AZ Eligibility Bill Introduced with Numerous Sponsors
Thursday, January 14, 2010 Update:
Thanks to a concerned citizen, State Rep. Judy Burges’ bill appears to have been posted online as HB2441. The introduction to the bill shows that Rep. Burges is one of 11 House and Senate sponsors and includes 25 cosponsors for a total of 40 supporters of the bill:
Despite the concerns of the opposition commenters attached to this posting, Rep. Burges’ thoughts on the basis for presidential eligibility qualification are truly hers and do not represent adding further qualifications to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution; to wit:
B. THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE FOR A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT FOR A PARTY THAT IS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED REPRESENTATION ON THE BALLOT SHALL PROVIDE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THAT POLITICAL PARTY’S NOMINATION OF ITS CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT. WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE CANDIDATE’S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE CANDIDATE’S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
C. THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL REVIEW THE AFFIDAVIT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE AND, IF THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE CANDIDATE DOES NOT MEET THE CITIZENSHIP, AGE AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL NOT PLACE THAT CANDIDATE’S NAME ON THE BALLOT.
On the face of it, this introduced language (it could change should it go all the way through the Legislature) appears to be pretty reasonable and common sense. After all, why only accept a self-ascribing document from a political party wherein a candidate merely claims they’re eligible, when such eligibility ought to be substantiated?
Notice that the bill doesn’t actually define “natural born citizen” and leaves it to the Secretary of State to “review” the materials. If the SoS “has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the … requirements prescribed by law,” that candidate “shall” not be placed on the ballot.
In the case of Mr. Obama, should this bill pass, I would love to see what documentation he would provide for eligibility substantiation. If the Democrat party were to include the certification of live birth, that would, at the very least, substantiate its authenticity (I’ve always operated under the theory that the COLB was posted on a private web site, not a government-run site, and hence is not subject to the same scrutiny that documents under the control of the government usually are).
Remember — in the case of this bill, anything submitted by the candidate would officially, on the record, represent who the candidate is. No such substantiation currently exists within the several States; this is a point that cannot be stressed enough. The only thing that the States had in 2008 was that self-ascribing document, provided by the Democrat party, wherein Mr. Obama claimed to be eligible.
Wouldn’t it be great to get some actual background documentation on the record to back up Mr. Obama’s eligibility?
—-
Sun City, Arizona-based YourWestValley.com reported yesterday that State Representative Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley) is in the process of putting together a bill that would require a presidential or vice presidential candidate’s eligibility to be independently verified by the Arizona Secretary of State. Essentially, if the candidate’s eligibility isn’t substantiated, the proposed legislation is said to require the SoS to drop the candidate from the ballot:
Burges told Capitol Media Services the measure is not necessarily about Obama, though she admitted she has her doubts that he was born in Hawaii as he claims and, even if so, that he can show he is a U.S. citizen.
“With what’s happening throughout the world, that we need to make sure that our candidates are certifiable,” she said.
Burges did not support Obama and is not a fan. And she said if, in fact, he was not a ”natural born” citizen, that makes him suspect.
“When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that,” she said.
State Rep. Burges was referring to the President’s “no-bow” bow to the king of Saudi Arabia that occurred back in April, 2009.
Advertise on this site
The story continues:
The kind of certification Burges wants, though, could be more difficult than simply checking for a valid birth certificate, as the arguments about his legal qualification go beyond whether he was actually born in Hawaii. …
Burges’ bill, if it becomes law, would put the Secretary of State in the position of having to determine whether the individual circumstances of a candidate’s life disqualify him or her from being on the Arizona ballot.
The two-term lawmaker said her concerns remain about having a president whose citizenship — and, by her reckoning, loyalty — is not clear.
“We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America,” Burges said.
“This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited. And the only way I can do that is what I can do as a state legislator.”
Burges said her suspicions about Obama go beyond that well-publicized bow in Saudi Arabia.
“Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side,” Burges continued. “Doesn’t that bother you just a little bit?”
The quote comes from Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope” where he writes about conversations with immigrant communities following the 2001 terrorist attacks, especially Arab and Pakistani Americans. Obama said they were fearful over detentions and FBI questioning and were concerned about the historical precedent.
“They need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction,” Obama wrote.
Ballot-Access.org similarly reported on this story, mentioning two other bills introduced in the State Senate that failed to move forward in the last legislative session:
The bill is not yet on-line and doesn’t have a bill number. At this point it is not apparent if the bill relates to the Arizona presidential primary ballot, or to the general election ballot, or both.
Two apparently similar bills were introduced in the Arizona Senate in 2009, but they made no headway. They were SB 1053 and SB 1158.
Blogger Lionel Waxman at WaxmanMedia.com remarked:
Obviously, someone needs to check this requirement. Right now we have a man who purports to be president whose citizenship, whose loyalty, are in doubt. There is no reason this country should have to bear this burden. Despite all requests, Obama has refused to provide or release the necessary records, only throwing more doubt on his credibility.
Regarding presidential eligibility in general (let’s remove Mr. Obama from the equation for a moment), there have always been two main, key points in this discussion — (1) enforcement of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 and (2) the degree to which such enforcement is required.
In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that the States could not impose additional qualifications — such as term limits — upon federal officeholders (perhaps to include the President/Vice President).
In my referenced link, the commenter deduces that this decision would not do well for the question of eligibility; I now disagree with this premise. Per the decision:
Moreover, petitioners’ broad construction is fundamentally inconsistent with the Framers’ view of the Elections Clause, which was intended to grant States authority to protect the integrity and regularity of the election process by regulating election procedures, see, e.g., Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 , 733, not to provide them with license to impose substantive qualifications that would exclude classes of candidates from federal office. [emphasis added]
I think a very strong case could be made that enforcing eligibility would fall under “protect[ing] the integrity and regularity” of elections.
Yet, this brings up my second point. To date, we only know that the Constitution spells out what makes a person eligible to be President; we have yet to decide the how and, perhaps more importantly, to what extent such a substantiation is to be established.
For over a year now I”ve been promulgating the notion that, ultimately, approaching the eligibility issue from the State level is the best route to go. Such a push would formalize the debate and, should such an initiative pass, would enable potential detractors to bring the issue into the Judiciary in proper fashion, allowing States the opportunity to stand up and say, “If the federal government isn’t going to enforce presidential eligibility, then the States will, since the Constitution is otherwise silent on specific federal enforcement of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.”
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Cross-posted at FreeRepublic.com
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy AZLeg.gov
[...] to states to tackle the issue.” Georgia follows Arizona, which has proposed its own eligibility bill. That proposal has now passed the Arizona House 31-29 and is now in the Senate awaiting [...]
[...] to tackle the issue.” Georgia follows Arizona, which has proposed its own eligibility bill. That proposal has now passed the Arizona House 31-29 and is now in the Senate awaiting [...]
[...] advocates. So who is really out of touch in Arizona? Here is the heart of the pending Arizona HB 2441) : WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY [...]
[...] advocates. So who is really out of touch in Arizona? Here is the heart of the pending Arizona HB 2441) : WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES, THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY [...]
Linda says:
January 26, 2010 at 3:42 pm
BL,
I have cited Wilson many times & I have written at my website extensively. If you didn’t save it, then I guess you have some work to do to go back and surf for it.
Good Luck!
___________________________________________________________________
Of course you did Linda…Just like of course you can provide us with links to your state’s website that will show that parents have to show papers before a newborn is provided with a BC and that there is relevant recent case law that supports your ridiculous theory….Or maybe it is where your top secret documents from the Kenyan government reside…Whatever Linda….If nothing else you are good for a chuckle in the morning…
BL,
I have cited Wilson many times & I have written at my website extensively. If you didn’t save it, then I guess you have some work to do to go back and surf for it.
Good Luck!
Linda says:
January 25, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Ballantine asked me to cite one founding father/framer who defined natural born citizen, but not before this so called legal scholar, that BlackLion brought here, slammed me for citing Justice James Wilson, who was only 2nd to James Madison in the drafting of the constitution and in some areas, he was 2nd to none and one of those areas was US citizenship.
This just goes to show how biased and deceitful these people are that we are dealing with.
Well Ballantine, you have contradicted yourself right out of the gate.
PRICELESS!
__________________________________________________________________
What? Are you kidding me? Wilson never agreed with your warped theory of citizenship nor did he ever state that a NBC needed to have 2 citizen parents. He agreed with Blackstone and was a proponent of English Common law. Ballantine was correct. You still have not found any early US scholar that agrees with you. Yet you attempt to pull an Alinksy and avoid the issue and try and pretend that the foolishness you cited actually supports your theory, when in fact it does the opposite.
Ballantine asked me to cite one founding father/framer who defined natural born citizen, but not before this so called legal scholar, that BlackLion brought here, slammed me for citing Justice James Wilson, who was only 2nd to James Madison in the drafting of the constitution and in some areas, he was 2nd to none and one of those areas was US citizenship.
This just goes to show how biased and deceitful these people are that we are dealing with.
Well Ballantine, you have contradicted yourself right out of the gate.
PRICELESS!
“Linda: I will respond, but it will not be here. Look for your Comandant Dr Conspiracy to be exposed as the liar & fraud he is at my site as well as many others. I will debunk every single one of his unlinked lies one by one, right down the entire list!”
Wow, we are pretty arrogant. You can quibble about whether everything is properly cited, but we are not writing law review articles here. Some of us have actual jobs and don’t have time to track down precise citations.
You can spin all you want, but none of the early scholars the supreme court so often rely upon such as Tucker, Kent, Rawle, Story, Bouvier, Paschal, Burrel, Duer, Pomeroy appear to support you assertions. Of the most cited treates, Tucker, Kent, Story and Bouvier all say the president must be a native or natural born and Rawle says he must simply be born in the United States. None of these early authorities talk of parentage, just like no framer talked of parentage. The framers did debate whether office holders should be natives, but no one brought up parentage or suggested any prohibition of duel citizenship.
Nor did any early court cases I have seen support your theory, as all the early citizenship I have seen follow the rule of locality of birth from Blackstone. If you have early authority to support your assertions, please let us know, but so far we have seen nothing but fact-free assertions. I have read James Wilson and see nothing that supports your assertions as he doesn’t define what is a natural born citizen and hs analysis of the English law of nationality is in line with Blackstone.
The botton line is unless you can point to any authority in the founding era, or in the first half of the 19th century, the only periods that could possibly be relevant to determining the original public meaning of the constitution, that defines “natural born” other than in accordance with Blackstone’s rule based upon locality of birth, your arguments are frivolous to modern originalists who pretty much all look to the understanding of the term at the time of enactment. Can you cite one authority during such period supporting your definition? Please provide us with someone providing such definition.
“[Hawaii DoH] wouldn’t say [Obama's vital records were delayed or amended], it would violate their vital records disclosure law…Leo and MsTickly only inferred it…” earl
1 HRS §338-18 “To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.”
“or by rules adopted by the department of health“: disclosure of information contained in vital records is governed by Vital Records Regulations of DoH’s own devising (with the approval of the governor).
2 According to DoH Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2) a non-certified copy of a Hawaii birth certificate “may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.” Until November 2009, although contrary to Hawaii law, DoH withheld from the public its Vital Records Regulations which included this rule.
3 HRS §338-18 may assign to DoH the authority to craft its own information disclosure rules for vital records, but not for administrative records attaching to or concerning vital records: these are unquestionably subject to non-discretionary disclosure under Hawaii law (UIPA). Fukino’s July statement (about Obama’s “vital records“, now plural) was issued in response to MissT’s request for records concerning fees paid by Obama to amend his registration. Fukino denied access and a lawyer at Hawaii Office of Information Practices (which enforces UIPA and holds a record of MissT’s correspondence) confirmed to MissT that denial of access was a legal admission that the record (concerning Obama’s fees) existed. In contravention of its own regulations, DoH now claims it no longer retains the documentation of Obama’s amendment fees which were the subject of MissT’s UIPA request.
Given Obama was charged fees to amend his filing this can only mean he was not born in a Hawaii hospital, as he (or his family) would not have been held responsible for any error in those circumstances (DoH Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.11); given Obama was not born in a Hawaii hospital this corroborates the DoH confirmations that his filing was “delayed” (in 1961 terminology, but now called “late”) and for which no supplementary evidence was supplied to complete registration. (As noted on Obama’s alleged COLB: “FILED” rather than “ACCEPTED”.) Even assuming hypothetically that Obama’s registration may have been completed, HRS §338-17 (in 1961 §57-20) withholds the status of evidence from the resulting certificate until so determined by an authority other than Hawaii DoH.
Given only major amendments to vital records incur fees and such amendments must be summarized on a COLB, but online scans and images of Obama’s alleged COLB depict no amendment summary, then Obama’s COLB (in the versions depicted by online scans and images) can only be “unofficial” (see point 2) or illegal and a forgery.
4 Multiple UIPA requests unconnected to Donofrio or MissT for access to various records have been denied by DoH; these denials (according to OIP advice) confirm the records’ existence, with the implications as just described. Despite repeated invitations no Obama loyalist has supplied UIPA responses in which Hawaii DoH dis-confirm these records and their implications.
“[Obama's alleged COLB] carries the seal of the Hawaii Department of Health…” brygenon
Both the Daily Kos and Fight The Smears scans of Obama’s alleged COLB and Factcheck’s “COLB” Photograph #3 [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ] contain no official Hawaii seal. No official seal means that Obama’s alleged “COLB” is either not official (see point 2 above) or not genuine. The latter conclusion is supported by the fact that the purported seals in two other Factcheck “COLB” images involve several anomalies which cannot be reconciled with genuine Hawaii seals of the same year of issue.
Until brygenon can cite some formal acknowledgement by DoH authorities (which Hawaii law does allow) that DoH issued to Obama a COLB in the form depicted by the alleged online scans and photographs then brygenon’s claim that the online images are genuine is no more than a confession of faith.
“[Obama's alleged COLB] carries…[an] attestation by the record keeper, Alvin T. Onaka.” brygenon
i The context in which brygenon wrote that Obama’s alleged COLB has been authenticated is Article IV of the US Constitution (and consequently through the implementing statute, 28 USC 1739). As previously described, the statute specifies an exact procedure for certifying records, but one which can only be assumed hypothetically for Obama’s alleged COLB (a problem brygenon ignores) since, judging from the online scans and photographs, this procedure has not been followed given no certification from a judge (and clerk of the court) or a state officer is depicted in any image. In a bizarre exegesis of 28 USC 1739, brygenon wants readers to share the belief that further certifications, in addition to the custodian’s attestation, are not required and that Obama’s alleged COLB is due Full Faith and Credit under Article IV. Against the evidence of readers’ own eyes when confronted with 28 USC 1739 (“together with a certificate of a judge [etc]…or of the Governor [etc]…further authenticated by the clerk [etc]…“), sharing this interpretation with brygenon would be delusory.
ii Black’s Law Dictionary defines “attest” as being “To witness the execution of a written instrument…[when] a certifying officer gives assurance of the genuineness and correctness of a copy…which has been examined and compared with the original [and] signed by the person who examined it.“http://tinyurl.com/BLD-Attest-p103
In line with the accepted canons of statutory interpretation, if SCOTUS holds that Congress never intended an implementing statute of Article IV to apply to entities and circumstances which postdate the statute then (following SCOTUS’ logic) Congress had only one understanding of the word “attestation” when it enacted 28 USC 1739: that of Black’s Law Dictionary above, which requires that the custodian as “certifying officer gives assurance of the genuineness and correctness of a copy [by having personally] examined and compared [it] with the original” and “subscribed [with a handwritten signature] the same as a witness.” As SCOTUS opined in US v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985), when the (apparently trivial) regulation that mining claims which should be filed “prior to December 31″ could not satisfied by a filing on December 31 was upheld:
“…the fact that Congress might have acted with greater clarity or foresight does not give courts a carte blanche to redraft statutes in an effort to achieve that which Congress is perceived to have failed to do. ‘There is a basic difference between filling a gap left by Congress’ silence and rewriting rules that Congress has affirmatively and specifically enacted.’ Nor is the Judiciary licensed to attempt to soften the clear import of Congress’ chosen words whenever a court believes those words lead to a harsh result. On the contrary, deference to the supremacy of the Legislature, as well as recognition that Congressmen typically vote on the language of a bill, generally requires us to assume that ‘the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.’ ‘Going behind the plain language of a statute in search of a possibly contrary congressional intent is ‘a step to be taken cautiously’ even under the best of circumstances.’ When even after taking this step nothing in the legislative history remotely suggests a congressional intent contrary to Congress’ chosen words, and neither appellees nor the dissenters have pointed to anything that so suggests, any further steps take the courts out of the realm of interpretation and place them in the domain of legislation. The phrase ‘prior to’ may be clumsy, but its meaning is clear.” [citations omitted]
Given machine-made facsimile signatures were designed to be (and are) applied to many thousands of COLBs by non-custodial clerks, the absence of a handwritten signature means there can no assurance that a non-routine examination and comparison by the custodian (e.g. Registrar Onaka) of Obama’s COLB dataset with its alleged printout ever really happened and that the requirements of 28 USC 1739 were truly met.
“[Who Are You Kidding is] all confused.The one further statement one needs under 28 USC 1739 is…verified externally to the certificate itself.” brygenon
The further certification by handwritten signature and seal of a judge (and clerk of the court) or a state political officer is exactly what we do not have right now and, even assuming hypothetically a birth record could be authenticated under 28 USC 1739, it has not been done. Therefore the repeated claim that Obama’s alleged COLB is “proof” that must be accorded Full Faith and Credit under Article IV is without basis in fact. Indeed, the authentication of evidence is concerned only with its admissibility into court and does not not affect the weight (or “believability”) that will be accorded to it by the court. I hope this resolves any perceived confusion.
Phil – we know you don’t have a problem hosting Linda’s debate, neither does the good Dr – but she does. She’s posted a lot of accusations – many of them totally ridiculous (her super sekrit Kenyan document), all of them unsupported – got called on it, and instead of responding with the evidence she claims to have, she now wants to post her rebuttal ….. somewhere else? Will she even tell us where? She called polite and reasonable posters disgusting for posting on a well researched site, simply because she disagrees with them. Frankly, I think she is losing it and needs a way out. She is in so many ways a typical birther – angry, frustrated, out of options, and unwilling to admit that you can’t unseat a President simply because you don’t like him – there simply has to be something to prove he’s an imposter, if she just keeps looking hard enough in those 18th century documents ..
Meanwhile back in the real world, another court case goes against the birthers, WND mislead for the upteenth time, slcraig’s fantasy email gets exposed and Obama is still President.
Dr. Conspiracy,
Fortunately, your site is not the only site that allows dissenting (if it is civilized) opinions to flourish — with greater than 27,000 comments to prove it.
Personally, I would have no problems “hosting” such a debate here. However, logistics and practicality may require your site to do said “hosting,” I don’t know.
-Phil
Linda: I will respond, but it will not be here. Look for your Comandant Dr Conspiracy to be exposed as the liar & fraud he is at my site as well as many others. I will debunk every single one of his unlinked lies one by one, right down the entire list!
I take a lot of care to try to get the best documented information for ObamaConspiracy.org. Given that there are now over 600 articles on the site, it would be a monumental task to try to debunk that body of work, not to mention a fools errand, since the material there is quite solid and well documented. Not every article documents every fact, but I think every fact is documented in at least one.
However, if you have a question, find a claim that you think cannot be documented, or wish to differ, feel free to post a comment on my site. Factual corrections pointed out by visitors get fixed.
If you do chose to discuss my site somewhere else, it would be only fair to pick a site that would pledge not to censor any rebuttal or followup-up documentation I might offer. It’s trivial (and worthless) to win an argument if you don’t let your opponent speak.
Clear and well-reasoned comments are the most effective means of communicating. Insults and name-calling get in the way of fact-finding.
See ya Linda – sorry you lost.
I will respond, but it will not be here. Look for your Comandant Dr Conspiracy to be exposed as the liar & fraud he is at my site as well as many others. I will debunk every single one of his unlinked lies one by one, right down the entire list!
On November 12, 2009, a three-judge panel in the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an Opinion for Publication defining natural born citizen: “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.”
A Petition for a Rehearing was filed on December 9. From the Docket of the Indiana Clerk of the Courts:
12/09/09 APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING (9) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (9) BY MAIL DATE 12/09/09 JS 12/11/09
This has now been Denied by the Indiana Court of Appeals:
1/15/10 APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED. FOR THE COURT, JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE, ALL PANEL JUDGES CONCUR. KJ
Linda said:
Either come to the table with me, in the same faith and credibity that I hold myself to, with your own findings in their entirety with links to the direct archive or go find another for your sick games. HOWEVER, if your intentions are to learn the true history of our country and help to preserve & protect it, then I welcome your response.
Looks like Linda is looking for a way out of the corner she has backed herself into.
Linda – you were exposed as a liar just a few comments ago. Are you disgusting – and if not, why not?
Dr Conspiracy is a fraud & a liar. I just went back to his site and spent a considerable amount of time researching his references for myself, since they are regurgitated here ad nauseum.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/11/the-great-mother-of-all-native-born-citizenship-pages/
Now I know why he doesn’t link directly to the specific quotes. He would be COMPLETELY EXPOSED!
They are ALL completely taken out of context and in some cases, he even changes the words or he word mines and makes a quote look like it is in its entirety, when in fact he has omitted much of the original quote to fashion one that better fits his conspiracy which is obviously to help the Statist destroy this country from within.
This is disgusting & BL & bry, I see you comment there and I will not waste any more of my time debating such despicable acts against our Constitution, Nation & its patriot citizen, but especially acts that bring greater harm to the brave men & women who serve to save your a** from getting blown up by those that wish to destroy us.
Either come to the table with me, in the same faith and credibity that I hold myself to, with your own findings in their entirety with links to the direct archive or go find another for your sick games. HOWEVER, if your intentions are to learn the true history of our country and help to preserve & protect it, then I welcome your response.
FYI to self: write comments in MSWord, spell check then copy & paste. DUH! Phil, feel free to delete my previous post that is all run together.
I clearly see now how the 2 terms have been misconstrued to mean the exact same and I am excited in this new found knowledge and to be able to bring it to light.
Let me rephrase that.
I clearly see now HOW the term ‘natural born citizen’ is being misconstrued by the Statist to mean the same thing as a ‘natural born subject’ at the time of the revolution.
But it was not the common law of England at the time of the revolution that the framers looked to. It was the original ‘common law’ of England, which was the original common law of nations, not the laws as they were under the feudal British government. It was the law of their ancestors that they looked to in forming our government & defining its citizens. They were looking to get back to the ‘common law’ in its purest & happiest form.
Hence the Declaration of Independence. Its words taken right out of the purest form of ‘common law’ which is the law of nature & the law of nations coming together to form a new society.
Linda,
Not to fear. I’ve got a nice, juicy update coming out soon.
-Phil
• I clearly see now how the 2 terms have been misconstrued to mean the exact same and I am excited in this new found knowledge and to be able to bring it to light.
Let me rephrase that.
I clearly see now HOW the term ‘natural born citizen’ is being misconstrued by the Statist to mean the same thing as a ‘natural born subject’ at the time of the revolution.
But it was not the common law of England at the time of the revolution that the framers looked to. It was the original ‘common law’ of England, which was the original common law of nations, not the laws as they were under the feudal British government. It was the law of their ancestors that they looked to in forming our government & defining its citizens. They were looking to get back to the ‘common law’ in its purest & happiest form. Hence the Declaration of Independence. Its words taken right out of the purest form of ‘common law’ which is the law of nature & the law of nations coming together to form a new society.
BL: Linda, OK you now admit that WKA did define “natural born citizen”? If you are then are you saying that you were wrong before? And are you saying that your research has shown you that there is common law adopted by the US that is not the same as English Common law? I am just trying to see your point. I am interested to see American common law and how it came about. And if it is separate than English common law. I am looking forward to your comments regarding this issue.
No, Grey did not declare WKA to be a natural born citizen and why was that? Why did he stop short of that? Why did he suddenly declare that the US adopted the notion that the law accepted a dual form of citizneship?
As to what the original definition of ‘natural born subject’ was, under the original meaning “common law” at the original founding of England, is where the answer lies. This is covered indepth in this lecture on common law. I had only studied Vol I thus far and had only skmmed Vol II. Now I wish I had done it in reverse.
I clearly see now how the 2 terms have been misconstrued to mean the exact same and I am excited in this new found knowledge and to be able to bring it to light.
Keep in mind 2 words when reading it, despotism & feudalism. They are at the core of the Statist interpretation of the meaning of the 2 and as the author states, there is nothing more repugnant to a Republik form of government than despotism.
Linda says:
January 20, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Oh my, I guess since I took the major part of yesterday off from commenting in order that I may further continue my education into the history of our founding, it seems some took it as an absolute rejection of them on my part.
And as far as that WKA natural born subject = natural born citizen, I do admit now after reading this latest lecture that, under what was commonly known as ‘common law’ at the time of the revolution, your argument could be held as true. But you have yet to put in the proper context as it relates to the common law adopted by the United States and it will be in my next series that this will be addressed.
__________________________________________________________________
Linda, OK you now admit that WKA did define “natural born citizen”? If you are then are you saying that you were wrong before? And are you saying that your research has shown you that there is common law adopted by the US that is not the same as English Common law? I am just trying to see your point. I am interested to see American common law and how it came about. And if it is separate than English common law. I am looking forward to your comments regarding this issue.
Phil,
In regards to the meeting with the AG yesterday, I am sad to report that as usual, there is a lack of an obvious spine in Jackley. While there may very well be something to report in the future, he is refusing to take an outright stand, thus it was all blow, no go.
If healthcare is passed, he MAY join the group of AG’s already standing on principle & law, but until then he is nothing more than a fence post decoration which has yet to be unwrapped.
Phil says:
But you caught the facts, right? I said you spread the false rumor, which you did, and did not accuse of lying on the “investigation will commence” issue, contrary to your reporting.
What evidence do you have that your next-door neighbor did *not* murder nine innocent children?
But you’d get debunked by a dictionary.
Annenberg Political Fact-Check checks facts and reports their findings. FactCheck.org, like any other web site, is a media outlet. Do you not know what the words mean or what?
Oh my, I guess since I took the major part of yesterday off from commenting in order that I may further continue my education into the history of our founding, it seems some took it as an absolute rejection of them on my part.
How lonely it must be to be so dependent on another for ones knowledge, especially since the knowledgeable one is busy gaining further knowledge.
If one wants to understand common law, one must study its origins and I have just finished another most fascinating,
“Lectures on American Law: of the common law, of nature & philosophy of evidence, of the constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania, (the breakdown of the separate depts. of government)and most importantly, of citizens & aliens (which directed me back to the previous one I had read for in which I gathered additional evidence)”.
I am also sure my new found knowledge will also be the butt of many of your future facetious remarks. Remarks that have nothing to offer but strip-mined quotes taken out of context. But if they happen to fall on even one set of unbiased ears, then my work is fruitful and ripe for seeding.
And as far as that WKA natural born subject = natural born citizen, I do admit now after reading this latest lecture that, under what was commonly known as ‘common law’ at the time of the revolution, your argument could be held as true. But you have yet to put in the proper context as it relates to the common law adopted by the United States and it will be in my next series that this will be addressed.
As far as going out of my way to upload to my computer and then upload to the internet what I have, is NOT going to happen. Though it may pleasure me, it serves no purpose in this debate.
In the meantime, may I suggest some instructive reading so that you may learn exactly what ‘common law’ means.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lIs0AAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q=&f=false
earl says:
January 20, 2010 at 1:46 pm
bystander says:
January 20, 2010 at 12:15 pm
A most comprehensive and very entertaining synopsis of this thread. Thanks!
___________________________________________________________________
bystander, I must agree with Earl. Your overview of events was quite entertaining. I just got my cookie and am eating it as we speak.
Thanks Earl, one does what one can for the cause (mmmmm extra cookie for me).
bystander says:
January 20, 2010 at 12:15 pm
A most comprehensive and very entertaining synopsis of this thread. Thanks!
Loren – I think we need to start a campaign to buy birthers clothes with zip-up pockets so they can stop losing all their stuff.
Oh dear, can we get a group hug for Linda? It’s been a trying few days. Fist she misplaces the only copy of a super secret document entrusted to her by the Kenyan Government that proves that Obama and Odinga did some very, very bad things.
Hey now, I’m sure that those secret revelatory Odinga documents are simply lost on the same CD with the secret revelatory COLB without a seal.
I’ve similarly theorized that the secret revelatory video of Obama blowing off Keyes’ NBC question in 2004 must be on the same tape as the secret revelatory video of Michelle Obama railing at “whitey,” which would explain why no one could ever find either.
Y’know bystander, Birthers would be in a much stronger position if they didn’t insist on losing or hiding all of the secret revelatory evidence they claim to have.
brygenon,
There you go again, accusing others of doing the very thing you do.
Unless you have evidence you can site that the staffers at the FactCheck.org blog are not political operatives, then I don’t see how anything I’ve posted, to date, regarding these individuals is a lie.
In fact, I could call you a liar by your calling them “reporters;” do they have such credentials? Do they work for a media outlet? Are we now going to call the FactCheck.org blog a media outlet? That’s not what we’re all being told that this organization is.
-Phil
Oh dear, can we get a group hug for Linda? It’s been a trying few days. Fist she misplaces the only copy of a super secret document entrusted to her by the Kenyan Government that proves that Obama and Odinga did some very, very bad things. That sort of sloppiness is going to hurt for a constitutional researcher of a calibre so rarely found in the trucking industry.
Then the rude obots said Linda had been had by the people at FR, and that Farah guy at WND that found live dinosaurs in Africa. That was embarrassing, but Linda managed to dismiss those Snopes people that make a generous living debunking urban legends with an utterly compelling roll on the floor doing something with her ass. Well, I was convinced.
Then it transpires that she has some sort of computer glitch that prevents her finding legal documents written after 1844 and responding to a simple question asked multiple times, as to why no current constitutional scholars agree with her fabulous theory. But it’s ok, because I can help with that one. I heard in an email that must be true, that George Soros bought off every single legal expert with a set of steak knives, but he knew Linda was too much of a patriot to fall for that. Instead he despatched Black Lion and Earl to keep her tied up in circular arguments just long enough to buy time for Obama to establish a New World Order, put the finishing touches to the Fema camps, get Sharia Law set up in Wyoming, and rescind that Pakistan Travel Ban. They get a cookie for every day they prevent her solving this constitutional crisis of biblical proportions.
But the very worse thing that happened to Linda is she said she never said something, but it turns out she did. Now that kind of dishonesty, if you could apply it to Obama, would be grounds for questioning every aspect of his life – you’d probably get discovery to subpoena his kindergarten records. Thank goodness Linda didn’t pal around with muslim terrorists in her youth, so we won’t have to hold her to the same standard.
But there’s good news. Orly needs an experienced researcher to help her get to the bottom of a mysterious SS card for Obama’s mother. I think he forged it. Linda could use her research skills to help her prove it and crack this case wide open. I’ll even give Linda a clue (google Elvis + ss card).
And now a big thank you to the players in this drama – such entertainment is rarely found in such plentiful supply for free.
Phil says:
Please refrain from making up positions for me. Most people who spread false rumors do it out of ignorance and naïveté; they don’t actually know the rumor is false.
But, as the President likes to say, let’s be clear: Phil, you have also spread *lies* on your blog. For example, you featured an article from TheObamaFile claiming that reporters for FactCheck.org were political operatives working for the Obama campaign. http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-forensics-nh-sos-and-certificates-british-policeman-on-eligibility/
Yes, I think that’s why you spread the false rumor that the NH SoS would be investigating. The lie about the FactCheck reporters was also copied from another blog, which is why I accused of “spreading” it, and not of “telling” it.
“On this issue”, the false rumor, I never did call you a liar.
brygenon,
I think the issue here is that you refuse to see a sequence of events taking place, and you insist that if an originally-reported story is not completely erased from a blog, that that somehow means that the blogger — in this case, yours truly — is somehow lying.
I suppose when Boston.com was caught editorializing the news by suggesting that Senator-Elect (boy, that’s awesome to say!) Scott Brown was “unfamiliar” (to quote the word they used) with the tea party movement, they were insinuating that the Senator-Elect wasn’t aware of the movement, per se, when, in fact, TalkingPointsMemo corrected the story for them by saying that the Senator-Elect wasn’t familiar with the actual reporter’s question.
So, to use your same standard (which would be very nice on your part to agree to use), the Boston Globe should now go about rewriting their original article on the Senator-Elect, specifically clarifying that what they originally said was a fabrication.
Regarding my postings, I reported what was originally said by a third party based on what I knew at the time. In a subsequent posting (one day later, as I’ve just gone through with you), it turned out that there was further information gleaned from those sources.
The bottom line: If you think I’m lying because I’m reporting what a third-party source was confirming at a given point in time, that’s certainly your prerogative. However, if we’re going to use this same standard across the blogosphere, then I think you should be prepared to call lots and lots of folks liars, because nobody ever has 100% of the facts at any given time; therefore, their stories are likely to be missing info from time to time.
Regardless of whether or not you apologize, that’s your own conscience to which you must answer. I will not apologize for what I post for the very reasons I’ve just outlined. Anyone can see the timeline of events as they happened; I’m not going to change that because one reader out of thousands to this blog simply disagrees with the blogger, per se.
However, on this issue, you need to stop calling me a liar. You’ve done it once; you’re clearly not OK with my explanations to date, which really is your problem.
With that, I would suggest moving on.
-Phil
Linda says:
January 19, 2010 at 10:03 pm
“Show me when I said I want to see the long form? I said I support those that do. ”
No that’s not what you said. You said you wanted to see a long form. You said it several times. You dropped it when you couldn’t produce for Loren the COLB without a seal you claimed to have a picture of and after I challenged your assertion that you were misrepresenting the requirements of the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands to show 50% native Hawaiian as those of the Hawaii Dept of Health’s vital statistics policies. I find it hard to believe you can’t remember what you wrote 2 days ago.
Here are the several times you said he needed to show the long form. I quit looking after 3:
Linda says:
January 17, 2010 at 9:53 pm
which means they have to go retrieve the long form that originated the COLB, so please bring in the long form in orfer to not waste time & money because we need your entrire heritage information just as those wish to corroborate Obama’s claim of a Hawaiian birth.
Linda says:
January 17, 2010 at 11:22 pm
The COLB is NOT prima facie evidence of anything. It must be corroborated with further evidence aka the long form, commonly known to all reasonable people as the birth certificate.
Linda says:
January 17, 2010 at 12:12 pm
We are suggesting anything, we are stating a fact. The COLB has abosolutely no prima facie corrobrating/affidavit evidence such as a signature from an atttending physician, a mid-wife, a nurse and it also does not substantiate legally a ’specific’ birth location.
So you can refer to allegiance all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that if you are born in the US, you are a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of your parents. And saying that WKA did not declare Wong a NBC a million times does not make it true. It did. And for 100 years of jurisprudence they have upheld that belief. Again find a legal scholar or case that disputes that.
Moreoever, find a legal scholar on par with Lawrence Solum, Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson, or Elaine Brown, Terry Crone, and Melissa May, all of whom (and for those counting, that’s 2 distinguished Constitutional law professors, one former U.S. Solicitor General, and 3 state Court of Appeals judges) have said that Obama is a natural born citizen, and that natural born citizenship does *not* mandate U.S. citizenship on the part of one’s parents.
Linda says:
January 19, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Lynch(1844) was clarified when the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed.
“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.”
The 1866 Act was upheld with the 14th & the Expatriation Act of 1868, the Salughterhouse case, Minor & Elk(Grey writing the deciding opinion citing the 1866 Act)
U.S. v. Rhodes, written by Chief Justice Noah Haynes Swayne in 1866:”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 [**18] 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. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.”
The 14th amendment was defined further by “Rep. J.L.Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.”
The 1866 Act, which he 14th upheld defined allegiance as ‘NOT owing allegiance to any foreign power.
That is the law and it will be readdressed. We will not give up no matter how long it takes do if you think I am some dillusional person who thinks Obama will be impeached due to his dual nationality, then you haven’t been paying attention.
___________________________________________________________________
Again you cite all rulings before Wong. Also in WKA for your edification it states…
“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.”
Wong defines what allegiance is. Basically Justice Story explains that being born in a country is suffcient enough to owe allegiance to that country. Let me see if I can simplify this. 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. It’s really that simple. The 4-letter word that isn’t in there.
So we are left with one simple fact. That 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. And if you are born in the United States, you are a natural born citizen no matter if your parents are citizens, aliens, or illegal. Period. And you cant find a ruling after 1898 that says otherwise.
Linda says:
January 19, 2010 at 10:03 pm
earl said: Make up your mind what would satisfy you. Yesterday you wanted a long form birth certificate, today you want passports.
Show me when I said I want to see the long form? I said I support those that do. Is this simple concept too hard for you to understand?
BL,
All cases refer to allegiance & WKA did NOT declare WKA a natural born citizen, Grey declared WKA a citizen with equal rights as the natural born citizen.
Nice try, no cigar. Furthermore, you again mine quote from Lynch, but then Lynch was a lower court ruling and therefore not the final word for constitutional interpretation.
___________________________________________________________________
And show me where allegiance is defined. It is not. So you can refer to allegiance all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that if you are born in the US, you are a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of your parents. And saying that WKA did not declare Wong a NBC a million times does not make it true. It did. And for 100 years of jurisprudence they have upheld that belief. Again find a legal scholar or case that disputes that. For months that has been the question and there has been none that has disputed the Wong ruling. While I have shown you many cases that have cited Wong in determining natural born citizenship. So you are basically telling us that you know more than jurists and legal scholars in regards to what is the definition of a NBC. Interesting.
Either way lets us look again what Wong states…
“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.”
Again what does Justic Gray write? “All persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” Unless you are going to tell us that being born in the allegiance means something else than being born in the US, which we both know you can’t. So what does that leave us with. The fact that Gray did define what a NBC is. A person born in the US. And that includes Wong and it definately includes President Obama. Parse all you want but those are the facts.
And this poll seems to say it all.
JUST GIVE US TIME TO EDUCATE THE DUMBED DOWN & THE IGNORANT & THE TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122525
BREAKING NEWS AT WND:
The demand for documentation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is surging, with lawmakers in several states now working on legislation that could be used to require future presidential candidates to reveal precisely how they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born citizen.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122542
I guess the Constitution still matters and one way or another, Obama is going to have to cough up the goods before the primaries in 2012.
Lynch(1844) was clarified when the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed.
“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.”
The 1866 Act was upheld with the 14th & the Expatriation Act of 1868, the Salughterhouse case, Minor & Elk(Grey writing the deciding opinion citing the 1866 Act)
U.S. v. Rhodes, written by Chief Justice Noah Haynes Swayne in 1866:”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 [**18] 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. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.”
The 14th amendment was defined further by “Rep. J.L.Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.”
The 1866 Act, which he 14th upheld defined allegiance as ‘NOT owing allegiance to any foreign power.
That is the law and it will be readdressed. We will not give up no matter how long it takes do if you think I am some dillusional person who thinks Obama will be impeached due to his dual nationality, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Tonights win by consrvatives of a Senate seat occupied by the Dems for 60 years of which the Kenedy dynasty held for the last 47 is only the beginning. So pay attention and watch while we continue our fight and gain more ground to get our country back to its founding values & laws. Laws that are still the law today, even though progressives continue to usurp them.
quip from George Washington’s final address:
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…
So, call me what ever you want, I will not be discouraged to QUIT! I am a true American Patriot & NATURAL born citizen.
BL,
All cases refer to allegiance & WKA did NOT declare WKA a natural born citizen, Grey declared WKA a citizen with equal rights as the natural born citizen.
Nice try, no cigar. Furthermore, you again mine quote from Lynch, but then Lynch was a lower court ruling and therefore not the final word for constitutional interpretation.