turns out Obama was born in Kenya, Obama has a problem.

    Judge Carter’s decision, the way I read it, seems to throw that case out based upon lack of standing to bring it. I throw my vote toward the losing presidential candidates as the best ones to claim standing to bring a quo warranto.

    If it gets to D.C. District Court, I don’t think anyone can predict how that court will define “natural born citizen.” If they look at it contemporaneous with the time the Constitution was drawn up, I’d vote for born in the U.S. with two U.S. citizen parents.

    It’s okay to disagree, because nobody has a crystal ball to know, except maybe courts that deny a mandamus writ, to someone legally entitled to it, based upon the reasoning that the petitioner WILL have a “future” remedy in 4-6 months. Those are very special apolitical judges with God-like ESP.

  568. 12/15/2009brygenon says:

    Linda says:

    brygenon,

    You implied that the discussion of WKA was not in the opinion. It Was.

    I implied no such thing. What you are saying now is both false and irrelevant.

    The court also cites Congressional records, but uses the excuse that the plantiffs did not submit them, so they do not cite them. However,

    I did not ask if you approved of the Court’s opinion. You called it “corrupt”. Where is the evidence of corruption?

    It utterly makes no sense, it is a blatent cover-up. As any rational thinking person knows, where politics & government are concerned aka ‘Watergate’, its the cover-up that is held accountable for the corruption, not the actual corruption itself.

    What we have hear is you making up a charge of corruption with no evidence. When did that become acceptable behavior?

  569. 12/15/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 15, 2009 at 4:15 am
    *I’ll give you this though, your desperation is amusing. Thanks for the chuckle.*

    There is nothing more desperate than resorting to:

    “Gray was corrupt, appointed by Chester Arthur.”
    “Ankeny case was full of corruption.”
    “It utterly makes no sense, it is a blatent cover-up.”

    That’s it, claim “corruption” when you disagree with a decision. But you haven’t changed the fact that WKA and Ankeny are now part of the case law, along with the 14th amendment and the details of what consititutes citizenship in the USC 8 code sections. Your amateur legal style of “just throw them more colonial writings and citations” is useless against them.

  570. 12/15/2009Sue says:

    Linda,

    http://www.archive.org/details/resolutionsofins00inst

    “LAW AND PROCEDURE VOLUME VII (1903)
    WILLIAM MACK And HOWARD P. NASH
    THE AMERICAN LAW BOOK COMPANY

    1.Children Of ALIENS. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen.”

    Unless I have misunderstood your above comment, you are basically saying that President Obama is not even a U.S. citizen because President obama’s father was an alien?

  571. 12/15/2009Sue says:

    John,

    It will be interesting to see if these proposed lawsuits by Pidgeon and Donofrio even get filed. Guess we will all just have to wait and see.

  572. 12/15/2009qwertyman says:

    What we have hear is you making up a charge of corruption with no evidence. When did that become acceptable behavior?

    About the same time that it became acceptable behavior to say that our citizenship laws have been usurped for 150 years (apparently Linda wants to return to a pre-Civil War conception of citizenship), and also around the time when it became acceptable to say that every single judge, member of Congress and legal scholar in the country are conspiring to keep silent on the true definition of natural born citizen to promote a political agenda.

    Obama’s father’s background has been public knowledge for years. Do you really think that any court will say that President Obama is retroactively declared ineligible for the presidency based on something that everybody knew about when they voted on election day?

    Why is it that the vast majority of people who have this theory about what natural born citizen means also believe that Obama’s birth certificate and birth announcements were faked or forged or fraudulent? Why is it that every time anybody who has this conception of citizenship discusses policy, they bitterly oppose absolutely anything the Democratic Party is favoring?

    Heck, I’d be interested to hear one thing, just one thing, that President Obama has done since taking office that has benefited the UK or Kenya at the expense of the US. Some clear example you can point at and say “See! His loyalties are to the British, even though his only connection with them is that his father belonged to a country once colonized by them!”

  573. 12/15/2009Linda says:

    Sue, The reference to American Law (1903) is evidence of the claims I have made that WKA was a corrupt decision that was not based on the laws of the time, i.e. judges going rogue and remaking the law.
    NBC could never have been one born to a foreign father. The simple fact as the law shows, one born to a foreign father was himself a foreigner.

    qwerty, you will not hear ‘just one thing he has done against the Uk or Kenya’, because I have never referred to specifics. What I and others have referred to is foreign intrigues.

    And as requested all along, if you are so certain that your definition of NBC is so correct…

    then just show us the definitive amended laws that blast all our research to smithereens. What are you holding back for?

  574. 12/15/2009qwertyman says:

    Sue, The reference to American Law (1903) is evidence of the claims I have made that WKA was a corrupt decision that was not based on the laws of the time, i.e. judges going rogue and remaking the law.
    NBC could never have been one born to a foreign father. The simple fact as the law shows, one born to a foreign father was himself a foreigner.

    So much internal inconsistency here.

    For starters, your links there are proposals from the Institute of International Law. They were submitted for consideration by governments. They don’t constitute law, they aren’t commentaries on the law, they’re recommendations by an outside interest group.

    And Wong was corrupt. Putting aside the fact that five other justices signed on to the majority opinion, your evidence of corruption is that since you believe that Chester A. Arthur was ineligible for the presidency because of his father’s status, Justice Gray, the author of the opinion, knew that he was appointed by an ineligible president. Course, Leo claims that nobody had heard about this question of Arthur’s father before last year.

    Beyond that, Gray’s opinion is rife with support for his finding that anybody born on US soil, with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats, invading armies, and Native American tribes, are natural born citizens. You just disagree with the outcome, and so you call it corruption. Five other justices of the Supreme Court, all with lifetime appointments, were similarly corrupt? Were there people 17 years after Gray’s appointment waiting to spring on the Justice and declare him appointed by an ineligible president?

    This seems to spring from the same sort of view that would lead somebody to say that every single judge, member of Congress and current legal scholar are engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to stay silent about the true meaning of the natural born citizen clause, leaving it to people like yourself in South Dakota who “weren’t taught the same way you city folks are.” Everybody’s indoctrinated but yourself. Of course, your solution is to go to a pre-Civil War conception of citizenship. I for one think that the Dred Scott case was the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court, but if you approve of that court’s definition of citizenship, good on you. I doubt you’ll find many who agree.

    qwerty, you will not hear ‘just one thing he has done against the Uk or Kenya’, because I have never referred to specifics. What I and others have referred to is foreign intrigues.

    And as requested all along, if you are so certain that your definition of NBC is so correct…

    then just show us the definitive amended laws that blast all our research to smithereens. What are you holding back for?

    You’ve seen it many times. You just declare it corrupt. It seems to be a pattern with you: if you don’t like it, it must be the result of CORRUPTION AND CONSPIRACY!

    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.

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 658 (1898)

    The law of England, as of the time of the Delcaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States. And this was undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691, in which he said:

    ” * * * we find that Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.”

    This doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of birth is spoken of by the writers on the subject as the jus soli or common law doctrine.

    Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1938)

    Your theory’s been blasted to smithereens for over a century, you just refuse to acknowledge it. You instead attempt to call a six-justice majority opinion the product of corruption, and that every single law school professor, civics textbook, member of Congress and judge are also being corrupt in refusing to recognize your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as definitive.

  575. 12/15/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Linda says:
    December 15, 2009 at 12:43 pm
    *Sue, The reference to American Law (1903) is evidence of the claims I have made that WKA was a corrupt decision that was not based on the laws of the time, i.e. judges going rogue and remaking the law.*

    Nonsense. The court was interpreting the 14th amendment.

    People say “the judges went rogue” and “they were remaking the law” every time the court makes a decision they don’t like.

    Wong Kim Ark – fresh as the day it was issued.

  576. 12/15/2009John says:

    Sue,

    Agree. I expect that they will file something. What is going to be interesting is the argument in support of their standing to bring the quo warranto.

    If they can get the case past the subject matter jurisdiction and standing evaluations in the D.C. District Court, then all the issues addressed in debate herein will be settled one way or another.

  577. 12/15/2009Sue says:

    ” brygenon says:
    December 15, 2009 at 5:12 am
    Linda says:

    brygenon,

    You can not read one part of the law and disreagrd the parts of the law
    That’s what you, Linda, did, and what I proved you did. You found a reference that listed several ways of acquiring citizenship. Barack Obama acquired his under the first of those ways, “A. By Place of Birth”. You omitted that part to (mis)quote a clause under “B. By Parentage”.

    Understand Linda, when you snip it just means the text won’t appear in your follow-up. It’s still there in your cited reference, pages 137-139
    http://books.google.com/books?id=rHs8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137

    This appears to be Linda’s MO.

  578. 12/15/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    I see opposition commenters say all sorts of things regarding Mr. Obama’s credentials that are simply being pulled out of their butts.

    Reality, Phil: Two reporters for the University of Pennsylvania’s FactCheck.org inspected and photographed Obama’s COLB, so you featured an article accusing them of being political operatives working for Obama’s campaign. If you are in a quest for truth, as you say, why put those lies about the reporters on your blog?

    In reality, I wasn’t referring to anyone but commenters on my site. However, if you’d like to bring the FactCheck.org blog into the mix, that’s perfectly fine by me.

    Simply show me where any of the individuals involved with the FactCheck.org blog are even remotely qualified to forensically inspect documents. Simple request; should require a simple answer.

    Furthermore, it’s not a lie to say that said individuals associated with the FactCheck.org blog are not qualified to perform forensic document analysis.

    However, the overall point here is that I think I’ve made myself quite clear how I am moderating my site. For your own reference, here’s my updated Site Comment Policy page. It can be seen under the About tab on my home page. As such, how I moderate my site is not up for debate; it simply is what it is.

    Ah, well, when I suggest that lying is unacceptable behavior, I’m not trying to debate your authority over your blog.

    Would you like some cheese with your whine?

    -Phil

  579. 12/16/2009brygenon says:

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    Two reporters for the University of Pennsylvania’s FactCheck.org inspected and photographed Obama’s COLB, so you featured an article accusing them of being political operatives working for Obama’s campaign. If you are in a quest for truth, as you say, why put those lies about the reporters on your blog?

    Simply show me where any of the individuals involved with the FactCheck.org blog are even remotely qualified to forensically inspect documents. Simple request; should require a simple answer.

    Here’s my simple answer: Just show me where I represented them to be anything they are not, and I’ll either back up my position or retract.

    Furthermore, it’s not a lie to say that said individuals associated with the FactCheck.org blog are not qualified to perform forensic document analysis.

    Phil, you chose to put on your blog that the FactCheck reporters were political operatives working for Obama’s campaign. When I call you on it, you won’t back it up and you won’t retract. Instead, you try to divert attention by acting like I’m somehow responsible for something I did *not* put forth.

    Phil, your behavior is inconsistent with your claim to be pursuing truth.

  580. 12/16/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    Two reporters for the University of Pennsylvania’s FactCheck.org inspected and photographed Obama’s COLB, so you featured an article accusing them of being political operatives working for Obama’s campaign. If you are in a quest for truth, as you say, why put those lies about the reporters on your blog?

    Simply show me where any of the individuals involved with the FactCheck.org blog are even remotely qualified to forensically inspect documents. Simple request; should require a simple answer.

    Here’s my simple answer: Just show me where I represented them to be anything they are not, and I’ll either back up my position or retract.

    Firstly, I did not specifically claim that the FactCheck.org blog reporters were “political operatives” for Mr. Obama; this is a claim that TheObamaFile.com specifically named, and I included it in my posting as a means of context.

    Similarly, I do not claim that they are not “political operatives;” I don’t specifically know, except to say the following (also in proper response to you):

    It is interesting to note that it has only been certain individuals associated with a non-governmental Internet site — namely, FactCheck.org — that have ever physically examined the alleged COLB. Nobody else has. Regardless of whether or not they are “political operatives,” while everyone else — including most other reporters in the media — have only ever examined an online image, I find it interesting that only these individuals have actually dealt with the physical document.

    Individuals such as yourself continue to promulgate the idea that — while it is true that only these individuals have ever inspected the physical alleged document — their observations in some way confirm the authenticity of the document, essentially by claiming that it’s a piece of paper with some sort of seal on it.

    My questions have always been:

    1. How do they know that the alleged document is legitimately from Hawaii?

    2. What qualifies these individuals to know that what they’re looking at is legitimate and not a scam?

    Furthermore, it’s not a lie to say that said individuals associated with the FactCheck.org blog are not qualified to perform forensic document analysis.

    Phil, you chose to put on your blog that the FactCheck reporters were political operatives working for Obama’s campaign. When I call you on it, you won’t back it up and you won’t retract. Instead, you try to divert attention by acting like I’m somehow responsible for something I did *not* put forth.

    Phil, your behavior is inconsistent with your claim to be pursuing truth.

    As I’ve briefly explained, above in this same response, you are promulgating the idea that somehow the FactCheck.org blog reporters know what they’re looking at. I say that they don’t know for sure unless they have a receipt for the procuring transaction or are otherwise able to authenticate the document with Hawaii.

    And as far as their being political operatives, I don’t know if they are, for sure, or not. It doesn’t bother me one way or the other, except that such a potential bias could persuade them to not ask the right questions about documentation that they did allege to possess.

    -Phil

  581. 12/17/2009Bry says:

    Phil wrote:

    brygenon [wrote],

    Simply show me where any of the individuals involved with the FactCheck.org blog are even remotely qualified to forensically inspect documents. Simple request; should require a simple answer.

    Here’s my simple answer: Just show me where I represented them to be anything they are not, and I’ll either back up my position or retract.

    Firstly, I did not specifically claim that the FactCheck.org blog reporters were “political operatives” for Mr. Obama; this is a claim that TheObamaFile.com specifically named, and I included it in my posting as a means of context.

    Sounds like my reporting was entirely correct: “You chose to put on your blog that the FactCheck reporters were political operatives working for Obama’s campaign.”

    Similarly, I do not claim that they are not “political operatives;”

    That’s your excuse for spreading lies?

  582. 12/17/2009Phil says:

    Bry,

    Similarly, I do not claim that they are not “political operatives;”

    That’s your excuse for spreading lies?

    Do you think that when you take what someone says out of context that that necessarily means they’re lying?

    As you know, you can call me a liar all that you want to — I’ll simply treat it with a very large grain of salt, considering your past history on my site.

    -Phil

  583. 12/18/2009brygenon says:

    Phil says:

    Do you think that when you take what someone says out of context that that necessarily means they’re lying?

    Let’s check the context: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-forensics-nh-sos-and-certificates-british-policeman-on-eligibility/

    Oh look Phil — you did spread the lie that the FactCheck reporters were political operative working for Obama’s campaign.

    As you know, you can call me a liar all that you want to — I’ll simply treat it with a very large grain of salt, considering your past history on my site.

    Call you a liar? Not exactly. What I did was call attention to the lie.

  584. 12/19/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Phil says:

    Do you think that when you take what someone says out of context that that necessarily means they’re lying?

    Let’s check the context: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-forensics-nh-sos-and-certificates-british-policeman-on-eligibility/

    Oh look Phil — you did spread the lie that the FactCheck reporters were political operative working for Obama’s campaign.

    As you know, you can call me a liar all that you want to — I’ll simply treat it with a very large grain of salt, considering your past history on my site.

    Call you a liar? Not exactly. What I did was call attention to the lie.

    OK. So, then, based on what you’ve just said, since neither one of us knows with 100% statistical certainty and we both admit the fact that we don’t know for sure that anyone associated with the FactCheck.org blog is a “political operative working for Obama’s campaign” (but I personally have seen nothing that specifically excludes them from being such), and you’re not calling me a liar, then I must ask:

    What’s the point here, except to make a proverbial mountain out of a molehill?

    I’m not backing off what I’ve reported, if that’s what you’re looking for.

    -Phil

  585. 12/26/2009slcraig says:

    To any and all ‘0’pologists’, (you know who you are), I purpose setting parameters of the debate;

    1) Show proof or concede, in spite of the many convoluted interpretations of the various ‘citizenship cases’, Ark, Happersett, Elg, etc, that the 14th Amendment, nor any other Act, DID NOT Amend A2S1C5. (If you can not agree or accept the FACT that A2S1C5 has not been Amended then your intellectual dishonesty makes it apparent that you are not interested in the TRUTH and choose to disregard the Constitution.)

    2) Accepting the premise that the office of the POTUS was intended to be filled by a person of the Body Politic, i.e., a Sovereign Citizen of the United States, and further, accepting that the NBC REQUIREMENT was/is intended as a National Security Provision, what effect did/does the ‘Grandfather Clause’ of the Original text have on the considerations of British Monarchial Citizenship Common Law versus the Natural Law Citizenship’s as expressed by Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Pufendorf, Grotius, Hobbs, Hume, Leibniz, Locke, and of course, Vattel, not to mention Sun Xu and Macchiavelli ? (Of course you will have to overcome your inclination to portray the Founders as ignorant uneducated religious fanatics with a myopic view of the world not too dissimilar to yours.)

    3) And as a follow up, did/does the Declaration of Independence cut the Bonds of British Rule allowing the newly emerging Sovereignty of the United States to dictate it’s own terms of Citizenship?

  586. 12/28/2009qwertyman says:

    Show proof or concede, in spite of the many convoluted interpretations of the various ‘citizenship cases’, Ark, Happersett, Elg, etc, that the 14th Amendment, nor any other Act, DID NOT Amend A2S1C5

    Nobody has ever said that that clause of the Constitution has been amended. What has been said over and over and over again is that your interpretation of what that clause means is incorrect, and has not been spoken with approval by a single member of Congress, judge, or legal scholar in America for the past century. The citizenship cases authoritatively interpreted both citizenship under the 14th Amendment and the natural born citizenship clause. As it was discussed interchangeably in Wong, it is considered a closed issue that a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen are one and the same. At the very least, there is no dispute about those born on US soil, as recently seen in the Ankeny case.

    what effect did/does the ‘Grandfather Clause’ of the Original text have on the considerations of British Monarchial Citizenship Common Law versus the Natural Law Citizenship’s as expressed by Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Pufendorf, Grotius, Hobbs, Hume, Leibniz, Locke, and of course, Vattel, not to mention Sun Xu and Macchiavelli ? (Of course you will have to overcome your inclination to portray the Founders as ignorant uneducated religious fanatics with a myopic view of the world not too dissimilar to yours.)

    The grandfather clause was designed with several of the Framers in mind, particularly Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the West Indies.

  587. 12/28/2009Linda says:

    qwertyman says: The grandfather clause was designed with several of the Framers in mind, particularly Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the West Indies.

    Can you cite a link or an archived historical reference for that? If not you are just regurjitating leftist propaganda that has no evidentiary standing in any court of law.

  588. 01/6/2010Christinewjc says:

    Today’s post about Beck ridiculing the “birthers” led me back to this post. There are 587 comments! I haven’t read them all, but read through some of the back and forth between Qwertyman and Linda. The following comment by Linda caught my attention:

    Linda says:
    December 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm
    qwertyman says: Quote mining is not nice.

    I did not ‘quote mine’ as you charge me to have, what I did was quote the Edw. III statute that defined what a naturtal born subject was at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    Blackstone himself concurred with this definition in his Commentaries.

    Further more, I gave the links for all readers to research for themselves and if anyone is ‘quote mining’ it is you. It is a long and exhastive commentary, as well are the other 2 links that it references to and they all come to the same conclusion,

    Native does not equal natural born and as Kent put it, Natives are:

    artificial persons created by law

    Thus there can be nothing natural about a native born person’s citizenship, they aquire it through naturalization under US laws if they so desire.

    This agrees with The Obama File’s archives that recognize the fact that there are actually three kinds of U.S. citizenship – natural born citizen (required for POTUS), native born citizen, and naturalized citizen.

    Consider this. If Obama was so sure that “native born citizen” is considered to be, by Constitutional law, the same as “natural born citizen” (required for POTUS), then why on earth would he spend 1.5 million dollars hiding his COLB and other bona fide documents (which would most likely prove that he attended college in the U.S. as a foreign exchange student)?

    Why all the secrecy?

    Answer: he is hiding something – something BIG! Just like the Dems are hiding what’s in the health care bill. C-span requested recording the discussions and they got a big fat NO. Isn’t this highly disturbing?

    This particular case (IMO) has the best chance of succeeding in the courts. God speed Mr. Pidgeon and Mr. Donofrio!

  589. 01/14/2010Chrysler Dealers to make Obama prove he is Eligible to be President in Lawsuit. says:

    […] of Obama. The above quotations were taken directly from the article: please read to understand http://www.therightsideoflife.com/20…-of-authority/ Reply With Quote   + Reply to Thread « Previous Thread | […]