"If Virtue and Knowledge are diffused among the People, they will never be enslav'd. This will be their great security."
-- Samuel Adams

The Question Remains: Who is Barack Obama?

Ahead of the State of the Union speech by America’s 44th President, questions continue to swirl concerning who Mr. Obama is and exactly for what he stands.

Prof. Jacobson at LegalInsurrection takes on this meme:

Obama may be everything good, or the promise Obama embodies may just be a figment of our own imagination.

Obama is the perfect vehicle for imagining hope, because he has almost no record. Obama is a blank canvas upon which we can paint our imagined hope. …

Barack Obama also reminds me of many lawyers I have dealt with in my career. He’s the smooth talking lawyer on TV who will get you “the settlement you deserve.” … He is a paper lawyer who fools only his own clients.

Bob Herbert of The New York Times produced an op-ed piece in which he questions “Obama’s Credibility Gap:”

Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park.

Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it. …

Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.

They want to know who their president really is.

No, Mr. President, the difference between 1994 and 2010 is not you — well, unless you don’t mind your 0-4 record of failures on the stump (e.g.: Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts and bringing the Olympic games to Chicago).

In fact, as TalkingPointsMemo points out, Indonesian officials are considering a petition — with 55,000 individuals in favor on Facebook — for a bronze statue in the country to be taken down after it had been erected just last month. Apparently even other countries have doubts as to the actual success of the President.

Post continues below
Advertise on this site

And, of course, questions about the President include those concerning eligibility, with recent news to report.

The Sacramento Bee has an albeit biased article discussing the fact that “Tea-party allies include Obama birth site skeptics.”

TPM also reports that former Arizona GOP Representative J.D. Hayworth — currently a challenger to Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary — continues to question the President’s eligibility (his first foray into the subject was via his radio show on KFYIactual MP3 archive):

Perhaps a good sneak-peek of the SOTU might be “Art in Idaho’s” rendition.

Late Update: HotAir.com has just run a story entitled, “Dem’s new midterm strategy: Make the election about … Birtherism.” Here’s an embedded video from the posting:

Yeah, that “birther” issue is really going to go away (sarcasm intended).

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Photo courtesy SpreadIt.org

If you liked this post, subscribe to my RSS feed!

803 Responses to “The Question Remains: Who is Barack Obama?

  • 1
    sharon2
    January 26th, 2010 23:10

    Wow, Phil, look at this:

    “Chief Justice John Roberts last week made it clear that the Supreme Court over which he presides will not hesitate to sweep away its own major constitutional rulings when doing so is necessary to defend America’s bedrock governing document.”

    http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/johnroberts-supremecourt-abortion-roev-wade/2010/01/24/id/347808

    Newsmax is applying this to the overturning of Roe, but could it mean a re-interpretation of cases to uphold the NBC Clause?

    This is big… no matter to what it refers. I need to read the concurring opinion.

  • 2
    sharon2
    January 26th, 2010 23:20

    Addendum to comment-

    I hope the view does apply to Roe foremost.

  • 3
    Benaiah
    January 26th, 2010 23:49

    Barack Hussein Obama: “You are absolutely right that John McCain has not…uh… talked about my Muslim faith [nor has he addressed the fact that neither of us are 'eligible to the office of President']…”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

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

    “ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen …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.”

  • 4
    misanthropicus
    January 27th, 2010 00:02

    Phil, I take the libetrty to complement you headline “The Question Remains: Who Is Barack Obama?” -

    This question actually unstoppably grows, and this from unexpected quarters – I just came upon this Los Angeles Times headline (PST, evening version), which unexpectedly tackles the matter, and albeit displaying some liberal irony, acknowledges that California is kind of… going conservative/ Republican and that Obama’s PAST is a serious situation, and this without the usual liberal, “Oh, those tin hats bitter types again!”
    And this in California, which is, as we know, is a solid, blue, Dem, and in some areas, hysterically liberal demography -

    I am really impressed (anyone who follows the link can also see the picture of Obama’s (putative) COLB – a pretty damning picture, I say) – which makes me think this article, while correcting describing said situation, is almost like a job coming from the veteran Hillariphiles inhabiting the LA Times building at Broadway @ 1st.) – Quite incredible for this liberal outfit LA Times this article is, and this JUST one day before the State of the Nation speech!

    “LA Times/Top of the Ticket -

    3 in 10 Californians identify with the Tea Party; a third still don’t believe Obama’s birth certificate

    The Tea Party anti-big government, anti-tax, anti-some-other-stuff folks are sinking their ideological roots into the Golden State rather quickly — and deeply.

    Hmm, and there’s a midterm election for every House seat, a third of the Senate and dozens of governors’ chairs this coming November.

    A new Field Poll out this afternoon finds that 28% of the state’s voters identify with that protest movement while nearly two-thirds already know about them. California support for these protesters is concentrated among Republicans and conservatives, whose energy, money, online muscle and motivation played significant roles in some recent elections, fed, according to other polls, by growing concerns about federal spending and record deficits.

    The Ticket described some internal Tea Party convention turmoil here this morning.

    Meanwhile, the same new Field Poll asked about the long-simmering controversy over Barack Obama’s birth and whether he is a real American-born citizen and, therefore, constitutionally allowed to be president.

    Courts have tossed the challenges but that hasn’t stopped the arguments, as you’ll no doubt soon see in the Comments below.

    Obama’s mother was an American, if you count Kansas as America. Which legally should end the issue wherever the birth took place, Kenya or not.

    However, Hawaii following state privacy guidelines has released only copies of a Certificate of Live Birth, not the real thing.

    And Obama has not waived his privacy rights, allowing the actual certificate to be released.So why hasn’t he, the so-called “birthers” ask.

    And suspicions remain that although the president’s announced birth year is 1961, maybe who knows it could be he was born there before Hawaii became a state in 1959. On the other hand, John McCain was born on a U.S. naval base in the Panama Canal Zone and it never was a state. But both his parents were Americans and Obama’s father was a Kenyan. And on and on.

    So, the Field Poll inquired and found that while two-thirds of Californians (67%) are satisfied that Obama was U.S.-born, fully one-third of the nation’s most populous state are not. In fact, 11% are certain that he’s a Constitution-violating foreigner and 22% are not sure. [...]

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/california-tea-party-obama-birth-certificate.html

    The numbers of the poll are impressive – and the fact that LA Times lets things go as such is even more impressive -

  • 5
    misanthropicus
    January 27th, 2010 00:08

    RE previous Misanthropicus/ LA Times -

    [...] California support for these protesters is concentrated among Republicans and conservatives, whose energy, money, ONLINE MUSCLE [misanthropicus' caps] and motivation played significant roles in some recent elections, fed, according to other polls, by growing concerns about federal spending and record deficits. [...]

    Ellie Light – hehehe, from Bakersfield, of all places! – can you hear that?

  • 6
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 01:12

    Barack Hussein ObaMao

  • 7
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 01:16

    Barack Hussein ObaMarxist

  • 8
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 01:22

    Barack Hussein ObamAlinsky

  • 9
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 01:25

    BaRadical Hussein Obama

  • 10
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 01:26

    Barack Hussein ObamApollo Alliance

  • 11
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 01:31

    Barack Hasan Obama

  • 12
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 01:54

    Barack Hussein ObamAppeaser
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7hc_CI3f1A

    “My administration is now committed to diplomacy [appeasement] that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran [Mullahs] , and the international community [57 Islamic States]. This process will not be advanced by threats [except to American infidels who oppose allah and my administration]. We seek engagement [submission to Islam] that is honest [deceptive] and grounded in mutual respect [deception]…”

  • 13
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 01:56

    Barack Husseinz 57 Obama

  • 14
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 02:17

    United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
    http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=897

    “…the framers …understood that for liberty to exist the populace needed to be educated enough to understand liberty and to be able to defend liberty. They also understood that liberty was not on automatic pilot, that liberty would not exist simply because it was once started, and that having won it it was very delicate and had to be protected…”

  • 15
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 02:21

    Preamble of the Constitution of the United States

    We the people of the United States, in order to…, establish …, insure…, provide for…, promote…, and secure…, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.

  • 16
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 02:37

    Barack Hussein ObaBigBrother
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

    “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

  • 17
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 03:02

    Barack Hussein Obama: Knock Knock

    We the People: Who’s there?

    Barack Hussein Obama: Barack Hussein Obama

    We the People: Barack Hussein Obama Who?

    Barack Hussein Obama: Uh… well uh…uh…uh…well uh…uh

  • 18
    Benaiah
    January 27th, 2010 03:07

    Barack HussHeinrich Obama
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&feature=related

    “We cannot continue to rely on [Nancy Pelosi] in order to achieve the [Marxist] objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the Gestapo].”

  • 19
    bystander
    January 27th, 2010 06:52

    Oh the joy – an entire thread of Ben’s cut and paste. I’ll give a cookie to anyone who bothers to read them.

  • 20
    jvn
    January 27th, 2010 08:07

    From the article that Sharon cited:

    “While Roberts conceded that “departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a ‘special justification,’” he quickly added that “At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’… nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ … especially in constitutional cases,” noting that “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”

    Instead, under the “stare decisis” judicial doctrine of respecting past rulings, “When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right.” The chief justice declared: “stare decisis is not an end in itself.”

    In that light, in view of the CJs determination and belief that ‘stare decisis’ can be ignored if an issue is important, what does that say about the fact that Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas DID NOT VOTE TO GRANT A BIRTHER CASE A HEARING?

    One can also speculate about why they haven’t taken up a case to overturn Roe, right?

    So we are to presume that Wong Kim Ark has been “decided right,” and that taking up Roe v. Wade lacks a “special justification” to be taken up again.

    Sharon, these quotes from the CJ (he was hand delivered Orly’s cases and briefs you know) actually give an indication that the SCOTUS knowingly and intentionally left the decisions dismissing the “two parents as citizens = NBC” issue stand BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT THOSE DECISIONS WERE DECIDED CORRECTLY.

    I know you didn’t mean it, but thanks for the support!

  • 21
    Black Lion
    January 27th, 2010 08:37

    bystander says:
    January 27, 2010 at 6:52 am
    Oh the joy – an entire thread of Ben’s cut and paste. I’ll give a cookie to anyone who bothers to read them.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Bystander, he reminds me of our old buddy Geir Smith…So when I see his cut and paste nonsense of older SCOTUS cases, his citing of teh horrible Dred Scott decision, his parse of Minor where he cuts out the most relevant line, and his attack on Wong, I just chuckle and move past it. It is obvious it is not about a legitimate debate, just repeating the same nonsense over and over again. As much as I am sure your baking skills are excellent, I would need more than a cookie to read his nonsense…Probably a few shots of some Wild Turkey and a blindfold…

  • 22
    Black Lion
    January 27th, 2010 08:47

    Here is an interesting article I am sure you won’t see on FOX, Brietbarts so called Big Goverment website, or any of the other prepetual hate Obama sites….

    ACORN ‘gotcha’ man arrested in attempt to tamper with Mary Landrieu’s office phones-

    “Alleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O’Keefe, 25, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group’s credibility.

    Also arrested were Joseph Basel, Stan Dai and Robert Flanagan, all 24. Flanagan is the son of William Flanagan, who is the acting U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana. All four men were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.

    An official close to the investigation said one of the four was arrested with a listening device in a car blocks from the senator’s offices. He spoke on condition of anonymity because that information was not included in official arresting documents.

    ACORN spokesman Kevin Whelan said the arrest calls O’Keefe’s credibility into question, and used the opportunity to point out that he “edited (ACORN videos) to make things look as bad as possible.” He said, for instance, that O’Keefe actually wore a normal dress shirt when he was in the ACORN offices, but spliced in shots of him dressed as a pimp in the final videos.”

    http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_gotcha_man_arrested_for.html

    I wonder why the silence by the right all of a sudden about Mr. O’Keefe? I wonder if anyone thinks that he will be back on Hannity and the other FOX shows? I think the odds are good because the opposition to President Obama is not shy on who they are associated with as long as they can attack and discredit the President, as evidenced with O’Keefe’s so called attack on the ACORN organazation. Either way tt looks like Mr. O’Keefe is in a lot of trouble. I’m just curious if his buddies like Hannity or the other FOX actors and Brietbart will help him out of his current situation…

  • 23
    sharon2
    January 27th, 2010 09:02

    In that light, in view of the CJs determination and belief that ’stare decisis’ can be ignored if an issue is important, what does that say about the fact that Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas DID NOT VOTE TO GRANT A BIRTHER CASE A HEARING?

    -You have no idea how many votes there were. None. You also don’t know why they didn’t take the case. Wrong plaintiffs? Non-specific harm?
    You still think it is all about Obama. This issue is not going away, even after Obama is out of office.

    You need to read the whole concurring opinion and realize that this Roberts’ Court is not going to always follow past decisions merely to follow them. I like that, not just for Roe or eligibility.

    “One can also speculate about why they haven’t taken up a case to overturn Roe, right?”

    I don’t know what cases are on appeal concerning Roe. Do you?

    The Supreme Court just made a controversial ruling based in part on the idea that the Court can correct itself and should. Of course, it always had that power, but it looks like it will actually do it more than rarely. You can spin it your way if you like.

  • 24
    theOriginalist
    January 27th, 2010 09:09

    Black Lion says:
    January 27, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Here is an interesting article I am sure you won’t see on FOX, Brietbarts so called Big Goverment website, or any of the other prepetual hate Obama sites….

    —–

    Actually, they were all over it like white on rice.

    =========

    Updated January 26, 2010
    Filmmaker Who Targeted ACORN Arrested in Alleged Senate Phone Scheme

    FOXNews.com

    The independent filmmaker who brought ACORN to its knees last year with an undercover expose was arrested this week along with three others, including the son of a federal prosecutor, and accused of trying to interfere with the phones at Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/26/acorn-antagonist-arrested-senate-phone-scheme/?test=latestnews
    =======

    James O’Keefe Arrested in New Orleans
    by Publius

    A conservative activist who posed as a pimp to target the community-organizing group ACORN and the son of a federal prosecutor were among four people arrested by the FBI and accused of trying to interfere with phones at Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office.

    http://biggovernment.com/
    =======

    Ugh: ACORN-buster busted at Sen. Landrieu’s office in alleged bugging plot; affidavit link added; Update: “Veritas”?
    By Michelle Malkin • January 26, 2010 04:23 PM

    The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that James O’Keefe, half of the ACORN-busting duo that conducted undercover stings across the country last summer, was arrested today in an alleged wiretapping plot at the New Orleans office of Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu. O’Keefe and three other young men were arrested by the FBI. One of the men is the son of the acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/26/ugh-acorn-buster-busted-at-sen-landrieus-office-in-alleged-bugging-plot/

  • 25
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 09:18

    jvn says:
    January 27, 2010 at 8:07 am

    From the article that Sharon cited:

    “At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’… nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ … especially in constitutional cases,” noting that “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”

    Instead, under the “stare decisis” judicial doctrine of respecting past rulings, “When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right.” The chief justice declared: “stare decisis is not an end in itself.

    In that light, in view of the CJs determination and belief that ’stare decisis’ can be ignored if an issue is important, what does that say about the fact that Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas DID NOT VOTE TO GRANT A BIRTHER CASE A HEARING?

    For such a prolific poster your grasp of the process that has kept “Birther/Eligibility/NBC” cases from being heard seems to elude you.

    NONE have been heard! NONE have been Litigated or TRIED in open Court. NO discoveries have been made or witnesses’ examined. NO case has thus far survived beyond Preliminary Motions.

    The issues of Jurisdiction and/or Standing in the Face of the Political Question have caused the Courts to remain at arms length in all instances of the cases so far presented.

    Proper respect for the Rule of Law requires one to accept the fact that the ‘dismissals’ were proper given the elements presented in the venues in which they were presented.

    What is improper is to attempt to imply that the cases were decided on the ‘questions’ presented when the ‘Plaintiff’s’ have as yet presented to an open court with discovery, witness’ and evidence entered.

    These deficiencies are destined to be rectified and an Open Court hearing of the ‘meaning, intent, nature and definition’ of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of Natural Born Citizen will be decided in due course and ‘with respect for the Rule of Law’.

  • 26
    jvn
    January 27th, 2010 09:24

    Answer the question Sharon, don’t you think that – in light of the CJs willingness to abandon ‘stare decisis’ for certain ‘important issues’ – the fact that the SCOTUS DID NOT TAKE UP THE BIRTHER CASES is instructive as to what the SCOTUS feels about those issues?

    I want to hear your take.

    As far as “spinning,” everything your side of this issue does is spinning. The FACT is that the President IS President. No member of Congress, not even Representative Deal, believes that he isn’t constitutionally eligible. That is also a FACT.

    When “spin” is all you’ve got, it makes it hard to accuse others of “spinning,” don’t you think?

    And, I would point out, the CJ willingly participated in swearing the President in (twice) and Scalia and Thomas (as well as five other members of the Court) were in attendance at the inaugural, not exactly the way one would expect them to behave if they felt that the President was an ‘ineligible usurper,’ ya think?

    So tell us Sharon, what conclusion do YOU draw from the fact that this SCOTUS stands ready to overturn things to “defend the Constitution,” but yet has left the President you feel is ineligible to serve in office undisturbed?

  • 27
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 09:27

    Black Lion says:
    January 27, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Here is an interesting article I am sure you won’t see on FOX, Brietbarts so called Big Goverment website, or any of the other prepetual hate Obama sites…

    Your glee may be premature. O’keefe is a very bright young man and NOW, if prosecuted, will have the opportunity of ‘discovery’.

    “Veritas”

  • 28
    Black Lion
    January 27th, 2010 09:27

    theOriginalist says:
    January 27, 2010 at 9:09 am
    Black Lion says:
    January 27, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Here is an interesting article I am sure you won’t see on FOX, Brietbarts so called Big Goverment website, or any of the other prepetual hate Obama sites….

    —–

    Actually, they were all over it like white on rice.

    ____________________________________________________________________
    Originalist, I stand corrected. I did not see it yesterday when I looked. However did you read Breitbarts column today?

    http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/26/wait-until-the-facts-are-in/#more-65666

    It was a very sympathetic article. Which is not surprising considering how much he has invested in them. He all of a sudden wishes to reserve judgement until all of the facts are it. However when it was ACORN, there was a rush to judgement regarding the multitude of so called crimes they were committing. I agree with him on one thing. We need to wait until all of the facts are in. Just like with the so called edited ACORN tapes. But either way I am interested to see his excuse for being in the Senator’s office and in particular the telephone closet. That should be interesting.

  • 29
    jvn
    January 27th, 2010 09:32

    As always Steve, you birthers ignore the long history of the SCOTUS “taking up” issues that they felt were important without regard to the administrative niceties and correct format of the underlying case.

    Go all the way back to Marbury v. Madison. Many still debate whether the SCOTUS should have adjudicated THAT dispute (and given themselves all that extra-constitutional power).

    If they felt that the issue had any merit at all, they could have granted it a hearing and asked the kind of pointed questions that would have given guidance to everyone about their views on the President’s eligibility, and even written about the issue in their opinions.

    They could have but they didn’t because the birther issues have no merit.

  • 30
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 09:51

    jvn says:
    January 27, 2010 at 9:32 am
    As always Steve, you birthers ignore the long history of the SCOTUS “taking up” issues that they felt were important without regard to the administrative niceties and correct format of the underlying case.

    Go all the way back to Marbury v. Madison. Many still debate whether the SCOTUS should have adjudicated THAT dispute (and given themselves all that extra-constitutional power).

    If they felt that the issue had any merit at all, they could have granted it a hearing and asked the kind of pointed questions that would have given guidance to everyone about their views on the President’s eligibility, and even written about the issue in their opinions.

    They could have but they didn’t because the birther issues have no merit.

    I guess once a koolaid drinker always a koolaid drinker.

    I have already pointed out that the cases have been presented in the wrong ‘venues’ for the ‘questions’ being asked to be decided.

    THE SCOTUS, and/or any USDC Court, does NOT have Jurisdiction, Original or other wise, to hear a case of ‘eligibility’ of a Politically Elected Person, except on Appeal of some point of Law germane to the cause of Appeal.

    They do not possess the Mandate to provide relief in such an instance.

    Leo Donofrio has made that issue clear and is entirely correct.

    It has taken some time for we ‘Birthers’ to get up to speed on the subtleties and nuances of this issue, but as I have previously said, in Military terms, it has been bracketed.

  • 31
    jvn
    January 27th, 2010 09:58

    I will give you this, Steve, you got this part somewhat correct.

    The federal courts DON’T have a constitutional role in Presidential eligibility.

    The Electoral College and the Congress – both of whom DO have the constitutional role to ensure Presidential eligibility have already done so. (Guess what? The President IS eligible…)

    There will not be a court ruling on this issue, it’s not for the courts to decide.

  • 32
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 10:04

    jvn says:
    January 27, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Go all the way back to Marbury v. Madison. Many still debate whether the SCOTUS should have adjudicated THAT dispute (and given themselves all that extra-constitutional power).

    P.S.

    BTW it is exactly the controversy of that case that prompted the Congress to ‘delegate’ the Quo Warranto Authority to the USDC DC.

    Thanks for reminding me of that, since several of the points of Marbury v Madison are helpful in defeating much of the inadmissible entries expected in my eventual presentments.

  • 33
    Black Lion
    January 27th, 2010 10:21

    slcraig says:
    January 27, 2010 at 9:27 am
    Black Lion says:
    January 27, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Here is an interesting article I am sure you won’t see on FOX, Brietbarts so called Big Goverment website, or any of the other prepetual hate Obama sites…

    Your glee may be premature. O’keefe is a very bright young man and NOW, if prosecuted, will have the opportunity of ‘discovery’.

    “Veritas”
    ___________________________________________________________________
    There is no glee on my part. Why should there be? He submitted obviously edited tapes to make a organization look bad. In some cases it was warranted but overall it was a campaign to discredit and dismantle a community organization. Either way that is separate than whatever he was trying to do at the Senator’s office.

    By the way what sort of discovery would he be granted? This case has nothing to do with the President. So please enlighten us…

  • 34
    sharon2
    January 27th, 2010 10:30

    So tell us Sharon, what conclusion do YOU draw from the fact that this SCOTUS stands ready to overturn things to “defend the Constitution,” but yet has left the President you feel is ineligible to serve in office undisturbed?

    _ I don’t know if he is ineligible regarding birthplace. As to citizenship, IMO the issue is unsettled (just as it is to Turley, just as it appears to be in immigration cases where the definition of citizenship is at issue). The fact that a case was not taken leaves us all in the dark as to why. Justice Alito (who signed on to Roberts opinion that we have been discussing) was NOT present when Obama and Biden made their customary visit to the Supreme Court. No explanation was provided. Now, do you want to speculate on that? Would it be fair to say that he thinks the President is ineligible? No, it wouldn’t be because we don’t know why he wasn’t there because he chose not tell anyone.

    I am really quite busy now and will have to make further points at another time.

  • 35
    jvn
    January 27th, 2010 10:31

    Quite right, BL!

    This guy would be granted “discovery” on evidence obtained by the prosecution against him, period.

    He wouldn’t even be able to request the prosecutor’s birth certificate or college transcripts – ;)

    As usual, Steve is just latching on to something, anything, that sounds like a “victory” for his “side,” and the magic word “discovery” is something all birthers regard as a deity unto itself.

    They don’t care what the case is, if they get “discovery” they can claim “victory…”

  • 36
    jvn
    January 27th, 2010 10:52

    I know you are busy and will respond later but, just as a reminder Sharon, the question I am asking you is what inference you draw from the fact that the CJ and the SCOTUS stand ready to abandon ‘stare decicis’ when an issue is important enough, and yet they DID NOT take up the claims about the President’s eligibility?

    We know that you take heart in what Turley has written, and we even know what you believe on the issue.

    I am asking for your impressions given the activist Court’s inaction…

  • 37
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 11:11

    Black Lion says:
    January 27, 2010 at 10:21 am
    slcraig says:
    January 27, 2010 at 9:27 am
    Black Lion says:
    January 27, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Here is an interesting article I am sure you won’t see on FOX, Brietbarts so called Big Goverment website, or any of the other prepetual hate Obama sites…

    Your glee may be premature. O’keefe is a very bright young man and NOW, if prosecuted, will have the opportunity of ‘discovery’.

    “Veritas”
    ___________________________________________________________________
    There is no glee on my part. Why should there be? He submitted obviously edited tapes to make a organization look bad. In some cases it was warranted but overall it was a campaign to discredit and dismantle a community organization. Either way that is separate than whatever he was trying to do at the Senator’s office.

    By the way what sort of discovery would he be granted? This case has nothing to do with the President. So please enlighten us…

    ______________________________________________________________

    What?

    Oh, you’ve got a one track mind…..O’Keefe has NOTHING to do with the ‘eligibility’ issue.

    ‘Discovery’?

    Well, just off the top of my head I would conclude that his incursion into LandieGal’s office had something to do with the ‘phones’ and, by ‘extension’, the calls and/or call records of those phones.

    You are aware that there are Laws on the books that makes it the ‘duty and obligation’ of any and every citizen to expose ‘crimes and offenses’ against the US and/or its Laws?

    Of course that and other thoughts on the incident is puuuuuure speculation on my part and only supported my my instinct that the young man is NOT a complete idiot, colorful and out of the box(?), certainly.

    We’ll see.

  • 38
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 11:25

    jvn says:
    January 27, 2010 at 10:52 am
    I know you are busy and will respond later but, just as a reminder Sharon, the question I am asking you is what inference you draw from the fact that the CJ and the SCOTUS stand ready to abandon ’stare decicis’ when an issue is important enough, and yet they DID NOT take up the claims about the President’s eligibility?

    We know that you take heart in what Turley has written, and we even know what you believe on the issue.

    I am asking for your impressions given the activist Court’s inaction…

    Asked and answered below, if you would care to acknowledge the same lessons we ‘Birthers’ have learned.

    SCOTUS does not have ‘original jurisdiction’ and there has been no case containing the sufficient elements submitted for Petition on Appeal on the ‘Citizenship’ question and USDC DC is the ONLY venue that has ‘original jurisdiction’ on the ‘eligibility’ question.

    You Guy’s need to catch up and realize your old arguments and Alinsky tactics of denigration, misdirection and out right obfuscation’s are no longer the distracting force they once were.

  • 39
    bystander
    January 27th, 2010 12:06

    Good call BL – I’m crap at baking, but I compensate by making the best gumbo south of Watford Gap:)

  • 40
    Black Lion
    January 27th, 2010 12:25

    bystander says:
    January 27, 2010 at 12:06 pm
    Good call BL – I’m crap at baking, but I compensate by making the best gumbo south of Watford Gap:)
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Sounds tasty…I love the food in New Orleans…Whenever I visit I make sure to have some gumbo and jumbalaya….Good stuff….

  • 41
    Black Lion
    January 27th, 2010 12:31

    slcraig says:
    January 27, 2010 at 11:11 am

    What?

    Oh, you’ve got a one track mind…..O’Keefe has NOTHING to do with the ‘eligibility’ issue.

    ‘Discovery’?

    Well, just off the top of my head I would conclude that his incursion into LandieGal’s office had something to do with the ‘phones’ and, by ‘extension’, the calls and/or call records of those phones.

    You are aware that there are Laws on the books that makes it the ‘duty and obligation’ of any and every citizen to expose ‘crimes and offenses’ against the US and/or its Laws?

    Of course that and other thoughts on the incident is puuuuuure speculation on my part and only supported my my instinct that the young man is NOT a complete idiot, colorful and out of the box(?), certainly.

    We’ll see.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    OK Steve, I was just wondering. However from a legal standpoint it would depend on his charges whether or not he would be able to subpoena the records of the Senator. I doubt any judge would allow him to have such a fishing expedition since the records don’t seem to be germane to the forseeable charges. For instance if the charges are criminal tresspass and attempted wiretapping, I don’t see how the Senators actual records would concern the court. Even if his defense would be she was committing some sort of crime over the telephone, that is why I committed my crime, to stop hers. He may be a smart guy but he was pretty dumb to get caught. However we will see what happens…

  • 42
    MGB
    January 27th, 2010 12:57

    misanthropicus, when even avowedly pro-Obama NY Times columnist Bob Herbert worries that the people “want to know who their president really is,” then you know somebody’s in trouble. No wonder he’s contemplating one term. On the other hand, perhaps it’s because of the proposed eligibility vetting laws.

  • 43
    MGB
    January 27th, 2010 13:10

    Black Lion: You know, if you would read Big Government blog or watch FOX or listen to Glenn Beck and other talk show hosts, you would not make such false assumptions. The James O’Keefe arrest was covered and is being covered by them. To paraphrase a great American, “Can you please just stop making things up?”

    Your assumptions reveal bias. Please rely on evidence instead of knee-jerk stereotypes.

    For your information, Beck, among others, stated that what O’Keefe allegedly did was stupid, if not later proved to be criminal, because most certainly we ALL must respect the office that Landrieu occupies. (Political as well as physical.)

  • 44
    MGB
    January 27th, 2010 13:12

    jvn said, “No member of Congress, not even Representative Deal, believes that he isn’t constitutionally eligible.”

    So now you’re a mind reader? Or did you take a poll? If so, I’d love to see your data.

  • 45
    jvn
    January 27th, 2010 14:38

    MGB -

    They voted on it – there were no objections.

  • 46
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 14:49

    MGB says:
    January 27, 2010 at 12:57 pm
    ________________________________________________________
    OK Steve, I was just wondering. However from a legal standpoint it would depend on his charges whether or not he would be able to subpoena the records of the Senator. I doubt any judge would allow him to have such a fishing expedition since the records don’t seem to be germane to the forseeable charges. For instance if the charges are criminal tresspass and attempted wiretapping, I don’t see how the Senators actual records would concern the court. Even if his defense would be she was committing some sort of crime over the telephone, that is why I committed my crime, to stop hers. He may be a smart guy but he was pretty dumb to get caught. However we will see what happens…

    Well, only puuuure speculation based on the ‘assumption’ that this young man and his friends are not ‘total idiots’;

    …it would seem that this ‘protest arrest’ would be to serve a larger purpose, that ‘perhaps’ being a ‘criminal defendant’ puts him/them into a position to achieve their ends.

    I would have to give them the benefit of doubt that they had a ‘specific’ goal they wished to accomplish with the apparent preparations they made before entry. At the same time it seems that they may have put on an Inspector Cluso (sic)act while in there leading me to believe they ‘anticipated’ the encounter with Fed Marshals.

    Puuure speculation, but as ‘criminal defendants’ they are entitled to a ‘vigorous’ defense and it will be interesting to learn what THAT IS.

  • 47
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 14:59

    jvn says:
    January 27, 2010 at 2:38 pm
    MGB -

    They voted on it – there were no objections.

    They Voted, the Votes were counting but ‘OBJECTIONS’ were NOT called for.

    Point of Order, be aware that even if NO ONE planned on Objecting, the FACT that Cheney did not CALL for Objections makes that Constitutionally Mandated process FLAWED and subject to Voiding.

    Point Two, if the President Elect and later President was/is found to be not eligible and removed from office by Writ of Execution from the Order of Judgement of a Quo Warranto Action the probable process by Congress will be to VOID the Election altogether in so far as the ineligible person is concerned.

  • 48
    TREVOR MERCHANT
    January 27th, 2010 15:01

    THERE ARE SOM MANY MISERIES ABOUT THIS MAN TO WHOM I HAVE ANOINTED RELUCTANLY AFTER THE NOW DEFUNCT MAIN STREAM MEDIA OF THE FOURTH ESTATE HAVE FROM THE START DONE SO. WITH THREE CATEGORIES WHICH ARE THE GODHEAD THE MESSIAH AND THE MESSIANIC . .FOR ME TREVOR MERCHANT I HAVE ADDED TO THOSE THREE SUCH AS THE ARROGANT SELFRIGHTEOUS DICTATORIAL ELITE SOCALLED INTELLECTUAL OF INTELLIGENSIA CLUB BARRACK OBAMA . UNLIKE THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA OF THE FOURTH EATATE WHOM HAVE CHEERFULLY WITH UTTER PRAISE AWARDED BARACK OBAMA . I ALTERNATIVELYB HAVE DONE SO THE VERY SERIOUS CRITICAL AND DANGEROUS ERA THIS WE ARE NOW GOING THROUGH AND EVEN WORSE AFTER BARACK OBAMA IS LONG GONE WITH THE SEVERE DAMAGE HARM AND DESTRUCTTION THAT HE HAS CAUSED CURRENTY AND WORSE DURING HIS RECEEDING FROM THIS OFFICE . I HAVE WRITTEN AND OR DOCUMENTED VOLLUMINIOUS AND OR EXPANSSIVE DOCTRINES AND ARGURENMENTS AS TO BARACK OBAMA?S NON ACHIEVEMENTS SEEPERATE FORM HE BEING ONE MORE ATTORNEY AT ALAW . MY MOST RECENT DRAFT WAS DONE ON FRIDAY JANUARY 22.2010 AS A COMMENT PERSUANT TO MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN?S OF THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS ARTICLE IN THE U.S WORLD REPORTS AS TO WHO HIS BARACK OBAMA GENERAL SIMILAR TO THIS CURRENT ARTICLEC . IN FUTURE DRAFTS I WILL BROADEN AND EXPAND . I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS SACRED AND EXCELLENT QUOTATION OF WHICH I TREVOR MERCHANT EMBRACE AS MY HOLY GRAIL KNOWLEDGE IS POWER AND THE SHARING OF KNOWLEDGE TRUTHFULLY IS EMPOWERMENT TO QUOTE .UNQUOTE . BARACK OBAMA AND HIS LEGIONS OF CHEERLEADERS AND AIDERS SUCH AS THE NEW YORK TIMES NBC UNIVERSAL SPECIFICALLY MSNBC IN NO WAY SETFORTH THE SHARING OF KNOWLEDGE TRUTHFULLY . TREVOR MERCHANT BRONX NEW YORK CITY . WEDNESDAY JANUARY 27 .2010

  • 49
    jvn
    January 27th, 2010 15:28

    Steve,

    Objections to the Electoral Vote are required to be in writing and submitted in advance of the joint session, with one Senator and one Member of the House concurring on the objection.

    Because none were submitted, Cheney (by unanimous consent) omitted asking for the objections.

    If anyone objected to THAT, they could have raised it at the time and/or not voted to approve the count and close the joint session.

    Congress won’t be voiding anything…

  • 50
    MGB
    January 27th, 2010 15:46

    jvn: No objections were asked for.

    Although none was put forward, anyway, that doesn’t mean that they all “believe” that he’s eligible.

    There could be any number of reasons why nobody objected, even as some might have truly believed that he is ineligible.

  • 51
    MGB
    January 27th, 2010 15:52

    slcraig: I didn’t say what you said I said. You’re mixing me up with someone else. We’re probably on the same page on the O’Keefe issue. He may be a dope but he’s also someone who professes to employ Alinsky techniques against Alinsky-ites, so who knows what he has up his sleeve? A good lawyer, for his sake.

  • 52
    MGB
    January 27th, 2010 15:53

    Trevor Merchant: A humble request, please: If you comment again, please refrain from all caps. Please. It’s too hard to read what you write and so you fail to get your point across. Whatever it is.

  • 53
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 16:45

    jvn says:
    January 27, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    Steve,

    Objections to the Electoral Vote are required to be in writing and submitted in advance of the joint session, with one Senator and one Member of the House concurring on the objection.

    Because none were submitted, Cheney (by unanimous consent) omitted asking for the objections.

    If anyone objected to THAT, they could have raised it at the time and/or not voted to approve the count and close the joint session.

    Congress won’t be voiding anything…


    Well, I’ll review the archive video of the procedure and laws promulgated governing the procedure tomorrow as I watch the snow fall, but as I remember it, there is specific language that the Chair Chaney occupied was required, as in ‘shall’, call out to the open chamber for objections. I am aware of the rule requiring two Senators to join in the objection, but the fact that none were prepared in writing MAY not satisfy the requirements.

    Probably not enough damage to do much more than a slap on the wrist at this point, however, Orley was handed the issue on a silver platter as an opportunity for limited discovery and dropped the ball.

    Oh well.

  • 54
    Sue
    January 27th, 2010 16:56

    Game Change: Corporations Gearing Up To Exploit New Money-In-Politics Rules
    Zachary Roth | January 25, 2010, 7:55PM
    “In the wake of Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on money in politics, corporations looking to affect the process already are strategizing with lawyers, consultants, and PR pros on how to capitalize on the changed landscape.

    “There clearly are clients who are asking questions about what it means for them,” Larry Noble, a former general counsel for the FEC who’s now a lawyer at Skadden Arps, told TPMmuckraker. “They’re asking: ‘what is it that I wasn’t allowed to do before that I can now do?’”

    In a nutshell, of course, last week’s ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts from their general treasuries on independent expenditure campaigns that explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. Indeed, Noble said that many of the clients looking to take advantage of the ruling are those who had previously run issue-based political ads, as the law had allowed. Now, though, they’re exploring the idea of running ads that directly tell voters to elect, or defeat, a candidate. “They’re starting to incorporate this into what they’re doing,” he said.”

    more here: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c … hp?ref=fpb

  • 55
    brygenon
    January 27th, 2010 17:41

    sharon2 wrote:

    I don’t know if he is ineligible regarding birthplace. As to citizenship, IMO the issue is unsettled (just as it is to Turley,

    Sharon2, the piece you cited by Turley was from 04 Dec 2008, before the Electoral College had voted, before the joint session of Congress certified the election, and before Barack Obama became the 44′th President of the United States. Where is your evidence that Turley still thinks the issue is unsettled?

    The first time you made the claim may have been a mistake. Now that you know your reference to be out of date, to keep asserting it is something else.

  • 56
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 18:15

    brygenon says:
    January 27, 2010 at 5:41 pm
    sharon2 wrote:

    I don’t know if he is ineligible regarding birthplace. As to citizenship, IMO the issue is unsettled (just as it is to Turley,

    Sharon2, the piece you cited by Turley was from 04 Dec 2008, before the Electoral College had voted, before the joint session of Congress certified the election, and before Barack Obama became the 44′th President of the United States. Where is your evidence that Turley still thinks the issue is unsettled?

    The first time you made the claim may have been a mistake. Now that you know your reference to be out of date, to keep asserting it is something else.


    Was the ’0s’ father a Alien Foreign National at the time of the little ’0s’ birth? Has that story, uh, urr, ahh, fact changed in the last 12, 18, 24, 48 months?

    Do you agree that the Framers of the Constitution were familiar with the fact that there were ‘native born’ persons who were not ‘citizens’ of the various colony/states? I mean aside from the American Indians, those enslaved and indentured servants?

    Have you found the words in the 14th Amendment that Amends A2S1C5 yet?

    Do have know of any reason that the ‘precedent’ found in Marbury v Madison that expresses the rule that no Article, Section or Clause of the Constitution can be said to be without effect and any submission that argues any to be without effect is inadmissible should be over ruled?

  • 57
    brygenon
    January 27th, 2010 18:21

    jvn says:

    Objections to the Electoral Vote are required to be in writing and submitted in advance of the joint session, with one Senator and one Member of the House concurring on the objection.

    Because none were submitted, Cheney (by unanimous consent) omitted asking for the objections.

    Furthermore, the relevant bit of law on calling for objections states:

    “Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.” — 3 U.S.C. § 15

    Note those last two words: “if any”. As JVN points out, objections are submitted in advance of the formal reading. The law does not require calling for non-existent objections.

  • 58
    Sue
    January 27th, 2010 18:31

    Sharon2,

    “As to citizenship, IMO the issue is unsettled (just as it is to Turley,”

    In my opinion, if I understand you correctly; although you are not clear, you misunderstand and misinterpret Professor Turley’s article. However, IANAL, so this is my opinion as a layperson.

  • 59
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 18:37

    brygenon says:
    January 27, 2010 at 6:21 pm
    jvn says:

    Objections to the Electoral Vote are required to be in writing and submitted in advance of the joint session, with one Senator and one Member of the House concurring on the objection.

    Because none were submitted, Cheney (by unanimous consent) omitted asking for the objections.

    Furthermore, the relevant bit of law on calling for objections states:

    “Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.” — 3 U.S.C. § 15

    Note those last two words: “if any”. As JVN points out, objections are submitted in advance of the formal reading. The law does not require calling for non-existent objections.


    Well, the ACTUAL wording can be construed a bit differently than you would have, given the order in which the requirements are written.

    “…Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

    Please note the sequence, call for objections, if any.

    Then, they shall be made in writing, etc.

    But I will concede that this particular minutia of the 2008 Electoral College counting procedure is minor compared to the larger failures of the system in that election.

  • 60
    brygenon
    January 27th, 2010 18:46

    Losing plaintiff slcraig says:

    brygenon says:

    sharon2 wrote:

    I don’t know if he is ineligible regarding birthplace. As to citizenship, IMO the issue is unsettled (just as it is to Turley,

    Sharon2, the piece you cited by Turley was from 04 Dec 2008, before the Electoral College had voted, before the joint session of Congress certified the election, and before Barack Obama became the 44′th President of the United States. Where is your evidence that Turley still thinks the issue is unsettled?

    The first time you made the claim may have been a mistake. Now that you know your reference to be out of date, to keep asserting it is something else.

    Was the ‘0s’ father a Alien Foreign National at the time of the little ‘0s’ birth? Has that story, uh, urr, ahh, fact changed in the last 12, 18, 24, 48 months?

    Mr. Craig, I did not ask whether it is *your* position that the issue is unsettled. I asked Sharon2 to justify what she actually did claim: that *Turley* thinks the issue is unsettled.

    Have you found the words in the 14th Amendment that Amends A2S1C5 yet?

    Mr. Craig, it is not *my* task to justify what *you* make up.

    Under the 14′th Amendment, Barack H. Obama II is a natural-born citizen of the United States. The Article II Section 1 requirements are fulfilled, not amended.

    “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

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” — Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, former Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, October 5, 2004

    “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.” — Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny v. Daniels

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‘i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i”. — http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

  • 61
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 19:01

    brygenon says:
    January 27, 2010 at 6:46 pm
    Losing plaintiff slcraig says:

    brygenon says:

    sharon2 wrote:

    I don’t know if he is ineligible regarding birthplace. As to citizenship, IMO the issue is unsettled (just as it is to Turley,

    Sharon2, the piece you cited by Turley was from 04 Dec 2008, before the Electoral College had voted, before the joint session of Congress certified the election, and before Barack Obama became the 44′th President of the United States. Where is your evidence that Turley still thinks the issue is unsettled?

    The first time you made the claim may have been a mistake. Now that you know your reference to be out of date, to keep asserting it is something else.

    Was the ‘0s’ father a Alien Foreign National at the time of the little ‘0s’ birth? Has that story, uh, urr, ahh, fact changed in the last 12, 18, 24, 48 months?

    [*1]Mr. Craig, I did not ask whether it is *your* position that the issue is unsettled. I asked Sharon2 to justify what she actually did claim: that *Turley* thinks the issue is unsettled.

    Have you found the words in the 14th Amendment that Amends A2S1C5 yet?

    [*2]Mr. Craig, it is not *my* task to justify what *you* make up.

    Under the 14′th Amendment, Barack H. Obama II is a natural-born citizen of the United States. The Article II Section 1 requirements are fulfilled, not amended.

    “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

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” — Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, former Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, October 5, 2004

    “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.” — Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny v. Daniels

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‘i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i”. — http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    [*1] I was just pointing out that he thought so then and the circumstances of the ’0s’ birth has not changed.

    But who knows, he may have had a sip of kool aid since then…..

    [*2]
    All of which would be inadmissible under Marbury v Madison.

    The words that say so or require IT is NOT in the 14th. If you READ the Judgement of WKA it states that the little Ark is a ‘citizen’, in spite of the blustery rhetoric of the Judg0 Gray.

    Sorry, you’ll have to come up with something better than the OPINIONS when you are wanting to PROVE a Fundamental Change in the Constitution without a SPECIFIC Amendment with words that say so or require it.

  • 62
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 19:22

    Just to be clear, the POINT many of you are missing is that NOT EVEN the Constitution MADE a single person a natural born citizen, so how can an Amendment do so without SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.

    The Founding Fathers became Founding Citizens ONLY because they were ALREADY citizens of the various Colonies/States. Those that were not ALREADY Citizens had to rely the the, now, States Naturalization Laws.

    Up until the 14th the various States retained the right to accept or reject a person for Citizenship. But that person could travel to another State, follow the process and try again.

    But forget the history lesson, just re-read the 1st paragraph and at least you will know where I am with this whole mess.

  • 63
    Black Lion
    January 27th, 2010 19:34

    MGB says:
    January 27, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    slcraig: I didn’t say what you said I said. You’re mixing me up with someone else. We’re probably on the same page on the O’Keefe issue. He may be a dope but he’s also someone who professes to employ Alinsky techniques against Alinsky-ites, so who knows what he has up his sleeve? A good lawyer, for his sake.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    I think he needs one…Because he and his friends are facing a serious charge…

    “All four were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.”

    However I wonder if the opinion of O’Keefe will change…

    “O’Keefe had become a conservative media star since the ACORN sting.” Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) even introduced a resolution praising O’Keefe and his partner, would-be prostitute Hannah Giles, for “their diligent investigative journalism.” In a statement announcing the resolution, Olson said, “Hannah and James should be applauded for their efforts to root out corruption and abuse of federal tax dollars.” He also claimed O’Keefe was “setting an example for concerned citizens across America.”

    http://washingtonindependent.com/74832/acorn-investigator-james-okeefe-arrested

    And I wonder if that so called House resolution is still valid…Especially since it was signed by 31 Republicans in the house…

    “Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III have displayed exemplary actions as government watchdogs and young journalists uncovering wasteful government spending; and Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III are owed a debt of gratitude by the people of the United States”

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr111-809

    “Conservative new media figure Andrew Breitbart revealed last night on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show that he pays a salary to James O’Keefe, the filmmaker who was charged yesterday in an alleged attempt to tamper with the phones of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA).”

    and let the running start…

    Today, Republicans are running away from O’Keefe.

    O’Keefe was supposed to be the keynote speaker at a Salt Lake County GOP fundraiser Feb. 4. County GOP Chairman Thomas Wright told the Salt Lake Tribune, “We’ll be announcing a new speaker shortly.”

    Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, is on the defense for introducing a resolution honoring O’Keefe for exposing ACORN. He told the Hill that he doesn’t condone unlawful behavior, as On Deadline reported this morning. There were 31 co-sponsors on that resolution, so you can expect Democratic challengers to use that resolution against their GOP opponents in this fall’s midterm elections. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., is identified here as a co-sponsor of that resolution.

    It will be interesting to see where this ends up….Especially for the politicans that backed O’keefe….

  • 64
    elspeth
    January 27th, 2010 19:45

    Just to be clear, the POINT many of you are missing is that NOT EVEN the Constitution MADE a single person a natural born citizen, so how can an Amendment do so without SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.

    Good point!

  • 65
    misanthropicus
    January 27th, 2010 21:23

    RE Black Lion:

    [...] He submitted obviously edited tapes to make a organization look bad. In some cases it was warranted but overall it was a campaign to discredit and dismantle a community organization. Either way that is separate than whatever he was trying to do at the Senator’s office. [...]

    Come one, BL there isn’t much (so far) in the Landrieu situation -
    O’Keffee might have wanted to do a prank (remember, those guys didn’t have any recording/ tapping devices on them when they were busted), a silly prank, nevertheless a prank -
    Then, even he’s going to do a knucklehead’s time in the slammer for this, that doesn lesses his merits in the ACORN affair -

    And it’s really weird to hear about THOSE DOCTORED ACORN RECORDS – they weren’t altered, everything was freely/ or joltingly flowing as recorded by a hidden camera -

    Then… should we really make again the inventory of ACORN’s sins? I think you’re better off leaving that out of discussion -

    We’ll see about O’Keefe and his crew – so far I didn’t see any new declarations about this, looks like they all keep their cards close to the vest -

    As far as the coverage of the situation, I can’t see how O’keefe’s case can damage the conservative(s) cause in any manner –

    Regards -

  • 66
    slcraig
    January 27th, 2010 21:30

    Black Lion says:
    January 27, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    It will be interesting to see where this ends up….Especially for the politicans that backed O’keefe….

    I heard just part of a report that some woman, perhaps a reporter, was to have a phone conversation with Landrieu and that O’keefe was to be there to document it…but when they were unable to to get any one at the office to answer the phones they went to see what was up………if that is indeed the jest of the situation then I’d have to say the kids messed up bing time….

  • 67
    misanthropicus
    January 27th, 2010 21:32

    The real Ellie Light has appeared! Confessed! A real lefty (I dindn’t buy the thing with the Bakersfield nurse – yet this guy lives by Frazier Park which is fairly close to B-field), engaged in everything lefty, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Ayres, etc – the works! And obviously an Obamaton – recetly posted in WND -

    “By Aaron Klein/ © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    A male health-care worker who appears to be Ellie Light – the letter writer whose name appeared in dozens of newspapers nationwide praising President Obama – also is a diarist for the far-left Daily Kos website and an online friend of an individual tied to a radical pro-Obama group associated with William Ayers’ Weathermen terrorist organization.

    Winston Steward, 51, of Frazier Park, Calif., told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer he made up the name “Ellie Light” to protect himself from criticism and possible physical attacks from “conservatives.” He said he used fake addresses across the country to get local newspapers to publish his letters.

    Steward was one of several individuals who claimed to be Light. The Plain-Dealer, which published some of Light’s letters, reported Steward’s e-mail address matched the address of Light messages sent to U.S. newspapers. The Plain-Dealer also said that to track Steward, it used phone interviews and public records, including those of marriages, property and professional licenses in California and Texas.

    Get the prescription for reclaiming America’s heritage of liberty, justice and morality – Joseph Farah’s “Taking America Back,” autographed only at the WND SuperStore.

    Steward is signed up as a diarist at the Daily Kos, where he has written about such topics as pressuring Republican senators to work with Democrats as well as humanitarian aid for the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip [...]

    more at WND :http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123327

  • 68
    roderick
    January 27th, 2010 21:45

    To answer the above question: the anti-christ, a fraud, a deceiver, and the list goes on.

  • 69
    Black Lion
    January 27th, 2010 21:53

    roderick says:
    January 27, 2010 at 9:45 pm
    To answer the above question: the anti-christ, a fraud, a deceiver, and the list goes on.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    And best of all the President of the United States of America….

  • 70
    Dennis
    January 27th, 2010 22:57

    Attn.: slcraig and brygenon

    RE:
    “Objections to the Electoral Vote are required to be in writing and submitted in advance of the joint session, with one Senator and one Member of the House concurring on the objection.”

    The actual language of the law as one of you correctly quoted:
    “…Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. (3 U.S.C. § 15)”

    Where did you get the words “in advance”?

    RE: “Because none were submitted, Cheney (by unanimous consent) omitted asking for the objections. ”

    Where did you get “by unanimous consent” ?

    This issue was discussed on Leo D’s blog a year ago. The consensus and Leo’s opinion was that Cheney broke the law. Cheney could not assume that there is no objection. Such objection with the required signatures could have been made a minute before calling for objections.

    Please note that the Dems used this objection-process at the Florida-Gore controversy. That is how that ended up at SCOTUS.

    So could any Rep or Senator stand up and interrupt Cheney announcing an objection? Cheney could ignore that, claiming out of order, or could acknowledge it and ask if it is signed properly as it happened at the Florida-Gore procedure. We will never know if such objection existed.

    It is obvious but difficult to prove that Nancy P engineered a secret deal with the GOP; who knows what they had on Cheney. Cheney should answer that. There is at least one lawsuit that names him as defendant. However, as the judiciary branch is 100% controlled by the progressives, he will get away with it unpunished.

    Hillary did say in a speech during her campaign that her opponent “has no American roots”. But her campaign, and apparently Bill as well, thought she can win on issues and never followed up. They all underestimated the power of the media. By January 2009 Clintonostra was pacified by the nice job to Hillary, good enough to serve as springboard for the 2012 election. So that explains the lack of objections on her side, if there were none.

    McCain was incompetent from the beginning to end – probably the worst campaign in US history. Michel Savage once said that “McCain’s job was to throw the election.” Michael sometimes exaggerates but made a good point this time. So that partially explains the lack of objections on the GOP side, if there were none.

    Nevertheless, Cheney broke the law regardless of the existence or non-existence of objections.

  • 71
    roderick
    January 27th, 2010 23:29

    To Dennis: black lion is a ‘bama troll sent here by ‘bama to discredit, ruin, deceive, etc. any commentary against the imposter. Also hillary is an imposter and will burn in hell along with the biggest fraud of all time.

  • 72
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 00:12

    Dennis says:
    January 27, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    Attn.: slcraig and brygenon

    RE:
    “Objections to the Electoral Vote are required to be in writing and submitted in advance of the joint session, with one Senator and one Member of the House concurring on the objection.”

    I read that blog by Leo as well and he raised it again when Judge Carter was going to allow limited discovery in that Orley / Kreep fiasco.

    It would have allowed Orley /Kreep to take depositions from ALL the Congress as well as Cheney but they didn’t bother because ‘it would take too long and be too expensive….’

    That’s when I realized that Orley and Kreep could not be relied on at all to get anything done correctly.

    The word ‘shall’ is not a word to be trifled with when it comes to God’s Law, Natural Law or Constitutional Law.

  • 73
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 02:52

    Steve – her name is Orly not Orley and Carter was not going to allow discovery to take depositions from Congress at all. Where did you get that nonsense from? Would you like a link to the transcripts so you can spend hours searching vain for any such reference from Carter?

  • 74
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 03:18

    slcraig,

    “I read that blog by Leo as well and he raised it again when Judge Carter was going to allow limited discovery in that Orley / Kreep fiasco.”

    Please provide your source for your above statement, a credible source.

    “It would have allowed Orley /Kreep to take depositions from ALL the Congress as well as Cheney but they didn’t bother because ‘it would take too long and be too expensive….’”

    Your definition of “limited discovery” is certainly different from my definition of “limited discovery.” Would you have been willing to pay for this expense? Also, please provide your source, a credible source for your above statement.

    “That’s when I realized that Orley and Kreep could not be relied on at all to get anything done correctly.”

    Wow, took you this long? Since you are being critical of Orly and Kreep, exactly how would you have handled this lawsuit?

    “The word ’shall’ is not a word to be trifled with when it comes to God’s Law, Natural Law or Constitutional Law.”

    Bearing false witness, lying and hypocrisy are frowned upon also when it comes to God’s Law.

  • 75
    Dennis
    January 28th, 2010 03:20

    Attn.: slcraig

    Yes the Cheney issue came up again at that time. Joe the Blogger came up with the idea and Leo refined it and suggested the use of it. Orly and Kreep said that the serving of all members of Congress (and Cheney) was too expensive. Now we know that it would have been well worth the money. They could have asked for public donation for that specific purpose. If nothing else it would have put Congress on notice that there are citizens who respect the Constitution even if Congress does not give a rat’s ass about it. Also, the media would have difficulty entirely ignoring it.

    However, in retrospect, Judge Carter probably would not have allowed it. But I think you are right that Orly and Kreep never even tried it. Did not Leo suggest a method to go around that problem? I think he did. Too bad that his blog is closed we can not check it.

    To be fair, one can not blame the mistake entirely on Orly and Kreep. Judge Carter’s initial positive statements could be interpreted by any reasonably minded citizen (and that he is a Marine etc) as a stand-up judge not controlled by the Progressives. Now in retrospect we know that this assumption was incorrect but we did not know it that time. Orly and Kreep thought they don’t have to spend more money as the judge is an OK guy.

  • 76
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 03:54

    Dannis,

    “However, in retrospect, Judge Carter probably would not have allowed it. But I think you are right that Orly and Kreep never even tried it. Did not Leo suggest a method to go around that problem? I think he did. Too bad that his blog is closed we can not check it.”

    If I were seeking legal advice, in my opinion, Leo would not be on the top of my list.

    “To be fair, one can not blame the mistake entirely on Orly and Kreep. Judge Carter’s initial positive statements could be interpreted by any reasonably minded citizen (and that he is a Marine etc) as a stand-up judge not controlled by the Progressives. Now in retrospect we know that this assumption was incorrect but we did not know it that time. Orly and Kreep thought they don’t have to spend more money as the judge is an OK guy.”

    To be fair, go back and read the court transcripts of the hearings. Contrary to what Orly published, even if Judge Carter had ruled in Orly’s favor, this would NOT have resulted in discovery or a trial. Judge Carter’s decision is based upon the rules of law. Nothing more. It appears that Orly and Kreep need to go back to law school and learn those rules of law. Leo also. Of the three, Kreep is probably the most qualified and has the most experience.

  • 77
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 04:01

    Dennis,

    I apologize for misspelling your name. I attempted to edit my comment and received a notice stating “you do not have permission to edit.”

  • 78
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 04:24

    Dennis,

    Here is a comment by Practical Kat. I believe Practical Kat is a lawyer. This is also Phil’s thread with Leo’s article:

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/09/19/barnett-v-obama-2008-joint-congressional-session-could-be-discovery-loophole/

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7337#comments

    “Practical Kat says:
    September 20, 2009 at 2:50 am
    The US Constitution expressly FORBIDS depositions, interrogatories, or any other sort of “discovery” directed at members of Congress based on anything that happens on the legislative floor.

    It is called the “Speech & Debate Clause” and it provides:

    Article 1, Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

    I don’t know what part of “shall not be questioned in any other place” Leo Donofrio doesn’t understand, but he certainly has demonstrated his abject ignorance of basic principals of Constitutional law with his blog post.

    Judge Clay Land says it best: “Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony …. “”

  • 79
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 05:09

    http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/43916
    “CREW CALLS SUPREME COURT DECISION A BOON FOR CORPORATE AMERICA
    21 Jan 2010 // Washington, D.C. – “Today, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decisions to hold that while the government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, it may not ban corporate speech altogether. The Court found that independent expenditures – or the ability to create, finance and air ads advocating the election or defeat of candidates – do not lead to or create the appearance of corruption, and that banning such expenditures is a violation of corporations’ First Amendment right to free speech.

    CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated, “The Supreme Court has placed the rights of corporations ahead of the rights of American voters by willfully ignoring the outsize role of money in politics and the fact that corporations have vast sums available to spend.” Sloan continued, “Money buys elections and the biggest corporations with the most money will own our politicians. We are moving to an age where we won’t have the senator from Arkansas or the congressman from North Carolina, but the senator from Wal-Mart and the congressman from Bank of America.””

  • 80
    brygenon
    January 28th, 2010 05:11

    bystander says:

    Steve – her name is Orly not Orley and Carter was not going to allow discovery to take depositions from Congress at all. Where did you get that nonsense from?

    Well, he could have gotten “Orley” from Taitz’s filings, such as the amended complaint: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Keyes-Obama-07-15-09.pdf Note the footer at the right, reading “DR. ORLEY TAITZ FOR THE PLAINTIFFS [...]“.

    Would you consider it a bad sign if your lawyer misspells her own name?

  • 81
    Tom
    January 28th, 2010 05:37

    ‘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.’

    Now, zero in on the second line of Article II Sec1 Cl5;
    “..at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”
    This is the legendary “Sunset Clause”. The Founders/Framers included it to “grandfather” themselves in. They thought it wise to get the whole “experiment” off to a good start. Of course, it has long lapsed into obsolescence by virtue of its nature. No pun , intended
    They exempted themselves from the natural born citizenship requirement, primarily for the reason stated above -a reward for their service to the cause ;-)
    They reason they were need of special consideration was that, They, like B.O. Jr, were “born British” they were subject to a foreign sovereignty, at birth, just as B.O. Jr was.
    It required a Revolution in order for them to acquire simple standard citizenship status. There have been plenty of theories bandied about regarding the actual circumstances of B.O. Jr ‘s birth* but none so far that have posited that he was born at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. ;-) So , no deal for B.O. Jr vis-a-vis the “grandfather clause”
    After much deliberation and considerable debate the Founders/Framers finally settled not only on a single figure to serve as the nation’s highest magistrate but, most importantly, they decided that this person would be an office holder with virtually unchecked powers. A strong chief executive would have to be someone drawn from a pool of candidates in whom there existed absolutely no inborn foreign attachment. This would not guarantee loyalty but was a measure being taken to better ensure that the nation’s leader be free of undue foreign influence. This, it was felt, could best be achieved when ONE’S PATH TO CITIZENSHIP was taken through 2 citizen parents(when properly identified) and the native soil. Any route, otherwise, traveled would permit a foreign sovereign(ty) to attach itself, rightfully, legally , and in keeping with long tradition, through “the blood” , “soil” or both to the newborn and to justly exercise its rights, subsequently, there upon. Can you not see how untenable a situation this would be?

    “On every question of construction[of the Constitution] let us 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 the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”
    Thomas Jefferson June 12, 1823-letter to Judge William Johnson

    “…the probable one in which it was passed” Hmmm.. Come on, now. Must I connect the dots for you? Be honest , for once in your life, not just to others, but most importantly to yourself. This whole thing has grown wearisome. :-/ “We” had just finished kicking the Brits the hell out of here and what……no sooner having done so….we’re going to turn around and invite the off-spring of foreigners, the children of NON-immigrants to the country, to be installed as Commander-in Chief of the United States Armed Forces?!
    Are you out of your mind? Can you really look someone straight in the eye and with an intellectually honest bone in your body insist that the Founders/Framers INTENDED to include this class of citizens for consideration as the nation’s “ultimate arbiter”? The “decider” in effect, in all matters of national security

    John Jay,one of the pre-eminent legal scholars of his time(Harvard/Yale) and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote to George Washington on July 25th on the eve of the Convention:

    ‘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 Command in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.’

    Natural born citizenship is Unity of Citizenship at birth. In order to qualify as a natural born citizen one must be born without split loyalties or dual allegiances. “Natural” is , just that, ..natural. Citizenship, when derived from citizen parents,both, AND the soil; will grow and flourish without tending. It does not require nurturing. If the subject in question relies upon MAN-MADE law or statute(as B.O. Jr does) to sever the foreign ligament..to “de-alienage’, in effect, then their citizenship is CULTIVATED ergo NOT natural. Natural born status is inherited , not acquired. Obscurantists or so-called; liberals, such as yourself, are fond of invoking the terms; “born citizen” or “citizen at birth” as a part of their dastardly campaign. It is a not so clever,in my estimation,( many are taken in by it, though) way of rendering from the clause’s text; the word, “natural” , superfluous. You mustn’t succumb to this nonsensical determination or else you pervert meaning & destroy original intent.

    U.S. Congressman, abolitionist , John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment. Although the congressman said this concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1866, this definition was not replaced by the 14th Amendment.

    “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is 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 ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) , March 9, 1866 (my Caps for clarity)

    Barack Obama Sr, the man claimed by B.O, Jr to be his father, was NOT an immigrant to the U.S. much less a citizen of this country.
    His allegiance was owed to a foreign sovereignty(Britain/Kenya)
    Had B.O. Sr**, so chosen & been successful in a bid he could very well have become the Pres , Prime Minister, or what have you, of a foreign sovereign while his off spring sat at the controls on this side of the world. Now if that doesn’t represent a “conflict of interest”

    *We just don’t know. Thus far, the only document that has been presented– via the Internet no less,– is the vaunted “Certification of Live Birth” I’d really rather not go into all of the details re this form of record and what it represents or doesn’t represent. It should be enough for one to know that it is a FACT that it does NOT necessarily mean that the newborn in question came into this world on Hawaiian soil.
    Check the laws and the territory & State of Hawaii’s extensive history with regard to this form of documentation. It is dubious , to say the least.
    The “Certification of Live Birth” was easily procured based solely on the testimony of one family member as to the circumstances of a birth and that was when they actually followed their own procedures they often did not.
    Anyway, what we NEED TO SEE is the “CERTIFICATE of Live Birth” or what is commonly referred to as the vault-version, long-form, typically, a hospital generated doc with the names of the attending physician, other witnesses, signatures, name of facility, etc. B.O. Jr ,steadfastly, refuses to disclose this record. He has spent well in excess of 1 million dollars of privately raised funds fighting to keep from public view or the from the eyes of professionals who may wish to scrutinize whatever he has hidden, to authenticate it. He is currently using PUBLIC monies to continue the obfuscation;employing the U.S. Justice Dept AT OUR EXPENSE to combat continued efforts on behalf of concerned citizens to make the truth known. I , frankly, don’t know what “IT” is. He has claimed that he was born in a hospital most recently he reports Kapiolani as “the hospital of my birth”. So let’s see the proof. Why the double-standard? He wants to be OUR employee well WE would like to confirm the veracity of the nativity story. Keep in mind , if it confirms that Barack Obama Sr is , indeed, his POP ..then he needs to step aside.

    **his premature death not withstanding

  • 82
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 05:52

    Tom – you’re a bit late to this party and your post is full of already debunked nonsense. But let’s just start with a few of your statements:

    Check the laws and the territory & State of Hawaii’s extensive history with regard to this form of documentation. It is dubious , to say the least.

    ……..We have checked the laws very carefully. The history is no more dubious than any other state, and an Hawaiian COLB is prima facie evidence of the information contained therein. It is under the Full Faith and Credit Clause obliged to be accepted by every court in the land.

    He has spent well in excess of 1 million dollars of privately raised funds fighting to keep from public view or the from the eyes of professionals who may wish to scrutinize whatever he has hidden, to authenticate it

    …. utter nonsense. Another birther rumour with not a scintilla of evidence to support it. Obama had only been a defendant in a handful (6 I believe – possibly one or two more)of the 67 cases to date, which have all been dismissed at the MTD stage. In the one court case where Obama was awarded costs, the lawyers were working pro bono and asked for costs in the low hundreds of dollars. In the cases brought after Jan 2009 he has been defended by the DOJ. You are assuming the legal costs of his campaign were all spent on birther lawsuits – a rookie mistake.

  • 83
    brygenon
    January 28th, 2010 05:58

    Dennis wrote:

    This issue was discussed on Leo D’s blog a year ago. The consensus and Leo’s opinion was that Cheney broke the law. Cheney could not assume that there is no objection. Such objection with the required signatures could have been made a minute before calling for objections.

    Leo is a great source for legal strategies that always lose. Article I Section 5 of the Constitutions empowers the houses of Congress to determine the rules of their proceedings.

    Please note that the Dems used this objection-process at the Florida-Gore controversy. That is how that ended up at SCOTUS.

    Dennis, can you explain how “this objection-process” reached back in time to bring about a case that had already been decided? SCOTUS decided Bush v. Gore on December 12′th of 2000, before the Electoral College voted on December 18′th. The votes were counted in a joint session of Congress in January 6′th 2001.

    It is obvious but difficult to prove that Nancy P engineered a secret deal with the GOP; who knows what they had on Cheney. Cheney should answer that.
    [...]
    By January 2009 Clintonostra was pacified by the nice job to Hillary, good enough to serve as springboard for the 2012 election.
    [...]
    Michel Savage once said that “McCain’s job was to throw the election.”

    And the whole conspiracy was orchestrated by the reptilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians

  • 84
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 06:57

    I cannot believe that anyone would buy into the two citizen parent theory introduced by Donofrio. When someone immigrates from another country, do you actually believe that when they are naturalized, they just forget/abandone the country they immigrated from and that countries traditions? Do you not think these naturalized citizens passed their traditions on to their children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren, etc., etc.? And, I for one, am thankful they did because some of our most “cherished so called American traditions” actually came from another country. Whoever states they are “pure Americans” are full of BS.

    German American

    http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/kade/nameword/nameword.html
    German-Americans and Their Contributions
    to the American Mainstream Culture:
    German Names and Words
    excerpts
    Overview
    “Immigrants from the German-speaking countries brought with them their names, their language, customs and traditions, which were largely unknown in North America. Some of these, including a surprising number of food and drinks, caught on among their English-speaking neighbors. When there was no exact equivalent or no established English word for a German “import,” the German was adopted into the American language. Noted historian Daniel J. Boorstin calls the American language ” another happy American accident.” As he puts it ” we have an imported language along with a population of imported people.””

    “Here is an example: Many people think that hamburger originally was a burger with ham in it or on it. Hamburger is derived from the German city of Hamburg. The original name of the fried meat patty was hamburger steak, meaning a steak the way they ate it in Hamburg (the Germans call it “deutsches Beefsteak”). The word burger, which came from hamburger, led to cheeseburger, veggieburger, Burger King, etc. Hamburger steak (without the bun) is said to have been sold by a German street vendor in New York in the 1870s — possibly on Coney Island. Another source states that the hamburger was introduced by a native of Hamburg at the St. Louis World’s Fair.”

    “Kindergarten: Find out the original meaning of this word and the person who introduced it. Here is a hint. The first American kindergarten was founded in Watertown, Wisconsin, by a woman with the last name of Schurz, who hand just immigrated from Germany a few years earlier. She was the wife of the 1848er Carl Schurz from Liblar near Bonn, who became Secretary of the Interior.”

    Chinese Americans

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_American
    Chinese American
    excerpts
    Life in America
    “Chinese Americans have made many large strides in American society. Today, Chinese Americans engage in every facet of American life including the military, elected offices, media, academia, and sports. Over the years, many Chinese Americans have blended the American lifestyle with a more natively Chinese one.”

    “Perhaps the most common landmark of the Chinese impact in America are the prolific Chinese restaurants that have cropped up in every corner of the U.S. Along with these culinary traditions, Chinese heritage is celebrated not only by most Chinese American; the most prominent of these is the Chinese New Year celebration.”

    “Chinese American income and social status varies widely. Although many Chinese Americans in Chinatowns of large cities are often members of an impoverished working class, others are well-educated upper-class people living in affluent suburbs. The upper and lower-class Chinese are also widely separated by social status and class discrimination. In California’s San Gabriel Valley, for example, the cities of Monterey Park and San Marino are both Chinese American communities lying geographically close to each other but they are separated by a large socio-economic and income gap.”

    http://www.knowitallmall.com/od/usmeltingpotculture/a/HolidaysImmi.htm
    Where did our “All-American” Traditions Really Come From?
    excerpts
    “Immigrants bring traditions with them
    When people immigrate to another country, they bring more than their clothing, a toothbrush and other such worldly belongings. Despite the excitement or opportunity that moving to a new land may offer, immigrants are frequently sad to be leaving their homelands. They are often eager to bring, at the very least, some small sliver of their cultures and traditions with them.”

    “Cuisine and holiday rituals

    This is perhaps more apparent in cuisine and holiday traditions than in anything else, especially when it comes to Christmas. Because the international holiday is so widespread, festive influences have come to the US from far and wide.”

    “Advent calendars, Christmas cookies and holiday cards
    Many Christians start off the holiday season with an advent calendar. This usually entails a picture of a house with little tiny windows, each of which has a date on it. A child can open one window per day to reveal a new picture, poem, scripture, fortune or sometimes even a chocolate. Germans and Scandinavians, who immigrated here largely in the 1700 and 1800′s, introduced this popular joy, now a true American tradition. Germans are also responsible for those sinful Christmas cookies that come in various shapes or with imprinted designs. And one German in particular, Louis Prang, expanded on the British notion of Christmas cards and made them a lasting US tradition.”

    “Nativity scenes
    Then there is the endearing and ever-loved Nativity or “manger” scene. While these have become one of the pivotal religious symbols of Christmas worldwide, one need only visit Italy for a day to realize that this is where they originated. It is said that St. Francis of Assisi commissioned the first manger scene to be made and afterwards held a memorable and awe inspiring mass in front of it. From that day forward, Italians began creating creches with zeal and devotion. You could spend an entire week touring the elaborate nativity scenes in Naples and Rome, and an hour or two exploring any particular one. In the 1880′s, due to poverty and political unrest in their own country, many Italians started coming to America, settling mostly in East Coast cities. In addition to creches, Italians brought pizza, pasta and opera to the United States.”

    “Christmas colors and Poinsettias
    Granted, it is not terribly surprising that there have been European influences, but what could be more American than the colors of red and green at Christmas? Or the flower that inspired that color scheme? Well, according to Mexican legend, a small boy once knelt at his church’s altar on Christmas Eve, ashamed that he had no gift to offer the baby Jesus. So sincere were the boy’s prayers that they evoked a miracle: The first Flower of the Holy Night, one of brilliant red and green, appeared at his feet as a sign of his tribute to Christ. The American ambassador to Mexico from 1825 to 1829, Dr. Joel Roberts Poinsett was a lover of botany who brought the Flower of the Holy Night with him from Mexico to his home in South Carolina. Becoming the flower of all Christmases, it was eventually named after him: the Poinsettia. Today, Mexicans continue to immigrate in large numbers to the US, populating much of the Southwest, and having an influence on our culture in many ways.”

  • 85
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 09:03

    Sue says:
    January 28, 2010 at 3:18 am
    slcraig,

    “I read that blog by Leo as well and he raised it again when Judge Carter was going to allow limited discovery in that Orley / Kreep fiasco.”

    Please provide your source for your above statement, a credible source.

    “It would have allowed Orley /Kreep to take depositions from ALL the Congress as well as Cheney but they didn’t bother because ‘it would take too long and be too expensive….’”

    Your definition of “limited discovery” is certainly different from my definition of “limited discovery.” Would you have been willing to pay for this expense? Also, please provide your source, a credible source for your above statement.

    “That’s when I realized that Orley and Kreep could not be relied on at all to get anything done correctly.”

    Wow, took you this long? Since you are being critical of Orly and Kreep, exactly how would you have handled this lawsuit?

    “The word ’shall’ is not a word to be trifled with when it comes to God’s Law, Natural Law or Constitutional Law.”

    Bearing false witness, lying and hypocrisy are frowned upon also when it comes to God’s Law.

    I’m not surprised at your nit-picking of old news and ignoring the substance of the points I’ve made here.

    Leo’s did not leave up all of his posts at his site so I would be left to memory of the sequence of Motions at Judge Carters court.

    There was a point where Carter took exception to some of the Governments expressed points of Law in their Motion to Dismiss. But included in that motion was some reference to the Electoral Count. Orley’s Motion for Limited Discovery was still pending and Carter indicated he would wait to decide on that until Orley submitted their response to the Motion to dismiss after spending sometime questioning the defense on both Quo Warranto and the Constitutional/Administrative process of counting the Votes.

    Orley’s/Kreeps response was crap in response to the softball Carter pitched them and that left Carter no choice but to shut the case down the way he did.

    Now, Sue, my dear, are you somehow implying God is angry at me for standing on principles I believe to be correct?

    Show me where I have done anything to deserve that last line you wrote;

    Bearing false witness, lying and hypocrisy are frowned upon also when it comes to God’s Law.

  • 86
    Black Lion
    January 28th, 2010 09:06

    roderick says:
    January 27, 2010 at 11:29 pm
    To Dennis: black lion is a ‘bama troll sent here by ‘bama to discredit, ruin, deceive, etc. any commentary against the imposter. Also hillary is an imposter and will burn in hell along with the biggest fraud of all time.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Why thank you rod…When I was over at the White House the other day we specifically discussed you and how we could discredit what you say. However after reading your nonsense I have figured out that you are doing it all by yourself. No one needs to discredit or ruin you when you write such interesting commentary like the one above. Good luck though…

  • 87
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 09:20

    To any brave opposition poster;

    How many natural born citizens were ‘created, ‘made’, ‘deemed’ or otherwise ‘designated’ by the ratification of the Constitution?

  • 88
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 09:41

    “Sharon2, the piece you cited by Turley was from 04 Dec 2008, before the Electoral College had voted, before the joint session of Congress certified the election, and before Barack Obama became the 44′th President of the United States. Where is your evidence that Turley still thinks the issue is unsettled?” (Bry)

    Sue, this response is for you also because I don’t think you ever understood the point.

    - He thinks that there is nothing to do about it now, not that there never was a question. You don’t believe there ever WAS a question.

    “The problem is that such an issue is only “ripe” for review after a general election and before the swearing in ceremony. While it is conceivable that a ballot challenge (contesting the eligibility to be on a ballot) is possible, a court could deny any pre-election lawsuit as an impermissible request for an “advisory opinion.”

    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/06/the-supreme-redux-is-john-mccain-ineligible-to-be-president/

    He said it was a problem because of the limited time for review. Does that mean there never was a problem? No. That is my only reason for referring to Turley. It was a question that should have been reviewed. You never saw the question.

    A key question from Judge Carter was why she didn’t file her petition before the swearing in. Orly messes up all the time, but if she did try to get her petition filed before the swearing in ceremony, preventing her from doing it until after the deadline was quite brilliant. I don’t think the Justices did such a thing. I have always wondered about the antics of Bickel because of the problems Leo had with him. Leo did not have difficulties following rule technicalities as Orly did and does. He knew what he was doing as far as filing documents. Yet he had a big problem with Bickel. Finding a technical way to prevent Orly’s case from being submitted on time would have been a cake walk. After all, it is Orly Taitz, the big screw up. Who is going to listen to her? I am not saying that Bickel did anything illegal. It is possible to screw around with people when you have authority.

  • 89
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 09:53

    and yet they DID NOT take up the claims about the President’s eligibility?

    We know that you take heart in what Turley has written, and we even know what you believe on the issue.

    I am asking for your impressions given the activist Court’s inaction… (jvn)
    ___________________________
    Well, first of all, I don’t “take heart” in what Turley has written. He also said this:

    “We need to amend our Constitution and allow all of our citizens to be eligible regardless of the place or status of their birth.”

    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/06/the-supreme-redux-is-john-mccain-ineligible-to-be-president/

    I disagree with him on allowing all citizens to be eligible (that is another discussion) but do agree that the WAY to change NBC to make it as inclusive as you think it is would be to amend the Constitution, not that it SHOULD be amended.

    Why didn’t the Court tale up the eligibility issue? Funny you should ask that when the opposition said over and over that standing was an issue when those cases were before the Court. So, you are saying that standing is not a problem now? Only the right plaintiff could or can be heard. I took heart in the Roberts’ opinion that it would not follow precedent blindly just as a general principal. Do I not have a right to have my own feelings? Talk about control issues!

  • 90
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 09:54

    brygenon says:
    January 28, 2010 at 5:58 am
    Dennis wrote:

    This issue was discussed on Leo D’s blog a year ago. The consensus and Leo’s opinion was that Cheney broke the law. Cheney could not assume that there is no objection. Such objection with the required signatures could have been made a minute before calling for objections.

    Leo is a great source for legal strategies that always lose. Article I Section 5 of the Constitutions empowers the houses of Congress to determine the rules of their proceedings.

    Please note that the Dems used this objection-process at the Florida-Gore controversy. That is how that ended up at SCOTUS.

    Dennis, can you explain how “this objection-process” reached back in time to bring about a case that had already been decided? SCOTUS decided Bush v. Gore on December 12′th of 2000, before the Electoral College voted on December 18′th. The votes were counted in a joint session of Congress in January 6′th 2001.

    It is obvious but difficult to prove that Nancy P engineered a secret deal with the GOP; who knows what they had on Cheney. Cheney should answer that.
    [...]
    By January 2009 Clintonostra was pacified by the nice job to Hillary, good enough to serve as springboard for the 2012 election.
    [...]
    Michel Savage once said that “McCain’s job was to throw the election.”

    And the whole conspiracy was orchestrated by the reptilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians


    Ok, you guys are having great fun with this so I’ll play along.

    It is true that the Congress enjoys great many immunities in the performance of the legislative duties. However, an Administrative Procedure is not one of them. True, they are immune while in the process of making law, but they are NOT immune from deficiencies in performing the requirements of a law.

    Now, you seem to take exception to the FACT that I pointed out regarding the PROPER sequence of the Vote Count as guiding the EXISTING law.

    The REASON that there could be no REQUIREMENT to notify the Chair in writing in advance of the Count is because a FLAW, ERROR or MISDEED may occur DURING the process.

    You are entirely focused on protecting an individual insisting on his legitimacy to the extent you are willing to throw out all the Rules one by one whenever they pose or appear to pose as an obstacle to your ends.

    Isn’t that the definition of hypocrisy?

  • 91
    jvn
    January 28th, 2010 10:11

    Sharon -

    The Chief Justice has indicated that the SCOTUS will abandon precedent and act on cases of importance with regard to the Constitution.

    The SCOTUS DID NOT ACT on the issue of the President’s eligibility for office.

    What conclusion do YOU draw from that inaction on the part of the SCOTUS?

    Just answer the question and quit going off on tangents.

    What conclusion do YOU draw from that inaction on the part of the SCOTUS?

  • 92
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 10:13

    Just answer the question and quit going off on tangents.

    THERE WAS A LEGAL HURDLE THAT PREVENTED IT!

  • 93
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 10:41

    My previous comment is only speculation, just as you are speculating.

    And I wasn’t going off on tangents- you made a snide comment about what I said about Turley, misrepresenting me, and I addressed the misrepresentation as well as answering your question.

  • 94
    Tweets that mention The Right Side of Life » The Question Remains: Who is Barack Obama? -- Topsy.com
    January 28th, 2010 11:01

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by therightsideoflife, WeThePeopleUSA. WeThePeopleUSA said: Memo sent 2 #Dems regarding 2010 elect strategy. Make #GOP candidates look lk #birther-#succession Kooks. http://bit.ly/caiyOW #tcot #912 [...]

  • 95
    AnotherReader
    January 28th, 2010 11:06

    jvn,

    The Chief Justice has indicated that the SCOTUS will abandon precedent and act on cases of importance with regard to the Constitution.

    Is this on the record and documented somewhere? And even if so, does the Chief Justice speak for all? They each are free to interpret as they choose. Or there would not be much point in voting and writing dissenting opinions.

    And so even if it is true, and by the way, an approach that I agree with. I’m not sure it means much.

  • 96
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 11:15

    “……..We have checked the laws very carefully. The history is no more dubious than any other state, and an Hawaiian COLB is prima facie evidence of the information contained therein. It is under the Full Faith and Credit Clause obliged to be accepted by every court in the land.”

    Handing the COLB over in any of the eligibility cases (where place of birth was at issue) would have killed the case quicker than anything then. No briefs, no waste of court time. Yet, it wasn’t done.

    One piece of paper presented as a response to the complaint.

    (do you know the definition of prima facie evidence?)

    Prima facie evidence is not conclusive evidence. He can just hand it over and make it conclusive.

  • 97
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 11:20

    jvn says:
    January 28, 2010 at 10:11 am
    Sharon -

    The Chief Justice has indicated that the SCOTUS will abandon precedent and act on cases of importance with regard to the Constitution.

    The SCOTUS DID NOT ACT on the issue of the President’s eligibility for office.

    What conclusion do YOU draw from that inaction on the part of the SCOTUS?

    Just answer the question and quit going off on tangents.

    What conclusion do YOU draw from that inaction on the part of the SCOTUS?

    As desirous as you may be to prove your fidelity to the ‘protected one’ it is not necessary to do so with blatant avoidance of the fundamental questions while pointing your finger at hypothetical minutia that calls for speculation and opinion.

    SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction to answer purely political questions nor are they allowed to give advisory opinions.

    Outside of the case Leo presented before the Electoral Count and the one I am pursuing there has been NO point of Law presented to SCOTUS that they have jurisdiction, on appeal, to which they could offer an opinion.

    Leo’s case went moot once the Count was made and in my case the SCOTUS Conference went MOOT when the 10th Remanded in Part to the USDC OK. (We may never know that if the 10th had Dismissed as a whole whether SCOTUS would have taken it up at Conference…speculate away…)

    I realize that many of the ‘Cases’ filed across the Country are done more out of frustration than on Proper Judicial process and as frustrating as it may be for those on this side I have come to find comfort that the courts are operating, in most instances, as the LAW requires.

    I can say that because the LAW will soon to be shown as being on MY side.

  • 98
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 11:23

    Sharon2,

    What do you believe Professor Turley meant by this statement?

    “I believe that these lawsuits are meritless,” but I have great problem with these standing barriers to review.”
    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/

  • 99
    jvn
    January 28th, 2010 11:41

    Sharon and Steve -

    Supposedly there was a “legal hurdle” that should have prevented the SCOTUS from taking the Marbury v. Madison case as well, but they did.

    And Steve, there is no “except for…” The FACT is that Leo’s case was at the SCOTUS before the EC vote count. The SCOTUS had the chance to take the case and they declined.

    Both of you choose to ignore the history of the Court as well as Robert’s recent statements concerning how the Court will act IF THEY BELIEVE AN ISSUE TO BE IMPORTANT ENOUGH.

    Since Sharon refuses to tell us her conclusion, I will kindly supply one (although not hers):

    The SCOTUS does not feel that the supposed “issue” of the President’s NBC status due to the citizenship of his Father at his birth has any merit, nor do they believe that it is important enough to overturn the precendent set in Wong Kim Ark.

    And I am NOT attempting to “read their minds.”

    Actions speak louder than words.

    They DISMISSED these issues without even granting them a hearing. Didn’t matter if it was the “wrong plaintiff,” or if the case wasn’t filed properly. If they felt it was an important issue, they could and would have taken it up.

    Since they did not, the logical conclusion is that did not feel that the cases had any merit.

    To think that the courts would now intervene with a serving President when they did not before the EC count and inauguration is asinine.

  • 100
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 11:53

    “Since they did not, the logical conclusion is that did not feel that the cases had any merit.”

    So the hundreds of comments about standing by the opposition were useless.

    Do you realize that there have been issues that were rejected by the Supreme Court various times before the Court eventually decided them? You do know this I hope. So your conclusion, although possible, is not conclusive.

    “To think that the courts would now intervene with a serving President when they did not before the EC count and inauguration is asinine.”

    jvn is still caught up in the idea that states like Arizona will simply drop the legislative efforts for verification of eligibility should Obama not run in 2012.

  • 101
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 11:58

    Sue,

    I believe that Turley thought that standing should not have been a barrier to having the case heard on the merits, although he believed that the outcome would not have been favorable to the plaintiffs. All plaintiffs ask is for a chance to be heard. Turley seemed to respect that.

    The chance to be heard on the merits, Sue.

  • 102
    AnotherReader
    January 28th, 2010 12:06

    JVN,

    The SCOTUS does not feel that the supposed “issue” of the President’s NBC status due to the citizenship of his Father at his birth has any merit, nor do they believe that it is important enough to overturn the precendent set in Wong Kim Ark.

    And I am NOT attempting to “read their minds.”

    Actions speak louder than words.

    They DISMISSED these issues without even granting them a hearing. Didn’t matter if it was the “wrong plaintiff,” or if the case wasn’t filed properly. If they felt it was an important issue, they could and would have taken it up

    Yes, this is mind reading on your part. During the first few months when the bulk of these cases were active, we saw post after post after post arguing just the opposite of what you just said. Back then it was the other side who was arguing that “this is important” and they will take the case.

  • 103
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 12:13

    jvn says:
    January 28, 2010 at 11:41 am
    Sharon and Steve -

    Supposedly there was a “legal hurdle” that should have prevented the SCOTUS from taking the Marbury v. Madison case as well, but they did.

    And Steve, there is no “except for…” The FACT is that Leo’s case was at the SCOTUS before the EC vote count. The SCOTUS had the chance to take the case and they declined.

    Both of you choose to ignore the history of the Court as well as Robert’s recent statements concerning how the Court will act IF THEY BELIEVE AN ISSUE TO BE IMPORTANT ENOUGH.

    Since Sharon refuses to tell us her conclusion, I will kindly supply one (although not hers):

    The SCOTUS does not feel that the supposed “issue” of the President’s NBC status due to the citizenship of his Father at his birth has any merit, nor do they believe that it is important enough to overturn the precendent set in Wong Kim Ark.

    And I am NOT attempting to “read their minds.”

    Actions speak louder than words.

    They DISMISSED these issues without even granting them a hearing. Didn’t matter if it was the “wrong plaintiff,” or if the case wasn’t filed properly. If they felt it was an important issue, they could and would have taken it up.

    Since they did not, the logical conclusion is that did not feel that the cases had any merit.

    To think that the courts would now intervene with a serving President when they did not before the EC count and inauguration is asinine.


    Well, let’s assume that I agree with every thing you say but REMAIN resolute in bringing the ‘questions of citizenship’ to an open court so that a ‘complete record is taken’ of the ‘pro’s and con’s’ of the various historical, judicial and intellectual interpretations insofar as the Constitutional ‘idiom, of ‘natural born citizen’ is concerned.

    Are you saying that unlike ‘civil rights’, ‘gun rights and/or bans’, ‘women’s rights’, ‘abortion rights’, ‘gay rights’, ‘airline passenger rights’ and on and on I should just shut up and turn my back on MY belief in the correctness of MY interpretations of the meaning, intent and definition of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen?

  • 104
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 12:15

    Handing the COLB over in any of the eligibility cases (where place of birth was at issue) would have killed the case quicker than anything then. No briefs, no waste of court time. Yet, it wasn’t done.

    One piece of paper presented as a response to the complaint.

    (do you know the definition of prima facie evidence?)
    …….

    Yes I do – prima facie – from the latin at first glance (ablative, if memory serves), but in context used to mean self-evident.

    The problem is that very few of the cases would have been solved by handing over a COLB as they were also claiming that 2 citizen parents were required, that Obama was fraudulently using SS numbers – a whole range of nonsense. There are numerous other reasons why no president should hand over documents to court unless asked to do. First – why dance to your enemy’s tune – they hate you anyway and will just develop another theory when one gets debuunked. It would create a precedent and cause havoc with the rules of standing – get a lawyer to explain the ramifications of that to you. (Hint – it’s conservatives that generally love standing to prevent silly liberals suing of things like the legality of wars.)

  • 105
    The Right Side of Life » The Question Remains: Who is Barack Obama? | ez-review.com
    January 28th, 2010 12:43

    [...] Go here to read the rest: The Right Side of Life » The Question Remains: Who is Barack Obama? [...]

  • 106
    jvn
    January 28th, 2010 12:54

    Steve says:

    Are you saying that unlike ‘civil rights’, ‘gun rights and/or bans’, ‘women’s rights’, ‘abortion rights’, ‘gay rights’, ‘airline passenger rights’ and on and on I should just shut up and turn my back on MY belief in the correctness of MY interpretations of the meaning, intent and definition of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Not at all Steve. But you should recognize that whether you agree or not, the current interpretation has been made by the EC and the Congress and has been left undisturbed by the federal courts, including SCOTUS.

    There are many people who feel that the income tax amendment was never passed properly, that the 14th amendment does not apply to the children with parents who are here illegally, and so on. While some few (very few) continue the hopeless fight of going to court over those issues, most activists are seeking changes in the laws to bring the current definitions into line with what they believe they SHOULD be.

    You are more than welcome to attempt to do that.

    But to continue to insist that your view on this is correct when the constitutional authorities have already decided? That’s like a baseball manager arguing a call made by an umpire. It might feel good, but it serves no purpose except perhaps getting you thrown out of the game…

  • 107
    Sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 13:01

    Prima facie evidence can be rebutted. We can argue all day about whether a forensic expert such as Sandra Lines would find something fraudulent or not. If the COLB were in the hands of an examiner, it would either prove legit or not. You are the one making the case that the COLB proves all (except for the dual citizneship argument), except that you don’t really want it to. Why be afraid of opening any doors? That is one half of the eligibility issue. (The alleged ss fraud would be irrelevant to eligibility if the COLB pans out). Prong two is the dual citizenship issue.

  • 108
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 13:08

    bystander says:
    January 28, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    Handing the COLB over in any of the eligibility cases (where place of birth was at issue) would have killed the case quicker than anything then. No briefs, no waste of court time. Yet, it wasn’t done.

    One piece of paper presented as a response to the complaint.

    (do you know the definition of prima facie evidence?)
    …….

    Yes I do – prima facie – from the latin at first glance (ablative, if memory serves), but in context used to mean self-evident.

    The problem is that very few of the cases would have been solved by handing over a COLB as they were also claiming that 2 citizen parents were required, that Obama was fraudulently using SS numbers – a whole range of nonsense. There are numerous other reasons why no president should hand over documents to court unless asked to do. First – why dance to your enemy’s tune – they hate you anyway and will just develop another theory when one gets debuunked. It would create a precedent and cause havoc with the rules of standing – get a lawyer to explain the ramifications of that to you. (Hint – it’s conservatives that generally love standing to prevent silly liberals suing of things like the legality of wars.)


    As I have pointed out, there is NO Statute of Limitations on Usurpation. The fact that it is a ‘Civil’ offense could put the ’0′ in a very uncomfortable position sometime in the future.

    But, in regard to ‘presidents’ not handing over ‘documentation’ willy-nilly upon request, well, you must remember he was a candidate before the votes were counted.

    What about ‘Candidates’ ‘rights to privacy’?

    Are you saying they, a candidate, should be protected from investigation?

    In a situation where there is no statute of limitations on ‘claims’ arising from ‘usurpation’ does the lack of proper vetting by the electorate and/or state and federal officials vitiate the responsibility of the ‘subject’ from disclosure of information relative to a controversy pre and/or post assumption of the Seat?

    Of course all of these questions remain academic until the true meaning, intent and definition of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen is fully ‘vetted’ as the ‘subject’ of ‘Judicial review’.

  • 109
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 13:20

    “I believe that Turley thought that standing should not have been a barrier to having the case heard on the merits, although he believed that the outcome would not have been favorable to the plaintiffs. All plaintiffs ask is for a chance to be heard. Turley seemed to respect that.”

    The chance to be heard on the merits, Sue.”

    Based upon comments by lawyers at PJ, many have the same opinion as Professor Turley regarding standing.(narrowed too much) However, unlike the “birther lawyers”, competent, credible lawyers are 99% sure that their clients have standing before they file the lawsuit. And, standing isn’t the only obstacle that prevents these lawsuits from being “heard on the merits.” If a lawsuit has no merit, there is no lawsuit.

    The objective of the standing doctrine is to prevent our judicial system from being flooded with frivolous lawsuits.

  • 110
    Sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 13:29

    Sue,

    Your comment is loaded up with too much for me to address right now. I’ll just state preliminarily that implied in Turley’s comment is that he thought cases should not be blocked for standing or other such hurdles. There would have been no point to even mention that standing should not hinder such cases if they can be blocked otherwise.

    But I think your main point is that Politijab lawyers are competent and smart. You’ve told us that…. repeatedly.

    Goodbye for the time being.

  • 111
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 13:32

    IANAL but I seriously doubt if any Judge would require a certified COLB or birth certificate, delivered directly to the courts from the DOH (subpoena), to be examined by a forensic expert based upon the full faith and credit law in the Constitution.

  • 112
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 14:18

    Sue,

    We are talking about how things would work in an actual case. Parties have a right to see the evidence presented in the case, if it is not dismissed. There is a process in place for how to turn over discovery to the opposing party. The party would then take the COLB to an expert. Discovery can be voluntary.

    Maybe I misunderstood you.

  • 113
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 14:53

    Steve

    Of course a candidate has the same rights to privacy as anyone else. The voters decide whether a candidate has released sufficient information to gain their trust – if not, they don’t vote for him. 69 million people decided in Obama’s favour. He is no longer a candidate – he is the President whether you like it or not, and of course he should ignore the deranged rantings of birthers.

    Why do have so little faith in the democratic process?

  • 114
    Roderick
    January 28th, 2010 15:06

    Go to http://www.youtube.com and type in “Scalise responds to president’s state of the union”. Scalise is a congressman from Louisiana.

  • 115
    Black Lion
    January 28th, 2010 15:13

    Interesting Article on WND and its founder…It reminds me of the old saying, “follow the money”…

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-worldnetdaily27-2010jan27,0,4140446.story

    “If Farah believes Obama is bad for the country, the president has been indisputably good for Farah’s business.

    WorldNetDaily’s unique visitors nearly doubled to 2 million a month after Obama took office, according to Nielsen’s ratings. Farah says his traffic is at least twice that, citing private data from Google Analytics, a traffic-counting service. By either count, that’s higher than the online readership of the conservative mainstay National Review, not to mention many of the nation’s regional newspapers.

    Revenue is on track to hit $10 million annually, Farah says. (That figure could not be independently verified.) His success comes in no small part from the storehouse of “birther” T-shirts, books, DVDs and postcards for sale in his virtual “superstore.”

    Some Republicans wish Farah would abandon the birther issue, fearing his work makes the entire conservative movement seem wacky.

    “The fever swamps can be a very profitable market,” said Jon Henke, a Republican strategist who, through his blog, thenextright.com, has called on GOP groups to boycott Farah’s website and mailing list. “There is a business model in that, but it doesn’t make it good politics.”

    Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, a pull-no-punches critic who once lumped Obama and Hitler in the same sentence, called the continuing citizenship crusade “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard,” predicting earlier this month that it would backfire in a “dream come true” for the president. (Farah, for his part, said Beck often used WorldNetDaily scoops without attribution, something a Beck spokesman denied.)”

    Phil asks in his title “Who is Barack Obama”? The answer for some is a source to make money or a business. Note the part in the article where Farah boasts about the revenue. He realizes that the hate Obama movement is good for business… Everyone can see that this is what it is about for WND, making money.

    Whether it is vultures like Farah, felons like Sinclair, Lucas Smith, and Reverend Manning, or idiots like Orly and her crew, it is all about making a buck off the ignorance, hatred, and stupidity of the people that hate the President They had discovered that this can and is profitable and there is a lot of money to be made. What is even more disturbing is the birthers are so blinded by their hatred of the President that they don’t realize that they are being used by the likes of these individuals or by politicans like Deal who are pandering for their vote.

  • 116
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 16:19

    bystander says:
    January 28, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    Steve

    Of course a candidate has the same rights to privacy as anyone else. The voters decide whether a candidate has released sufficient information to gain their trust – if not, they don’t vote for him. 69 million people decided in Obama’s favour. He is no longer a candidate – he is the President whether you like it or not, and of course he should ignore the deranged rantings of birthers.

    Why do have so little faith in the democratic process?

    Well, you raise a couple of interesting points.

    Are we a Republic or pure democracy?

    Is a National Election equivalent to the Amendment Process?

    Does a candidate have the right to with hold information that may call question to his eligibility, qualifications and/or character? (See J.Edwards)

    Has the word ‘Usurper’ and its meaning also been amended along the way somewhere?

    Again, personally being unaware that there WAS/IS a controversy over the ‘definition’ of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen just 18 months ago I am left to ask if the so-called Constitutional Scholar candidate was/is aware of the controversy prior to, during and since the end of the campaign?

    If so, why has he not uttered, published or otherwise disseminated his understanding of the Constitutional meaning, intent and definition of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen?

    Why is he leaving it to surrogates, etc., to defend his eligibility and refusing to address the question openly?

    If he is so confident that he does fit into the meaning, intent and definition of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen why does he not produce the words or the words that require that the 14th Amendment or the SCOTUS opinions that supports his belief?

    The candidate knew, or should have known, his being a law school graduate, that the omission of information is equivalent to obfuscation.

    I say that it is ludicrous, juvenile, historically ignorant, disrespectful to the National Security Constitutional intent, and a violation of MY rights in being dismissive of the true meaning of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen.

  • 117
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 16:35

    slcraig says:
    January 28, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Well, you raise a couple of interesting points.

    Are we a Republic or pure democracy?
    …… irrelevant to the point under discussion

    Is a National Election equivalent to the Amendment Process?
    …. no

    Does a candidate have the right to with hold information that may call question to his eligibility, qualifications and/or character? (See J.Edwards)
    …. of course they do – can you point to a statute that says they must?

    Has the word ‘Usurper’ and its meaning also been amended along the way somewhere?
    …. I don’t know and I don’t care

    Again, personally being unaware that there WAS/IS a controversy over the ‘definition’ of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen just 18 months ago I am left to ask if the so-called Constitutional Scholar candidate was/is aware of the controversy prior to, during and since the end of the campaign?

    If so, why has he not uttered, published or otherwise disseminated his understanding of the Constitutional meaning, intent and definition of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen?

    … why should he indulge your silly fantasies? Did George Bush come forward to say he wasn’t responsible for 9/11?

    Why is he leaving it to surrogates, etc., to defend his eligibility and refusing to address the question openly?

    … see above. They’re doing perfectly well so far. Remember the birthers are batting 0 for 67.

    If he is so confident that he does fit into the meaning, intent and definition of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen why does he not produce the words or the words that require that the 14th Amendment or the SCOTUS opinions that supports his belief?

    …..see above. He is the President. He is busy dealing with real problems.

    The candidate knew, or should have known, his being a law school graduate, that the omission of information is equivalent to obfuscation.

    …..no it isn’t. He has the same right to privacy as you and I.

    I say that it is ludicrous, juvenile, historically ignorant, disrespectful to the National Security Constitutional intent, and a violation of MY rights in being dismissive of the true meaning of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen.

    …. you have no rights in this matter. Get over yourself.

  • 118
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 16:39

    Steve, personally I would think the term natural born citizen is precisely the opposite of an idiom, in that it literally means what it says, not figuratively.

  • 119
    misanthropicus
    January 28th, 2010 16:45

    Talking about dba Obama’s COLB -

    Unfortunately for the (already demoralized Obamatons), there isn’t anything having a probatory value in the COLB parlayed by Daily Kos and vouched for by Ellie Light… sorry, Snopes -
    And this because the Hawaii HD has adamantly refused to confirm or deny that that COLB was issued by them – while they stonewalled for dba Obama in a certain degree, the dangers of PERJURY are present in this affair, and Fukino & Cie. are unwilling to become the fall guys for the holographic Kenyan who happened to spend a few years in a high school there -

    So, the only value of the COLB in cause is of a curiosity, to be displayed by Alexandre Dumas’ forged checks, Fatty Arbuckle’s sexual bottle of champaigne or Monica’s blue dress –

    Sorry, I forgot – “The Audacity of Hope”, dba Obama’s Columbia U thesis, his Harvard Law articles, his Chicago list of law clients, and his law opinions written in nine years of Chicago Law professorship are there, too –

    Oh, I forgot again – also the short video of dba Obama admonishing the Supreme Court during the SOTU speech in full Congress house got to come on the same shelf – the Obamatons of legal or constitutional gesticulation sure enjoy the One’s newest act -

  • 120
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 16:48

    Mis – sound and fury signifying nothing. Please parse the words “Obama was born in Hawaii” to mean anything other than born in Hawaii.

  • 121
    Linda
    January 28th, 2010 16:49

    BL said: Whether it is vultures like Farah, felons like Sinclair, Lucas Smith, and Reverend Manning, or idiots like Orly and her crew, it is all about making a buck off the ignorance, hatred, and stupidity of the people that hate the President

    That is a pretty strong statement, especially the last part. Grouping everyone into one neat little package once again shows you are nothing more than an Alinsky protégé masquerading as some warrior fighting to save your liar in chief’s political a$$.

    BTW, I believe I heard that Rahmbo is awaiting your report, you had better not be late or there could be a dead fish in you future.

  • 122
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 16:55

    Hi Linda

    Are you ready to reveal the South Dakota statute that requires at least one citizen parent to get a birth certificate yet, the one you claimed to have checked?

    Because if you hop over to the other thread you will see that I have provided a link for the documentation required to get a birth certificate in SD and there is no mention whatsoever of the parents’ citizenship. I spent a couple hours researching all the relevant SD statutes Linda, and there was nothing. This seems to destroy your 2 parent argument. Care to comment?

  • 123
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 16:58

    Linda: Grouping everyone into one neat little package once again shows you are nothing more than an Alinsky protégé masquerading as some warrior fighting to save your liar in chief’s political a$$

    …. and they say Americans don’t get irony!

  • 124
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 17:07

    bystander says:
    January 28, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    Steve, personally I would think the term natural born citizen is precisely the opposite of an idiom, in that it literally means what it says, not figuratively.


    An idiom (Latin: idioma, “special property”, f. Greek: ἰδίωμα – idiōma, “special feature, special phrasing”, f. Greek: ἴδιος – idios, “one’s own”) is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate to the literal or definition of the words of which it is made.[1] There are estimated to be at least 25,000 idiomatic-like expressions in American English.[2]

    In linguistics, idioms are usually presumed to be figures of speech contradicting the principle of compositionality; yet the matter remains debated. John Saeed defines an “idiom” as words collocated that became affixed to each other until metamorphosing into a fossilized term.[3] This collocation — words commonly used in a group — redefines each component word in the word-group and become an idiomatic expression. The words develop a specialized meaning as an entity, as an idiom. Moreover, an idiom is an expression, word, or phrase whose sense means something different from what the words literally imply. When a speaker uses an idiom, the listener might mistake its actual meaning, if he or she has not heard this figure of speech before.[4] Idioms usually do not translate well; in some cases, when an idiom is translated into another language, either its meaning is changed or it is meaningless.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom

    Say again?

  • 125
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 17:11

    Steve – I think that confirms what I said, doesn’t it?

  • 126
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 17:13

    bystander says:
    January 28, 2010 at 4:55 pm
    Hi Linda

    Are you ready to reveal the South Dakota statute that requires at least one citizen parent to get a birth certificate yet, the one you claimed to have checked?

    Because if you hop over to the other thread you will see that I have provided a link for the documentation required to get a birth certificate in SD and there is no mention whatsoever of the parents’ citizenship. I spent a couple hours researching all the relevant SD statutes Linda, and there was nothing. This seems to destroy your 2 parent argument. Care to comment?


    A citizen and a natural born citizen are not the same in Constitutional meaning when applied to A2S1C5 and until you can show me the words that have amended A2S1C5 or the words that require it you will continue to be called out on your misuse and misunderstanding of the subject.

    Why won’t you give an honest answer to the question of;

    ‘How many natural born citizens did the Ratification of the Constitution ‘make’, ‘deem’ or otherwise ‘designate’?

  • 127
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 17:18

    Steve surely the words “natural” (occurring in the usual way), “born” and “citizen” are literal and not figurative. Therefore natural born citizen is not an idiom. But please continue to use it if you wish – and I will have plenty of opportunities to use my favourite movie quote from The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”.

  • 128
    bystander
    January 28th, 2010 17:23

    Stevesaid:
    A citizen and a natural born citizen are not the same in Constitutional meaning when applied to A2S1C5 and until you can show me the words that have amended A2S1C5 or the words that require it you will continue to be called out on your misuse and misunderstanding of the subject.

    Why won’t you give an honest answer to the question of;

    ‘How many natural born citizens did the Ratification of the Constitution ‘make’, ‘deem’ or otherwise ‘designate’?

    ……

    Steve as the judge in your case famously said, it is very hard to understand what Mr Craig is talking about. Unfortunately for you, nobody in any position of authority agrees with your interpretation on the nbc clause. I’m sorry you find yourself in this position – but facts are facts.

  • 129
    theOriginalist
    January 28th, 2010 17:49

    bystander says:
    January 28, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    “Steve, personally I would think the term natural born citizen is precisely the opposite of an idiom, in that it literally means what it says, not figuratively.”

    So do I. A citizen is a member of a civil society. A natural born citizen is someone who is a natural member of that society from birth. The children of members of a society are naturally members of that society also. Children of foreigners are not.

  • 130
    Linda
    January 28th, 2010 18:13

    Came across this at freepers. It sure is a telling explanation of the mindeseet of the Alinsky-ites we are dealing with:

    Well, whats good for the goose is good for the gander, so lets apply Obama’s labor “statistics” to the latest head count for Democrats in the U. S. Senate. As a nation we lost 4 million jobs last year but Obama says his policies saved or created 1 million jobs. Fair enough, but by the same standard Democrats lost 1 seat in the Senate last week so they must have saved or cerated 2 or maybe 3 Senate seats for some deserving Democrats.

    Yep, logic that sytmies the mind. Kinda like the koolaide drinkers notion of ‘citizen = natural born citizen’. ;)

    byst, I applaud your efforts, but you narrowed your search to a too narrow alley. I will reveal in my next series. But not too early aka in the 1st article as I wouldn’t want to send you over the deep end right away because as we know, everyone loves a good cliff-hanger!

  • 131
    Politijab Foggy
    January 28th, 2010 18:24

    Don’t miss my appearance on Chalice’s “Let’s Talk Liberty” show.

    Here’s the link

    This one will be a classic — Chalice is the Birther trying to get a grand jury in Illinois to investigate “massive fraud” in the 2008 election, and I’m an Obamunist agitator, a Birther Terminator, and liberal elitist swine.

    See ya tonight, folks!

    Hey … how come this post quotes a guy’s comment from October 2008 about how we don’t know enough about Obama? Have you not learned anything in more than a year since then?

  • 132
    Linda
    January 28th, 2010 18:26

    So do I. A citizen is a member of a civil society. A natural born citizen is someone who is a natural member of that society from birth. The children of members of a society are naturally members of that society also. Children of foreigners are not

    GREAT comeback originalist! You nailed it!

    Now byst, I challenge you to show us the statue/law that overturned this, which was the earliest definition of US citizen that is in the books and also is the core of the definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ as stated in the 14th.

  • 133
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 18:26

    “sharon2 says:
    January 28, 2010 at 2:18 pm
    Sue,

    We are talking about how things would work in an actual case. Parties have a right to see the evidence presented in the case, if it is not dismissed. There is a process in place for how to turn over discovery to the opposing party. The party would then take the COLB to an expert. Discovery can be voluntary.

    Maybe I misunderstood you.”

    You obviously do not understand how an actual case would work regarding discovery. The original documents would never be given to the opposing party to take to a forensic expert. The forensic expert would come to the COLB. There is no way a competent, credible attorney would allow their client to turn over original documents to the opposing counsel. Copies perhaps, but never the originals. The forensic expert would examine the COLB in the presence of the court and/or Obama’s attorney.

    However, I would suspect, if this lawsuit ever gets to the discovery phase, the certified copy of the COLB would be obtained directly from the Hawaii DOH.

    If you will recall, Kreep subpoened Occidental college for Obama’s records. Obama’s lawyers filed a motion to quash which was granted. However, had the motion to quash not been granted, Occidental college would not have released the original documents to Kreep but copies of those documents.

  • 134
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 18:28

    bystander says:
    January 28, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    Steve surely the words “natural” (occurring in the usual way), “born” and “citizen” are literal and not figurative. Therefore natural born citizen is not an idiom. But please continue to use it if you wish – and I will have plenty of opportunities to use my favourite movie quote from The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”.

    And you keep avoiding the question that would prove you incorrect if you would give the subject some objective thought without manipulating the FACTS to suit your ends.

    Why won’t you give an honest answer to the question of;

    ‘How many natural born citizens did the Ratification of the Constitution ‘make’, ‘deem’ or otherwise ‘designate’?

    And the ‘Idiom’ natural born citizen’ is indeed and ‘idiom’ in any and every definition of the word, idio….ahh, urrr, ummm, mmm,mmm, mmm………..

  • 135
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 18:33

    theOriginalist says:
    January 28, 2010 at 5:49 pm
    bystander says:
    January 28, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    “Steve, personally I would think the term natural born citizen is precisely the opposite of an idiom, in that it literally means what it says, not figuratively.”

    So do I. A citizen is a member of a civil society. A natural born citizen is someone who is a natural member of that society from birth. The children of members of a society are naturally members of that society also. Children of foreigners are not.

    It is odd how difficult it is for so many to understand the historical significance of that simple and natural condition in the evolution of the ‘family based’ civil societies.

    But like the Marxist/Socialist/Communist theorist predicted it might only take one or two generations to ‘dumb down and corrupt’ a population to a point it could be subdued without a war.

  • 136
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 18:44

    bystander says:
    January 28, 2010 at 5:23 pm
    Stevesaid:
    A citizen and a natural born citizen are not the same in Constitutional meaning when applied to A2S1C5 and until you can show me the words that have amended A2S1C5 or the words that require it you will continue to be called out on your misuse and misunderstanding of the subject.

    Why won’t you give an honest answer to the question of;

    ‘How many natural born citizens did the Ratification of the Constitution ‘make’, ‘deem’ or otherwise ‘designate’?

    ……

    Steve as the judge in your case famously said, it is very hard to understand what Mr Craig is talking about. Unfortunately for you, nobody in any position of authority agrees with your interpretation on the nbc clause. I’m sorry you find yourself in this position – but facts are facts.

    OBJECTION, NON RESPONSIVE.

    Let me rephrase.

    Were their any ‘American natural born citizens’ ‘made’, ‘deemed to be so’ or any ‘group designated as such’ with the Ratification of the Constitution?

  • 137
    Linda
    January 28th, 2010 18:52

    I really enjoy reading how these dillusioned followers who have no stake in our political society, claim they can grant that priviedge to their offspring who by chance were born on foreign territory. If this was truly the intentions of the framers, then there would never have been one law passed by Congress dating back to 1790 wherein our citizens traveling abroad automatically were able to grant ipso facto US citizenship on their children, without having to go though govt red tape, which is what the UK does in their feudal form of subjectship/citizensip. There also would have never been a need for any law after 1898 that required parents to be naturalized before their children were deemed US citizens. Laws that have have never been overturned. Yet they cling to some erroneous ruling from a SCOTUS as if it is law. Yes, dillusional at best.

    The fact remains, the framers did not intend for children of foreigners to be ipso facto citizens because of mere vhance of birth on soil and these koolaide drinkers have not been able to show one statute or amendment wherein that changed. Better yet, there would have never been the need for an Act of Congress during the 20th century to allow Native Americans(Indians not subject to the jurisdiction of the US) to be citizens for they were born here, they surely must have been citizens from the gitgo according to bystander’s logic.

  • 138
    Linda
    January 28th, 2010 19:11

    byst, I realize it is after midnight in the UK, so when you come back in the am, maybe you could answer this for us.

    You claim WKA paved the way for your children to become US citizens, so please state the case in which your situation was identical to WKA’s when your children were born aka why did the court rule WKA to be a citizen? It wasn’t merely birth on soil which is common knowledge that we all know, so what was it?

  • 139
    jvn
    January 28th, 2010 19:27

    Question for the birthers here:

    The “An NBC must have two parents who are citizens” came from Vattel, right?

    Can you point us to the section in Vattel where he designates a seperate group of “super native born citizens” who alone can aspire to political leadership?

    The reason I ask is that Vattel appears to me to be speaking solely of citizenship, that is, that it take two parents who are citizens AND geographic location within the boundaries of the country to make one a citizen. I don’t find him designating two sets of native born citizens…

    So, since our Founders modeled our citizenship laws on Vattel, wouldn’t that mean that any child of an immigrant who was not naturalized by the birth of that child was NOT a citizen of the United States?

  • 140
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 19:30

    “You obviously do not understand how an actual case would work regarding discovery. The original documents would never be given to the opposing party to take to a forensic expert.”

    - Whatever is being presented as evidence in court, the other side would have a right to see it, particularly if it is the subject of the case.

  • 141
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 19:46

    Sharon2,

    -” Whatever is being presented as evidence in court, the other side would have a right to see it, particularly if it is the subject of the case.”

    I did not say they would not have a right to see it; however, the certified COLB would not be given to opposing counsel to take to a forensic expert. The forensic expert would come to the document.

  • 142
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 19:50

    Does it really matter Sue? A certified copy is not the original. I don’t know enough about forensics to say if special equipment would have to be used and if the exam would have to occur at the expert’s place of business. Even in criminal cases, the DNA sample is given to the defense to take to their own lab if they choose.

    [A long time ago, Historian Dude said he e-mailed Berg and offered to pay for his trip to Chicago to see the COLB when it was supposedly offered for view. I asked him if he would send Sandra Lines, but the never at a loss for words man failed to answer my request.]

  • 143
    jvn
    January 28th, 2010 19:51

    Sharon says:

    - Whatever is being presented as evidence in court, the other side would have a right to see it, particularly if it is the subject of the case.
    ———————————————————————————————–
    Given the fact that – if the COLB was requested by a court – a new COLB would likely be transmitted directly by the State of Hawaii to the court, it doesn’t seem too likely that a forensic document expert could find much fault with it.

    They WOULD get to examine it before it was admitted into evidence, but…

  • 144
    Linda
    January 28th, 2010 20:07

    So, since our Founders modeled our citizenship laws on Vattel, wouldn’t that mean that any child of an immigrant who was not naturalized by the birth of that child was NOT a citizen of the United States?

    Nice to see a glimmer of acknowledgement. Now if I understand your statement, as it is not totally coherent, you are stating that a child born before the parents were naturalized was not a citizen at birth. That would be correct and it was the law as writtten in statutes from the very 1st congress. The child did not gain US citizenship until the father was naturalized & then the child also became a naturalized citizen of the US.

    Here is some more interesting reading:

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/2200603

    “…when Jefferson inaugurated the study of the Law of Nature and Nations at Willian and Mary College in 1779, the text from then until 1841 was Vattel’s. Vattel was also the text at Dartmouth College from 1796-1828.”

    John Jay was, if briefly, a student of Jefferson’s at William and Mary. Vattel was mainstream political philosophy during the writing of The Constitution. Law of Nations was significantly the most cited legal source in American jurisprudence between 1789 and 1820 (F.S. Ruddy, The Acceptance of Vattel, Grotian Society Papers 1972)

  • 145
    sharon2
    January 28th, 2010 20:07

    Why would the court request the copy? The court doesn’t prove the case. The plaintiffs would request it. I agree that it is so simple and yet, so far a COLB is online with no one seeing the actual copy.

    I guess you have never wondered jvn why Fukino, who revealed information from the birth certificate in violation of privacy if you think about it, will not confirm that the COLB on the internet was issued from her department?

    I have kids to attend to and will have to return at another time.

  • 146
    Sue
    January 28th, 2010 20:21

    “Does it really matter Sue? A certified copy is not the original. I don’t know enough about forensics to say if special equipment would have to be used and if the exam would have to occur at the expert’s place of business. Even in criminal cases, the DNA sample is given to the defense to take to their own lab if they choose.”

    No one has their original birth certificate but the certified copy of the COLB is the doc in question. And, no it doesn’t matter because the certified COLB with an affidavit from Dr. Fukino would not require the certified COLB to be examined by a forensic expert. Full faith and credit clause.

  • 147
    Linda
    January 28th, 2010 20:32

    http://www.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/International/tribstat.txt

    Finding A Place For Indigenous Peoples
    In The Family Of Nations

    CONCEPT PAPER

    by

    Rudolph C. Ryser

    May 1980
    excerpt:

    One historical document recognized in the world community is
    the Declaration of Independence, introduced in 1776. This document
    is an expression of the aspirations of the people of the thirteen
    colonies who desired separation from (Great) Britain. They also
    sought independence as a form of political status. That they were
    successful and acknowledged by the international community can be
    seen in the existence of the United States of America today.

    Another historical document expressive of the fundamental
    concept of self.determination is the treatise, Law of Nations, by
    international lawyer Emmerich de Vattel. Vattel, in his work,
    popularized the earlier works of theorists Wolff and Grotius. This
    work by Vattel has been employed as an authoritative source in
    international law.

    A corollary to this principle of political self-determination
    can be found in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
    Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly Resolution 1514),
    which provides that peoples (can) “freely determine their
    political status.”

  • 148
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 20:37

    jvn says:
    January 28, 2010 at 7:27 pm
    Question for the birthers here:

    The “An NBC must have two parents who are citizens” came from Vattel, right?

    Can you point us to the section in Vattel where he designates a seperate group of “super native born citizens” who alone can aspire to political leadership?

    The reason I ask is that Vattel appears to me to be speaking solely of citizenship, that is, that it take two parents who are citizens AND geographic location within the boundaries of the country to make one a citizen. I don’t find him designating two sets of native born citizens…

    So, since our Founders modeled our citizenship laws on Vattel, wouldn’t that mean that any child of an immigrant who was not naturalized by the birth of that child was NOT a citizen of the United States?


    I do not say that the Framers relied solely on the Vattel for the construction of the ‘idiom’, although it is most probable, but I do say that Vattel offers a useful explanation for its usage.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    But if you would take the time to contemplate the circumstance of the ‘idioms’ usage in the Constitution being a ‘prudent national security measure’ along with the ‘American Society’ as it existed at the time of the Framing of the Constitution coupled with the ‘exception clause’ within Clause V,aka, ‘The Grandfather clause’, you are left with NO alternative but to accept the FACT that the ‘natural born citizens’ of the Constitution were contemplated as the anticipated children of the Founding Generation and the Children of the anticipated naturalized citizens.

    When you extrapolate to the present you must reconcile the fact that at that time a ‘white freeman’ were the citizens, whether native born or naturalized, and the women and children derived their citizenship from them.

    The 14th rectified the Racial discrimination, although originally intended for those of African decent, but excluding Indians not taxed, it was expanded to include all races by virtue of its expansive phraseology by the case WKA and also extending to women.

    However, just as with the Original Ratification of the Constitution the Ratification of the 14th Amendment did NOT ‘make, deem or otherwise confer the the status of natural born citizen upon those who would rely on the 14th for their citizenship.

    The first line of the pertinent statement of the 14th SHOULD make that evident to ANY objective thinker;

    “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.”

    This was EXACTLY the same result upon citizenship of the Founding Generation.

    Born and naturalized sharing the same status, anticipating their future generations of ‘natural born citizen’ children.

    Back to Vattel. It is obvious that you have not read beyond the one passage.

    Please, at least read the Title of the Volums, the Book Title, The Chapter Title and the Passage Title before making up your mind.

    THE
    LAW OF NATIONS
    OR
    PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF
    NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

    BOOK I.
    OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.

    CHAP. XVIII.
    OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATION IN A COUNTRY.

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

  • 149
    Phil
    January 28th, 2010 20:44

    jvn,

    Sharon says:

    - Whatever is being presented as evidence in court, the other side would have a right to see it, particularly if it is the subject of the case.
    ———————————————————————————————–
    Given the fact that – if the COLB was requested by a court – a new COLB would likely be transmitted directly by the State of Hawaii to the court, it doesn’t seem too likely that a forensic document expert could find much fault with it.

    They WOULD get to examine it before it was admitted into evidence, but…

    As a person who is unafraid of actual, in-hand evidence, I say (and have said), let’s bring it. Let’s get the alleged physical COLB into Court and see what comes of it.

    Of course, the quasi-catch-22 is the fact that there is no law that enforces eligibility nor to what degree eligibility should be substantiated. So, the Court would have to be asked a question upon which it must render a legal opinion, based on (presumably) non-existing law (since there are no cases that question of any sort of citizenship with respect to presidential eligibility). Assuming legitimate technicalities could be overcome (and, incidentally, nobody has yet to contradict my claim that dismissing a case on issues such as standing does not equate to the actual merits of a case), the Court would rightly need to decide if the remedy of such a petition were able to be fulfilled by the Court.

    So, the opposition thinks they have a bit of evidence that has yet to get into Court that would seemingly blow everyone out of the water. However, this is only one part of the equation. Then we must have a legitimate petitioner, the right question, and the right remedy (which doesn’t include the Court removing a sitting President, which it cannot do — without some seriously fatal (not so much in the literal sense) repercussions).

    My current theory: If a State passes a law that requires substantiation for a candidate for the presidency/vice presidency before they’re put on the ballot, and someone challenges this law (such as a rejected candidate), then we’re getting closer to an “ideal” case that SCOTUS might be swayed to hear.

    -Phil

  • 150
    misanthropicus
    January 28th, 2010 20:45

    Re Sue:

    [...] No one has their original birth certificate but the certified copy of the COLB is the doc in question. And, no it doesn’t matter because the certified COLB with an affidavit from Dr. Fukino would not require the certified COLB to be examined by a forensic expert. [...]

    “Foot in the mouth” appears to be the malady that ravages the Obamatons -

    Pray, Sue – can you explain:
    In order to certify a COLB (which is an extract of a BC), an institution must have a BC in their possession -
    Yet, since Fukino and her legal advisors have eventually realized that the “vital data” term is the correct term that describes the paper on which that (and any other hypothetical) COLB would be based (term which also puts them out of an eventual perjury jeopardy), Fukino cannot and would not certify anything but the… “vital data” which is in their possession, and which…

    … is the Dunham-s walk-in declaration at the Honolulu HD that the night before, their daughter Stanley had a kid home, and that, due to some family complications, she can present the kid herself only in a couple of days (i.e. upon the arrival of the Kenya flight [actually, Stanley used a couple of flight connections to fly to & back from Africa]) -

    This discussion about Obama’s COLB validity and whether Fukino would certify it is straight from Alice in Wonderland – or better, from an absurdist stage play –

    “Vital data” is the term that strikes terror in the Obamatons’ (anyway) rotten soul – and the walls of Jerricho didn’t fall at the first blare of horns –

    Hehehe -

  • 151
    Linda
    January 28th, 2010 20:46

    SL; But if you would take the time to contemplate the circumstance of the ‘idioms’ usage in the Constitution being a ‘prudent national security measure’ along with the ‘American Society’ as it existed at the time of the Framing of the Constitution coupled with the ‘exception clause’ within Clause V,aka, ‘The Grandfather clause’, you are left with NO alternative but to accept the FACT that the ‘natural born citizens’ of the Constitution were contemplated as the anticipated children of the Founding Generation and the Children of the anticipated naturalized citizens.

    and this interpretation that you have given is backed by this excerpt from Justice Story’s Commentaries of 1833:

    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.

  • 152
    John
    January 28th, 2010 20:46

    After last night, it is perfectly clear to me that the sooner someone with standing brings a quo warranto case to the D.C. District Court, the better!

    Anyone using two or more social security numbers [Obama supposedly having used a dozen or more] is nothing more than an unindicted felon at the very least.

    The never-ending debate on all the issues surrounding Obama’s eligibility status has convinced me that Obama was never, and will never be, eligible to be a valid candidate for the Office of President.

    My gut feeling, after reading much posted from both opposing arguments, dictates to me that Obama was most likely born in Kenya, and/or, is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.

    A quo warranto suit will be the only way to prove to me my personal belief is wrong.

  • 153
    AnotherReader
    January 28th, 2010 20:51

    From Article II section I

    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.

    Here is the relevant text from Vattel

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    The second sentence is quite clear in it’s mention of a natural-born citizen being being born of parents who are citizens.

    There would have been no reason to insert the phrase natural born if it had not been needed for clarification of their intended meaning. Which at time, the differences would have been understood. Most of the framers were born here but not of citizen parents.

    It’s as simple as that. You can argue about this for years if you like. And as has been stated before, there has been no case brought to the Supreme court in which it was specifically asked to clarify the natural born clause of Article II section I as it pertains to the Presidency. And by that, I mean a case in which a ruling was issued on the merits.

  • 154
    Linda
    January 28th, 2010 20:52

    MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.

    I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.

    The proposition is that a child born in this country of parents who were not citizens of the United States, and under the laws of their own country and of the United States could not become such

    – as was the fact from the beginning of the Government in respect of the class of aliens to which the parents in this instance belonged — is,

    from the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, any act of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Book I, c.19, § 212.

    “The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . .

    The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.”

    Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

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

    As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers,”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html

  • 155
    Linda
    January 28th, 2010 20:59

    and Chief Justice Fullers dissenting opinion remained to be the rule of law, thus the deciding opinion merely deemed WKA a citizen, but it had no force of law as shown by the library of Congress historical archives:

    Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103)

    The 1st major exception to this 1790 Act was that “derivative” citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen.

    (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.

    and this:

    Further confirmation comes from the SoundexIndex to Naturalization Petitions for the United States District and Circuit Courts, Northern District of Illinois, and Immigration and Naturalization Service District 9 (1840-1950)

    Under the section on the background of Naturalization . . . .” (A1, S8, C4) this official government document states that:

    Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

  • 156
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 22:05

    Phil says:
    January 28, 2010 at 8:44 pm
    jvn,

    Of course, the quasi-catch-22 is the fact that there is no law that enforces eligibility nor to what degree eligibility should be substantiated. So, the Court would have to be asked a question upon which it must render a legal opinion, based on (presumably) non-existing law (since there are no cases that question of any sort of citizenship with respect to presidential eligibility). Assuming legitimate technicalities could be overcome (and, incidentally, nobody has yet to contradict my claim that dismissing a case on issues such as standing does not equate to the actual merits of a case), the Court would rightly need to decide if the remedy of such a petition were able to be fulfilled by the Court.

    So, the opposition thinks they have a bit of evidence that has yet to get into Court that would seemingly blow everyone out of the water. However, this is only one part of the equation. Then we must have a legitimate petitioner, the right question, and the right remedy (which doesn’t include the Court removing a sitting President, which it cannot do — without some seriously fatal (not so much in the literal sense) repercussions).

    My current theory: If a State passes a law that requires substantiation for a candidate for the presidency/vice presidency before they’re put on the ballot, and someone challenges this law (such as a rejected candidate), then we’re getting closer to an “ideal” case that SCOTUS might be swayed to hear.

    -Phil


    That is exactly why I recommended that the Arizona Legislation go the distance with their Bill and include ‘their’ definition of the Constitutional ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen.

    And, in an effort to be scrupulously honest, I almost don’t care what that definition they use might be because it would certainly find its-self the subject of litigation.

    I will soon be back at some Court Clerks window. Which court is subject to the determination of an administrative appeal in process at the AAO.

    Again, the case is focused solely on the Constitutional definition of the ‘idiom’ of natural born citizen.

    My FOIA request to the DHS/USCIS has moved up in the que from the 2nd tier 3500 on a 12000 list to 239 of 1600+/-.

    Once I get whatever they think is ‘responsive’ to my request I’ll send you the file for your input/analysis.

  • 157
    jvn
    January 28th, 2010 22:36

    So, no one is a native born citizen then – per Vattel – unless both of their parents are citizens prior to their birth in the United States?

    Vattel DOES NOT create a “super native born citizen” who alone can seek political leadership. He speaks of citizenship, period.

    Correct?

  • 158
    AnotherReader
    January 28th, 2010 22:55

    So, no one is a native born citizen then – per Vattel – unless both of their parents are citizens prior to their birth in the United States?

    There is nothing in the text that even remotely suggests what you are implying. But it is clear in how it defines Natural Born Citizen. Your simply trying to muddy the waters.

    If the framers understood this as you suggest, there would have been absolutely no reason to make the distinction in the wording of the phrase. A reading of the Constitution shows a great clarity of language and lack of verbosity. The selection of words had a meaning.

  • 159
    slcraig
    January 28th, 2010 23:14

    vn says:
    January 28, 2010 at 10:36 pm
    So, no one is a native born citizen then – per Vattel – unless both of their parents are citizens prior to their birth in the United States?

    Vattel DOES NOT create a “super native born citizen” who alone can seek political leadership. He speaks of citizenship, period.

    Correct?

    You are being blinded by your fidelity to the ‘protected one’.

    Why are you being obtuse prefixing NBC with ‘super’. Is that some sort of cultural denigration or are you really so confused about the nature of citizenship in general that you can not separate a ‘natural citizen’ from the native and naturalized who acquire their citizenship by grant of the 14th and/or statutory process.

    A ‘citizen’ single parent mother passes derivative citizenship to her child whether the father is known or not and whether born to US soil or on foreign soil. But that child is as if a naturalized citizen insofar as the A2S1C5 is concerned.(Should the child be ‘legitimized’ by the natural citizen father before the age of majority would be a reasonable exception)

    At this point in time the only occasion the 14th comes into play is to determine if an Alien Foreign National’s child is to be considered ‘within the jurisdiction’ for the purpose of ‘acquiring’ citizenship.(More on ‘jurisdiction’ is sure to spring up soon)

    A child born of TWO CITIZEN parents require NO Amendment or Statute because they at once ‘Derive and Acquire’ citizenship at birth.

    Jus soli et jus sanguinis.

    What exactly seems UNFAIR to you?

  • 160
    misanthropicus
    January 28th, 2010 23:37

    RE all Ellie Light incubi crowling around -

    Hehehe – why do you worry about Vattel and all those things?
    Dba Obama is hugely helpful anyway in bringing destruction upon his head – it looks like dba Obama will break all records of free fall, by scoring after SOTU lower than before the speech – hehehe – now THAT”S and achievement -
    And this not only because dba Obama’s cretin attack on SCOTUS, but because all the radioactive dung he left behind him is catching up – hehehe – the COLB and BC story is thriving! Exultate! Jubilate!

    Here’s fresh (for me, PST) the latest blow that just came in – from Daily News –

    “White House orders Justice Department to look for other places to hold 9/11 terror trial/ BY Kenneth R. Bazinet, Adam Lisberg and Samuel Goldsmith/ DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

    The White House ordered the Justice Department on Thursday night to consider other places to try the 9/11 terror suspects after a wave of opposition to holding the trial in lower Manhattan.

    The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would “prefer that they did it elsewhere” and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.

    “It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that’s too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood,” Bloomberg told reporters.

    “There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City.”

    State and city leaders have increasingly railed against a plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan federal court since Holder proposed it last month.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer said he was “pleased” by the decision and said the White House also told him Thursday night it backs a possible move.

    Earlier in the day, Schumer spoke “with high-level members of the administration and urged them to find alternatives,” said the senator’s spokesman, Josh Vlasto.

    The order to consider new venues does not change the White House’s position that Mohammed should be tried in civilian court.

    “President Obama is still committed to trying Mohammed and four other terrorist detainees in federal court,” spokesman Bill Burton said yesterday.

    “He agrees with the attorney general’s opinion that … he and others can be litigated successfully and securely in the United States of America, just like others have,” Burton said.

    Burton referred questions about the location debate to the Justice Department. While not commenting publicly, a department official disputed the characterization that the White House ordered the possible move.

    But another insider told The News that Justice officials have been caught off guard by the fiery opposition in New York.

    “They’re in a tizzy at Justice over Bloomberg,” a federal law enforcement official said. “It’s like a half-baked souffle – the plan is collapsing.”

    The incredible shinking dba Obama – and the irrepressible growth of concerns across the nation about dba Obama’s illegitimate presidency –

    Miserable year you’ll have, Obamotons – but I think you deserve it -

    more about Obama’s failing again, ONE DAY AFTER SOTU: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/28/2010-01-

  • 161
    Dennis
    January 28th, 2010 23:57

    What do you readers think of this?

    Will Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s (KSM) defense use the President’s nbc status as defense? Was it a mistake by Holder to try him under the same rights that a US citizen has?

    Has Eric ever thought of the possibility that he could hurt his own administration by bringing KSM to the US? Has he made a deal with KSM that the nbc is not going to be part of the defense?

    Read this. Excerpts from Jack Kemp’s blog:

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/12/15/thinking-the-legally-unthinkable-in-the-ksm-trial/

    Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) has said he wants to put the US government on trial and will probably bring up the Bush administration and mention waterboarding as torture in the courtroom, playing to the international media.

    But why would he limit himself to attacks on the last administration? KS Mohammed could well bring up the subject of Barack Obama never producing his long form birth certificate and thus claim he is not qualified to be President of the United States, thus rendering invalid his appointment of Attorney General Holder. It would throw the court into an uproar and possibly cause a Constitutional crisis, …

    KSM doesn’t even have to research the citizenship matter much. He could merely attain transcripts of the case attorney Orly Taitz won against the government in attempting to deploy a soldier overseas who claimed that Barack Obama wasn’t a valid Commander-In-Chief. He could also use the public record of Philip Berg’s testimony in his attempt to question President Obama’s citizenship before the US Supreme Court.

    Perhaps Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has worked out a private deal with the Obama administration to not bring this up, but he would obviously be more than willing break that deal and advance a media-based jihad where he could extend the trial for a number of months.

  • 162
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 00:51

    Linda says:
    January 28, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    byst, I applaud your efforts, but you narrowed your search to a too narrow alley. I will reveal in my next series. But not too early aka in the 1st article as I wouldn’t want to send you over the deep end right away because as we know, everyone loves a good cliff-hanger!

    Linda that is pathetic, even for you. YOU ARE BUSTED. I showed you the statute directly relating to birth certificates, and proved you lied when you claimed it required a citizen parent. Stop trying to wriggle out of it. You have no defence. I CHECKED EVERY SINGLE STATUTE. Unless it’s a super secret one not on the internet, like the document you claim to have from the Kenyan Government, but you lost it – and won’t bother looking for it until the time is right. You are behaving like a guilty 5 year old.

    I know it’s embarrassing for you – but you need to come clean and admit you made a mistake. Please do it Linda – because I am not letting go of this.

  • 163
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 01:06

    Linda said: Yet they cling to some erroneous ruling from a SCOTUS as if it is law. Yes, dillusional at best.

    …. and here is where Linda always goes wrong. A ruling from the SCOTUS is the law Linda. Can’t parse that. You believe it is erroneous – the legal world doesn’t. Wouldn’t matter if they did – it is the law until a new ruling overturns it. If you recall, the SCOTUS has passed on every opportunity to hear a birther case. I do believe we can infer from that that they are happy with the status quo. Sorry – you lose.

    The fact remains, the framers did not intend for children of foreigners to be ipso facto citizens because of mere vhance of birth on soil and these koolaide drinkers have not been able to show one statute or amendment wherein that changed. Better yet, there would have never been the need for an Act of Congress during the 20th century to allow Native Americans(Indians not subject to the jurisdiction of the US) to be citizens for they were born here, they surely must have been citizens from the gitgo according to bystander’s logic.

    ….. the fact doesn’t remain at all Linda – it is your interpretation, and yet again the legal world does not agree with you. Please try to explain why if parental citizenship were germane to a child’s citizenship, the parents’ status is not even entered onto the child’s birth certificate, and is not required when applying for a birth certificate. How is that possible Linda – I await your response eagerly.

    It all comes down to this. You are finally acknowledging the law does not agree with you. So you say the law is wrongly decided. Won’t wash. Obama was elected in 2009 under the laws enacted at the time. He is therefore a nbc.

  • 164
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 01:10

    Linda says:
    January 28, 2010 at 7:11 pm

    byst, I realize it is after midnight in the UK, so when you come back in the am, maybe you could answer this for us.

    You claim WKA paved the way for your children to become US citizens, so please state the case in which your situation was identical to WKA’s when your children were born aka why did the court rule WKA to be a citizen? It wasn’t merely birth on soil which is common knowledge that we all know, so what was it?

    ……….
    Why would they need to be identical Linda? It established birth on US soil equals nbc. If not, why do my children have US passports? Can you explain that to me?

  • 165
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 01:13

    sharon2 says:
    January 28, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    Does it really matter Sue? A certified copy is not the original. I don’t know enough about forensics to say if special equipment would have to be used and if the exam would have to occur at the expert’s place of business. Even in criminal cases, the DNA sample is given to the defense to take to their own lab if they choose.

    [A long time ago, Historian Dude said he e-mailed Berg and offered to pay for his trip to Chicago to see the COLB when it was supposedly offered for view. I asked him if he would send Sandra Lines, but the never at a loss for words man failed to answer my request.]

    ……

    Sharon I’ll take you up on that one. I’ll pay for Sandra Lines to go to see the COLB. Can you arrange it?

  • 166
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 01:19

    … is the Dunham-s walk-in declaration at the Honolulu HD that the night before, their daughter Stanley had a kid home, and that, due to some family complications, she can present the kid herself only in a couple of days (i.e. upon the arrival of the Kenya flight [actually, Stanley used a couple of flight connections to fly to & back from Africa]) -
    ……

    Can you please explain how Anne would have brought a newborn baby into the US without a passport for the baby? Can you also explain how she could have got back to Hawaii in time to do this unless she left the second the baby was born. Do you find this a likely scenario?

  • 167
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 01:26

    John says:
    January 28, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    Anyone using two or more social security numbers [Obama supposedly having used a dozen or more] is nothing more than an unindicted felon at the very least.

    … supposedly is the key word here. If you are new to this, you need to know that Orly never does any research. As an example, she recently posted Elvis’s photoshopped SS card on her website claiming it was Obama’s mothers! She got a list of supposed SS numbers from a standard internet search, which pulled in anyone with a similar name. The birthers at FR have gone over the list, and found that many of them are real people at real addresses with the surname Obama. Some of them are just wacky. For instance, one of them has the address as the CNN Live TV studio!! Really – do you think Obama fraudulently obtained an SS card and registered it at the CNN studios? Her claims are worthless.

  • 168
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 01:28

    John said: My gut feeling, after reading much posted from both opposing arguments, dictates to me that Obama was most likely born in Kenya, and/or, is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.
    …..

    John your gut has let you down. Can you provide a single piece of evidence pointing to a Kenyan birth?

  • 169
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 01:30

    Linda says:
    January 28, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.

    …..

    We can stop right there Linda – it’s the DISSENT. You are just proving our case for us by quoting dissents to support your theory. Your theory lost.

  • 170
    brygenon
    January 29th, 2010 01:59

    slcraig wrote:

    Now, you seem to take exception to the FACT that I pointed out regarding the PROPER sequence of the Vote Count as guiding the EXISTING law.

    As we saw, the law requires a call for objections “if any” (3 U.S.C. § 15). Since there were none, no call was required.

    The REASON that there could be no REQUIREMENT to notify the Chair in writing in advance of the Count is because a FLAW, ERROR or MISDEED may occur DURING the process.

    As we just went over, the Constitution authorizes the houses of Congress, and not you Mr. Craig, to determine the rules of their proceedings (Article I, Section 5).

  • 171
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 02:19

    bystander,

    I am busted on nothing. Please tell the dear readers why my state issues different forms of birth certs? Ones for citizens & ones for foreign nationals who can not produce naturalization papers?

  • 172
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 02:29

    bystander,

    The fact remains that you still haven’t answered the question, why was WKA determined to be a citizen? I know, because it blows your entire case into outer space.

    The answer is because of the fact that WKA, although his parents were foreigners, his parents were permanently domiciled in the US during WKA’s entire life from birth & had never held a residence anywhere else beside California. WKA grew up under the local jurisdiction and was never subject to any local jurisdiction in China & WKA. Therein lies the erroneous error of Justice Grey.

    However, you nor your children have ever had a permanent residence in the US, therefore, under the ruling of Grey, children born to foreign national, permanently domiciled in the US and never having been under the local jurisdiction of any foreign power. However, Congress never held that ruling as law and never changed the statutes.

    DO YOU GET IT YET? You must have been permanent foreign redidents with no permanent residence in the UK.

    Now, how about those 2 different forms of birth certs my state issues.

  • 173
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 02:34

    byst: Can you please explain how Anne would have brought a newborn baby into the US without a passport for the baby? Can you also explain how she could have got back to Hawaii in time to do this unless she left the second the baby was born. Do you find this a likely scenario?

    Although I don’t fall into the Kenyan birther group, I have been very intrigued by thier efforts and they do have validity.

    Law states that when a person is deceased, their records become public domain however nearly all of Obama’s mothers records have been sealed, including passport records with the exception of a few college records & work records that were able to be gained before the full onsoought of illegal censorship began in late 2007.

  • 174
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 02:36

    bystander,

    We all know you hang out at politijab & they use numerous dissenting opinions to make their argument. In fact, Grey in WKA, used the dissenting opinion in the Elk case in which he wrote the deciding opinion. Now that is priceless.

    Nice try, but you lose.

  • 175
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 02:54

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 2:19 am

    bystander,

    I am busted on nothing. Please tell the dear readers why my state issues different forms of birth certs? Ones for citizens & ones for foreign nationals who can not produce naturalization papers?

    ……

    They don’t Linda. What a ridiculous statement. There is one birth certificate for any child born on us soil.

  • 176
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 02:56

    Linda; Now, how about those 2 different forms of birth certs my state issues.

    …..

    Show them to us Linda.

  • 177
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 02:57

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 2:36 am

    bystander,

    We all know you hang out at politijab & they use numerous dissenting opinions to make their argument. In fact, Grey in WKA, used the dissenting opinion in the Elk case in which he wrote the deciding opinion. Now that is priceless.

    Nice try, but you lose.

    …….

    Linda – a simple question. Is the dissent on the winning or losing side of the decided case?

  • 178
    brygenon
    January 29th, 2010 02:58

    Linda says:

    bystander,

    We all know you hang out at politijab & they use numerous dissenting opinions to make their argument.

    What you missed, Linda, is that the politijab community notes dissenting opinions as the arguments of the *losing* side.

    Is that too hard a concept for you? The majority opinion holds the opinion of the Court and the ruling. Minority opinions, if any, are dissents and do not prevail.

    Nice try, but you lose.

    No Linda, the dissent you cited did.

  • 179
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 02:59

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 2:34 am

    Law states that when a person is deceased, their records become public domain however nearly all of Obama’s mothers records have been sealed, including passport records with the exception of a few college records & work records that were able to be gained before the full onsoought of illegal censorship began in late 2007

    …. evidence for his statement please?

  • 180
    Benaiah
    January 29th, 2010 03:06

    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…

  • 181
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 03:08

    Linda, I notice you have subtly changed you claims from the original, summarised as : in my state the statutes demand that one parent must be a citizen for the child to be a citizen and to be issued a birth certificate.

    Now you are claiming that there are two different birth certificates, one for an inferior class of citizen, born to foreign nationals.

    I know that you cannot back up your first claim, as I have showed you the relevant statute and it doesn’t support your claim. Did you think we wouldn’t notice that you have amended your claim – one that you stated you had checked just two days ago?

    Your amended claim is also false. There are not two types of certificate – or did the South Dakota legal system just neglect to inform anybody? And if so, how do you know? I have already shown you have very little understanding of the processes involved – so how do you know Linda?

  • 182
    Benaiah
    January 29th, 2010 03:08

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

    “ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen …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.”

  • 183
    Benaiah
    January 29th, 2010 03:09

    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 [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. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874]; 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.

  • 184
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 03:10

    Benaiah – when was Wong Kim Ark decided?

  • 185
    Benaiah
    January 29th, 2010 03:14

    WKA was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the 14th Amendement, NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    WKA was not “eligible to the office of President”.

    A “citizen of the United States” is not synonymous with a “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 [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. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874]; 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 [14TH AMENDMENT] citizen of the United States [NOT AN ARTICLE II NATURAL BORN CITIZEN] . For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

  • 186
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 03:31

    Linda – I will today contact the South Dakota Department of Health concerning your claims. I will publish the response here as soon as I get it. Last chance to retract….

  • 187
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 03:45

    Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 03:40:57 -0500 [03:40:57 EST]
    From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (redacted)
    To: DOH.info@state.sd.us
    Subject: Registering a birth in SD

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I would very much appreciate it if you could clarify the situation regarding the birth of a child in South Dakota to non-US citizens.

    1 When applying for a birth certificate for a child born in SD, is it necessary for one or both parents to be a US citizen?

    2 Does a child born to non US citizens have exactly the same citizenship status as a child born to one or more US citizens?

    3 Do you differentiate in any way in the documentation required or the birth certificate issued, when the child has one, two or no citizen parents.

    Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify this issue for me.

    XXXXXXXXXXXX (redacted)

  • 188
    jvn
    January 29th, 2010 07:05

    Funny that I am accused of trying to “muddy the waters” when such “muddying” is all that birthers have…

    But the fact is that Vattel did NOT outline two categories of native born citizen (i.e., one native born, the other natural born). He outlined citizens at birth and non-citizens. Now, following that formulation many, if not a significant majority of Americans would NOT be citizens today because many of their ancestors immigrated and had children prior to becoming citizens, so it does not seem right to use Vattel as our guide.

    Since you all clearly and sensibly admit that the Founders were using a different standard, the question becomes: what standard were they using?

    Could it be that they were using the British standard? Perhaps because prior to the Revolution, that was the standard for citizenship that they were all raised under?

    THAT standard held that anyone born within the geographic boundaries of the country were “natural born.”

    That has been consistent in SCOTUS rulings since 1898 and the Ark decision.

    That is the standard held by every legal scholar and jurist today.

    That is the standard the constitutional authorities have held the President to.

    Despite the triumphalism evident in the birthers cheering of the “victories” they have obtained in their own minds, based on their own parsing of judicial and legislative history, the facts remain the same.

    Any child born in the United States, without regard to the citizenship of their parents is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

  • 189
    slcraig
    January 29th, 2010 07:45

    bystander says:
    January 29, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Now you are claiming that there are two different birth certificates, one for an inferior class of citizen, born to foreign nationals.

    I’m not jumping in here on this particular ongoing dispute primarily because any right think person with any knowledge of the bureaucracy that oversee the Vital Statistics of this Nation since as early as 1795 are snickering to themselves over the bubble gum wrapper some call a COLB.

    What I’m curious about is your blatant anti-immigrant denigrating bigotry. For someone that has so wholeheartedly defended the ’0′s’ Dual Citizenship I’m having a difficult time understanding why you consider the children of foreign nationals as an ‘inferior class’.

    It was already difficult to understand why you would be so anti-American that you disagree with the simplest and VERY First National Security measure so to be made aware of your anti-foreign nationals bigotry that refers to them as an ‘inferior class’ leaves me to wonder to what lengths your anti-social ideas extend.

  • 190
    Sue
    January 29th, 2010 07:57

    http://washingtonindependent.com/75084/a-scorecard-on-federal-spending
    A Scorecard on Federal Spending

  • 191
    slcraig
    January 29th, 2010 08:06

    jvn says:
    January 29, 2010 at 7:05 am
    Funny that I am accused of trying to “muddy the waters” when such “muddying” is all that birthers have…

    But the fact is that Vattel did NOT outline two categories of native born citizen (i.e., one native born, the other natural born). He outlined citizens at birth and non-citizens. Now, following that formulation many, if not a significant majority of Americans would NOT be citizens today because many of their ancestors immigrated and had children prior to becoming citizens, so it does not seem right to use Vattel as our guide.

    Since you all clearly and sensibly admit that the Founders were using a different standard, the question becomes: what standard were they using?

    Could it be that they were using the British standard? Perhaps because prior to the Revolution, that was the standard for citizenship that they were all raised under?

    THAT standard held that anyone born within the geographic boundaries of the country were “natural born.”

    That has been consistent in SCOTUS rulings since 1898 and the Ark decision.

    That is the standard held by every legal scholar and jurist today.

    That is the standard the constitutional authorities have held the President to.

    Despite the triumphalism evident in the birthers cheering of the “victories” they have obtained in their own minds, based on their own parsing of judicial and legislative history, the facts remain the same.

    Any child born in the United States, without regard to the citizenship of their parents is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

    Well, Gump, as I read your ramblings that are as contorted as the ramblings of the ‘Ol Judg0 you turn to in support of your irrational rewritings of history I am reminded of a question posed by all that met a cultural hero who’s very presence seemed to effect destiny its self; “Are you stupid or something?”

    I won’t bother to point out all the errors in your comprehension of the actual meanings of the various sources you scatter through-out your attempt of rationalization, it is far more entertaining to watch you try to put the square blocks into the round holes.

  • 192
    Black Lion
    January 29th, 2010 08:16

    Dennis says:
    January 28, 2010 at 11:57 pm
    What do you readers think of this?

    Will Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s (KSM) defense use the President’s nbc status as defense? Was it a mistake by Holder to try him under the same rights that a US citizen has?

    Has Eric ever thought of the possibility that he could hurt his own administration by bringing KSM to the US? Has he made a deal with KSM that the nbc is not going to be part of the defense?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    The readers would think you are a fool Dennis. That theory is stupid and dumb and legally has less footing than the birhter lawsuits. You must have no knowledge of the law to believe that someone could just make up a defense and the judge would accept it. It could get tossed out quicker than an Orly appeal.

    And that does not take into consideration of “what NBC status”? There is no legal issue or controversy. The President is the President and meets all of the requirements. Why do you think that no so called birther suit has been successful? Because there is no current legal issue. Only in the minds of the birthers is there an issue. This is a non-starter. Just wishful thinking…Hilarious though…

  • 193
    jvn
    January 29th, 2010 08:26

    Steve -

    The facts are the facts. You can attempt to bait me by insulting me, but your record and the record of all of the birthers speaks for itself.

    Every court case brought on this issue has been thrown out of court, many (your own included) have been described in disparaging terms or outright insulted by the jurists who have dismissed them as “frivolous,” “specious” and “incomprehensible,” among other things.

    None of you can cite ONE current legal scholar or jurist who agress with your interpretation of the NBC clause, not ONE.

    No state election official, no member of the Electoral College, nor any member of Congress questions the eligibility of the President to be President. The Supreme Court has not given this so called “issue” even a hint of attention, and the CJ has sworn in the President twice and likely will do so again in January 2013.

    And, of course, the President IS the President, your beliefs notwithstanding. That must really hurt, huh?

    To quote Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does…” While you try to insult me, it seems to me that you birthers have given us a strong example of just what Forrest was talking about…

  • 194
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 08:27

    Steve:

    What I’m curious about is your blatant anti-immigrant denigrating bigotry. For someone that has so wholeheartedly defended the ‘0’s’ Dual Citizenship I’m having a difficult time understanding why you consider the children of foreign nationals as an ‘inferior class’.
    ………

    I don’t – precisely the opposite – I have been arguing with Linda for 4 days that all children born in the US are identical under the law. It is Linda that insists they are second class citizens, and has invented some statutes which she claims proves it – perhaps you should take this up with her.

    I am at a complete loss as to how you could have come to this conclusion. My own children are in that category – I don’t accept for one second that they are an inferior class. I suspect you have missed the long thread where I have been debating this with Linda. Here it is – perhaps you can tell her that you think her views are bigoted:

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/01/21/eligibility-no-deal-response-more-states-create-bills-kerchner-v-obama-update/

  • 195
    Black Lion
    January 29th, 2010 08:30

    Linda says:
    January 28, 2010 at 4:49 pm
    BL said: Whether it is vultures like Farah, felons like Sinclair, Lucas Smith, and Reverend Manning, or idiots like Orly and her crew, it is all about making a buck off the ignorance, hatred, and stupidity of the people that hate the President

    That is a pretty strong statement, especially the last part. Grouping everyone into one neat little package once again shows you are nothing more than an Alinsky protégé masquerading as some warrior fighting to save your liar in chief’s political a$$.

    BTW, I believe I heard that Rahmbo is awaiting your report, you had better not be late or there could be a dead fish in you future.

    ____________________________________________________________________
    Linda, not at all…It is a correct statement…You are just mad because all of the so called heroes of the movement have all be shown to be phonies just in it for the money or to use the birthers for political gain. Anyone that donates to these people, or buys the so called merchandise, is funding the people that are using them. That makes them stupid.

    Alinksy protege? Now that is hilarious coming from someone that cites dissents in SCOTUS rulings to support her wild accusations. Or makes statements that cannot be supported like your SD birth certificate claim that Bystander has already shown us was not true. Or your so called statement regarding super secret documents from the Kenyan government that shows supposed crimes that Obama committed.

    Actually I report directly to the President. Rahm is usually very busy coordinating the various courts in America to deny the claims of the “patriots” and rule in favor of the President. That takes a lot of time.

  • 196
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 08:34

    Steve – it would be nice if you could apologise for calling me a bigot when you have clearly ascribed Linda’a views erroneously to me.

  • 197
    misanthropicus
    January 29th, 2010 08:35

    RE bystander Re misanthropicus:

    misanthropicus [...] … is the Dunham-s walk-in declaration at the Honolulu HD that the night before, their daughter Stanley had a kid home, and that, due to some family complications, she can present the kid herself only in a couple of days (i.e. upon the arrival of the Kenya flight [actually, Stanley used a couple of flight connections to fly to & back from Africa])[...]

    Bysta: [...] Can you please explain how Anne would have brought a newborn baby into the US without a passport for the baby? [...]
    A: with her own passport, which was and still is a common practice in the world, as you very well know…
    … or you think that a newly born baby needs his/her own passport to travel? Passport whose picture needs to be updated every 6 months?

    Bysta: [...] Can you also explain how she could have got back to Hawaii in time to do this unless she left the second the baby was born. Do you find this a likely scenario? [...]
    A: Very simple, my dear Watson – since you are so keen about keeping as self-evident Barry’s claim that that he was born on Aug 4 1961 (that would be a Friday), I’ll go by that milestone – and move back Barry’s DOB a few or more days in July, the time needed by Sydney to recover, get clearance for leaving Kenya, then achieve the journey –

    Time and again, in this, and all other situations regarding dba Obama’s mystery past, Obama’s party tries to inflict as hard evidence assumptions or inventions – unfortunately, Obama’s failing to provide an acceptable BC (or other “vital data” – hehehe), for public examination has caused more problems for him than has solved – his real DOB being one of them -
    So, as I said, probably Barrack was born in Kenya sometime along the second half of July, 1941 -

    Regards -

    PS: by the way, mister Watson – don’t you find a bit difficult to find parking space for your Mercedes and Beemer @ 221b Baker Stret? And, I hope you don’t mind – is your relationship with mister Holmes, your landlord, strictly platonic?
    You know, Robert Downey and Guy Ritchie say… you know, people talk…

  • 198
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 08:42

    A: with her own passport, which was and still is a common practice in the world, as you very well know…
    … or you think that a newly born baby needs his/her own passport to travel? Passport whose picture needs to be updated every 6 months?

    ……

    No it isn’t common practice. A baby may not travel without a passport. A baby may be added to a mother’s passport – which would make the baby a US citizen. The pictures do not need to be updated every six months – they are updated when the passport expires. That is why passports issued to children are for 5 years, not 10.

    Do you have any children? Have you travelled with a baby?

  • 199
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 08:45

    mis get back to me when you have a singe piece of verifiable evidence that links Obama to a birth in Kenya. Until then I will believe the word of the Republican that has seen Obama’s vital records and said “Obama was born in Hawaii”. Enjoy your delusions, hehehe

  • 200
    slcraig
    January 29th, 2010 08:46

    Black Lion says:
    January 29, 2010 at 8:16 am

    And that does not take into consideration of “what NBC status”? There is no legal issue or controversy. The President is the President and meets all of the requirements. Why do you think that no so called birther suit has been successful? Because there is no current legal issue. Only in the minds of the birthers is there an issue. This is a non-starter. Just wishful thinking…Hilarious though…

    So 67 cases in less than 18 months and 17 or more States re-writing their State Laws on ‘qualifying and eligibility’ of National Candidates do not constitute a ‘controversy’ in your world. I was unaware that ‘myopia’ was a planet. But then that makes sense because its obvious that the atmosphere here on earth does not agree with your cognitive abilities.

    Your attempts at denigrating the ‘Birther’s’ calls into question your motives as they may relate to the National Security of this representative Republic.

    Do you think it is proper to insure that a person who would be President would not violate or allow others to violate these laws?

    TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 783. Offenses
    (a) Communication of classified information by Government officer or employee

    It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person whom such officer or employee knows or has reason to believe to be an agent or representative of any foreign government, any information of a kind which shall have been classified by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or corporation with the approval of the President) as affecting the security of the United States, knowing or having reason to know that such information has been so classified, unless such officer or employee shall have been specifically authorized by the President, or by the head of the department, agency, or corporation by which this officer or employee is employed, to make such disclosure of such information.

    (b) Receipt of, or attempt to receive, by foreign agent or member of Communist organization, classified information

    It shall be unlawful for any agent or representative of any foreign government knowingly to obtain or receive, or attempt to obtain or receive, directly or indirectly, from any officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, any information of a kind which shall have been classified by the President (or by the head of any such department, agency, or corporation with the approval of the President) as affecting the security of the United States, unless special authorization for such communication shall first have been obtained from the head of the department, agency, or corporation having custody of or control over such information.

    (c) Penalties for violation

    Any person who violates any provision of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both such fine and such imprisonment, and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to hold any office, or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

    (d) Limitation period

    Any person may be prosecuted, tried, and punished for any violation of this section at any time within ten years after the commission of such offense, notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute of limitations: Provided, That if at the time of the commission of the offense such person is an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or of any corporation the stock of which is owned in whole or in major part by the United States or any department or agency thereof, such person may be prosecuted, tried, and punished for any violation of this section at any time within ten years after such person has ceased to be employed as such officer or employee.

    (e) Forfeiture of property

    (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
    (A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
    (B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.

    (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).

    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 853 of title 21 shall apply to—
    (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
    (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
    (C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
    if not inconsistent with this subsection.

    (4) Notwithstanding section 524 (c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 10601 of title 42 all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

    (5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States.

  • 201
    misanthropicus
    January 29th, 2010 08:51

    Re Black Lion:

    [...] Whether it is vultures like Farah, felons like Sinclair, Lucas Smith, and Reverend Manning, or idiots like Orly and her crew, it is all about making a buck off the ignorance, hatred, and stupidity of the people that hate the President [...]

    Poor dba Obama, he’s besieged by demons! Yet, the company he keeps:
    * friend of Tony Rezko,
    * friend of “God damn America” Wright,
    * friend of Bill Ayres (his FBI terrorist bombing file still open),
    * friend of Anita Dunn ( serene praiser of Mao, the greatest ever mass murderer on Earth – soundly beating at this Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot),
    * friend of Kevin “superfister” Jennings,

    … and of many other intriguing figures, tells me that the demons you complain are not that wrong in their effort to bring to the public many unknown aspects from this person dba Obama’s past -

    Regards -

  • 202
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 09:06

    Linda – I have now received a response from the South Dakota Dept of Health (impressively quick response), confirming you made up the birth certificate statutes you talked about.

    Here is my email:

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I would very much appreciate it if you could clarify the situation regarding the birth of a child in South Dakota to non-US citizens.

    1 When applying for a birth certificate for a child born in SD, it is necessary for one or both parents to be a US citizen?

    2 Does a child born to non US citizens have exactly the same citizenship status as a child born to one or more US citizens?

    3 Do you differentiate in any way in the documentation required or the birth certificate issued, when the child has one, two or no citizen parents.

    Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify this issue for me.

    ………………………………….

    Here is the response:

    Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:54:40 -0600 [08:54:40 EST]
    From: Susan.Wayrynen@state.sd.us
    To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (redacted)
    Subject: birth certificate

    Your questions regarding children born in the US to non US citizens:

    1) no
    2) yes
    3) no

    The status of parent’s citizenship is not addressed in our laws;
    therefore, a child born to anyone in SD is considered a US citizen.
    Also, our laws are very specific regarding what is required for ordering a birth record and, again, citizenship is not addressed. I hope this answers your questions. Please contact me if you have any further questions.

    Susan
    SD Vital Records

    ………..

    Linda that is pretty conclusive refutation isn’t it? Are you now ready to apologise and admit you made it all up?

  • 203
    slcraig
    January 29th, 2010 09:18

    bystander says:
    January 29, 2010 at 9:06 am
    Linda – I have now received a response from the South Dakota Dept of Health (impressively quick response), confirming you made up the birth certificate statutes you talked about.

    Here is my email:

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I would very much appreciate it if you could clarify the situation regarding the birth of a child in South Dakota to non-US citizens.

    1 When applying for a birth certificate for a child born in SD, it is necessary for one or both parents to be a US citizen?

    2 Does a child born to non US citizens have exactly the same citizenship status as a child born to one or more US citizens?

    3 Do you differentiate in any way in the documentation required or the birth certificate issued, when the child has one, two or no citizen parents.

    Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify this issue for me.

    ………………………………….

    Here is the response:

    Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:54:40 -0600 [08:54:40 EST]
    From: Susan.Wayrynen@state.sd.us
    To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (redacted)
    Subject: birth certificate

    Your questions regarding children born in the US to non US citizens:

    1) no
    2) yes
    3) no

    The status of parent’s citizenship is not addressed in our laws;
    therefore, a child born to anyone in SD is considered a US citizen.
    Also, our laws are very specific regarding what is required for ordering a birth record and, again, citizenship is not addressed. I hope this answers your questions. Please contact me if you have any further questions.

    Susan
    SD Vital Records

    ………..

    Linda that is pretty conclusive refutation isn’t it? Are you now ready to apologise and admit you made it all up?

    Well, that is all well and good but you appear to OVERLOOK a very telling STATEMENT, i.e., “citizenship is not addressed.”

    They have no AUTHORITY to determine who is or may not be a ‘Citizen’ let alone who may or may not be a ‘natural born citizen’ qualifying as required by A2S1C5, insofar as Citizenship is concerned.

    You would be, will be, surprised to learn how many Guvmnt Departments, Agencies and Services decline to make that determination and on what grounds in spite of the answer to #2. In other words the response is an OPINION not supported by law.

    I gotta go, I hear the Fat Lady tuning up…….

  • 204
    Black Lion
    January 29th, 2010 09:19

    slcraig says:
    January 29, 2010 at 8:46 am
    Black Lion says:
    January 29, 2010 at 8:16 am

    And that does not take into consideration of “what NBC status”? There is no legal issue or controversy. The President is the President and meets all of the requirements. Why do you think that no so called birther suit has been successful? Because there is no current legal issue. Only in the minds of the birthers is there an issue. This is a non-starter. Just wishful thinking…Hilarious though…

    So 67 cases in less than 18 months and 17 or more States re-writing their State Laws on ‘qualifying and eligibility’ of National Candidates do not constitute a ‘controversy’ in your world. I was unaware that ‘myopia’ was a planet. But then that makes sense because its obvious that the atmosphere here on earth does not agree with your cognitive abilities.

    Steve, you forget 67 UNSUCCESSFUL cases in 18 months. Anyone can file a lawsuit. The fact that they have all been unsuccessful should tell you something. And as for the states rewriting their state laws, so what? Come back when these rewrites have passed the legislatures of the states and have been signed by the governor of that state. And some back when we know what the actual law state when and if it is successful. Until then it is all good publicity…

    Your attempts at denigrating the ‘Birther’s’ calls into question your motives as they may relate to the National Security of this representative Republic.

    I can really care less what you think. My motives as a true American are not in question. It is those that want to remove the lawfully and duly elected President of the US that I would question the motives of…

    Do you think it is proper to insure that a person who would be President would not violate or allow others to violate these laws?

    We already have. It is called an election. If a majority of Americans had real questions about candidate Obama, he would not have been elected and now be President Obama. Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. That is the way it was and will be. Just like in most countries in the world anyone that is born there is a citizen. Can you show us any country that even uses the misinterpretation of De Vattel’s 2 parent theory? Probably not.

  • 205
    Black Lion
    January 29th, 2010 09:30

    slcraig says:
    January 29, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Well, that is all well and good but you appear to OVERLOOK a very telling STATEMENT, i.e., “citizenship is not addressed.”

    They have no AUTHORITY to determine who is or may not be a ‘Citizen’ let alone who may or may not be a ‘natural born citizen’ qualifying as required by A2S1C5, insofar as Citizenship is concerned.

    You would be, will be, surprised to learn how many Guvmnt Departments, Agencies and Services decline to make that determination and on what grounds in spite of the answer to #2. In other words the response is an OPINION not supported by law.

    I gotta go, I hear the Fat Lady tuning up…….
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Steve, you have to improve you reading comprehension skills….Bystanders questions were specific to how the state of SD treats children born to citizens as to children born to non-citizens….There is a reason that on the birth certificate they do not ask the citizenship status of the Parents, and that is because it doesn’t matter. Everyone with a brain recognizes that if you are born in the US you are a US citizen. There federal government has already decided that in the Constitution. So why would there need to be a specific state law? Plus are we sure there is none? Are as usual you just making things up as you go along. Their opinion is supported by law. The birthers are the ones making up opinions that are supported by nothing but hopes and dreams…The only fat lady singing is on your lawsuit…Wait it was already dismissed…So she has already sung for you…

  • 206
    slcraig
    January 29th, 2010 09:49

    Black Lion says:
    January 29, 2010 at 9:30 am
    slcraig says:
    January 29, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Well, that is all well and good but you appear to OVERLOOK a very telling STATEMENT, i.e., “citizenship is not addressed.”

    They have no AUTHORITY to determine who is or may not be a ‘Citizen’ let alone who may or may not be a ‘natural born citizen’ qualifying as required by A2S1C5, insofar as Citizenship is concerned.

    You would be, will be, surprised to learn how many Guvmnt Departments, Agencies and Services decline to make that determination and on what grounds in spite of the answer to #2. In other words the response is an OPINION not supported by law.

    I gotta go, I hear the Fat Lady tuning up…….
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Steve, you have to improve you reading comprehension skills….Bystanders questions were specific to how the state of SD treats children born to citizens as to children born to non-citizens….There is a reason that on the birth certificate they do not ask the citizenship status of the Parents, and that is because it doesn’t matter. Everyone with a brain recognizes that if you are born in the US you are a US citizen. There federal government has already decided that in the Constitution. So why would there need to be a specific state law? Plus are we sure there is none? Are as usual you just making things up as you go along. Their opinion is supported by law. The birthers are the ones making up opinions that are supported by nothing but hopes and dreams…The only fat lady singing is on your lawsuit…Wait it was already dismissed…So she has already sung for you…

    Black Lion says:
    January 29, 2010 at 9:19 am
    slcraig says:
    January 29, 2010 at 8:46 am
    Black Lion says:
    January 29, 2010 at 8:16 am

    And that does not take into consideration of “what NBC status”? There is no legal issue or controversy. The President is the President and meets all of the requirements. Why do you think that no so called birther suit has been successful? Because there is no current legal issue. Only in the minds of the birthers is there an issue. This is a non-starter. Just wishful thinking…Hilarious though…

    So 67 cases in less than 18 months and 17 or more States re-writing their State Laws on ‘qualifying and eligibility’ of National Candidates do not constitute a ‘controversy’ in your world. I was unaware that ‘myopia’ was a planet. But then that makes sense because its obvious that the atmosphere here on earth does not agree with your cognitive abilities.

    Steve, you forget 67 UNSUCCESSFUL cases in 18 months. Anyone can file a lawsuit. The fact that they have all been unsuccessful should tell you something. And as for the states rewriting their state laws, so what? Come back when these rewrites have passed the legislatures of the states and have been signed by the governor of that state. And some back when we know what the actual law state when and if it is successful. Until then it is all good publicity…

    Your attempts at denigrating the ‘Birther’s’ calls into question your motives as they may relate to the National Security of this representative Republic.

    I can really care less what you think. My motives as a true American are not in question. It is those that want to remove the lawfully and duly elected President of the US that I would question the motives of…

    Do you think it is proper to insure that a person who would be President would not violate or allow others to violate these laws?

    We already have. It is called an election. If a majority of Americans had real questions about candidate Obama, he would not have been elected and now be President Obama. Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. That is the way it was and will be. Just like in most countries in the world anyone that is born there is a citizen. Can you show us any country that even uses the misinterpretation of De Vattel’s 2 parent theory? Probably not.

    So under your myopic view even the children of Diplomats, etc, are Citizens?

    Apparently Citizenship to you is a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ type of thing.

    There are any number of qualifying circumstances which, if the laws were being properly applied, are disqualify to a person born on US Soil from ACQUIRING Citizenship, but the point, in the first instant, in the circumstances you are most concerned with, is that they ACQUIRE Citizenship rather than it being derivative from ‘natural circumstances’.

    Elections DO NOT Amend the Constitution.

    Oh, and the Fat Lady wasn’t singing, just cleared her throat.

  • 207
    Black Lion
    January 29th, 2010 09:54

    slcraig says:
    January 29, 2010 at 9:49 am

    So under your myopic view even the children of Diplomats, etc, are Citizens?

    No. Not according to English Common law or the ruling in Wong. The children of diplomats and invading armies are not natural born citizens.

    Apparently Citizenship to you is a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ type of thing.

    No, it is more like a law kind of thing. As in I follow the law. And the law states that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen with 2 exceptions. And I am not addressing the issue about being born overseas to 1 or 2 parents. That is not the argument here.

    There are any number of qualifying circumstances which, if the laws were being properly applied, are disqualify to a person born on US Soil from ACQUIRING Citizenship, but the point, in the first instant, in the circumstances you are most concerned with, is that they ACQUIRE Citizenship rather than it being derivative from ‘natural circumstances’.

    Such as what? We are talking the law and not in your opinion.

    Elections DO NOT Amend the Constitution.

    Agreed. However since Obama was born in the US, he is a natural born citizen. So what is your point?

    Oh, and the Fat Lady wasn’t singing, just cleared her throat.

    In regards to your case, she has sung, changed her clothes, and left the building….

  • 208
    Sue
    January 29th, 2010 10:04

    slcraig,

    “Well, that is all well and good but you appear to OVERLOOK a very telling STATEMENT, i.e., “citizenship is not addressed.”

    They have no AUTHORITY to determine who is or may not be a ‘Citizen’ let alone who may or may not be a ‘natural born citizen’ qualifying as required by A2S1C5, insofar as Citizenship is concerned.”

    The purpose of your certified birth certificate is to prove you are a citizen of the U.S.A. as I recall.

    http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-did-you-know.html
    U.S. Citizenship by Birth or Through Parents
    ——————————————————————————–
    You may already be a U.S. citizen and not know it.

    U.S. citizenship can be obtained in one of four ways:

    birth in the United States or its territories
    birth to U.S. citizen parents (called “acquisition” of citizenship)
    naturalization (obtaining citizenship after an application and exam), or
    naturalization of one’s parents (called “derivation” of citizenship).
    Some people are already U.S. citizens and don’t know it. Most of these people fall into one of three groups:

    People born in the United States who have lived most of their lives in other countries. If you fall into this category, you may mistakenly believe that your long absence from the country, plus voting or military activities elsewhere, have stripped you of U.S. citizenship. This is not the case.

    People who have U.S. citizens in their direct line of ancestry. If your parents or grandparents were U.S. citizens, you may not realize that U.S. citizenship has been passed down the line, even if you were born elsewhere and your parents or grandparents haven’t lived in the United States for a long time.

    Children of naturalized U.S. citizens. When parents become naturalized U.S. citizens, their minor children with green cards gain U.S. citizenship automatically. (Children under the age of 18 cannot normally apply to become naturalized U.S. citizens.)

    You will, however, need to do some research to establish your rights. Here, we’ll explore each of the above three possibilities in turn.

    Birth in the United States
    A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat. Children born in certain U.S. territories — Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam — may also acquire U.S. citizenship. For details, see Title 8 of the U.S. Code, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08.

    Anyone born with U.S. citizenship retains it for life unless he or she deliberately gives it up — for example, by filing an oath of renunciation.

    Birth to U.S. Citizen Parents (“Acquisition”)
    In many circumstances, even though a child is born outside the United States, if at least one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, the child automatically “acquires” citizenship. When this child marries and has children, those children may also acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.

    The laws governing whether or not a child born outside of the United States acquires U.S. citizenship from parents have changed several times. You’ll need to look at the law that was in effect on the date of the child’s birth (and the parents’ birth, if grandparents were U.S. citizens) for guidance. These laws differ for the following time periods:

    prior to May 24, 1934
    May 25, 1934 to January 12, 1941
    January 13, 1941 to December 23, 1952
    December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986, and
    November 14, 1986 to present.”

  • 209
    Sue
    January 29th, 2010 10:10

    “In regards to your case, she has sung, changed her clothes, and left the building….”

    DOA

  • 210
    Sue
    January 29th, 2010 12:43

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/breaking_roeder_found_guilty_of_murdering_dr_georg.php
    BREAKING: Roeder Found Guilty Of Murdering Dr. George Tiller
    Justin Elliott | January 29, 2010, 12:06PM

  • 211
    misanthropicus
    January 29th, 2010 13:05

    Re Ellie Light dba Sue:

    [...] Roeder Found Guilty Of Murdering Dr. George Tiller [...]

    Ellie, this is so primitive -
    Do you really expect any conservative react other than with a shrug at this?
    No matter how intensely some anti-abortion people my feel about this issue, they also will say that Roeder was a murderer and he should get what ever the laws prescribes for his act – you don’t upset or discourage anyone with this information -

    While I still don’t understand why you keep trolling, I have to say that your operation has failed, and the Ellie Light Brigade’s interventions are, at best some nuisances – as far as converting people or obfuscating issues, your endeavors are soundly counterproductive – Obama illegitimacy issue keeps expanding and you cannot do anything about it -

    Gosh, talking about infantilism – remember when your cohorts mightily tried to connect von Braun (of the NYC Holocaust museum shooting) with the conservatives? Hehehe – astute move, I got to admit –

    Get your Tonka bulldozer and little shovel and back in the sand box, Ellie, making sand pies will save your energies – with Obama in free fall (and the teros trial hasn’t scandal hasn’t bloomed yet) he’ll sure need some supporting cacophony from you later -

    Regards -

  • 212
    misanthropicus
    January 29th, 2010 13:08

    Re Ellie Light dba Sue:

    By the way, is Justin Elliott from TPM the same Justin from PJ?
    I guess so – the Ellie Light metastasis is a large misery -

  • 213
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 15:18

    There is one birth certificate for any child born on us soil.

    so you are saying a BC = a ‘Statement’ of birth that is certified by the state.

    Yes, dillusional at best.

  • 214
    MGB
    January 29th, 2010 15:35

    bystander: The SD response addresses SD law, not federal law with regard to presidential eligibility according to the Constitution.

    In addition, you continue to conflate simple citizenship with natural born citizenship. Two different animals.

  • 215
    MGB
    January 29th, 2010 15:40

    mis: I’ll go you one better. I believe that he was born very early in 1961, not in August. More like January/February.

  • 216
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 15:47

    byst,

    When applying for a BC, SD laws require certified originals or certified copies of the original ‘naturalization papers’.

    What part of that do you not understand? Why would the state require it on a form if there is no law pertaing to it.

    Also, I just got off the phone with Susan@SDvitalrecords & she said that no where does SD ask for naturalization papers, yet I have the copy of the PDF that does ask for them. She also could & would not cite direct codified law, state or US to any of my direct questions and sounded very flustered and confused.

    Yep, they got dem paper pushing ignoramisus in every dept, heck, just Wed I spent an hr on the phone with the SD Dept of Revenue & that gal told me I had to use 3 decimal points when figuring revenue aka dollars & cents. When it got all done & said with, we got a nice big FAT refund because of their errors.

    Yes, stymies the mind how these tax paid employees of ours do not know their jobs or the laws to implement them.

  • 217
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 15:53

    MGB: The SD response addresses SD law, not federal law with regard to presidential eligibility according to the Constitution.

    Interesting that you state this as ‘SUSAN@sdvitalrecords’ also said that SD only grants state citizenship, US citizenship is not automatic. For US citizenship you have to contact the feds in DC.

  • 218
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 15:58

    Sue,

    Also interesting is that you are quoting dicta from the immigration & naturalization regualtions, laws & statutes.

    A natural born needs no law, they are because of the ‘nature of society’. Children follow the conditions of the parent & when both are US citizens, then the child is born owing allegiance wholly & completely to that “ONE SOCIETY”.

    Thanks for playing and proving our point.

  • 219
    Black Lion
    January 29th, 2010 16:02

    MGB says:
    January 29, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    mis: I’ll go you one better. I believe that he was born very early in 1961, not in August. More like January/February.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Why not 1958 before HI was a state? That would work good with your beliefs and then you can say he was born before HI was a state. It is a good thing for us it doesn’t matter what you believe. The facts (COLB) and Dr. Fukino say otherwise. But thanks for playing…

  • 220
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:04

    bystander: The SD response addresses SD law, not federal law with regard to presidential eligibility according to the Constitution.

    ….. laws regarding citizenship are Federal as are those relating to federal office – they are uniform throughout the USA. Are you claiming that each state defines nbc differently? Good luck with that.

  • 221
    Black Lion
    January 29th, 2010 16:11

    misanthropicus says:
    January 29, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    Re Ellie Light dba Sue:

    By the way, is Justin Elliott from TPM the same Justin from PJ?
    I guess so – the Ellie Light metastasis is a large misery -
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Actually we thought at first that Ellie Light might be Sarah Palin. Protecting her birth to non citizen Canadians. But we discarded that idea once we saw how coherently the letter was written. So now we suspect that Ellie may actually be Ann Coulter using some sort of top secret Alinksy program first thought up by Lt. Col. Ollie North. We suspect that this plan was concocted to discredit President Obama by pretending that there was some overzealous supportor of him that would take the time to write all of those letters to each newspaper. We figure that it was funded by the Heritiage Group and overseen by the diobolical Roger Ailes. The code name of this plot was “Bridge to Russia from my House”….

  • 222
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:13

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    When applying for a BC, SD laws require certified originals or certified copies of the original ‘naturalization papers’.

    ….. I can’t believe you just typed that – it’s total rubbish. Naturalised citizens don’t have US birth certificates – they have birth certificates from the country they were born in. You just keep making more stuff up and revealing your stupidity. Babies born in the US do not have naturalisation papers – I showed you the precise statue Linda – the one you claim to have checked.

    What part of that do you not understand? Why would the state require it on a form if there is no law pertaing to it.

    … the part I do not understand is why you would think anyone born outside of the US would be able to obtain a US birth certificate. You’re bonkers.

    Also, I just got off the phone with Susan@SDvitalrecords & she said that no where does SD ask for naturalization papers, yet I have the copy of the PDF that does ask for them. She also could & would not cite direct codified law, state or US to any of my direct questions and sounded very flustered and confused.

    …. she was confused by the point above, and you were too stupid to understand that a baby born in the US cannot possibly have naturalisation papers. Show us the PDF Linda.

    Yep, they got dem paper pushing ignoramisus in every dept, heck, just Wed I spent an hr on the phone with the SD Dept of Revenue & that gal told me I had to use 3 decimal points when figuring revenue aka dollars & cents. When it got all done & said with, we got a nice big FAT refund because of their errors.

    … good for you.

    Yes, stymies the mind how these tax paid employees of ours do not know their jobs or the laws to implement them.

    ….. show us the law Linda. I showed you the statute and it categorically contradicts all your claims. Care to comment on that or are you going to change the subject again?

  • 223
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:17

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Sue,

    Also interesting is that you are quoting dicta from the immigration & naturalization regualtions, laws & statutes.

    …. what? There is no dicta in Laws and Statutes. What are you taking about?

  • 224
    Not an Obama Fool
    January 29th, 2010 16:23

    Actually if Black Lion knows anything about what he claims he does, then he would know that the Hawaiian State officials have stated they maintain the records of Barack Hussein Obama aka Stevie Dunham.
    That being the case, and legally bound, they can only issue a statement on the last [official] record they have, no matter how many they have on file.

    So the last record states something about Stevie Dunham, but what does the origional one say?

    The original one that is sealed by the court in Hawaii!

  • 225
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:24

    Linda – I applaud your efforts to change the subject. But when are you going to admit the email from the SD DoH flatly contradicts your claim that a baby born in SD requires a US citizen parent to obtain a US birth certificate. Were you right or wrong Linda? Do you want me to repost all your claims, that you said were sourced from SD statutes?

  • 226
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 16:25

    Sue, so I used the wrong term, you know what I meant, so whydon’t you admit that you are using information from immigration & naturalization laws to make your case?

    Also, here are a couple interesting terms just given to my by my US sentaors office. Maybe byst would like to read up on these:

    birther tourists & jackpot babies!

  • 227
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:27

    Not an Obama Fool says:
    January 29, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Actually if Black Lion knows anything about what he claims he does, then he would know that the Hawaiian State officials have stated they maintain the records of Barack Hussein Obama aka Stevie Dunham.
    That being the case, and legally bound, they can only issue a statement on the last [official] record they have, no matter how many they have on file.

    So the last record states something about Stevie Dunham, but what does the origional one say?

    The original one that is sealed by the court in Hawaii!

    ….you are an obot having a joke aren’t you? Otherwise I feel bound to tell that the Steve reference was a joke made at a televised roast. I can’t believe anyone could take that seriously.

  • 228
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 16:27

    byst,

    yes your e-mail contradidted my claims, then I called the Susan directly and she could not cite one law that supported your case.

    Again, just because the laws are repeatedly usurped, does not make it law.

  • 229
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:30

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    Sue, so I used the wrong term, you know what I meant, so whydon’t you admit that you are using information from immigration & naturalization laws to make your case?

    …. it was me that pointed out your mistake, not sue. Your mistake reveals how little you understand about the law.

    Also, here are a couple interesting terms just given to my by my US sentaors office. Maybe byst would like to read up on these:

    birther tourists & jackpot babies!

    …. thanks but no.

  • 230
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:32

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    byst,

    yes your e-mail contradidted my claims, then I called the Susan directly and she could not cite one law that supported your case.

    Again, just because the laws are repeatedly usurped, does not make it law.

    …. I will take you at your word, though you have frequently made stuff up. But it doesn’t matter if Susun can’t state the law, because I showed it to you. Would you like me to repost it for you here?

  • 231
    Dennis
    January 29th, 2010 16:33

    Is Mr. BHO “African-American” as defined in United States law?

    This blog says that he is an Arab American, if he is a citizen of the US.

    (http://marksarchives.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-obama-really-african-american.html)

    Please don’t call me ugly names or conspiracy theorist; I am just reporting this as an interesting item. Of course we knew that his ancestors were not slaves in the south, but did we know that they might have been Arab slave-traders, as this article suggests?

    Excerpts from the blog:

    “The significance of this is that “the soul and substance of Mr. Obama’s claim to fame” rest entirely on his being “the first” African-American to …… If Mr. Obama is not legally an African-American, then his claims collapse.

    Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, you must be at least 1/8 of the descriptor, but for the sake of this article, …You must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status. Mr. Obama, claiming to be African-American, is half the legal threshold.

    Why is the fact that Mr. Obama is only 6.25% African Black not reported?”

  • 232
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 16:39

    Here is where byst & the state official as well as US officials get nailed as to the law. If naturalization was not a requirement, then this would not appear anywhere in US codified law or on ANY form

    One supporting document must be provided that shows the change that you are requesting. The document must be the original or a
    certified photocopy of the original and also be 7 years older than your date of application. In order to verify the document’s age, please make sure that the document has a date of creation listed.
    Only one document is required from the list below:
    Section 5 SUMMARY INFORMATION
    Please make sure you include the following in your mailing:
    Vital Records
    207 E Missouri Ave, Ste 1-A
    Pierre, South Dakota 57501
    Tel: 605/773-4961
    q I am paying $8 by check or money order, made out to “SD DOH” q My child is under 1 year of age; no fee is required

    q Parent’s Naturalization Papers

    per US law, the child is NOT a US citizen until the parents provide proof of their naturalization

  • 233
    Sue
    January 29th, 2010 16:44

    ” Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 4:25 pm
    Sue, so I used the wrong term, you know what I meant, so whydon’t you admit that you are using information from immigration & naturalization laws to make your case?”

    Who are you addressing? I provided the link.

    “Also, here are a couple interesting terms just given to my by my US sentaors office. Maybe byst would like to read up on these:

    birther tourists & jackpot babies!”

    Which US Senator? Have you got a link?

    Do you have a link to the PDF file you claim to have?

    It continues to amaze me just how smart you are and know everything about all subjects.

  • 234
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:46

    Linda you said this:

    How can a non citizen claim US citizneship for thier child, when the current law states atleast 1 parent must be a US citizen unless the child is found and no parents are able to be located aka abandoned baby.

    Now, when I check the latest information required by my state, one requirement is parents who were born out of country must provide a copy of their naturalization papers.

    ……….

    Now here is the link to the statute and it says no such thing.

    Lhttp://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=34-25-8

    Are you still insisting it is a requirement to have a citizen parent but the state neglected to put it on the statute book?

  • 235
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:49

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Here is where byst & the state official as well as US officials get nailed as to the law. If naturalization was not a requirement, then this would not appear anywhere in US codified law or on ANY form

    One supporting document must be provided that shows the change that you are requesting. The document must be the original or a
    certified photocopy of the original and also be 7 years older than your date of application. In order to verify the document’s age, please make sure that the document has a date of creation listed.
    Only one document is required from the list below:
    Section 5 SUMMARY INFORMATION
    Please make sure you include the following in your mailing:
    Vital Records
    207 E Missouri Ave, Ste 1-A
    Pierre, South Dakota 57501
    Tel: 605/773-4961
    q I am paying $8 by check or money order, made out to “SD DOH” q My child is under 1 year of age; no fee is required

    q Parent’s Naturalization Papers

    per US law, the child is NOT a US citizen until the parents provide proof of their naturalization

    …. Did you seriously think we would fall for that? Now would you like to admit you have lifted this from a completely different set of regulations, or shall I provide the link to prove it?

  • 236
    slcraig
    January 29th, 2010 16:53

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 3:18 pm
    There is one birth certificate for any child born on us soil.

    so you are saying a BC = a ‘Statement’ of birth that is certified by the state.

    Yes, dillusional at best.

    It’s hard to tell who is responding to who, but it is true that there is a UNIFORM CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH which is Designed and administered by the Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the Department of Vital Statistics that ALL Birth Centers, being any where a child is born including provisions for Mid-Wife/Home Births are required for proper filing in ALL 50 States and Territories.

    It is the INFORMATION in the COMPLETED FORM that would yield distinguishments and distinctions of the child’s citizenship status.

  • 237
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:55

    Linda – the regulations you just quoted are for an AMENDED birth certificate request, as is required after adoption – not an original birth certificate.

    Here is the link

    http://www.codington.org/Reg_of_Deeds/Birthammendmentrequest020409.PDF

    How much fail do you want to heap upon yourself. Just admit you were wrong.

  • 238
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 16:57

    slcraig says:
    January 29, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 3:18 pm
    There is one birth certificate for any child born on us soil.

    so you are saying a BC = a ‘Statement’ of birth that is certified by the state.

    Yes, dillusional at best.

    It’s hard to tell who is responding to who, but it is true that there is a UNIFORM CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH which is Designed and administered by the Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the Department of Vital Statistics that ALL Birth Centers, being any where a child is born including provisions for Mid-Wife/Home Births are required for proper filing in ALL 50 States and Territories.

    It is the INFORMATION in the COMPLETED FORM that would yield distinguishments and distinctions of the child’s citizenship status.

    ……

    Steve we agree on something at last! Maybe Linda will believe it from a fellow birther.

  • 239
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 17:00

    Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965, which is still in effect:

    “an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject;

    citizen or subject? hmmmm, you mean the parents pass the citizenship?

    BINGO! The US has never held their citizens to be subjects and the codified law at the time & to this day did not allow for birth right citiznship.

  • 240
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 17:04

    bystander,

    Amended is correct, It follows the law of the constitution wherein a child born to aliens is not a citizen until the parents have become naturalized. Therefore an amended cert would be in order for the child to recieve full political benefits upon comin of age.

    DUH!

  • 241
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 17:07

    And yes there are uniform rules & form guidelines for certs, but not all states are identical. They are merely guidelines. Hawaii is testiment to that.

  • 242
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 17:08

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965, which is still in effect:

    “an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject;

    citizen or subject? hmmmm, you mean the parents pass the citizenship?

    BINGO! The US has never held their citizens to be subjects and the codified law at the time & to this day did not allow for birth right citiznship

    …. …….

    Linda your dishonesty is getting out of control. The quote above refers to methods for charging a country for green card applications NOT CITIZENSHIP.

    Here is the link

    http://imminfo.com/Library/green_cards/chargeability.html

  • 243
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 17:09

    bystander,

    Do you know the difference between ‘native’ & ‘citizen’?

  • 244
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 17:11

    byst: Linda your dishonesty is getting out of control. The quote above refers to methods for charging a country for green card applications NOT CITIZENSHIP.

    And your ignorance is truly mind numbing. A child born to aliens in the US needs a green card visa? Now why is that?

  • 245
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 17:11

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    And yes there are uniform rules & form guidelines for certs, but not all states are identical. They are merely guidelines. Hawaii is testiment to that.

    ….. the Federal regulations on CITZENSHIP are identical. Some states may put different information relating to birth weight and other extraneous stuff – no information relating to nbc staus is different from state to state. If you think it is – provide a link, not a quote mine.

  • 246
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 17:13

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    byst: Linda your dishonesty is getting out of control. The quote above refers to methods for charging a country for green card applications NOT CITIZENSHIP.

    And your ignorance is truly mind numbing. A child born to aliens in the US needs a green card visa? Now why is that?

    ……

    Read the link Linda.

  • 247
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 17:17

    byst, I dont need to read your link, I am reading directly from the Congressional record of the original copy of the Act as it was written in 1965.

    Public Law 89-236 Oct. 3, 1965

    http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/79%20stat%20911.pdf

  • 248
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 17:19

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    bystander,

    Do you know the difference between ‘native’ & ‘citizen’?

    ……

    There are two types of citizen – naturalised and native/natural born. Native is a subset of citizen.

    On this and the other thread that we have been debating – you have proven that you don’t understand anything about the immigration process, green cards, visas, dicta, birth certificates or SS cards. You have been proven wrong over and over again. Now just why would any one think you know anything about citizenship? You quote mine to claim something refers to something that it doesn’t – going to fess up about the AMENDED birth certificate yet? Or the SD statute you claim you have checked?

    Linda – give it up. You don’t understand what you are talking about and you are digging yourself further and further into a hole.

  • 249
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 17:32

    Let’s go further into the immigration & Nationality Act:

    (27)the term immigrant means-
    (A)an immigrant who is born in any independent foreign country of the Western Hemmisphere or in the Canal Zone and the spouse and children of any such immigrant is accompanying, or following to join him.

    You might also want to read section (32) subparagraph (c) dubsection (F)

    But, lest I remind you, these are immigration laws, not laws for natural born citizens who acquire their US citizenship through their parents US citizenship naturally & not by US codified law.

  • 250
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 17:34

    Linda – I’ve read the congressional record that you link to. The whole section is about who pays for green card applications. The reference to aliens refers to a person who was born in the US and who emigrating to another country and acquired citizenship, wishing to repatriate to the US and obtain a green card. The meaning is quite clear – that the country that person originally emigrated to bears the cost of the green card – not the country of birth. This has no relevance what so ever to citizenship and does not seek to define any category of citizenship. Yet again – epic fail.

  • 251
    misanthropicus
    January 29th, 2010 17:34

    RE bystander:

    [...] Until then I will believe the word of the Republican that has seen Obama’s vital records and said “Obama was born in Hawaii”. [...]

    I seldom can agree with you, dear Watson, but here I applaud your grasp of matters:
    1) Yes, I BELIEVE the Hawaii officials claim that they saw “Obama’s vital records” -
    Yet the “vital records” term (which suddenly and recently substituted the term BC in their communiques), doesn not describe a Birth Certificate – a “vital data” item can be many things (but not a newspaper announcement), in this case most likely being the Dunham-s walk-in declaration that their daughter Stanley just had baby elswehere (your pick):
    a) either abroad, or
    b) in Hawaii, but due to some circumstances not in a hospital,

    … and that she would in a few days come herself (with the proof, hehehe – today’s SCOTUS basher) to go through the proceedings -

    … that’s the story, dear Watson – so you can blow warm air as much as you want, but the Hawaii HD will NEVER AGAIN utter the word BIRTH CERTIFICATE, and will stubbornly keep using the un-incriminating term of “vital data” – hehehe -

    A difficult task you chosed Watson, to prove that dba Obama is a legitimate president –
    I suggest that you switch to more realistic projects, like the perpetum mobile, the philosophical stone or… Homunculus!
    Yeah, homunculus – since you finessed your inquisitive skills in mystery births like Obama’s, now you can proceed at injecting pumpkins with pregnant women’s urine, then leave the pumpkins for a week in moon shine, and… voila!

    Watson, definitely the homunculus project is for you, you sure can figure the right urine and moonshine, and it will be more successful than your unrewarding attemp at proving Obama’s legitimacy -
    Also, the Nobel prize might be yours, too – after all Obama got it for much less achievements than injecting pumpkins with pee – hehehe -

    Regards -

    PS: Dear Watson, I am still worrying about your Mercedes and Beemer parking problems on Baker street, London – are you alright?
    Or is that Baker street, Oakland California? Or Frazier Park? Hehehe -

    Regards

  • 252
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 17:38

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Let’s go further into the immigration & Nationality Act:

    (27)the term immigrant means-
    (A)an immigrant who is born in any independent foreign country of the Western Hemmisphere or in the Canal Zone and the spouse and children of any such immigrant is accompanying, or following to join him.

    You might also want to read section (32) subparagraph (c) dubsection (F)

    But, lest I remind you, these are immigration laws, not laws for natural born citizens who acquire their US citizenship through their parents US citizenship naturally & not by US codified law.

    …………….

    And how is this remotely relevant to a child born in the US? Perhaps you missed the vital words “is accompanying or following” – ie not born in the us.

    Linda – are you going to selectively quote tiny excerpts and hope nobody checks where it comes from? The SD statute I showed you clearly says any child born in the state is a US citizen. There is no ambiguity.

  • 253
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 17:41

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Let’s go further into the immigration & Nationality Act:

    (27)the term immigrant means-
    (A)an immigrant who is born in any independent foreign country of the Western Hemmisphere or in the Canal Zone and the spouse and children of any such immigrant is accompanying, or following to join him.

    You might also want to read section (32) subparagraph (c) dubsection (F)

    But, lest I remind you, these are immigration laws, not laws for natural born citizens who acquire their US citizenship through their parents US citizenship naturally & not by US codified law.

    ………….

    This has ZERO to do with a child born in the US. Why are you quoting this? Immigration laws apply to immigrants – people who come from another country, not those born in the US. You can’t possibly mean you think a baby born in the US is an immigrant.

  • 254
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 17:43

    byst,

    I will give up nothing. Why do you not show me the Act or codified law that repealed the 1965 immigration Act?

    I have already proven the difference between natural born & native per James Kent and his 1826 commentaries wherein he states that ‘natives’ are artificial persons derived from laws of man, not laws of nature.

    Doesn’t get any simpler than that. People quoting Vattel are misconstruing his words thinking the framers adopted the meaning of native = natural born, when in fact hey didn’t.

    Natives are the persons born & residing in the country at its birth aka declaration of independence. They were not automatically citizens of the new country(society). They had to make a conscious choice as to which country they wished to declare allegiance to.

    The natural born are those born to the natives & naturalized citizens after the declaration of independence.

    Maybe you should spend some time in those early documents to understand it all as I have.

  • 255
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 17:46

    bystander, you truly are amazingly ignorant if you can not understand a direct definition from US law that states a child born in the US to foreigners is also a foreigner who is also in need of a green card.

    Yes, stymies the mind how you can’t read & understand what is right in front of you.

  • 256
    brygenon
    January 29th, 2010 17:47

    Dennis says:

    Is Mr. BHO “African-American” as defined in United States law?

    Please don’t call me ugly names or conspiracy theorist; I am just reporting this as an interesting item.

    The problem is what you are, whether people call you it or not.

    Why is the fact that Mr. Obama is only 6.25% African Black not reported?”

    On the contrary, it’s surprisingly widely reported, considering Kenneth E. Lamb made it up and there’s no reason to care anyway.

  • 257
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 17:47

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    byst: Linda your dishonesty is getting out of control. The quote above refers to methods for charging a country for green card applications NOT CITIZENSHIP.

    And your ignorance is truly mind numbing. A child born to aliens in the US needs a green card visa? Now why is that?

    ……..

    First of all – you show your ignorance. A green card is not a visa – very, very different. A person born in the US who emigrates and naturalises in another country, who then wishes to repatriate may apply for a green card. This is what the statement you quoted refers to. You can enter the US on a visa, and only need to apply for a green card if you wish to stay permanently. Many people only apply after several years residency. Anything else I can help you with?

  • 258
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 17:56

    byst: The reference to aliens refers to a person who was born in the US and who emigrating to another country and acquired citizenship

    Wrong again. The Immigration Act of 1965 was to determine/increase the quota of immigrants INTO the US which had not changed since 1924.

  • 259
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 17:58

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    bystander, you truly are amazingly ignorant if you can not understand a direct definition from US law that states a child born in the US to foreigners is also a foreigner who is also in need of a green card.

    Yes, stymies the mind how you can’t read & understand what is right in front of you.

    ……………

    It didn’t state that though did it Linda. It wasn’t referring to citizenship at all. I showed you the statute applying right now in your own state that shows a child born in the US is a citizen from birth, and it was confirmed by the email from the SD DoH. You agreed just a few minutes ago that those state regulations follow federal regulations identical in every state. Case closed. There is nothing to debate.

  • 260
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:01

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    byst: The reference to aliens refers to a person who was born in the US and who emigrating to another country and acquired citizenship

    Wrong again. The Immigration Act of 1965 was to determine/increase the quota of immigrants INTO the US which had not changed sice 1924.

    ….. read what I said more carefully. I referred to a person who was born IN the US, LEFT the US and naturalised in another country and later immigrated back INTO the US as an alien. That is, an IMMIGRANT, covered by the Immigration Act.

  • 261
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 18:04

    A green card is not a visa

    so sue me, the / didn’t appear and I couldn’t get in to fix it. Want to nit pick typose? I could list atleast a 100 or more of yours but then again, we are not debating typing errors are we.

  • 262
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:04

    Linda – do you not see the futility of searching in an Immigration act for any clue as to who is born a citizen? You are looking in the wrong place, as usual. Any comment on your phony link to an AMENDED birth certificate yet?

  • 263
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:07

    OK Linda a simple answer, yes or no: Does SD law dictate that a child born in SD to alien parents is a citizen of the US? Yes or no.

  • 264
    keith
    January 29th, 2010 18:12

    Natural Born Citizen= 2 parents both US Citizen, Child born on US soil is this correct or not? cause if it only take 1 parent for the child to be a NBC what would happen if OBL or Hugo or dinnerjacket gets a girl pregant and has a child in ohio would that child be able to be president?

  • 265
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 18:12

    read what I said more carefully. I referred to a person who was born IN the US, LEFT the US and naturalised in another country and later immigrated back INTO the US as an alien. That is, an IMMIGRANT, covered by the Immigration Act.

    That is not what we are discussing and that is not the definition in which I gave. You are purposely avoiding the direct debate because you never have been a US citizen, nor has your husband and the Act was not amended in 1965 for any such purpose. The act was passed to open the borders for more immigrants, for easier naturalization but more inportantly to make it easier for citizens & naturalized citizens with foreign spouses & foreign children to gain their US citizenship status aka Korean & Vietnam war vets.

  • 266
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 18:15

    byst: OK Linda a simple answer, yes or no: Does SD law dictate that a child born in SD to alien parents is a citizen of the US? Yes or no.

    Direct quote from Susan@SDvitalrecords per phone call this afternoon immedaitely after your posting:

    “NO, SD does not issue US citizenship, under law we can only grant state citizenship”

  • 267
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:20

    Linda: That is not what we are discussing and that is not the definition in which I gave. You are purposely avoiding the direct debate because you never have been a US citizen, nor has your husband and the Act was not amended in 1965 for any such purpose. The act was passed to open the borders for more immigrants, for easier naturalization but more inportantly to make it easier for citizens & naturalized citizens with foreign spouses & foreign children to gain their US citizenship status aka Korean & Vietnam war vets.

    ……. I can see why you want to change the subject. Let’s summarise why we are discussing this text. YOU lifted a paragragh for the 1965 Act in an attempt to prove a point about citizenship – you didn’t provide a link, and you were caught out. I pointed out to you it did no such thing, and referred to a specific instance of allocating costs when applying for green cards. It did not define citizenship in any way. The text you quoted did not say in any way that a child born in the US is not a citizen.

  • 268
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 18:23

    Any comment on your phony link to an AMENDED birth certificate yet?

    Yes, as a matter of fact. Once the parents are naturalized, then the child’s birth cert must be amended showing that the child is now legally a US citizen. It is what the founding fathers called:

    Common Sense and it seems to be dying a very wuick death in this new age of ignorance to our founding & our laws.

    and about that PHONY link, its not so PHONY after all:

    http://doh.sd.gov/VitalRecords/Forms/BirthRecordAmend.pdf

  • 269
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:23

    NO, SD does not issue US citizenship, under law we can only grant state citizenship”

    …..

    What a ridiculous lie! There is no such thing as state citizenship. So if you are born in SD you aren’t a citizen in any other state? Yes, really! You’ve really outdone yourself here Linda. Get it in an email if you expect me to believe she said any such thing.

  • 270
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:27

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    Any comment on your phony link to an AMENDED birth certificate yet?

    Yes, as a matter of fact. Once the parents are naturalized, then the child’s birth cert must be amended showing that the child is now legally a US citizen. It is what the founding fathers called:

    Common Sense and it seems to be dying a very wuick death in this new age of ignorance to our founding & our laws.

    …. another out and out lie. I’ve already shown you the statement from SD saying any child born in the state is issued the exact same birth certificate, irrepective of the parents’s citizenship. I think you have some sort of mental problem – your denials in the face of over whelming evidence are bordering on the pathological.

  • 271
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 18:31

    bystander,

    You are obviously completely out of objective & rational thinking. I cited the definition of an immigrant born on US soil who needs a green card which is a child born to 2 foreign parents/temporary immigrants and you try to make it as if that does not pertain to you.

    Your objectivity is completely obscurred by your emotional involvement. You can not cite 1 US law in which that Act of 1965 was repealed or amended regarding the definition of children born to 2 alien parents on US soil. You are grasping at insults and rhetoric to change the subject and if you had really studied SD laws, you would have known about the need for an amended birth cert after parents are naturalized and so would have Susan@vitalrecords. I had to point it out to her which just goes to show the level of ignorance in our own government & legal system.

  • 272
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:38

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    Any comment on your phony link to an AMENDED birth certificate yet?

    Yes, as a matter of fact. Once the parents are naturalized, then the child’s birth cert must be amended showing that the child is now legally a US citizen. It is what the founding fathers called:

    Common Sense and it seems to be dying a very wuick death in this new age of ignorance to our founding & our laws.

    and about that PHONY link, its not so PHONY after all:

    http://doh.sd.gov/VitalRecords/Forms/BirthRecordAmend.pdf

    ……….

    If that is the case, can you please explain why on the form you link to it says “Please mark below the items that are incorrect” and the only items listed are names, date of birth, county and sex. So how does changing any of those details affect citizenship?

    You also miss the most blindingly obvious point. The US cannot issue a birth certificate on behalf of any other country. So if it is amending a birth certificate, it has to be a US certificate that is amended. US certificates are only issued to US citizens. This is so bloody obvious I am genuinely looking forward to how you try and squirm out of it.

  • 273
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:41

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    bystander,

    You are obviously completely out of objective & rational thinking. I cited the definition of an immigrant born on US soil who needs a green card which is a child born to 2 foreign parents/temporary immigrants and you try to make it as if that does not pertain to you.

    ………

    Linda – you are not an immigrant if you are born in the US and do not give up your US citizenship. The SD email confirmed that to you today. My childrens’ passports confirm that. You do not have a leg to stand on.

  • 274
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 18:43

    bystanre,

    States are only given the power to declare who may be a citizen of that state. That has been the law since 1776. State citizenship is a state is NOT the same as US citizenship.

    Another area of study for you that you obviously do not understand wherein a country was established where the states & people are the sovereigns, not the National government.

  • 275
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:44

    Please Linda – explain to me how my children have US passports. No immigration laws – just explain how they have passports and birth certificates declaring they are us citizens. Shall I email you copies of them? Please do it Linda.

  • 276
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 18:47

    Correct me if I am wrong, but your children were not issued US birth certs, at birth they were issued State certs were they not? The US government dfoes not issue birth certs, they only set guidlines for information that should be in the form.

  • 277
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:47

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    bystanre,

    States are only given the power to declare who may be a citizen of that state. That has been the law since 1776. State citizenship is a state is NOT the same as US citizenship.

    Another area of study for you that you obviously do not understand wherein a country was established where the states & people are the sovereigns, not the National government.

    …………………utter rubbish, as confirmed today by the South Dakota DoH in the email I posted here. Just utter, utter rubbish.

    And you know what – even if it were true – it wouldn’t matter. Because as you agreed earlier, the rules are precisely the same in every state – if you meet the requirements in South Dakota, you meet them everywhere else.

  • 278
    Sue
    January 29th, 2010 18:49

    bystander,

    Here is where Linda is getting her so called information from regarding “state citizenship.” Does this surprise you? ROTFL

    http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

  • 279
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:50

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    Correct me if I am wrong, but your children were not issued US birth certs, at birth they were issued State certs were they not? The US government dfoes not issue birth certs, they only set guidlines for information that should be in the form.

    ….. they were issued birth certificates which were used to obtain US passports. They were, by definition, their proof of US citizenship. Try again.

  • 280
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:55

    Sue says:
    January 29, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    bystander,

    Here is where Linda is getting her so called information from regarding “state citizenship.” Does this surprise you? ROTFL

    http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

    ……

    Hahahahah that is hilarious. I truly have never come across anyone so obtuse.

  • 281
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 18:55

    Please Linda – explain to me how my children have US passports. No immigration laws – just explain how they have passports and birth certificates declaring they are us citizens. Shall I email you copies of them? Please do it Linda.
    ________________________________________________

    USURPATION by turning a blind eye to the law for progessive & socialistic purposes.

    This however, does not make it law. We’ve been fighting this for years and we will not stop until the Constitution & rule of law is either upheld, changed or amended. But as I have already written extensively on, all attempts in Congress since the mid 70′s have failed to make it out of committee. The revolution of action through courts and legislation has just begun. We now have the media’s attention, a growing army of patriots tired of our laws being usurped as well as our elected officials turning a blind eye to the laws pertaining to immigration and there is nothing you can say or do to discourage or stop us.

    BTW, SHOW us the law that repealed the 1965 Act which upheld the framers definition of children of alien immigrants born on US soil?

  • 282
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 18:57

    Linda – I ask again. How do my children have US passports if they are not US citizens? Tomorrow I will email copies to you. Give Phil your email and I will ask him to forward them to you. Then it will be case closed – yes?

  • 283
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 19:01

    Linda;
    BTW, SHOW us the law that repealed the 1965 Act which upheld the framers definition of children of alien immigrants born on US soil?

    …. There was no definition Linda. None, nada, zilch. For the third time, it referred to a US citizen that emigrated, lost their citizenship, then wished to immigrate back to the US as an alien. Does not refer anywhere to a child of immigrants born on US soil not being a US citizen at birth.

  • 284
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 19:05

    bystander,

    Here is where Linda is getting her so called information from regarding “state citizenship.” Does this surprise you? ROTFL

    http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

    _______________________________________

    Now you are just a plain, flat out liar, kinda like the dude who gave a SOTU address Wed evening. That is your link that you obviously found googling and jsut goes to show how desperate your are at this point because the laws do not match what your imagination is telling you to believe.

    You want to debate then do it honestly, go to the laws of the founding and what powers were granted to the federal govt & the state government. A citizen in a state does not automatically become a US citizen, never has & still does not. The states are sovereigns.

  • 285
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 19:10

    Bystander,

    And I again ask you to show me the law that repealed the 1965 Act therefore establishing that in a court of law, those passports would be deemed legal & legitimate?

    And I again ask you, what law granted citizneship to children born to alien parents temporarily in the US on work visa?

    Just show us the laws, already & we will shut up and concede victory to you.

  • 286
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 19:11

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    Please Linda – explain to me how my children have US passports. No immigration laws – just explain how they have passports and birth certificates declaring they are us citizens. Shall I email you copies of them? Please do it Linda.
    ________________________________________________

    USURPATION by turning a blind eye to the law for progessive & socialistic purposes.

    This however, does not make it law. We’ve been fighting this for years and we will not stop until the Constitution & rule of law is either upheld, changed or amended.

    ……….. well at least you agree they are citizens, it was painful, but you got there in the end. Good luck with trying to get over 100 years of established law overturned. Of course only a few crackpots agree with you, but hey, you might get lucky.

    Now we have established the truth of my original point – days ago – I will leave you to your delusions. But if you make any unsubstantiated claims again, I’ll be sure to check up on them.

  • 287
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 19:16

    Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS, Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89-236) abolished the national-origin quotas that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by United States Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by United States Senator Philip Hart of Michigan (known as “the Conscience of the Senate”), and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts – all Democrats.[1]

    An annual limitation of 300,000 visas was established for immigrants, including 170,000 from Eastern Hemisphere countries, with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited. While there are still no quotas for immigrant spouses of US citizens, quotas for other types of relatives of US citizens have since been instituted.

  • 288
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 19:18

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    Bystander,

    And I again ask you to show me the law that repealed the 1965 Act therefore establishing that in a court of law, those passports would be deemed legal & legitimate?

    …………Oh lord, here we go again. An Immigration Act has no bearing on persons who are not immigrants. The passports don’t need to be deemed legal – they are self verifying.

    And I again ask you, what law granted citizneship to children born to alien parents temporarily in the US on work visa

    ………….I showed you the SD statute Linda. Didn’t you read it? I showed you the email form the DoH Linda, didn’t you read it? You have been shown WKA numerous times – that is the SCOTUS decision that is binding on every court in the land that defines nbc as born on US soil. You don’t accept it – but you are so ignorant about the subject that your views don’t count.

    Just show us the laws, already & we will shut up and concede victory to you.
    .
    ……….. that has been done so many times it got boring. You don’t need to concede defeat – we won. Obama is President, my children have US passports. That is all the proof needed.

    .

  • 289
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 19:23

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS, Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89-236) abolished the national-origin quotas that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by United States Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by United States Senator Philip Hart of Michigan (known as “the Conscience of the Senate”), and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts – all Democrats.[1]

    An annual limitation of 300,000 visas was established for immigrants, including 170,000 from Eastern Hemisphere countries, with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited. While there are still no quotas for immigrant spouses of US citizens, quotas for other types of relatives of US citizens have since been instituted.

    ………………… It has just occurred to me that you actually don’t know that someone in the US on a work visa is not an immigrant!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No wonder you are obsessed with this law – you’ve got no idea have you? This law has no applicability to my children whatsoever – I have never, ever been an immigrant.

  • 290
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 19:27

    Now we have established the truth of my original point

    And that truth would be? That your children are citizens by what law? You still have not shown it, thus your children are not legally by law, US citizens. You are merely masquerading them as such when it is conveinent for you as you already stated that they only travel on those passports when coming to the US. You use their Uk passports when traveling in all other foreign countries.

  • 291
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 19:30

    It has just occurred to me that you actually don’t know that someone in the US on a work visa is not an immigrant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ________________________________________________

    ok, technically you & your husband were an alien residents on work visa but I didn’t need to go look it up either as you had to go try & find the difference between a state citizen & a US citizen sinced it obiously was the 1st time anyone posed that part of the law to you.

  • 292
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 19:34

    And that truth would be? That your children are citizens by what law? You still have not shown it, thus your children are not legally by law, US citizens. You are merely masquerading them as such when it is conveinent for you as you already stated that they only travel on those passports when coming to the US. You use their Uk passports when traveling in all other foreign countries.

    ……. that’s what dual citizens do Linda. You wouldn’t know much about it, because you have never left the country or owned a passport. Take it from someone that travels a lot – you use the passport that gets you through immigration quickest – in the EC that is a UK passport, in the US of course you are by law required to use your US passport. In Africa and Asia a UK passport is best too.

    I am going to leave you in your ignorance now – carry on believing we are masquerading (!!!), I guess it’s a harmless delusion.

  • 293
    bystander
    January 29th, 2010 19:36

    ok, technically you & your husband were an alien residents on work visa but I didn’t need to go look it up either as you had to go try & find the difference between a state citizen & a US citizen sinced it obiously was the 1st time anyone posed that part of the law to you.

    ……..another lie – it wasn’t a law, it was an opinion. One not recognised anywhere. You really are extraordinary in your capacity for deception.

  • 294
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 19:45

    bystander says:
    January 29, 2010 at 7:34 pm
    And that truth would be? That your children are citizens by what law? You still have not shown it, thus your children are not legally by law, US citizens. You are merely masquerading them as such when it is conveinent for you as you already stated that they only travel on those passports when coming to the US. You use their Uk passports when traveling in all other foreign countries.

    ……. that’s what dual citizens do Linda. You wouldn’t know much about it, because you have never left the country or owned a passport. Take it from someone that travels a lot – you use the passport that gets you through immigration quickest – in the EC that is a UK passport, in the US of course you are by law required to use your US passport. In Africa and Asia a UK passport is best too.

    I am going to leave you in your ignorance now – carry on believing we are masquerading (!!!), I guess it’s a harmless delusion.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    And the US state Dept, as I have shown in the past states that there is NO US law recognizing dual citiznship, it is merely accepted by the state dept, but they do not promote its use.

    You can not show 1 law, so all you are going to do now is insult. You think acceptance = rule of law. You try to ignor the 1965 Act which clearly stated that a child born in the US to alien parents is an alien also and then you try to pass it off as some Act passed by congress regarding US citizens who naturalized to another country and tried to get back into the US.

    Who is the dillusional one now?

  • 295
    slcraig
    January 29th, 2010 21:52

    bystander says:
    January 29, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    So, as long as your Dual-Citizen children never try to deceive the American public by running for either of the Executive offices they can go on gleefully reaping the benefits of a generous Nation.

  • 296
    jvn
    January 29th, 2010 22:14

    Bystander -

    I think you will do well to cease replying to Linda.

    Her posts are becoming more and more incoherent.

    I think she may be dangerous to herself and others…

  • 297
    Linda
    January 29th, 2010 22:50

    jvn says:
    January 29, 2010 at 10:14 pm
    Bystander -

    I think you will do well to cease replying to Linda.

    Her posts are becoming more and more incoherent.

    I think she may be dangerous to herself and others…

    Yes, dangerous to the dillusioned koolaide drinkers inconsistant replies of irrational thought based on not 1 codified US law.

    Show us the law that repealed the 1965 Act wherein it states that the definition of a child of aliens born on US soil is also an alien.

    bystander tried claiming the Act was for former US citizens to regain US citizenship. She was completely wrong and she was busted on it. And for the record, if you want the definition children born to foreigners on US soil, you go to immigration laws.

    That is just plain common sense in which I needed no law book or lawyer to tell me.

    The fact that the gal @ the SD vital records, whom I contaced by phone immediately after bystanders e-mails so that I could verify for myself, did not even know of the 1 form for any issuance of any birth certificate that required the parents naturalization. The fact that the naturalization of parents is a cause for an amended birth cert is ALL telling and it does uphold US laws currently in place.

    I am not a book cover reader, I like the stuff between the jacket. It is filled with a plether of information the common publicly educated dumbed down idelogue overlooks.

    As I have repeatedly asked, show me the codified law or constitutional amendment wherein the 1965 Act, which upholds the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 14th(to once & for all bind the 1866 Act into the Constitution) & the Expatriation Act of 1868 wherein the rejection of dual citizenship was codified into US law.

    Its SHOW ME time.

  • 298
    misanthropicus
    January 29th, 2010 23:17

    RE bystander RE Linda:

    [...] You don’t need to concede defeat – we won. Obama is President, my children have US passports. That is all the proof needed. [...]

    Linda, you waste your time – Bysta like all Obamatons is not interested or willing to pursue a constructive debate about these matters. All his (their) efforts are concentrated on moving people’s inquiry in Obama’s illegitimacy in a swamp of fuzzy half-truths, then to quickly proclaim that truth has won, and… Obama is [sic!] president -

    Quite primitive – but also we have to keep in mind that Obamatons, like the larger liberal tribe which oozes them, are beings governed not by reason but by instincts and emotions –

    Regards -

  • 299
    misanthropicus
    January 29th, 2010 23:38

    RE bystander:

    [...] we won. Obama is [sic!] president, my children have US passports. That is all the proof needed. [...]

    Bysta, it looks like your missing “[legitimate] president” is a Freudian slip that betrays your anxiety over the fact that dba Obama may be busted any time for his fraudulent campaign and ensuing presidential career – i.e. electioneering for a position he was at that time fully aware that he wasn’t constitutionally qualified for – nice -

    And funny you look guys, when proclaiming success after unsuccessful debates – like Wile E. Coyote rubbing his paws while a falling anvil is just two seconds away from their head – the falling anvil being Barry’s legal problems and many will be flattened by them -

    Anyway, as I keep recommending to all Obamatons, save your energies for the incoming and much more important fights – you guys are so clumsy and ineffectual that the ONLY result of your past and current interventions is the solidification of your preopinent’s (and other observers’) suspicions that there is INDEED SOMETHING ROTTEN IN OBAMA’S BIO (the starting point of an uniformly unseemly career, even in the shortest and the most merciful rendering) -

    We want you fresh Bysta, for the impeachment procedures – so relax, have a joint, now and then glance through the window at your Mercedes and Beemer (the Oakland street are not that friendly, if you get my drift – hehehe)

    … and wait for the falling anvil –

    Regards -

  • 300
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 01:59

    misanthropicus says:
    January 29, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    RE bystander RE Linda:

    [...] You don’t need to concede defeat – we won. Obama is President, my children have US passports. That is all the proof needed. [...]

    Linda, you waste your time – Bysta like all Obamatons is not interested or willing to pursue a constructive debate about these matters. All his (their) efforts are concentrated on moving people’s inquiry in Obama’s illegitimacy in a swamp of fuzzy half-truths, then to quickly proclaim that truth has won, and… Obama is [sic!] president -

    …….mis I know your style is just as a wind-up merchant. You are not interested in establishing the truth of any issue, you just like to insult, bait and change the subject. Obots rarely bother engaging with you – there’s no point. But on this occasion you are right but as usual for the wrong reasons – Linda is wasting her time. Linda believes she likes to get to the truth – but misleads by making false claims, then when she is called on it (over and over again in our recent spat) she moves the goalposts and starts again. But the record is there – one long epic failure.

  • 301
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 02:04

    jvn says:
    January 29, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Bystander -

    I think you will do well to cease replying to Linda.

    Her posts are becoming more and more incoherent.

    I think she may be dangerous to herself and others…

    …………. I agree – she’s an idiot. She still can’t grasp the difference between a resident alien and an immigrant, so keeps returning to the wrong law. In her own mind she’s a genius. It is sad – I suspect there’s an intervention coming her way soon.

  • 302
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 02:10

    slcraig says:
    January 29, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    bystander says:
    January 29, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    So, as long as your Dual-Citizen children never try to deceive the American public by running for either of the Executive offices they can go on gleefully reaping the benefits of a generous Nation.

    ………….it’s rather unlikely, but should either of them ever have that opportunity there is nothing to prevent them doing so, and the voters would be the ultimate arbiter, just like the 69 million that voted for Obama. There would be no deceit – Obama was perfectly honest about his birth circumstances as no doubt would my children.

  • 303
    brygenon
    January 30th, 2010 04:20

    Linda says:

    Show us the law that repealed the 1965 Act wherein it states that the definition of a child of aliens born on US soil is also an alien.

    I looked it up. The Act does not say what Linda has been claiming it does.

    Its SHOW ME time.

    How about:

    “A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.” — 8 U.S.C. 1405

    And in case one is unsure about other terms:

    “Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

  • 304
    Sue
    January 30th, 2010 04:20

    Linda,

    You alleged phone conversation with “Susan” is not evidence of anything. Obtain an e-mail from Susan please with contact information for Susan so the information in the e-mail can be verified.

  • 305
    Sue
    January 30th, 2010 04:24

    Bry,

    “I looked it up. The Act does not say what Linda has been claiming it does.”

    Imagine that! Linda misinterpretes, misunderstands and misrepresents the Act.

  • 306
    Sue
    January 30th, 2010 06:03

    Based upon Linda’s recent rants regarding state and us citizenship, I suspect Linda may be a “birther and a sovereign citizen.”

    http://www.adl.org/Learn/ext_us/SCM.asp?xpicked=4&item=20
    Sovereign Citizen Movement

  • 307
    Sue
    January 30th, 2010 06:08

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sovereign-citizen/
    Sovereign Citizen Law & Legal Definition

    “Sovereign citizen is a term used to refer to a political movement which grew out of a belief in government abuses of power. Members often refuse to hold social security cards or driver’s licenses and avoid using zip codes. Sovereign citizens believe that U.S. citizens are either “Fourteenth Amendment citizens” (who are subject to the federal and state laws and taxes) or “sovereign citizens”, who are subject only to common law or “constitutional law” (or both), but are not bound to obey statutory law. No court has ever upheld these claims. Sovereign citizens may also be referred to as “freemen” or “common law citizens”.”

  • 308
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 08:12

    Sue – I think you are right. That description describes her views quire closely. Sadly for her that means her life will be filled with even more epic fail than the birthers.

  • 309
    slcraig
    January 30th, 2010 09:39

    bystander says:
    January 30, 2010 at 2:10 am
    slcraig says:
    January 29, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    bystander says:
    January 29, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    So, as long as your Dual-Citizen children never try to deceive the American public by running for either of the Executive offices they can go on gleefully reaping the benefits of a generous Nation.

    ………….it’s rather unlikely, but should either of them ever have that opportunity there is nothing to prevent them doing so, and the voters would be the ultimate arbiter, just like the 69 million that voted for Obama. There would be no deceit – Obama was perfectly honest about his birth circumstances as no doubt would my children.

    So you agree that the ’0′ knew or should have known that his Dual-Citizenship creates a conflict of Allegiance that is in conflict with the A2S1C5 intent of natural born citizen?

    I mean, if you pick and choose which passport you use as a matter of convenience of travel what larger issues put the ’0′ into a position of picking and choosing?

    And let’s get this straight, you and your children are in ‘perpetual allegiance’ to the British Crown and as citizens/denizens/subjects, whatever, are considered natural born citizens of England, and you also consider your children natural born citizens of the US?

    Weird………….or is deceitful and self-serving a better description?

  • 310
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 10:20

    So you agree that the ‘0′ knew or should have known that his Dual-Citizenship creates a conflict of Allegiance that is in conflict with the A2S1C5 intent of natural born citizen?
    ……… no

    I mean, if you pick and choose which passport you use as a matter of convenience of travel what larger issues put the ‘0′ into a position of picking and choosing?
    …………… Obama only has one passport – irrelevant. He has lived his entire life in the US but for four years a young child.

    And let’s get this straight, you and your children are in ‘perpetual allegiance’ to the British Crown and as citizens/denizens/subjects, whatever, are considered natural born citizens of England, and you also consider your children natural born citizens of the US?

    ……. yes, the US allows dual citizenship as you well know.

    Weird………….or is deceitful and self-serving a better description?

    … no deceit – who’s lying?

  • 311
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 10:34

    A SIMPLE QUESTION FOR BELIEVERS IN THE 2 CITIZEN PARENT ARGUMENT

    And it is really, really simple. If you believe that the constitution intended to deny natural born citizenship to any child of non-citizen parents, why did they bother with the exclusion for children of diplomats? It would be totally unnecessary – they would have been in the excluded category anyway. I look forward to your responses.

  • 312
    slcraig
    January 30th, 2010 10:44

    bystander says:
    January 30, 2010 at 10:20 am
    So you agree that the ‘0′ knew or should have known that his Dual-Citizenship creates a conflict of Allegiance that is in conflict with the A2S1C5 intent of natural born citizen?
    ……… no

    I mean, if you pick and choose which passport you use as a matter of convenience of travel what larger issues put the ‘0′ into a position of picking and choosing?
    …………… Obama only has one passport – irrelevant. He has lived his entire life in the US but for four years a young child.

    And let’s get this straight, you and your children are in ‘perpetual allegiance’ to the British Crown and as citizens/denizens/subjects, whatever, are considered natural born citizens of England, and you also consider your children natural born citizens of the US?

    ……. yes, the US allows dual citizenship as you well know.

    Weird………….or is deceitful and self-serving a better description?

    … no deceit – who’s lying?
    _______________________________________________

    [1]So you ‘choose’ to ignore the FACTS….and all I am pointing out is that you, and those like you, seek to impose your delusions on others with a firmer grip on reality.

    [2] So you are say, as a ‘literalist’, that ‘born’ does not mean ‘born’ as a time sensitive occurrence and that the words ‘natural and citizen’ are not modifiers that denote specific circumstances of that time sensitive occurrence?

    [3] And in your delusional world somehow dual-citizenship does not ‘modify’ natural born citizen into being a misnomer?

    [4] To your self, sir, you are lying to yourself in an effort to justify your delusions, deceit and self-serving ‘nature’.

  • 313
    misanthropicus
    January 30th, 2010 10:49

    Re bystander:

    [...] mis I know your style is just as a wind-up merchant. You are not interested in establishing the truth of any issue, you just like to insult, bait and change the subject. Obots rarely bother engaging with you – there’s no point. [...]

    Dear Watson, you’re a barking at a train that has for long passed, and here’s the situation:
    1) I always said that the legalistic debate around dba Obama’s illegitimacy is sterile, and few, if any of the arguments produced by BOTH parties will appear in the proceedings that will remove Barry – which will be triggered by tangential actions, where his illegitimacy will initially play no role, then will become a mill stone tied to his neck, since the evidence that he was/is qualified for electioneering for a US presidential job will, at a certain point, be required by the court, and he will HAVE to produce that (INCRIMINATING) evidence -

    So, from this position comes the difference between your (and your confederates’ in turpitude) posts and mine -
    1) I have no much curiosity for dba Obama’s illegitimacy matter as parsed from Vattel’s position on that – I post opinions, I sometimes reply to Obamatons’ descriptions, which I uniformly consider gibberish and obfuscation of the lowest kind – and that’s about all I do IN INTERNET circumstances (elsewhere, it’s something else) –

    Also, when I post, I don’t have as purpose a lasting engagement -
    Yet Obamatons like you, since you are haunted by anxieties that dba Obama’s irreversible political failings will nurture also his indictment (and you are right), are deeply interested in engaging and drawing in the Hopey-Dopey swamps other commenters, after all this is the only reason of your being here –
    You have a clear objective, you want to gain adepts, persuade preopinents, or descourage or confuse potential Birthers – and you sure are an active swarm here, yet a swarm whose only results here is mild annoyance, but nothing on the intended lines of persuasion -

    And as such you are prey to an awful predicament – the purpose of your actions is to have dba Obama’s illegitimacy issue muffled -
    Yet, since the concerns about Obama’s illegitimacy keep growing, staying quiet is not a modus opperandi anymore, so you’re all out, trying to convert, discourage, etc. -
    BUT, the more you ENGAGE (your term – hehehe – another Freudian slip), more suspicions you arouse around regarding the very cause you dearly want to go away – hehehe, a study in lose-lose situations – or a sort of Greek Myth, The Course Of Obamatons, par to Sysiphus, Midas or Tantal – hehehe – miserable deck have the Moirae given you, guys – hehehe, I wonder what kind of odious sins you pay now for – hehehe –

    So, dear Watson, since I can’t see how the description of my position can help your marketing plans, maybe you want to consider the hopelessness of your enterprise and start doing something else -

    Mane, Tekel, Fares -

    Regards –

    PS: “only bait and change the subject” – oh dear, but it’s exactly the opposite – I never fall for obfuscation and the false targets you plant in debate, and I alway, always remind anyone that dba Obama is very likely an illegitimate president, and I always close my posts with a “Carthaginem esse Delendam “-like: “Obama is an illegitimate president – Mane, Tekel, Fares…”

    PPS: [...] and that’s about all I do IN INTERNET circumstances (elsewhere, it’s someting else) [...] –
    Quite a stinger for you, Obamatons, the LA Times link I posted a couple of days ago (approx): “California is becoming red – about 30% of Californians believe that Obama is illegitimate -

    PPS: “odious sins [Obamatons] you pay now for” – Watson, are you an onanist? God – Obamatons doing THAT? I cannot believe it! That’s new to me!

  • 314
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 11:06

    1]So you ‘choose’ to ignore the FACTS….and all I am pointing out is that you, and those like you, seek to impose your delusions on others with a firmer grip on reality.

    …… when you have a fact, I’ll be pleased to consider it.

    [2] So you are say, as a ‘literalist’, that ‘born’ does not mean ‘born’ as a time sensitive occurrence and that the words ‘natural and citizen’ are not modifiers that denote specific circumstances of that time sensitive occurrence?

    ……..I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are referring to your misuse of idiom. Like the judge in your case said, it is very hard to understand what Mr Craig means.

    [3] And in your delusional world somehow dual-citizenship does not ‘modify’ natural born citizen into being a misnomer?

    …… not at all. There are only two types of citizenship – natural born and naturalised. The US permits dual citizenship. Dual citizenship cannot change a child born on US territory into a naturalised citizen. QED.

    [4] To your self, sir, you are lying to yourself in an effort to justify your delusions, deceit and self-serving ‘nature’.

    ……. you haven’t been paying attention – it’s madam. And as my childrens’ US passports sit on the desk in front of me, and as they possess no naturalisation papers, I think I can say pretty confidently that despite being the children of UK citizens they are natural born citizens of the USA. I have physical evidence – you have a failed theory with no support outside of a noisy but small fringe group. Please point out what I have lied about – with evidence. Thanks.

  • 315
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 11:31

    So you agree that the ‘0′ knew or should have known that his Dual-Citizenship creates a conflict of Allegiance that is in conflict with the A2S1C5 intent of natural born citizen?

    ………..

    Steve when you argued this stuff in District Court your case was dismissed with the judge stating “The Court finds the complaint is incomprehensible and frivolous”. You were dismissed with prejudice and your appeal failed. I’ll side with the judge – you can carry on being incomprehensible.

  • 316
    slcraig
    January 30th, 2010 12:29

    bystander says:
    January 30, 2010 at 11:06 am
    1]So you ‘choose’ to ignore the FACTS….and all I am pointing out is that you, and those like you, seek to impose your delusions on others with a firmer grip on reality.

    …… when you have a fact, I’ll be pleased to consider it.

    [2] So you are say, as a ‘literalist’, that ‘born’ does not mean ‘born’ as a time sensitive occurrence and that the words ‘natural and citizen’ are not modifiers that denote specific circumstances of that time sensitive occurrence?

    ……..I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you are referring to your misuse of idiom. Like the judge in your case said, it is very hard to understand what Mr Craig means.

    [3] And in your delusional world somehow dual-citizenship does not ‘modify’ natural born citizen into being a misnomer?

    …… not at all. There are only two types of citizenship – natural born and naturalised. The US permits dual citizenship. Dual citizenship cannot change a child born on US territory into a naturalised citizen. QED.

    [4] To your self, sir, you are lying to yourself in an effort to justify your delusions, deceit and self-serving ‘nature’.

    ……. you haven’t been paying attention – it’s madam. And as my childrens’ US passports sit on the desk in front of me, and as they possess no naturalisation papers, I think I can say pretty confidently that despite being the children of UK citizens they are natural born citizens of the USA. I have physical evidence – you have a failed theory with no support outside of a noisy but small fringe group. Please point out what I have lied about – with evidence. Thanks.


    Sorry Madam, your rough, aggressive and abrasive tones were mistaken for masculine characteristics which may explain some the causes of your inability to accept truths about the birth circumstances of your children, protective maternal instinct and all that has at times, witnessed by history, to be even more fierce than that of a patriarch at times.

    However, your entire understanding of US Citizenship and of the Article II Section I Clause V effect on the US Citizenship IS fatally flawed.

    I do not hold that against you in that it has been ignored and systematically diluted over the course of many years and so I accept the fact that you are and will probably remain in the camp of opposition insofar as my efforts to have that flawed misunderstanding corrected.

    The Constitution enunciates three forms of Citizenship. Historical Fact.

    1st, The Citizens of the Founding Generation, being those who were already Citizens of the various Colony/States; these were of the character we are most familiar with in our daily intercourse and commerce when not concerned with the singular political implications of the circumstances of deriving and/or acquiring of citizenship; 2nd were the ‘anticipated’ naturalized Citizens whose destinies were left in the hands of the Congressional Mandate to ‘make uniform the Laws of Naturalization and Immigration’; and 3rd, the ‘anticipated ‘natural born citizen’, being the children of the newly made Founding Generation of Citizens, the 1st of which would not be born before the passage of 9 months time, more or less, depending on the nature of gestation. (The technicalities of the timing are fair game for debate, such as, was a child born moments after the Ratification a Natural Born Citizen of the Constitutional meaning. (But that debate would be purely academic to historical outcomes; consider J.Q. Adams).

    Unlike your British Royal Birthright prerogatives, the American Citizens, of ALL stripes, are now equal in every respect, SAVE ONE,; that being the reservation of the Executive Office for the descendant of citizen parents, plural, however their citizenship was obtained, who, by ‘birth right’ prerogative of a citizen, invests into their new borne the essence of their citizenship, which adds to the ‘posterity’ anticipated by the Founding Fathers when writing A2S1C5.

  • 317
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 13:17

    Steve – as the judge said, incomprehensible and frivolous. Your case is closed.

  • 318
    misanthropicus
    January 30th, 2010 13:51

    RE all Ellie Light-s on the RSOL -

    Can you come with an explanation as to why the MSM maintains such a dignified silence about dba Obama’s post-SOTU ratings?

    Hehehe – this tells me that he scored big time -

  • 319
    KJ
    January 30th, 2010 14:22

    Phil,

    Have you started moderating posts again?

    I was trying to put up a very long post, possibly too long. I put up a section of it, and it was tagged with waiting for moderation.

    KJ

  • 320
    slcraig
    January 30th, 2010 14:28

    bystander says:
    January 30, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    Steve – as the judge said, incomprehensible and frivolous. Your case is closed.

    As your non-response illustrates, words without thought mimicking Alinsky Rules when opposing views proves your position untenable, unjustifiable denigration is the extent of thought you are capable of.

    Another FACT your choose to ignore, my case is NOT over, being on REMAND to the USDC, OKLA., and will not END until I have achieved my goals.

  • 321
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 14:32

    Another FACT your choose to ignore, my case is NOT over, being on REMAND to the USDC, OKLA., and will not END until I have achieved my goals.

    …..

    Yes it is over – as the guys at PJ have proved to you many times. Do you want me to copy and paste the judgement which says as soon as you file your appeal it will be dismissed?

  • 322
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 14:45

    Steve this is what Judge Holmes said in dismissing your appeal:

    CONCLUSION

    For the reasons outlined above we AFFIRM the substance of the district court’s order but VACATE the portion of it that refers to the dismissal as being with prejudice. We REMAND to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Mr Craig’s pending motions are denied as moot.

    ………..

    So Steve if you are claiming your case will not end until you achieve your goals, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that your goal is to have the case dismissed. The case is only alive in that it is waiting to be dismissed in the district court, as per the appellate court’s specific instructions.

    I think this exchange demonstrates quite well who is living in a fantasy world, and it’s not me. It never fails to amaze me that birthers never think Obots will check their false claims.

  • 323
    slcraig
    January 30th, 2010 14:55

    bystander says:
    January 30, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Another FACT your choose to ignore, my case is NOT over, being on REMAND to the USDC, OKLA., and will not END until I have achieved my goals.

    …..

    Yes it is over – as the guys at PJ have proved to you many times. Do you want me to copy and paste the judgement which says as soon as you file your appeal it will be dismissed?
    Of course, I am always interested in what others have to say, post the remarks or link.

    But accepting that ‘words’ mean things, your use of ‘appeal’ in this instance is either referring to the ‘appeal’ already made and considered rendering the ‘affirm in part and remand in part’ decision of the lower court, being, the USDC OKLA.

    The ONLY ‘appeal’ currently being considered is an Administrative Appeal at the AAO concerning acts and actions of the USCIS under the DHS.

    Other than the cryptic references I have made in that regard I would be surprised to find a ‘private’ matter made public without my consent.

    What part of the court process and the efforts to secure a particular ‘Civil Right’ for a group of people do you not understand?

    Which ‘Civil Rights Action’ has been successful in gaining all the goals on the first attempt in the Courts?

  • 324
    Sue
    January 30th, 2010 15:00

    Bry,

    “……. you haven’t been paying attention – it’s madam. And as my childrens’ US passports sit on the desk in front of me, and as they possess no naturalisation papers, I think I can say pretty confidently that despite being the children of UK citizens they are natural born citizens of the USA. I have physical evidence – you have a failed theory with no support outside of a noisy but small fringe group. Please point out what I have lied about – with evidence. Thanks.”

    The hospital(Sanford Clinic, SD) obtains a birth registration form for the newborn, filled out by the parents that goes directly to the DOH. The issue of the parents citizenship is never brought up other than what the parents provide on the birth registration form. The parents birth certificate or naturalization records are NOT required for the newborn/child to obtain a certified birth certificate from the DOH. The same certified birth certificate they issue to everyone in SD.

    It appears that Linda fabricated her phone call/conversation with “Susan” perhaps? Linda needs to obtain an e-mail from “Susan”.

  • 325
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 15:04

    Of course, I am always interested in what others have to say, post the remarks or link.

    ….. Steve, you TOOK PART IN THE DISCUSSION – you have already read it.

    But accepting that ‘words’ mean things, your use of ‘appeal’ in this instance is either referring to the ‘appeal’ already made and considered rendering the ‘affirm in part and remand in part’ decision of the lower court, being, the USDC OKLA.

    ……. yes, the one that was DISMISSED, and the part that was remanded with instructions to the district court to DISMISS. It’s over, Steve.

    The ONLY ‘appeal’ currently being considered is an Administrative Appeal at the AAO concerning acts and actions of the USCIS under the DHS.

    … it isn’t under consideration – it has been referred with instructions to DISMISS.

    Other than the cryptic references I have made in that regard I would be surprised to find a ‘private’ matter made public without my consent.

    …. no idea what you are talking about, but if by chance it is your request to submit a second amended complaint – the judge denied that as moot, and said allowing you to proceed would be FUTILE. THose are pretty strong words from the judge Steve.

    What part of the court process and the efforts to secure a particular ‘Civil Right’ for a group of people do you not understand?

    ……….I understand perfectly well DISMISSED, FUTILE, INCOMPREHENSIBLE and FRIVOLOUS, and that your case is DEAD>

    Which ‘Civil Rights Action’ has been successful in gaining all the goals on the first attempt in the Courts?

    ……. you have delusions of grandeur, as witnessed by your excessively verbose style. You aren’t fooling anyone.

  • 326
    bystander
    January 30th, 2010 15:13

    Sue says:
    January 30, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Bry,

    The hospital(Sanford Clinic, SD) obtains a birth registration form for the newborn, filled out by the parents that goes directly to the DOH. The issue of the parents citizenship is never brought up other than what the parents provide on the birth registration form. The parents birth certificate or naturalization records are NOT required for the newborn/child to obtain a certified birth certificate from the DOH. The same certified birth certificate they issue to everyone in SD.

    It appears that Linda fabricated her phone call/conversation with “Susan” perhaps? Linda needs to obtain an e-mail from “Susan”.
    ……

    Sue, of course she made it up – like the original claims disproved by my email from Susan. Linda has three tactics:

    ONE Make an outlandish claim with no evidence. When she is called on it, try to distract by arguing a minor detail, which again fails. Eventually change the subject or lie low for a day.

    TWO Quote a highly selective excerpt from a totally irrelevant opinion, with no link, and claim it is a law. When called on it, demand to know what law contradicts it. But as the law doesn’t exist in the first place, it generally doesn’t require contradicting.

    THREE Make more stuff up.

    Interestingly, since I have started taking her up on her nonsense, she hasn’t been here much.

  • 327
    Dennis
    January 30th, 2010 16:20

    You readers are ferociously debating the definition of nbc. Your opinion or mine does not amount to a red cent. The judiciary branch must be forced by Congress or state lawmakers to define nbc independently from BHO’s qualifications. Once it is defined, it can be applied for BHO, McCain or anyone else.

    This is the logical and orderly way for a law-abiding nation. So far the courts resisted all attempts to define the term. Ambassador Alen Keyes calls it “dereliction of duty”. This is not conspiracy as many of you like to use that word in connection with those who seek the definition. It is an unpleasant task for the judiciary branch as no matter what the definition will be, about 50% of the voters will be unhappy. So they avoid it, using standing and other procedural excuses, making the Constitution unenforceable. The very Constitution that they promised to uphold and defend by oath.

    Individual citizens have no power to force the judges to define the term. As we have seen groups of citizens or prominent politicians like Keyes have no power either. Congress or the state lawmakers would have the power to force the judiciary branch to define the term.

    This debate will rage forever, and it weakens the nation, unless the judiciary branch defines the term nbc. The separation of powers prevents Congress to do that. When Congress declared McCain nbc it was a senseless exercise as only the judiciary branch can define nbc.

  • 328
    slcraig
    January 30th, 2010 16:28

    bystander says:
    January 30, 2010 at 3:04 pm
    Of course, I am always interested in what others have to say, post the remarks or link.

    ….. Steve, you TOOK PART IN THE DISCUSSION – you have already read it.

    But accepting that ‘words’ mean things, your use of ‘appeal’ in this instance is either referring to the ‘appeal’ already made and considered rendering the ‘affirm in part and remand in part’ decision of the lower court, being, the USDC OKLA.

    ……. yes, the one that was DISMISSED, and the part that was remanded with instructions to the district court to DISMISS. It’s over, Steve.

    The ONLY ‘appeal’ currently being considered is an Administrative Appeal at the AAO concerning acts and actions of the USCIS under the DHS.

    … it isn’t under consideration – it has been referred with instructions to DISMISS.

    Other than the cryptic references I have made in that regard I would be surprised to find a ‘private’ matter made public without my consent.

    …. no idea what you are talking about, but if by chance it is your request to submit a second amended complaint – the judge denied that as moot, and said allowing you to proceed would be FUTILE. THose are pretty strong words from the judge Steve.

    What part of the court process and the efforts to secure a particular ‘Civil Right’ for a group of people do you not understand?

    ……….I understand perfectly well DISMISSED, FUTILE, INCOMPREHENSIBLE and FRIVOLOUS, and that your case is DEAD>

    Which ‘Civil Rights Action’ has been successful in gaining all the goals on the first attempt in the Courts?

    ……. you have delusions of grandeur, as witnessed by your excessively verbose style. You aren’t fooling anyone.

    ________________________________________________________________

    The Madam Lioness roars in protection of her little cubs standing in in the pride but forgets the Lion is the symbol of England, Hail Brittania. Beware, Dominate male Lions have been known to eat the cubs breed from rouge males.

    The symbol of America is the soaring Eagle that can see far, far wider and further than you can imagine with your inbreed myopia.

    And if you are reporting the information correctly from the PJ site then you and they are less than half correct, the other half being cocked-eyed.

    The AAO Appeal is a separate action and will only be relevant to the case subject to REMAND when and if I decide to include it as part of an Amended Companion Case under the Rules of the Court.

    But that is only one of several options that is available, under the Rules of differing venues.

    However, if it really is a case where you just can not comprehend you might consider giving it some real thought instead of relying on your knee-jerks to guide you, or, have faith that the next generation of your family will be more capable than you.

  • 329
    jvn
    January 30th, 2010 17:42

    Dennis -

    The federal courts have no jurisdiction in deciding what is a political question constitutionally left to the Electoral College and ultimately the Congress to decide.

    They won’t take up the issue – and you won’t be able to “force” them to.

  • 330
    slcraig
    January 30th, 2010 18:21

    jvn says:
    January 30, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    Dennis -

    The federal courts have no jurisdiction in deciding what is a political question constitutionally left to the Electoral College and ultimately the Congress to decide.

    They won’t take up the issue – and you won’t be able to “force” them to.

    Once again you show that you have not thought the ‘situation’ through except as to how it affects your dear leader.

    Dennis is quit correct in the first instant. The ’0′, at this point, is nothing but the catalyst that has brought this subject, the ‘misinterpretation’ of ‘natural born citizen, as it pertains to the A2S1C5 usage and to the population at large.

    But you are correct, probably by accident, that the courts can not be ‘forced’ to accept the question without certain elements of case and controversy being satisfied in the petition/complaint.

    You and yours necessarily agree that there are distinctions between a ‘citizen’ and a ‘natural born citizen’ for the purposes of A2S1C5, the disagreement is ‘when,where how, what and why’ those distinctions are and to ‘who’ they apply.

    Your distinguished 0bot buddy guru’s who gleefully denigrate my work fail to realize that the ‘court’ has already said that I lacked standing because what I perceive as a cause of harm to me is no different than the harm caused to all those ‘others’ in the similar situation as me. They have already ‘acknowledged’ the circumstance of citizenship I have expressed!

    Certainly there is more work to do and it is being done, so in the meantime you had better post your misguided view everywhere you can while there is still time for you to sound like you know what you are talking about.

  • 331
    bob strauss
    January 30th, 2010 18:55

    jvn @ 5:42, I beg to differ, the NBC issue is not a political issue it is a legal issue, and requirement to be President. It is the law, as written, to prevent British citizens from becoming commander in chief of the US army of the day.

  • 332
    misanthropicus
    January 30th, 2010 19:15

    RE dba Obama’s standing takes another hit -

    “Americans finally starting to see through the president’s prevarications”/ Ralph Alter/ American Thinker -

    As much as Barack Obama professes his admiration for our 16th POTUS, Abraham Lincoln, B.O. still seems determined to disprove one of Honest Abe’s most famous bromides:

    “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”(Abraham Lincoln )

    The fact that this duplicitous non-achiever was elected in the first place proves his ability to fool nearly all of the people some of the time. Despite a near total lack of credentials, a voting record vacillating between rad-lib and “present,” and a passel of communists, terrrorists, anti-Semites and criminials in his close circle of friends, Obama rather easily fooled nearly all of the people in our great land. Especially those who went to journalism school.

    The increasingly tin-tongued Speechifier-in-Chief seems deterrmined to flay the dead horse that Obamacare has become, just as he continues out in front of the politically correct nit-wit national security apparatus he has constructed, believing that he merely needs to find the right way to parse his promotion of these bankrupt ideas so his intellectual inferiors can finally “get it.”

    Well, we’re getting it, all right. The latest Rasmussen poll demonstrates just how much of America Obama has lost. When asked whether B.O.’s proposed freeze of discretionary federal spending would help much, fully 9% of respondents agreed that it would while 81% of those polled believed that the freeze would be little help, if any. [...]

    more @: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/americans_finally_starting_to.html

  • 333
    Manchurian Messiah
    January 30th, 2010 19:18

    C’MON GUYS…JUST GIVE ME WHAT I WOULD GIVE YOU:

    THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.

    MM – THE GLORIOUS

  • 334
    slcraig
    January 30th, 2010 20:24

    bob strauss says:
    January 30, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    jvn @ 5:42,

    I beg to differ, the NBC issue is not a political issue it is a legal issue, and requirement to be President.

    It is the law, as written, to prevent British citizens from becoming commander in chief of the US army of the day.

    ______________________________________________________________
    Echoing El Rushbo, ‘Right on, right on right on!’

    It IS a legal issue NOT only relative to the office POTUS/V-POTUS but the IDENTIFICATION of the segment of the ‘body politic’ from which they are meant to be selected/elected from.

    That ‘body’ being the portion of the ‘citizen public’ being the ’2nd generation citizens (at least / or more) born to citizen parents, plural.

    1st generation citizens being, as the 14th says, ‘born or naturalized’, needing the Amendment or Statutes in order to confer citizenship upon them. There has been NO dispute that naturalized citizens are not ‘eligible’ and so, for the 0bots and pseudo intellectuals it is the confusion over the meaning of the 14th as opined by the WKA case.

    This is another red herring, for not ANY child born to two citizen parents on US soil has EVER had their Citizenship challenged that I can find.

    Of ALL others there a various Immigration and Naturalization Statutes that TOUCH UPON most every circumstance imaginable concerning mixed Nationality Citizenship’s.

    But it is not only to bar the British, but any Foreign influenced person who is the product of mixed Citizenship parents when one or both are not citizens.

    But the bar to access is NOT a Bill of Attainder, it does not devolve to the offspring of a naturalized or other wise 1st generation citizen when and if that off spring is born of two citizen parents.

    But not every one quit gets it, maybe because it is a ‘ROOTS’ kind of thing.

  • 335
    Sue
    January 30th, 2010 20:52

    Judge Carter disagrees with you.

    http://washingtonindependent.com/65703/orly-taitz-smacked-down-birther-lawsuit-dismissed
    Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Lawsuit Dismissed
    By David Weigel 10/29/09 1:33 PM

  • 336
    sharon2
    January 30th, 2010 21:08

    Re: mis

    “Obots rarely bother engaging with you – there’s no point.” They call Linda every name in the book and find there is “a point” to engaging her?

    mis, you must be doing a heckofa job. They don’t find you “amusing.” Aren’t you offended?

    hehehe

    MGB,

    I don’t know if you are around, but it’s always an even better board when you’re on it! I’ll have to take a break for awhile. I need to spend more time with my family. And I mean that as a real reason, not what the politicians and press secretaries say when they want out.

  • 337
    Sue
    January 30th, 2010 21:26

    Sharon2,

    “mis, you must be doing a heckofa job. They don’t find you “amusing.” Aren’t you offended?”

    If I could make heads or tails of his comments, I might find him/her amusing, however, his/her comments are just confusing.

    hehehe :)

    Regarding Linda and name calling. Pot calling kettle black, don’t ya think?

    Regards to you too.

  • 338
    slcraig
    January 30th, 2010 21:27

    Sue says:
    January 30, 2010 at 8:52 pm
    Judge Carter disagrees with you.

    http://washingtonindependent.com/65703/orly-taitz-smacked-down-birther-lawsuit-dismissed
    Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Lawsuit Dismissed
    By David Weigel 10/29/09 1:33 PM


    In the context of the case presented to him he had to.

    It is NOT all about the little ’0′, though your world may revolve around him, his only involvement at this point is that his usurpation has brought the issue into the light.

    His term is effectively over already, maybe not a lame duck, more like a rubber chicken, a joke.

    It is about the Constitutional and National Security imperative of keeping the Executive Offices out of the hands of ‘foreign influenced’ persons. Argue his loyalty, in spite of his parental heritage and gangster friends, the Constitution has spoken and says he is NOT eligible because he is NOT part of the body politic designated by the Constitution for the office insofar as Citizenship is concerned.

  • 339
    Sue
    January 30th, 2010 21:37

    slcraig,

    Don’t quit your day job because it is clear that you are not a constitutional expert, scholar or lawyer.

    I observed the debate/discussion you engaged in with real, credible, competent PJ lawyers who actually practice law. You were no match for them.

  • 340
    bob strauss
    January 30th, 2010 21:48

    slcraig, “body politic” yes, made up of first generation American citizens, mentioned in A2 at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and their natural born citizen sons, who acquired natural born citizenship from their fathers, who were now citizens of the USA. Women at the time did not vote,it was an all male group of voters and candidates, and citizenship was passed on to the child from the father.

  • 341
    Phil
    January 30th, 2010 21:52

    KJ,

    Phil,

    Have you started moderating posts again?

    I was trying to put up a very long post, possibly too long. I put up a section of it, and it was tagged with waiting for moderation.

    KJ

    No, I have not started moderating posts again. Instead, here are the two reasons why a comment would get “caught up” in my moderation cue:

    1. More than 3 links referenced;

    2. Your typical IP or email (I think) has changed, and the blog (via Akismet) thinks you’re a new commenter.

    I don’t think that the length of a comment is the issue, because I’ve seen the blog let long comments through without a problem.

    -Phil

  • 342
    Sue
    January 30th, 2010 21:53

    Scott Brown to GOP Leaders: I’m No Rubber Stamp
    By Mike Lillis 1/28/10 4:54 PM
    From The Associated Press:

    “Scott Brown says he has already told Senate Republican leaders they won’t always be able to count on his vote.”

    “I already told them, you know, ‘I got here with the help of a close group of friends and very little help from anyone down there, so there’ll be issues when I’ll be with you and there are issues when I won’t be with you,’” Brown said Thursday during the half-hour interview. “So, I just need to look at each vote and then make a proper analysis and then decide.””

    A radical idea in polarized Washington.”

    http://washingtonindependent.com/75126/ … bber-stamp

    It will be interesting to see if Brown really does this.

  • 343
    Phil
    January 30th, 2010 21:55

    jvn,

    Dennis -

    The federal courts have no jurisdiction in deciding what is a political question constitutionally left to the Electoral College and ultimately the Congress to decide.

    They won’t take up the issue – and you won’t be able to “force” them to.

    What I think will be absolutely fascinating is that if one of the numerous States who have decided to take up eligibility enforcement get pulled into Court by a “disenfranchised” candidate (I’m sure that’s what they’ll claim), then it will become an issue for the Judiciary to decide.

    -Phil

  • 344
    Phil
    January 30th, 2010 21:58

    Sue,

    slcraig,

    Don’t quit your day job because it is clear that you are not a constitutional expert, scholar or lawyer.

    I observed the debate/discussion you engaged in with real, credible, competent PJ lawyers who actually practice law. You were no match for them.

    Are there “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers” who frequent PJ? If so, how have their credentials been confirmed? Further, what case(s) do they reference regarding any sort of US citizenship specifically in reference to presidential eligibility?

    Maybe for once I could find out that there have, in fact, been cases that involve US citizenship specifically referencing presidential eligibility that have actually been tried in the Judiciary in the past — and I’m not even talking about the dozens that have been petitioned over the past year or so.

    -Phil

  • 345
    misanthropicus
    January 30th, 2010 22:18

    RE Bysta:

    “Obots rarely bother engaging with you – there’s no point.”

    The days of Ellie Light…
    Bysta, are you sure that you are not late Sisemapierda? Or at least channeling him?

    The above observation (in various variations) was one of the ways Siserda used to express his exaperation when caught lying or going in circular argumentation – a pretty hysterical type that guy -

    Anyway, this intriguing remark of yours, together with the feverish intensity you “engage” & debate trees, chairs, sidewalks and anything you suspect that might challenge dba Obama’s tenure, together with a few other verbal tics that appear in your discourse make me wonder whether the little Bystander we all knew running around with a Slinky is not just late Sisemapierda in a less frenzied embodiment -

    We’ll study this -

    Regards -

  • 346
    slcraig
    January 30th, 2010 22:30

    Phil says:
    January 30, 2010 at 9:58 pm
    Sue,

    slcraig,

    Don’t quit your day job because it is clear that you are not a constitutional expert, scholar or lawyer.

    I observed the debate/discussion you engaged in with real, credible, competent PJ lawyers who actually practice law. You were no match for them.

    Are there “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers” who frequent PJ? If so, how have their credentials been confirmed? Further, what case(s) do they reference regarding any sort of US citizenship specifically in reference to presidential eligibility?

    Maybe for once I could find out that there have, in fact, been cases that involve US citizenship specifically referencing presidential eligibility that have actually been tried in the Judiciary in the past — and I’m not even talking about the dozens that have been petitioned over the past year or so.

    -Phil


    It remains hilarious to me that people like little Sue here thinks I failed miserably when the fact is I managed to get two courts on record who provided me with a roadmap as to what is necessary in order to prevail on the SPECIFIC issue.

    As you know Phil, I was well aware I lacked the requisite Standing in order to overcome the Jurisdiction bar, Leo, Mario, you and others were very helpful but clear on that fact. I went ahead in order to get the courts on record as to just EXACTLY where and what the deficiencies were while I have been working other ‘situations and circumstances’ that ‘should’ cure those deficiencies when I return on remand.

    And remember the USDC OKLA. was found to have erred in attempting to Dismiss with Prejudice without hearing the merits or trying the facts. So in some sports competitions it would be called a tie score going into overtime.

    On edit; Oh yea, as for those guys over at PJ, well, what do you expect? They are ATTY’s, they’ll argue any side for a buck.

  • 347
    jvn
    January 30th, 2010 22:37

    Phil said:

    “What I think will be absolutely fascinating is that if one of the numerous States who have decided to take up eligibility enforcement get pulled into Court by a “disenfranchised” candidate (I’m sure that’s what they’ll claim), then it will become an issue for the Judiciary to decide.”

    I agree with you on this point Phil.

    If a state attempted to define NBC, the federal courts WOULD take the issue up long enough to declare the state law unconstitutional because states cannot set requirements for federal office.

    I think you would be disappointed in the result of any such case because the federal courts WOULD NOT define NBC, but would simply declare that the states had no ability to define it.

    Y’all would probably call it a “technicality…”

    But there really is no chance that there will be a need for a court case because no state is going to pass anything that would keep someone born in this country off the ballot.

  • 348
    Linda
    January 30th, 2010 22:56

    Maybe for once I could find out that there have, in fact, been cases that involve US citizenship specifically referencing presidential eligibility that have actually been tried in the Judiciary in the past — and I’m not even talking about the dozens that have been petitioned over the past year or so.

    -Phil

    Phil, There is only once case, it is Perkins v Elg in which the supreme Court upheld the lower court that declared Elg to be a natural born citizen, born to 2 US citizens the year after the parents naturalized. In the opinion, the court discussed 2 similar situations whrein those children were also born to naturalized parents & would qualify to be president if they choose to return to the US upon coming of age & resume their US natural bnorn citizenship status.

    Dr Conspiracy & politijab like to forget this case, they say it is not relevant. And speaking of Dr Consiracy, uh er I mean ‘foogy’. Was quite the amusing Chalice show at PHN this week. Foggy made a few freudian slips. He should have stuck to his script. He also has absolutely no background in constitutional law, and his meager resume of the rest was quite enlightening. As for the rest of his background, well, let’s just say he is a perfect postor child for the flower power/ nudest camper/soldier/war bashing ideologues. Pelosi would be proud of her native state comrade.

    Finally, did anyone else participate in the 6 hr Constitution Town Hall by Hillsdale today?

  • 349
    Black Lion
    January 30th, 2010 22:58

    Interesting article from the following site…Great analysis from commenter Ballantine….Good read but a long article…Below are some excerpts…

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

    QUESTION PRESENTED

    Does the term “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution require both parents to be citizens of the United States at the time of birth?

    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

    Appellants and their counsel appear to be card-carrying members of the so-called birther movement that seek to prove the President is not a “natural born citizen” and hence ineligible to be President. Apparently unable to prove their preposterous theory that the President was born in Kenya, the movement has spawned a number of equally bizarreAppellants also try to argue that Wong Kim Ark implies there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen under the 14th amendment. Again, this is a frivolous cleam. As discussed previously, the court stated that natural born citizen was to be defined by the rule of Calvin’s Case from the English common law. See, supra at __. The court concludes that the 14th Amendment was declaratory of the same rule:

    “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”
    Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. at 693. Their argument appears to be based on ignoring the entire ruling and focusing on a single quote by Horace Binney. In the court’s conclusion, after citing Lord Coke and Calvin’s Case for the proposition that children of aliens where “natural born subjects,” the court ended the sentence by quoting Binney stating that children of aliens “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.” If one reads Binney’s paper, the “same principle” he is talking about is clearly the rule of Calvin’s Case. Thus, if we can discern the Appellants’ argument, the court, immediately after citing Coke and Calvin’s Case for the proposition that children of aliens are natural born subjects, then cites Binney for the proposition that children of aliens, made citizens by operation of the rule of Calvin’s Case, are nevertheless not natural born citizens. This is a court that previously cited Chancellor Kent for the proposition that “subject” and “citizen” were interchangeable terms, id. at __ and Justice Swayne for the proposition that “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” were interchangeable. What Binney is actually saying the children of aliens and natural born children of citizens were both citizens by operation of the rule of Calvin’s Case. Binney was determining who were citizens, not natural born citizens, and hence had no reason to call children of aliens “natural born.” Interestingly, if you read Binney paper, in the previous sentence Binney rejects de Vattel’s concept of citizen by descent:

    “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute.”

    Binney, supra, at 206. Binney later stated:

    “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…”
    Binney, supra, at 208. Thus, Binney believed that our law is the same as England and birth within the limits and jurisdiction of America made such persons natural born citizens absolutely. This is clearly another case of the Appellants are trying to read an implication into a fragment of a case that devastates their cause that is not only not a necessary implication but one contrary to the context it is used and contrary to the opinion in general.
    alternative theories of ineligibility, including the one now before this court. Here, the Appellants are asking nothing less than for this court to overturn a presidential election on a novel definition of “natural born citizen” that requires one’s parents to be citizens of the United States at the time of birth. Such a definition, of course, has no support from our courts or our history.

    It is unnecessary to point out to this court that there is little dispute that the phrase has a well known meaning in modern America. The native-birth requirement for the presidency is so ingrained into our culture that the Senate thought it necessary to pass a resolution declaring him to be natural born even consulting with two of our foremost constitution experts on the subject. [cite] It apparently never even occurred to any Senator that such would be needed for Barrack Obama. In fact, at least three Senators in such Senate who were at some point members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Senator Hatch, Senator Nickles and Senator Graham) had unambiguously stated that a “natural born citizen” was defined by birth in the United States. [add citiations] We are unaware, and Appellants have not pointed to, any current member of Congress with an alternate opinion. In fact, the experts that the Senate consulted about McCain’s eligibility made clear that birth in the United States alone was sufficient to confirm “natural born” status” stating:

    “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…” Letter by Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe, reported in 154 Cong. Rec. S3645-46 (Apr. 30, 2008).

    One would be hard pressed to find any modern legal dictionary, treatise, textbook or law review that defined “natural born” as other than in accordance with the common law. For example: Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Addition (1999) (“Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.”); Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, pg. 263 (1980)(“NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. A person whose citizenship derives from the nation where he or she was born.”); Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) (“Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President.”); William Carroll, Norman Smith, American Constitutional Rights: cases, documents, and commentary, pg. 130 (1991) (“Natural-born citizens can acquire that status by being born in the United States, on the basis of jus soli…”); Kermit Hall, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, pg. 24 (1992)( “The requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen implies that the framers recognized the principle of jus soli”); Joseph M. Bessette, American Justice, Volume 1‎ – Page 129 (1996)(““Americans are accustomed to the concept of automatic citizenship granted to persons born in the United States, who are called “natural-born citizens…”); Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005) (“United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens”); Jill A. Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988) (“It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” “Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth”); Lawrence Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come–The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007) (“It is now generally assumed that the term “natural born” is synonymous with “native born.” “It [therefore] is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible [for the presidency] and that naturalized citizens are not”); J. Rebekka Bonner, “Why John McCain Needs The Living Constitution” on Balkinization, May 15, 2008 (“The most straightforward argument is that “natural born” was a well recognized term of art, based upon the most commonly applied principle of traditional British common law dating from the 16th century.”) We could literally cite hundreds of modern authorities along these lines if the court would desire.

    The botton line is that American voters have been taught from childhood that the President must be born in the United States and had the right to depend upon the Senate’s deliberations on the issue. Any re-definition of such term at this point would not only be outside the bounds of any arguable judicial authority in the Constitution, but would be an offense to the very nature of democracy by overturning an election by changing the facts that the voters understood when exercising their franchise.

  • 350
    Black Lion
    January 30th, 2010 23:12

    Linda says:
    January 30, 2010 at 10:56 pm
    Maybe for once I could find out that there have, in fact, been cases that involve US citizenship specifically referencing presidential eligibility that have actually been tried in the Judiciary in the past — and I’m not even talking about the dozens that have been petitioned over the past year or so.

    -Phil

    Phil, There is only once case, it is Perkins v Elg in which the supreme Court upheld the lower court that declared Elg to be a natural born citizen, born to 2 US citizens the year after the parents naturalized. In the opinion, the court discussed 2 similar situations whrein those children were also born to naturalized parents & would qualify to be president if they choose to return to the US upon coming of age & resume their US natural bnorn citizenship status.

    Dr Conspiracy & politijab like to forget this case, they say it is not relevant. And speaking of Dr Consiracy, uh er I mean ‘foogy’. Was quite the amusing Chalice show at PHN this week. Foggy made a few freudian slips. He should have stuck to his script. He also has absolutely no background in constitutional law, and his meager resume of the rest was quite enlightening. As for the rest of his background, well, let’s just say he is a perfect postor child for the flower power/ nudest camper/soldier/war bashing ideologues. Pelosi would be proud of her native state comrade.
    _________________________________________________________________________
    Linda is hilarious. She is still pushing a theory that no one other than she supports. Perkins v Elg? She means the case where Ms. Perkins was declared a citizen of the United States. So Linda is telling us that a citizen is now the same as natural born citizen. Unbelievable…Everyone else in the world knows that Wong Kim Ark has defined citizenship. But Linda, thinking that she knows more than every other legal scholar in America, thinks differently. Unfortunately Linda can’t find one ruling or legal scholar that agrees with her. Maybe it is in the top secret document she received from Kenya that shows Obama and Odinga committing some sort of crime…

  • 351
    Phil
    January 30th, 2010 23:19

    jvn,

    Phil said:

    “What I think will be absolutely fascinating is that if one of the numerous States who have decided to take up eligibility enforcement get pulled into Court by a “disenfranchised” candidate (I’m sure that’s what they’ll claim), then it will become an issue for the Judiciary to decide.”

    I agree with you on this point Phil.

    Then keep it between us. After all, all those other opposition commenters would likely take you to the proverbial woodshed for actually agreeing with someone “on the other side.”

    [grin]

    If a state attempted to define NBC, the federal courts WOULD take the issue up long enough to declare the state law unconstitutional because states cannot set requirements for federal office.

    Sure, if “a state attempted to define NBC.” However, that’s not what these States are proposing to do.

    Let’s say it one more time, ladies and gentlemen; all together now: “They are wanting to enforce existing law, not define additional law.”

    I think you would be disappointed in the result of any such case because the federal courts WOULD NOT define NBC, but would simply declare that the states had no ability to define it.

    Y’all would probably call it a “technicality…”

    I’d like to see it in Court, first.

    But there really is no chance that there will be a need for a court case because no state is going to pass anything that would keep someone born in this country off the ballot.

    Wow! Let’s sign you and certain other opposition commenters for Letterman!

    You can predict the future of what individuals are going to do with 100% certainty!

    Except one problem.

    You see, the opposition does continue to move goalposts.

    They first said that nothing at the federal level would ever be introduced regarding eligibility. Then Rep. Posey did it.

    Then they said nobody else would support the bill. Then 11 other Representatives signed on.

    Then when it came to the States, people said it would never happen. I’ve documented at least 5 States (if I recall correctly) that introduced legislation in 2009, though said legislation didn’t get far.

    Then when the movement got started, people said that it would still never happen. And now several States have re-introduced such legislation and in Arizona’s case, with dozens of sponsors/co-sponsors.

    Oh, yes. It is very true that out of dozens of Court cases, not one made it past the beginning stages of a civil hearing. So, as I rightly recommended, there were other avenues upon which law enforcement can be sought. I’ve briefly outlined two such avenues just now. And I’m not even an attorney, but a mere rabble-rousing citizen reporter.

    “First they laugh at you, then they make fun of you, then they get mad at you, then you win.” — Gandhi (I think)

    -Phil

  • 352
    Linda
    January 30th, 2010 23:23

    For the Record Patriots who didn’t catch the Chalice show…

    Dr Conspiracy, uh er I mean ‘foggy’ made it very clear in his interview at PHN what the mission of politijab statist are.

    Go out the the most visited & active sites showing dissent to their usurper and try to Disrupt & Divide.

    Too bad for them that we weren’t built to fall for that age old tactic, so…

    Keep this in mind Patriots when further engaging with them. They are posting from worn out scripts because they have nothing further to add to their defense.

  • 353
    Linda
    January 30th, 2010 23:34

    Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” 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.

    The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

    Modified and affirmed

  • 354
    Linda
    January 30th, 2010 23:41

    OOPS…I didn’t catch all of the ending ruling from the SCOTUS on ELG…

    Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. 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

    Page 307 U. S. 350

    (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” 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.

    The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

    Modified and affirmed.

    The SCOTUS ruled that Elg retained her US ‘natural born’ citizenship status.

  • 355
    Phil
    January 30th, 2010 23:45

    Linda,

    For the Record Patriots who didn’t catch the Chalice show…

    Dr Conspiracy, uh er I mean ‘foggy’ made it very clear in his interview at PHN what the mission of politijab statist are.

    Go out the the most visited & active sites showing dissent to their usurper and try to Disrupt & Divide.

    Too bad for them that we weren’t built to fall for that age old tactic, so…

    Keep this in mind Patriots when further engaging with them. They are posting from worn out scripts because they have nothing further to add to their defense.

    Personally, I’m humbled and flattered that such an opposition forum as PolitiJab would think enough of my site to send folks over here to try to … debate eligibility and, in some cases, actually wrest control of my site from me.

    Some of them are “silly wabbits;” such trix are for kids ;)

    In all seriousness, PJ has some decent folks that frequent the forum; I’ve personally corresponded with some of them. They’re not all a bunch of blow-hards with absolutely no lives outside the blogosphere with which to make something useful of themselves. That’s harsh, but if it weren’t for being butt holes, some of the worst ones wouldn’t have a personality, so you take the blessings as they come! :)

    And yes, many are scripted, and try to commandeer conversations to their scripts; I’ve got 10′s of thousands (literally) of comments since over a year ago to attest to this.

    However, here’s the difference: we will never ever quit, because I think we have the truth on our side. And at the risk of being controversial, regardless of the President’s eligibility (I don’t personally know if he is or isn’t), the point is to influence individuals to our side — the right side — of life.

    Of course, as you mention, there are some opposition commenters that wouldn’t be convinced of anything, even if it were shown that Mr. Obama were ineligible for office; they’d likely still fight that he is, at least based on how some of them seemingly stick to their scripts.

    Ah, scripts. Yes, reminds me of when the dear Latter-Day Saints or Jehovah’s Witnesses would come to the door. Being ever the antagonist, I’d relish a chance to make them stop what they were doing and answer my questions, such as, “What is truth?”, “How did God forgive you of your sins if Jesus isn’t God?”, “What are you getting out of going around to peoples’ houses? Have you been promised an eternity somewhere if and only if you fulfill a quota of some sort?”, “Why do you have to step back into Gnosticism when the orthodox church has long since settled that debate?”, and, “Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses have an entirely different Bible? Are the dozens of existing translations just not good enough for you people to study? Why not simply use an Interlinear and get to the original languages that way?”

    I suppose it’s the same thing with eligibility or any other highly-controversial subject (one would think that something that is entirely constitutional would not be controversial, but then again, we’re dealing with humanity here): some folks have their views and, dog-gone-it, if I say that the Constitution should be enforced, they’re always going to say that I’m really trying to change it, not enforce it, and nothing will convince them otherwise.

    We have a right to be wrong. But if nature, humanity and/or Divine Providence shows the way to being right, why wouldn’t we go down that path?

    -Phil

  • 356
    Black Lion
    January 30th, 2010 23:47

    Linda says:
    January 30, 2010 at 11:34 pm
    Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” 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.

    The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

    Modified and affirmed
    ____________________________________________________________________
    And the following court rulings cite Wong Kim Ark in declaring individuals a “natural born citizen”…

    Indiana court of Appeals…

    “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.”

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

    DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992) (equating “natural born citizen” with “native born citizen” for purposes of presidential eligibility):

    DeTomaso is “eligible” to be President of the United States if he is “a natural born Citizen … [who has] attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Art. II § 1 cl. 5. A 35-year-old native does not have a property interest in the presidency.

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

    The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):

    The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
    The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.

    Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):

    Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.

    State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920) (holding that there are two (and only two) paths to citizenship and that natural born citizenship depends upon location of birth):

    According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are two methods by which a person may become a citizen: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein . A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen.

  • 357
    Linda
    January 31st, 2010 00:29

    I bring Supreme Court cases & BL brings lower court rulings that set no precedint for constituional interpretation.

    BL, you should have joined the constitution town hall today and listened to real law scholars & professors, not imitation ones at politijab.

    The part of wka that the Elg case sites pertains to the return from travel abroad. Once a citizen always a citizen unless when an adult your renounce it, but not all citizens are NBC’s. WKA was declared a citizen, Elg was declared a NBC by the court & the court specifically address presidential eligibility & its qualifications in the deciding opinion in Elg.

    The court also cites this reference which I have written on & also posted here, only to have you laugh & mock it…

    Foreign Relations, 1888, Pt. 2, p. 1341. See also Mr. Bayard

    and also this from the American Journal of International Law Vol 28 (no2) 1934 which I havew also cited & linked to only to be criticized that these were not relevant. Read footnote #1 then read #2, it completely verifies my findings.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/2190926

  • 358
    qwertyman
    January 31st, 2010 02:17

    and also this from the American Journal of International Law Vol 28 (no2) 1934 which I havew also cited & linked to only to be criticized that these were not relevant. Read footnote #1 then read #2, it completely verifies my findings.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/2190926

    Um, what? Here’s footnote 1:

    “… The exception excludes children born in the United States to a foreign diplomat from acquiring American nationality at birth.”

    Footnote 2 is referring entirely to “persons born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the US, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof.” The footnote itself says that citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the US. But that’s referring explicitly to children born outside the US.

    If you are born inside the US, then what is stated in footnote 1 applies, which includes all but children of foreign diplomats. If born outside the US, then the paper discusses the various issues in footnote 2.

    This paper does not come anywhere close to saying that the child of a US citizen born on US soil is not a natural born citizen. And Linda, I’m not sure if you’ve extended your apology yet for your complete misreading of SD law regarding your belief that birth certificates required “naturalization records.”

  • 359
    bystander
    January 31st, 2010 02:37

    The AAO Appeal is a separate action and will only be relevant to the case subject to REMAND when and if I decide to include it as part of an Amended Companion Case under the Rules of the Court.

    But that is only one of several options that is available, under the Rules of differing venues.

    However, if it really is a case where you just can not comprehend you might consider giving it some real thought instead of relying on your knee-jerks to guide you, or, have faith that the next generation of your family will be more capable than you.

    …………….. Steve I know it is embarrassing for you, but there is no way to parse how the judge ruled:

    1 He upheld the district court dismissal of part of your case

    2 He sent the other part of the case back to the district court with orders to dismiss

    3 He denied you the chance to submit a second amended complaint calling it futile.

    So if it pleases you, continue in your fantasy that your case is still alive. Also, if you want to imagine an eagle eating my children – knock yourself out. As I said before, your excessively verbose style does not fool me – you have no case, and never have had. And as for the intelligence of my children – be careful what you wish for – my 15 year old is so amused by your delusions he is thinking of signing up to debate you – he’ll run rings around you.

  • 360
    brygenon
    January 31st, 2010 02:37

    slcraig now claims:

    As you know Phil, I was well aware I lacked the requisite Standing in order to overcome the Jurisdiction bar, Leo, Mario, you and others were very helpful but clear on that fact. I went ahead in order to get the courts on record as to just EXACTLY where and what the deficiencies were while I have been working other ’situations and circumstances’ that ’should’ cure those deficiencies when I return on remand.

    Mr. Craig, if you knew the courts had to dismiss on standing, why did you say that denying you a writ of certiorari would prove a conspiracy?

    “But a denial of Writ on the question of the definition will be tantamount to PROOF that there is a conspiracy in support of the USURPTION of the Office of POTUS, ………..IMHO.” — slcraig, 07 July 2009 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/07/06/craig-v-united-states-citizenship-definition-case-in-10th-circuit-scotus-conference/

  • 361
    bystander
    January 31st, 2010 02:45

    Bysta, are you sure that you are not late Sisemapierda? Or at least channeling him?

    The above observation (in various variations) was one of the ways Siserda used to express his exaperation when caught lying or going in circular argumentation – a pretty hysterical type that guy

    …….quite sure thank you, as Phil can confirm. Now where have I been caught lying?

  • 362
    bystander
    January 31st, 2010 02:51

    I went ahead in order to get the courts on record as to just EXACTLY where and what the deficiencies were while I have been working other ’situations and circumstances’ that ’should’ cure those deficiencies when I return on remand.

    ….. Steve what part of this statement in your appellate court judgement do you not understand: “We REMAND to the district court with instructions to dismiss”? How are the deficiencies going to be cured when all the district court will do is recieve the papers and dismiss as instructed? You have been explicitly denied the opportunity to present an amended appeal with the word “FUTILE”. And you call obots delusional. Come on birthers – do any of you think Steve’s case is still alive ? Phil?

  • 363
    brygenon
    January 31st, 2010 02:57

    Phil wrote:

    You see, the opposition does continue to move goalposts.

    They first said that nothing at the federal level would ever be introduced regarding eligibility. Then Rep. Posey did it.

    Then they said nobody else would support the bill. Then 11 other Representatives signed on.

    Phil, it would be helpful if you would provide links so we could tell who the “they” are. Remember when on this issue you accused me: “The goal posts are always moving for you, aren’t they?” I pointed out that even before Posey introduced his bill, my reaction to such initiatives at the state level was that they are, “certainly more reasonable that the nonsense at issue here, though I personally see no importance.”
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/05/14/house-eligibility-bill-gets-cosponsor/comment-page-1/

    Then when it came to the States, people said it would never happen. I’ve documented at least 5 States (if I recall correctly) that introduced legislation in 2009, though said legislation didn’t get far.

    So in your tales of moving goal posts, Phil, was your team’s goal to get a dozen of 435 U.S. House Representatives to back a bill that doesn’t even challenge President Obama? Was seeing the proposals die in state legislatures what you wanted to achieve?

  • 364
    bystander
    January 31st, 2010 02:59

    As you know Phil, I was well aware I lacked the requisite Standing in order to overcome the Jurisdiction bar, Leo, Mario, you and others were very helpful but clear on that fact. I went ahead in order to get the courts on record as to just EXACTLY where and what the deficiencies were while I have been working other ’situations and circumstances’ that ’should’ cure those deficiencies when I return on remand.

    …………..

    Steve perhaps you could answer these questions for me a simple yes or no will be fine:

    1 Did the appellate court order the part of your case not dismissed to be remanded back to the district court with orders to dismiss? Yes or no. (Correct answer is yes)

    2 Did the appellate court deny your motion to file a second amended complaint? yes or no. (Correct answer is yes).

    3 As you have been denied the chance to file am amended complaint, you will not be able to cure any deficiencies on remand will you? Yes or no. (Correct answer is no)

    4 Is you case dead? Of course it is. And if you carry on insisting it isn’t, won’t we be entitled to mock you?

  • 365
    Sue
    January 31st, 2010 04:43

    slcraig,

    “On edit; Oh yea, as for those guys over at PJ, well, what do you expect? They are ATTY’s, they’ll argue any side for a buck.”

    I believe you have the lawyers at PJ confused with the “birther lawyers”. Do you see a paypal button at PJ?

  • 366
    Sue
    January 31st, 2010 05:33

    Phil,

    “Are there “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers” who frequent PJ? If so, how have their credentials been confirmed?”

    My comment: “I observed the debate/discussion you engaged in with real, credible, competent PJ lawyers who actually practice law. You were no match for them.”

    I don’t believe I stated that the PJ lawyers were “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers.” I did not put “constitutional lawyer, expert or scholar” in front of PJ lawyer, now did I?

    “Further, what case(s) do they reference regarding any sort of US citizenship specifically in reference to presidential eligibility?”

    Below is the link to an excellent brief that explains this non-issue far better than I ever could. I believe it is a work in progress. Are you now implying that there are two classes of natural born citizens? One for WKA/Elg and one for presidential eligibility?

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/
    ANTI-BIRTHER BRIEF

  • 367
    Sue
    January 31st, 2010 06:04

    Linda,

    “Dr Consiracy, uh er I mean ‘foogy’. Was quite the amusing Chalice show at PHN this week.”

    Dr. Conspiracy and Foggy are NOT the same person.

  • 368
    misanthropicus
    January 31st, 2010 09:01

    RE dba Obama’s crumbling house…

    “Gallup: New lows for Obama/William Tate – American Thinker –

    Barack Obama’s job approval remains mired below 50% in Gallup’s latest daily tracking poll. Worse for the Big O, for the first time as many people surveyed dis-approve of the job Obama’s doing as approve it; approval and disapproval both stood at 47%. Worse still, these numbers come after a major PR effort by Obama following his State of the Union, with Obama’s disapproval spiking 2% in the last 24 hours.. And these numbers come from Gallup. Polling changes over time, of course. But people apparently aren’t buying what Obama’s selling.”

    And this happening even when dba Obama was PROTECTED by the Haiti earthquake which focused media’a & nation’s attention away from the Tonton Macoute en chief’s incompetence -

    Recently Krauthammer said that “Obama’s presidency might be beyond the point of repair” – well Charlie, looks like “might” passe, and we have to rephrase your take as “Obama’s presidency is beyond the point of repair” -

    And this unravelling in any regards – including the Obamatons’ Internet offesive which has largely ceased, discoragement, defection and impossibility of the task of covering dba Obama’s fraudulence and incompetence having taken a serious toll on the Hopey-Dopey troops –

    Hehehe – only here on RSOL some last surviving Obamatons (the Wile E. Coyote Brigade) are happily rubbing their paws, congratulating each other for their obfuscation, ignoring the anvils that will fall upon them -

    The walls of Jericho didn’t fall at the first blare of horns – dba Obama’s illegitimacy will be proved -

    William Tate

    Barack Obama’s job approval remains mired below 50% in Gallup’s latest daily tracking poll. Worse for the Big O, for the first time as many people surveyed dis-approve of the job Obama’s doing as approve it; approval and disapproval both stood at 47%. Worse still, these numbers come after a major PR effort by Obama following his State of the Union, with Obama’s disapproval spiking 2% in the last 24 hours.. And these numbers come from Gallup. Polling changes over time, of course. But people apparently aren’t buying what Obama’s selling.

  • 369
    slcraig
    January 31st, 2010 09:05

    bystander says:
    January 31, 2010 at 2:59 am
    As you know Phil, I was well aware I lacked the requisite Standing in order to overcome the Jurisdiction bar, Leo, Mario, you and others were very helpful but clear on that fact. I went ahead in order to get the courts on record as to just EXACTLY where and what the deficiencies were while I have been working other ’situations and circumstances’ that ’should’ cure those deficiencies when I return on remand.

    …………..

    Steve perhaps you could answer these questions for me a simple yes or no will be fine:

    1 Did the appellate court order the part of your case not dismissed to be remanded back to the district court with orders to dismiss? Yes or no. (Correct answer is yes)

    2 Did the appellate court deny your motion to file a second amended complaint? yes or no. (Correct answer is yes).

    3 As you have been denied the chance to file am amended complaint, you will not be able to cure any deficiencies on remand will you? Yes or no. (Correct answer is no)

    4 Is you case dead? Of course it is. And if you carry on insisting it isn’t, won’t we be entitled to mock you?

    ________________________________________________________________

    [1] Affirmed in part, Remand in part. The Remand was due to the USDC OK Judge Friot’s attempt to ‘Dismiss wit prejudice. The 10th Circuit rightly decided that the USDC COULD NOT Dismiss with prejudice a CASE it had not tried. The ORDER of REMAND is for the USDC OK, Judge Friot, to Change the Order of Dismissal with prejudice to Dismissal WITH_OUT prejudice.

    I’ll leave you to your legal researchers to explain the difference.

    [2]NO. It was the USDC, OK that, upon Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint With Complaint attached, dismissed with prejudice.

    [3] With the structure of your question, i.e., relying on your interpretation of the dismissal being incorrect makes your question MOOT. There is NO bar from re-filing under the Court Rules being on Remand, what the 10th said, that with the Amended Complaint being of the same deficiencies as the Original Complaint it was correct of Judge Friot to Dismiss it. Therefore it would serve no purpose to file it without first curing the deficiencies.

    [4] NO, even though I expect you and yours to continue mocking me even after I prevail.

    Now I have answered ALL of your questions, Why won’t any of you answer mine?

    How many natural born citizens did the Ratification of the Constitution ‘make’, ‘Deem’ or otherwise ‘designate’ from amongst the existing population?

  • 370
    Sue
    January 31st, 2010 09:15

    Phil,

    “Ah, scripts. Yes, reminds me of when the dear Latter-Day Saints or Jehovah’s Witnesses would come to the door. Being ever the antagonist, I’d relish a chance to make them stop what they were doing and answer my questions, such as, “What is truth?”, “How did God forgive you of your sins if Jesus isn’t God?”, “What are you getting out of going around to peoples’ houses? Have you been promised an eternity somewhere if and only if you fulfill a quota of some sort?”, “Why do you have to step back into Gnosticism when the orthodox church has long since settled that debate?”, and, “Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses have an entirely different Bible? Are the dozens of existing translations just not good enough for you people to study? Why not simply use an Interlinear and get to the original languages that way?””

    Hmmm, it appears you are saying that you do not believe in upholding the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

  • 371
    slcraig
    January 31st, 2010 09:18

    Sue says:
    January 31, 2010 at 5:33 am
    Phil,

    “Are there “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers” who frequent PJ? If so, how have their credentials been confirmed?”

    My comment: “I observed the debate/discussion you engaged in with real, credible, competent PJ lawyers who actually practice law. You were no match for them.”

    I don’t believe I stated that the PJ lawyers were “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers.” I did not put “constitutional lawyer, expert or scholar” in front of PJ lawyer, now did I?

    “Further, what case(s) do they reference regarding any sort of US citizenship specifically in reference to presidential eligibility?”

    Below is the link to an excellent brief that explains this non-issue far better than I ever could. I believe it is a work in progress. Are you now implying that there are two classes of natural born citizens? One for WKA/Elg and one for presidential eligibility?

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/
    ANTI-BIRTHER BRIEF

    “Below is the link to an excellent brief that explains this non-issue far better than I ever could. I believe it is a work in progress.”

    LOL, ROFLOL………..Bringing out the big guns now uh?

    All the ‘old’ arguments fail the test of time so you make ‘fundamental changes’ to your positions.

    It has long been observed that when you build on shifting sand you must constantly reposition and rebuild.

    PS, the Brief puts forth several outright obfuscations in reference to ‘common law’ and ‘English common law’.

    But that would be way over your head.

  • 372
    misanthropicus
    January 31st, 2010 09:32

    The Hard & Frustrating Life of Ellie Light and her legion of Children -

    “President’s ineptness quite clear after a year/By E. THOMAS McCLANAHAN/ The Kansas City Star -

    What happened to the bright dreams, the hope and change? A year ago, fate handed President Obama one of the most tantalizing political opportunities in history.

    His party enjoyed a blowout election. The Republicans were leaderless and devoid of ideas. The Democrats had hefty majorities in both houses of Congress. Obama had stratospheric approval ratings and the support of a nation profoundly fearful of the future.

    And then he threw it all away. He outsourced chunks of his job to a left-wing congressional leadership that has learned nothing and forgotten nothing for the past 35 years.

    What came next was one appalling legislative blob after another: the stimulus package that hasn’t stimulated, the cap-and-trade monster, the health care power-grab.

    When Obama assumed office, he was still something of an enigma. Many asked: Who is this guy?

    Well, now we know a lot more. The bottom line: He isn’t a good politician. Politics is an art, and Obama’s basic competence is highly suspect. He lacks the personal radar an effective politician must have — the instinct to know when you’re on solid ground and when you’re tilting at windmills. Obama has spent a year tilting at windmills.

    The “art of the possible” isn’t static. With steady accomplishments, an effective leader can expand the zone of the possible. A winner draws new adherents, builds coalitions, acquires new strength for the next challenge.

    For a weak leader, the opposite applies: His credibility shrinks, and so do the ranks of his followers. His ability to accomplish anything becomes doubtful.

    This is the vicious circle that now ensnares Obama. He has succeeded mainly in uniting his opposition and dividing his own camp. House and Senate Democrats are openly sniping at one another. The hard left — Obama’s base — is writing him off as inept. [...]
    ——————————————————
    Tragic life the Obamatons face, indeed – reminds me of the poor Senegalese fusilliers lost in Russian winter – terrible spectacle, terrible –
    And on this background the Trolls still want to persuade people around that dba Obama is not a fraudulent president, and try to save him from being marched out from the office – so, as the acknowledged humanist I am, I renew my suggestion for Sue, Bry, JNV, BL, Bysta & Cie. to spend their energies on something more realistic, more achievable, like discovering the perpetuum mobile, achieving levitation, teleporting or solving the philosophical stone -

    Hehehe – oh, dear –

    More on Obama’s ineptness @:
    http://www.kansascity.com/275/story/1717714.html

    http://www.kansascity.com/275/story/1717714.html

  • 373
    bystander
    January 31st, 2010 09:35

    Now I have answered ALL of your questions, Why won’t any of you answer mine?

    … well you didn’t tell the truth. Your case is dead – you have no angles left to pursue, you are simply waiting for the last confirmation of dismissal.

    How many natural born citizens did the Ratification of the Constitution ‘make’, ‘Deem’ or otherwise ‘designate’ from amongst the existing population?

    ….. I have no idea what you mean. As the judge said – incomprehensible.

  • 374
    Sue
    January 31st, 2010 09:41

    slcraig,

    ““Below is the link to an excellent brief that explains this non-issue far better than I ever could. I believe it is a work in progress.”

    LOL, ROFLOL………..Bringing out the big guns now uh?

    All the ‘old’ arguments fail the test of time so you make ‘fundamental changes’ to your positions.

    It has long been observed that when you build on shifting sand you must constantly reposition and rebuild.

    PS, the Brief puts forth several outright obfuscations in reference to ‘common law’ and ‘English common law’.

    But that would be way over your head.”

    Why don’t you tell the source of the brief instead of telling me. After all, you are a member of PJ. Here is the thread. And again, what are your credentials?

    http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3141&start=0

    What was that again the court said about your legal briefs? Oh yes, I remember:

    “In the circumstances of this action, where the court has already entered one order which found the original complaint incomprehensible and frivolous1″

    and dismissed for failure to state a claim…

    “The mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff
    could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.”

  • 375
    slcraig
    January 31st, 2010 09:44

    brygenon says:
    January 31, 2010 at 2:37 am
    slcraig now claims:

    As you know Phil, I was well aware I lacked the requisite Standing in order to overcome the Jurisdiction bar, Leo, Mario, you and others were very helpful but clear on that fact. I went ahead in order to get the courts on record as to just EXACTLY where and what the deficiencies were while I have been working other ’situations and circumstances’ that ’should’ cure those deficiencies when I return on remand.

    Mr. Craig, if you knew the courts had to dismiss on standing, why did you say that denying you a writ of certiorari would prove a conspiracy?

    “But a denial of Writ on the question of the definition will be tantamount to PROOF that there is a conspiracy in support of the USURPTION of the Office of POTUS, ………..IMHO.” — slcraig, 07 July 2009 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/07/06/craig-v-united-states-citizenship-definition-case-in-10th-circuit-scotus-conference/

    Well, I didn’t find the posted comment you cite in order to determine the context for making the statement I made, but i’ll stipulate I made it and and can only surmise it came as an expression of frustration.

    That said, the CASE was ‘Affirmed in Part and Remanded in Part’ at the USCA 10th before the Conference date at SCOTUS and that made the Petition MOOT prior to taking it up in Conference.

    I will, however, agree that it was NOT the ‘right’ pleading for the cause I am pursuing, it lacking the certain elements necessary.

  • 376
    slcraig
    January 31st, 2010 09:58

    Sue says:
    January 31, 2010 at 9:41 am

    bystander says:
    January 31, 2010 at 9:35 am

    The dynamic duo tag teaming an opponent that they are unable to dissuade, discourage or dispute with intellectual honesty so they throw sticks and bones.

    Don’t they know I have a Shield and a Sword?

    As for the ‘frivolous and incomprehensible’ words of the court; your use of them as a form of denigration only exposes your ignorance of the law.

    They are terms used when the ‘elements’ of ‘case and controversy, standing and/or jurisdiction’ are not present in a form ‘recognizable’ by the court and does NOT refer to the subject of the complaint.

    You need to go get a few more friends because the way I see it your two heads are no better than none.

  • 377
    Sue
    January 31st, 2010 10:46

    slcraig,

    “As for the ‘frivolous and incomprehensible’ words of the court; your use of them as a form of denigration only exposes your ignorance of the law.

    They are terms used when the ‘elements’ of ‘case and controversy, standing and/or jurisdiction’ are not present in a form ‘recognizable’ by the court and does NOT refer to the subject of the complaint.”

    ROTFL I believe the court also used the term “moot.”

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/frivolous-claims/
    Frivolous Claims Law & Legal Definition

    “A frivolous claim in legal terms refers to a lawsuit or motion in a lawsuit motivated by an intent merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition. In order to be found frivolous, the claim must have no arguable basis in law or fact. Frivolous acts can include filing the lawsuit itself, a motion for a court action in a lawsuit, an answer of a defendant to a complaint which does not deny, contest, prove or controvert anything, or an appeal which is without any valid supporting arguments.”

    “A judge may award sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit, motion or appeal. Such sanctions may include awarding the opponent costs, attorney fees, and in at least one case, the offending attorney was ordered to attend law school courses. The award of sanctions may be made by the court on its own initiative or after a motion by another party.”

    “The following is an example of a state statute dealing with frivolous claims:

    “If the action is brought by a private citizen and the court finds that the action was frivolous or motivated by bad faith, costs and attorney fees may be taxed to the person.””

    http://www.answers.com/topic/incomprehensible
    “incomprehensible
    adjective
    Incapable of being grasped by the intellect or understanding: impenetrable, inscrutable, uncomprehensible, unfathomable, unintelligible. See knowledge/ignorance.”

    http://www.nccourts.org/Citizens/Publications/LegalTerms.asp
    “Moot – not subject to a court ruling because the controversy has not actually arisen, or has ended.”

  • 378
    bystander
    January 31st, 2010 11:15

    Steve – you just got pwnd.

  • 379
    slcraig
    January 31st, 2010 11:55

    Sue says:
    January 31, 2010 at 10:46 am
    slcraig,

    “As for the ‘frivolous and incomprehensible’ words of the court; your use of them as a form of denigration only exposes your ignorance of the law.

    They are terms used when the ‘elements’ of ‘case and controversy, standing and/or jurisdiction’ are not present in a form ‘recognizable’ by the court and does NOT refer to the subject of the complaint.”

    ROTFL I believe the court also used the term “moot.”

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/frivolous-claims/
    Frivolous Claims Law & Legal Definition

    “A frivolous claim in legal terms refers to a lawsuit or motion in a lawsuit motivated by an intent merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition. In order to be found frivolous, the claim must have no arguable basis in law or fact. Frivolous acts can include filing the lawsuit itself, a motion for a court action in a lawsuit, an answer of a defendant to a complaint which does not deny, contest, prove or controvert anything, or an appeal which is without any valid supporting arguments.”

    “A judge may award sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit, motion or appeal. Such sanctions may include awarding the opponent costs, attorney fees, and in at least one case, the offending attorney was ordered to attend law school courses. The award of sanctions may be made by the court on its own initiative or after a motion by another party.”

    “The following is an example of a state statute dealing with frivolous claims:

    “If the action is brought by a private citizen and the court finds that the action was frivolous or motivated by bad faith, costs and attorney fees may be taxed to the person.””

    http://www.answers.com/topic/incomprehensible
    “incomprehensible
    adjective
    Incapable of being grasped by the intellect or understanding: impenetrable, inscrutable, uncomprehensible, unfathomable, unintelligible. See knowledge/ignorance.”

    http://www.nccourts.org/Citizens/Publications/LegalTerms.asp
    “Moot – not subject to a court ruling because the controversy has not actually arisen, or has ended.”

    bystander says:
    January 31, 2010 at 11:15 am
    Steve – you just got pwnd.

    Sue:

    I understand that what you posted is over your head because it simply reinforces what I said.

    In fact, if you read Judge Friot in his dismissal he takes pains to say that he did not conclude that the complaint was ‘insincere’ and that he used ‘frivolous’ in the legal sense that the complaint was without the requisite elements to be ‘comprehended’ from the perspective of the courts concern of ‘standing and, therefore, jurisdiction’

    But go ahead and play your word games while I ‘work’ in the arena of consequential ideas as were intended by the Founding Fathers of this ‘Nation of Sovereign Citizens’.

    Bystander;

    Being the cultural warrior that you are I do not find it inconsistent of you to express your-self with a colloquialism of one of your media giants great contribution to the type of cultural excellence you attain to.

  • 380
    bystander
    January 31st, 2010 12:16

    Being the cultural warrior that you are…..

    …. say what? I believe it is you that wants to change the status quo, not me.

  • 381
    slcraig
    January 31st, 2010 12:46

    bystander says:
    January 31, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    Being the cultural warrior that you are…..

    …. say what? I believe it is you that wants to change the status quo, not me.

    You are so mind numbed that it is understandable that you can not comprehend the meaning and intent of more than two or three words strung together at a time. So try this.

    “We shall Overcome”

  • 382
    bystander
    January 31st, 2010 13:47

    You are so mind numbed that it is understandable that you can not comprehend the meaning and intent of more than two or three words strung together at a time. So try this.

    “We shall Overcome”

    …… your insults would hold more weight if I hadn’t shown that you mislead about the outcome of your case, using a little more than three words. As for “we shall overcome” – I won’t hold my breath. 67 failed cases and counting – not looking too good so far.

  • 383
    Sue
    January 31st, 2010 13:56

    bystander,

    ……” your insults would hold more weight if I hadn’t shown that you mislead about the outcome of your case, using a little more than three words. As for “we shall overcome” – I won’t hold my breath. 67 failed cases and counting – not looking too good so far.”

    You would think after the first 10 or so they would have figured it out. LOL

  • 384
    slcraig
    January 31st, 2010 14:38

    bystander says:
    January 31, 2010 at 1:47 pm
    You are so mind numbed that it is understandable that you can not comprehend the meaning and intent of more than two or three words strung together at a time. So try this.

    “We shall Overcome”

    …… your insults would hold more weight if I hadn’t shown that you mislead about the outcome of your case, using a little more than three words. As for “we shall overcome” – I won’t hold my breath. 67 failed cases and counting – not looking too good so far.


    You are the one ‘misleading’ about the current status of my case………but that’s your job, isn’t it.

    67 and counting, BTW. That’s more than 1 per work week since Nov. 4, 2008………you see a pattern that fits your template, I see one that fits mine…time, that natural source of revelation will tell. After all, the Black’s of America were given Citizenship and right to vote as were women who also acquired the right to end viable pregnancies and gays can not be subject to discrimination based on their being perverts. The point is civil rights actions have a long history of realigning the public perspective on issues they may have taken for granted or have opposing views of.

    Kool-Aid and Oreo’s anyone?

  • 385
    Sue
    January 31st, 2010 14:58

    Here is the order. Let people decide for themselves.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18224913/CraigOK-20090805-Appellate-Court-Affirms-Dismissal-of-Craig
    Craig|OK 2009-08-05 Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Craig

  • 386
    bystander
    January 31st, 2010 15:27

    slcraig says:
    January 31, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    bystander says:
    January 31, 2010 at 1:47 pm
    You are so mind numbed that it is understandable that you can not comprehend the meaning and intent of more than two or three words strung together at a time. So try this.

    “We shall Overcome”

    …… your insults would hold more weight if I hadn’t shown that you mislead about the outcome of your case, using a little more than three words. As for “we shall overcome” – I won’t hold my breath. 67 failed cases and counting – not looking too good so far.

    You are the one ‘misleading’ about the current status of my case………but that’s your job, isn’t it.

    67 and counting, BTW. That’s more than 1 per work week since Nov. 4, 2008………you see a pattern that fits your template, I see one that fits mine…time, that natural source of revelation will tell. After all, the Black’s of America were given Citizenship and right to vote as were women who also acquired the right to end viable pregnancies and gays can not be subject to discrimination based on their being perverts. The point is civil rights actions have a long history of realigning the public perspective on issues they may have taken for granted or have opposing views of.

    Kool-Aid and Oreo’s anyone?

    ………….. you’ve crossed a line here, I will not respond to you any more.

  • 387
    slcraig
    January 31st, 2010 15:53

    Sue says:
    January 31, 2010 at 2:58 pm
    Here is the order. Let people decide for themselves.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18224913/CraigOK-20090805-Appellate-Court-Affirms-Dismissal-of-Craig
    Craig|OK 2009-08-05 Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Craig

    Here, let me break it down for you;

    CONCLUSION

    For the reasons outlined above, we AFFIRM the substance of the district court’s order,

    (AFFIRM in Part)

    but VACATE the portion of it that refers to the dismissal as being
    with prejudice.

    (Remand in Part)

    We REMAND to the district court with instructions to dismiss
    the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

    (Ordering the USDC to CHANGE their Record and Docket indicating WITH-OUT Prejudice)

    Mr. Craig’s pending motions

    3 In his appellant brief and in two separate documents, Mr. Craig
    moves this court to suspend the district court’s local rules, an act he appears to believe would permit him to file a second amended complaint, which he also submitted.

    In light of our disposition of this case, we deny these motions as
    moot.

    In any event, based upon our review of the proposed second amended
    complaint, we are confident that allowing Mr. Craig leave to file yet another incarnation of his complaint would be futile.

    V(Incarnation, meaning lacking the elements that had led to this dismissal, which I have no intention of doing.)

    The Rules of the Court allow for and require any case resubmitted on Remand be designated as ‘Companion Case’ but may submit Facts, Evidence, Legal Premise and other such changes that were not part of the Original Complaint.)

    See Anderson v. Merrill Lynch
    Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 521 F.3d 1278, 1288 (10th Cir. 2008) (“A proposed amendment is futile if the complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal.”

    (Which the 2nd Amended Case would have been in its ‘incarnation)

    And, for the record;

    This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    After examining the Plaintiff’s brief and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

    The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

  • 388
    Benaiah
    January 31st, 2010 16:07

    Barack Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at MacDill Air Force Base on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 in Tampa, Fla

    Why The Hell Would Obama Bow To Tampa Mayor?
    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/why-the-hell-would-obama-bow-to-tampa-mayor.html

    Look what Pam Iorio, the Tampa mayor whom O bowed to, signed in 2008, 2007 and 2006:

    http://www.americansagainsthate.org/Mayor_Iorio_CAIR_Day.html

  • 389
    slcraig
    January 31st, 2010 16:31

    bystander says:
    January 31, 2010 at 1:47 pm
    Kool-Aid and Oreo’s anyone?

    ………….. you’ve crossed a line here, I will not respond to you any more.

    Well, if that’s all it took to knock you off your game………what, you prefer Fish and Chips and Kidney Pie with a Pint?

  • 390
    Benaiah
    January 31st, 2010 17:26

    Deep Fried Oreos®
    http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Deep-Fried-Oreos/Detail.aspx

    Ingredients

    2 quarts vegetable oil for frying
    1 large egg
    1 cup milk
    2 teaspoons vegetable oil
    1 cup pancake mix
    1 (18 ounce) package cream-filled chocolate sandwich cookies (such as Oreo®)

    Directions

    1. Heat oil in deep-fryer to 375 degrees F (190 degrees C).
    2. Whisk together the egg, milk, and 2 teaspoons of vegetable oil in a bowl until smooth. Stir in the pancake mix until no dry lumps remain. Dip the cookies into the batter one at a time, and carefully place into the hot frying oil. Fry only 4 or 5 at a time to avoid overcrowding the deep fryer. Cook until the cookies are golden-brown, about 2 minutes. Drain on a paper towel-lined plate before serving.

  • 391
    misanthropicus
    January 31st, 2010 17:34

    Re bystander:

    [...] you’ve crossed a line here, I will not respond to you any more. [...]

    Wow, Bysta – calm down buddy – if you keep crossing people on your list you’re going to lose your job -
    YOUR EMPLOYERS WANT YOU to respond to comments, that’t why you’re here – hehehe – the indignant legal condor that Bysta is – hehehe -

    Buddy, you signed up for this job, so you got to score more Obamatic activity – stop blacklisting people – hehehe -

  • 392
    misanthropicus
    January 31st, 2010 17:40

    RE slcraig RE Ellie Light’s son Bysta (possible Siserda) -

    [...]…what, you prefer Fish and Chips and Kidney Pie with a Pint? [...]

    For one who claims that he lives in Britain together with his Mercedes and Beemer, some fish and chips and a pint of ale might well do it -

    But since Bysta is more likely an Oakland resident, some strawberry ice cream and a warm beer sipped with a straw would be the right treat —

  • 393
    bystander
    January 31st, 2010 17:49

    mis – I know logic isn’t your thing, but I would have thought checking the times of my posts would give you a pretty good idea as to what time zone I live in – and it certainly isn’t Pacific Time. If you care enough – ask Phil, he knows my IP address.

    As to my employer – George Soros has given me a week off for all the over time I put in with Linda’s nonsense. He is a very generous man.

  • 394
    Benaiah
    January 31st, 2010 18:05

    Easy OREO Truffles
    http://www.kraftrecipes.com/kf/recipes/easy-oreo-truffles-95085.aspx

    What You Need!
    1 pkg. (1 lb. 2 oz.) OREO Cookies, finely crushed, divided
    1 pkg. (8 oz.) PHILADELPHIA Cream Cheese, softened
    2 pkg. (8 squares each) BAKER’S Semi-Sweet Chocolate, melted

    Make It!

    MIX 3 cups of the cookie crumbs and the cream cheese until well blended. Shape into 42 (1-inch) balls.

    DIP balls in melted chocolate; place on waxed paper-covered baking sheet. (Any leftover melted chocolate can be stored in tightly covered container at room temperature and saved for another use.) Sprinkle with remaining cookie crumbs.

    REFRIGERATE 1 hour or until firm. Store any leftover truffles in tightly covered container in refrigerator.

    Kraft Kitchens Tips

    How to Easily Dip Truffles
    To easily coat truffles with the melted chocolate, add truffles, in batches, to bowl of melted chocolate. Then use two forks to roll truffles in chocolate until evenly coated. Remove the truffles with forks and allow excess chocolate to drip back into bowl before placing truffles on prepared baking sheet.

    Special Extra
    Sprinkle truffles with colored sugar or sprinkles in addition to or in place of the cookie crumbs.

    How to Soften Cream Cheese
    Place completely unwrapped package of cream cheese in microwaveable bowl. Microwave on HIGH 10 sec. or just until softened. Add 15 sec. for each additional package of cream cheese.

  • 395
    Sue
    January 31st, 2010 18:05

    “After all, the Black’s of America were given Citizenship and right to vote as were women who also acquired the right to end viable pregnancies and gays can not be subject to discrimination based on their being perverts. The point is civil rights actions have a long history of realigning the public perspective on issues they may have taken for granted or have opposing views of.”

    I believe it was the above comment rather than the oreo comment. slcraig, you sure showed your true colors, now didn’t ya.

    You appear to hate blacks, women, gays, and pretty much anybody who isn’t like you and doesn’t believe like you do. Based upon your comment, you appear to believe that we should still have slavery, blacks or women should not be allowed to vote and gays should still be in the closet. And, the Constitution only applies to white Christian males. Does this pretty much describe you, based upon your comment above?

  • 396
    Benaiah
    January 31st, 2010 18:21

    Oreo Cookie Blondies
    http://arkansasmatters.com/content/features_Recipes_Fulltext?cid=222731

    ¾ cup brown sugar, firmly packed
    ¾ cup softened butter
    2 eggs
    1 box yellow cake mix
    ¾ cup Oreo cookie pieces
    Powdered sugar for dusting

    Place brown sugar, butter, and eggs into a mixing bowl. Mix using a mixer on low speed for 1 minute. Add cake mix. Mix for 2 minutes on low speed or until well combined. Fold in the cookies with a spatula. Place in greased baking pan. Bake at 350 for 30 minutes or until done. Top with powder sugar after its cool.

  • 397
    Benaiah
    January 31st, 2010 18:23

    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 [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. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874]; 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 the dissenting opinion of 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…

  • 398
    Benaiah
    January 31st, 2010 18:33

    ORGANIZING FOR OBAMA: Islam opens minds…
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

  • 399
    Dennis
    January 31st, 2010 18:39

    Attn: jvn

    RE: “jvn says: January 30, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    The federal courts have no jurisdiction in deciding what is a political question constitutionally left to the Electoral College and ultimately the Congress to decide.
    They won’t take up the issue – and you won’t be able to “force” them to.”

    Please quote on which paragraph of the Constitution you rely on regarding “deciding what is a political question constitutionally left to the Electoral College and ultimately the Congress to decide’.

    At least one Elector attempted to clarify and filed a lawsuit and the judge avoided the answer based on Standing or on some procedural excuses. So even if you are right about Electors duty to define nbc it can not be done because the judiciary branch will block it.

    Congress is not qualified to interpret the Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution is strictly the function of the Judiciary Branch, due to Separation of Powers. The Separation of Powers is the political doctrine by which the three branches of government are kept distinct to prevent abuse of power. (Not the exact definition but good enough for now.)

    Again, Congress does not have the power to interpret the Constitution. Congress could, however, initiate a Constitutional Amendment (with all the rules and the states ratifying etc). For example a proposed Constitutional Amendment could wipe out the nbc and replace it with say if one lived 25 years in the US regardless of the parent’s nationality or birthplace one qualified for the office. Nevertheless, in my opinion, Congress is unlikely to initiate any Constitutional Amendment.

    Yes, some of the judges who were involved with the eligibility lawsuits brought up the Political Doctrine (PD), if that is what you mean by “political question”. The PD however can be interpreted widely just like the Standing Doctrine and it is a wonderful excuse for a judge if he does not with to rule on merit. (Please note that this is not new, it has been used for years.)

    This was discussed extensively on Leo D’s blog (now unfortunately not available) and the consensus and Leo’s opinion was that this is a task ultimately for SCOTUS. I think all the other eligibility lawyers agree with that assessment. If you know any reputable constitutional lawyer who does not, I would be interested to read such opinion. (Don’t quote Judge Carter please.)

    Federal and even state courts could make a ruling on the definition but through the appeal process it would ultimately end up at SCOTUS. Let’s say that two different state courts define nbc differently and both are appealed. These are the exact type of cases that SCOTUS likes to handle and have duty to handle.

    So I am suggesting a practical solution, which for lack of better description, I call forcing the Judiciary Branch to decide. That could be started by grass-root movement. Just get them define nbc, do not even mention BHO. The second level would be state or congressional bills to request the courts to define the term. In my opinion if such bill passes, the judiciary branch could not refuse to rule on the definition.

    What is your solution? Do nothing and let this controversy weaken the nation forever? I wish for a definition of nbc. I also wish that BHO will qualify. Imagine the amount of lawsuits that would claim that the laws he signed not valid. However, if he is not, that is not the end of the world. Joe Biden would take his place as constitutionally provided, until Congress decides to hold new election or what to do.

  • 400
    Dennis
    January 31st, 2010 19:03

    Attn.: Phil and jvn
    Phil said: “What I think will be absolutely fascinating is that if one of the numerous States who have decided to take up eligibility enforcement get pulled into Court by a “disenfranchised” candidate (I’m sure that’s what they’ll claim), then it will become an issue for the Judiciary to decide. “

    Phil,

    I fully agree. And I think that is the route which has a good probability ending up at SCOTUS. As I said SCOTUS usually feels that its duty to be a referee in cases where one state decides an issue differently than the other state.

    Please read by note a few minutes ago to jvn’s attention. I would like to know if you agree with my assessment.
    Thanks,
    Dennis

  • 401
    misanthropicus
    January 31st, 2010 19:17

    RE bystander:

    [...] mis – I know logic isn’t your thing, but I would have thought checking the times of my posts would give you a pretty good idea as to what time zone I live in – and it certainly isn’t Pacific Time. If you care enough – ask Phil, he knows my IP address. [...]

    Dear, looks like even matching color coded things is beyond you -
    Still, you show me how could I figure out from the blog’s time stamp your time zone?

    My post was published at 5:40 pm.; yours at 5:49 pm – no other specs -

    You sure know how to figure out one’s time zone out of these – would you edify me?

    Regards -

  • 402
    bob strauss
    January 31st, 2010 20:09

    Benaiah, I think Obama bows to everyone because of what and how he was taught at his early Indonesian schooling.

    When I was in grade school back in the fifties we learned to bow and the girls were taught to curtsy. I think I failed that course, but I remember it being explained. My guess is that it was emphasized more in Indonesia and Barry learned it in his formative years.

    Either way Obama is a fraud, and not qualified to be president.

  • 403
    misanthropicus
    January 31st, 2010 20:36

    RE bob strauss RE says:

    [...] Benaiah, I think Obama bows to everyone because of what and how he was taught at his early Indonesian schooling. [...]

    Bob, unfortunately not every Muslim is as respectful as one may imply from your observation – just read the latest from LA Times:

    “Mayor denounced for saying Lancaster is ‘growing a Christian community/ Los Angeles Times -

    Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris drew criticism from a leading Muslim group today after saying in his annual State of the City address that the high desert town was “growing a Christian community.”

    “We’re growing a Christian community, and don’t let anybody shy away from that,” Parris told the audience of ministers gathered for his address.

    “I need [Lancaster residents] standing up and saying we’re a Christian community, and we’re proud of that,” the mayor said.

    The Greater Los Angeles area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations denounced the statement and said it plans to file a complaint about the mayor’s remarks with the civil rights division of the U.S. Justice Department.

    “Elected officials should not use their public positions to impose their religious beliefs on others,” said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of CAIR.

    The mayor, reached by telephone today, said his remarks did not intend to impose his faith on others, and he said he would make no apology.

    “This is just about very few people wanting to get their 15 minutes of fame,” he said. “I guess they got it.”
    ———————*—————–

    All’s well when everything ends well, yet the confrontational attitude of the Lancaster Muslims, and clear willingness to use any legalistic means to inflict their way of life in America is a growing trend and portends no good for the future -

    The Swiss were right voting out the minarets from Alps – and the French were right when, a few days ago forbade the burqua wearers in office buildings and commonal places like malls, etc. -

    Yet here (like in Canada) as we are paralyzed by self-destructive political correctness and devious politicians, we do exacly the opposite – we bow, we cede grounds, and we find hypocritical justifications for allowing the errosion of this nation in some false theories asking for correction of some (inexistent) misdeeds in the past, and in some future, mighty unlikely benefits of a fractured, multicultural society -

    Nyet, nope, jamais -

    And dba Obama is harbinger of many other ugly things yet to come upon America -

    Regards -

  • 404
    slcraig
    January 31st, 2010 21:02

    Sue says:
    January 31, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    “After all, the Black’s of America were given Citizenship and right to vote as were women who also acquired the right to end viable pregnancies and gays can not be subject to discrimination based on their being perverts. The point is civil rights actions have a long history of realigning the public perspective on issues they may have taken for granted or have opposing views of.”

    I believe it was the above comment rather than the oreo comment. slcraig, you sure showed your true colors, now didn’t ya.

    You appear to hate blacks, women, gays, and pretty much anybody who isn’t like you and doesn’t believe like you do. Based upon your comment, you appear to believe that we should still have slavery, blacks or women should not be allowed to vote and gays should still be in the closet. And, the Constitution only applies to white Christian males. Does this pretty much describe you, based upon your comment above?


    I post facts and you, and your tag-team partner infers and extrapolates with knee-jerk response without even acknowledging the context of the passage.

    I was reporting on the differing civil rights causes that have over the years been the subject of multiple court cases before the goals of the various groups began to reach their goals.

    I was putting MY CAUSE in the same category as the ones I referred to.

    How is that denigrating or expressing bigotry toward anyone?

    The two of you are so far out there in never-never land with your disdain for the Constitution that you refuse to have any thoughts penetrate you consciousness that has not been filtered or approved by whoever is pulling your puppet strings.

    Get a life or learn to read.

  • 405
    Black Lion
    January 31st, 2010 21:45

    qwertyman says:
    January 31, 2010 at 2:17 am
    and also this from the American Journal of International Law Vol 28 (no2) 1934 which I havew also cited & linked to only to be criticized that these were not relevant. Read footnote #1 then read #2, it completely verifies my findings.

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/2190926
    Um, what? Here’s footnote 1:

    “… The exception excludes children born in the United States to a foreign diplomat from acquiring American nationality at birth.”

    Footnote 2 is referring entirely to “persons born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the US, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof.” The footnote itself says that citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the US. But that’s referring explicitly to children born outside the US.

    If you are born inside the US, then what is stated in footnote 1 applies, which includes all but children of foreign diplomats. If born outside the US, then the paper discusses the various issues in footnote 2.

    This paper does not come anywhere close to saying that the child of a US citizen born on US soil is not a natural born citizen. And Linda, I’m not sure if you’ve extended your apology yet for your complete misreading of SD law regarding your belief that birth certificates required “naturalization records.”
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Q, Linda is renowned for citing rulings and laws that don’t support her position. Also for citing a ruling that only she feels references citizenship. It is actually kind of sad the way she eviserates her own arguments. And when she is shown to be wrong she pretends that it didn’t happen. I mean we are still waiting for her to reference the fact that she was wrong about SD law. But I am sure Bystander will be waiting a long time for her to admit that…

  • 406
    Dennis
    January 31st, 2010 23:06

    Attn.: jvn

    RE: jvn says: January 30, 2010 at 10:37 pm
    “If a state attempted to define NBC, the federal courts WOULD take the issue up long enough to declare the state law unconstitutional because states cannot set requirements for federal office.
    I think you would be disappointed in the result of any such case because the federal courts WOULD NOT define NBC, but would simply declare that the states had no ability to define it. Y’all would probably call it a “technicality…” “

    If one state court would define nbc differently than another state, the appeal process would take it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS, may continue to perform “dereliction of duty” (as phrased by Alen Keyes), so you could be right, but they would be breaking their self-imposed rule that their duty is to act as referee in cases when two state courts rule differently for one issue.

    The state would not have to “set requirements for federal office”. They could simply say that in their state if a candidate does not meet the nbc definition by the state, the candidate’s name can not be put on the ballot. In fact California disqualified a candidate in the past, I think based on being less than 35 or something similar.

    So if one state would say all it takes to be nbc is be born in the USA, regardless of parents, and the other state says in addition both parents have to be US citizens at birth of the candidate, in my opinion, SCOTUS would have difficulty to continue their “dereliction of duty”, and finally they would have to come up with an nbc definition.

    RE: jvn said: “But there really is no chance that there will be a need for a court case because no state is going to pass anything that would keep someone born in this country off the ballot.”

    This is your wish but we don’t know what they would come up with. Please consider Leo’s argument that if Bin Laden impregnated an American woman in the Afghan mountains and the child would be born in the US, such person would be eligible when reaching the age of 35, according to the theory you advocate. Leo’s argument may carry more weight at a state court than you wish.

  • 407
    brygenon
    January 31st, 2010 23:11

    slcraig says:

    brygenon says:

    slcraig now claims:

    As you know Phil, I was well aware I lacked the requisite Standing in order to overcome the Jurisdiction bar, Leo, Mario, you and others were very helpful but clear on that fact. I went ahead in order to get the courts on record as to just EXACTLY where and what the deficiencies were while I have been working other ’situations and circumstances’ that ’should’ cure those deficiencies when I return on remand.

    Mr. Craig, if you knew the courts had to dismiss on standing, why did you say that denying you a writ of certiorari would prove a conspiracy?

    “But a denial of Writ on the question of the definition will be tantamount to PROOF that there is a conspiracy in support of the USURPTION of the Office of POTUS, ………..IMHO.” — slcraig, 07 July 2009 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/07/06/craig-v-united-states-citizenship-definition-case-in-10th-circuit-scotus-conference/

    Well, I didn’t find the posted comment you cite in order to determine the context for making the statement I made,

    Hmmm, the link still works for me. You might try just Googling “tantamount to PROOF that there is a conspiracy in support” with the quotes.

    but i’ll stipulate I made it and and can only surmise it came as an expression of frustration.

    But if you “went ahead in order to get the courts on record” and knowing you lacked standing, as you now claim, why did the outcome you sought so frustrate you? Your story isn’t adding up, Mr. Craig.

  • 408
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 01:09

    mis – if you look back over my posts – not just one – you will see that I post in what would be the middle of the night PT. So you can either imagine I am nocturnal, or you can accept that I live in the UK. I really don’t care what you think – in fact I would be rather alarmed to agree with you on anything.

  • 409
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 02:12

    Black Lion says:
    January 31, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    ___________________________________________________________________
    Q, Linda is renowned for citing rulings and laws that don’t support her position. Also for citing a ruling that only she feels references citizenship. It is actually kind of sad the way she eviserates her own arguments. And when she is shown to be wrong she pretends that it didn’t happen. I mean we are still waiting for her to reference the fact that she was wrong about SD law. But I am sure Bystander will be waiting a long time for her to admit that…

    ….. Linda will never apologise, but it is enough to imagine the steam coming out of her ears every time she is thwarted, and has to go off and find yet more obscure references that still don’t support her view. She hasn’t been around much lately though has she – learnt her lesson perhaps?

  • 410
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 04:30

    brygenon says:
    January 31, 2010 at 11:11 pm
    slcraig says:

    brygenon says:

    slcraig now claims:

    As you know Phil, I was well aware I lacked the requisite Standing in order to overcome the Jurisdiction bar, Leo, Mario, you and others were very helpful but clear on that fact. I went ahead in order to get the courts on record as to just EXACTLY where and what the deficiencies were while I have been working other ’situations and circumstances’ that ’should’ cure those deficiencies when I return on remand.

    Mr. Craig, if you knew the courts had to dismiss on standing, why did you say that denying you a writ of certiorari would prove a conspiracy?

    “But a denial of Writ on the question of the definition will be tantamount to PROOF that there is a conspiracy in support of the USURPTION of the Office of POTUS, ………..IMHO.” — slcraig, 07 July 2009 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/07/06/craig-v-united-states-citizenship-definition-case-in-10th-circuit-scotus-conference/

    Well, I didn’t find the posted comment you cite in order to determine the context for making the statement I made,

    Hmmm, the link still works for me. You might try just Googling “tantamount to PROOF that there is a conspiracy in support” with the quotes.

    but i’ll stipulate I made it and and can only surmise it came as an expression of frustration.

    But if you “went ahead in order to get the courts on record” and knowing you lacked standing, as you now claim, why did the outcome you sought so frustrate you? Your story isn’t adding up, Mr. Craig.


    There was a point in time when I had the Motion at the 10th under there court Rules to Suspend the Rules, naive in retrospect, but they do possess the discretion.

    But the Writ went Moot when the 10th issued Judgement, Affirm in part, REMAND in Part.

    But I suppose, if you are intent on chronicling my every word and thought you may find inconsistencies from time to time. I hope the feeling of self importance you get from that keeps you of the streets and out of trouble.

  • 411
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 05:57

    Dennis,

    “This is your wish but we don’t know what they would come up with. Please consider Leo’s argument that if Bin Laden impregnated an American woman in the Afghan mountains and the child would be born in the US, such person would be eligible when reaching the age of 35, according to the theory you advocate. Leo’s argument may carry more weight at a state court than you wish.”

    No, Leo’s argument would not “carry more weight” because that is just what it is “theory.” State and federal courts do not make decisions based on “theory.” The law requires “facts,” not some hypothetical claim. Lawsuits require facts backed up by credible evidence and case law to support their allegations.

    The difference between Leo’s “theory” and what you refer to as “jvn’s theory” is the FACT that “jvn’s theory” is and can be supported by long standing case law, constitutional amendment and precedent.

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-united-states-court-of-appeals-for.html
    ANTI-BIRTHER BRIEF

  • 412
    brygenon
    February 1st, 2010 06:43

    Dennis says:

    At least one Elector attempted to clarify and filed a lawsuit and the judge avoided the answer based on Standing or on some procedural excuses.

    There were 538 electors — which of them filed such a suit? Markham Robinson wanted to be a California elector, but his party rated no electors, as they won less than three tenths of one percent of the California vote.

    So even if you are right about Electors duty to define nbc it can not be done because the judiciary branch will block it.

    I think JVN meant the real electors, not any fantasy want-to-be electors.

    Yes, some of the judges who were involved with the eligibility lawsuits brought up the Political Doctrine (PD), if that is what you mean by “political question”.

    By “political question”, JVN meant what the judges call a “political question” or the “political question doctrine”. See Kerchner v. Obama and Barnett v Obama.

    This was discussed extensively on Leo D’s blog (now unfortunately not available) and the consensus and Leo’s opinion was that this is a task ultimately for SCOTUS.

    How gullible does one have to be to think that a blog that doesn’t allow serious dissent shows “the consensus”?

    I think all the other eligibility lawyers agree with that assessment.

    Does it ever occur to you that the lawyers who have lost 100% of the time might not be your best source of legal analysis?

    If you know any reputable constitutional lawyer who does not, I would be interested to read such opinion. (Don’t quote Judge Carter please.)

    When Leo’s own application was before the Supreme Court, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin confidently predicted that the Court would not take the case, nor the others. Toobin called it a “whack job project”. His prediction proved entirely correct.

    Federal and even state courts could make a ruling on the definition but through the appeal process it would ultimately end up at SCOTUS. Let’s say that two different state courts define nbc differently and both are appealed. These are the exact type of cases that SCOTUS likes to handle and have duty to handle.

    It’s the same story over and over. Your imaginary cases do really well, but that’s just in your own heads. Here in real world, the real judges of the real state and federal courts dismiss your cases and appeals. SCOTUS simply denies your petitions and applications.

    So I am suggesting a practical solution, which for lack of better description, I call forcing the Judiciary Branch to decide. [...]

    What is your solution? Do nothing and let this controversy weaken the nation forever?

    You could face reality. You could grow up and accept that you don’t always get your way. That’s my solution, but it seems to lack appeal with eligibility deniers.

  • 413
    brygenon
    February 1st, 2010 07:01

    slcraig wrote:

    But I suppose, if you are intent on chronicling my every word and thought you may find inconsistencies from time to time. I hope the feeling of self importance you get from that keeps you of the streets and out of trouble.

    You mean inconsistencies such as talking up your legal actions here, getting frustrated when they all lost, then months later claiming to have known they would be dismissed and that actually you got what you wanted?

  • 414
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 07:39

    Dennis,

    You might want to read this.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin/
    The final nail in the coffin January 6, 2010

  • 415
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 08:29

    slcraig,

    ““After all, the Black’s of America were given Citizenship and right to vote as were women who also acquired the right to end viable pregnancies and gays can not be subject to discrimination based on their being perverts. The point is civil rights actions have a long history of realigning the public perspective on issues they may have taken for granted or have opposing views of.””

    You entire comment takes on a racist/bigot/ sexist/intolerant tone by your insertion of the words “perverts and viable.”

    http://www.wordreference.com/definition/pervert
    “pervert
    A noun
    1 pervert, deviant, deviate, degenerate

    a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
    Beginning of pregnancy controversy

  • 416
    Black Lion
    February 1st, 2010 08:41

    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 7:39 am
    Dennis,

    You might want to read this.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin/
    The final nail in the coffin January 6, 2010
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Sue, Dennis may enjoy reading this also…

    “It is clear that the Appellants have little or no authority to support their two-parent theory. Their primary argument appears to be that the meaning of “natural born citizen” can be traced to the writings of Switzerland’s Emmerich de Vattel. However, they apparently cannot support this claim with any early American authority at all. Their other arguments appear to consist of cherry-picking insubstantial authority such as the opinion of one Congressman 79 years after the federal convention, trying to re-interpret the 14th amendment based on cherry-picking a few snippets of favorable legislative history from the 39th Congress and trying to read support for their theory into court cases that, honestly read, do not support their theory.”

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

  • 417
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 08:56

    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 8:29 am
    slcraig,

    ““After all, the Black’s of America were given Citizenship and right to vote as were women who also acquired the right to end viable pregnancies and gays can not be subject to discrimination based on their being perverts. The point is civil rights actions have a long history of realigning the public perspective on issues they may have taken for granted or have opposing views of.””

    You entire comment takes on a racist/bigot/ sexist/intolerant tone by your insertion of the words “perverts and viable.”

    http://www.wordreference.com/definition/pervert
    “pervert
    A noun
    1 pervert, deviant, deviate, degenerate

    a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
    Beginning of pregnancy controversy

    Being someone who has come to the conclusion that Excessive Politically Correct Tolerance has much to do with the troubles and state of affairs we, as a Nation, are in I take the opportunities available to erode the veil of deceit that have built up around these issues.

    What is those ‘definitions’ are not correct?

  • 418
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 09:12

    slcraig,

    “Being someone who has come to the conclusion that Excessive Politically Correct Tolerance has much to do with the troubles and state of affairs we, as a Nation, are in I take the opportunities available to erode the veil of deceit that have built up around these issues.”

    What do you base as your source/belief for your above comment?

    What is those ‘definitions’ are not correct?

    Provide a definition you think is correct.

  • 419
    misanthropicus
    February 1st, 2010 09:51

    Re Sue RE slcraig:

    [...] What do you base as your source/belief for your above comment?
    [...] Provide a definition you think is correct. [...]

    Concerning your technique, Sue – you somehow got lost from your depot and are still using an “The Alert Obamaton’s Field Manual” which has been retired circa 2009, summer -
    … manual which instructed the dilligent Obamaton, upon locating an enemy, to counter his/her statements with a bombardment of “Provide that… Prove that…” intended to paralyaze that person (late Siserda was particularly fond of this practice) -

    This techniques might have been productive when the doubts about Obama’s illegitimacy were only at their beginnigs, and when the mass and elan of the Obamatons on Internet allowed them to do a sort of carpet bombing of “Provide that… Prove that” -

    Yet now the sense of Obama’s illegitimacy has expanded across the nation, and this development is irreversible; then the number of Obamatons and their enthusiasm has dwindled – only a few forgotten pockets of Ellie Light Children like you put a fight for the One, and they (like you) also use previous war’s combat techniques -

    I’ll try to get some funding for making a diorama with you, JVN, Bry and Bysta sitting by your Politijab tent, reading your awareness cards, and preparing for the next day’s confrontation with the conservative demons, “Provide that… Prove that…” – nice exhibit to be posted near an archeopterix diorama –

    Regards -

  • 420
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 09:55

    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 7:39 am
    Dennis,

    You might want to read this.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin/
    The final nail in the coffin January 6, 2010


    Thanks for the link, some interesting cases.

    I’ll have to dig around some more for those without the ‘on-line’ links but two out of three ‘prove’ that, the now, USCIS has ‘original jurisdiction’ as to the determination of the parents and children’s status.

    That the courts used hyphen as a devise with which to group the words giving the appearance they are intended as the same as the Constitutional ‘idiom’ is a matter that is, in part, a subject currently under review.

    The case making reference to presidential eligibility is a piece of orbita dicta right out of left field in the context of the case but is consistent with what the 10th Circuit bespoke in my case, i.e., NBC or otherwise, there is NO property interest in the Office of POTUS, which extends to the occupant.

    Nails? I see it more as a ‘wheat sack stitch’, pull one string and it all unravels.

  • 421
    jvn
    February 1st, 2010 11:26

    Dennis -

    Your comments to me earlier have been very effectively responded to by Byrgenon and Sue, but I did want to add a couple of points.

    First, you appear to give more credence to the opinion of Leo Donfrio than you do to the judges who have dismissed these cases… What?!?

    Next, you appear to misunderstand the situation entirely. A court, state or federal does not have the constitutional role to define what an NBC is, although the federal courts MIGHT have a role in interpreting what the phrase means if there was some dissent within Congress as to what it meant.

    Congress is the ultimate constitutional arbiter in terms of presidential elections AND citizenship issues, so the question of the courts getting involved is a tricky one.

    As an example, if Congress declares war, could a federal court halt that declaration? Or maybe declare war if Congress declined? I don’t think so.

    If a state legislature of state court attempts to usurp Congressional authority by making their own determination of presidential eligibility, the federal courts WOULD not themselves take up the task of definition. Rather, they would rule that the states could not, and void any state law or ruling as unconstitutional.

    Lastly, yes, I suggest we do nothing, as nothing is needed. Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen at birth and thus would be eligible to serve as President if all other conditions are met.

    What else is there?

  • 422
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 11:56

    slcraig,

    “The case making reference to presidential eligibility is a piece of “orbita dicta” right out of left field in the context of the case but is consistent with what the 10th Circuit bespoke in my case, i.e., NBC or otherwise, there is NO property interest in the Office of POTUS, which extends to the occupant.”

    “Orbita dicta”; don’t you mean “obiter dicta?”

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/obiter-dicta
    “obiter dicta definition – legal
    adv
    Latin

    “By the way . . . .” A passing statement reached in a court opinion that is irrelevant to the outcome of the case. See also dictum.”

    “That the courts used hyphen as a devise with which to group the words giving the appearance they are intended as the same as the Constitutional ‘idiom’ is a matter that is, in part, a subject currently under review.”

    ROTFL. I will be sure and inform Tes of this “review.”

  • 423
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 13:02

    jvn says:
    February 1, 2010 at 11:26 am
    Dennis -

    Your comments to me earlier have been very effectively responded to by Byrgenon and Sue, but I did want to add a couple of points.

    First, you appear to give more credence to the opinion of Leo Donfrio than you do to the judges who have dismissed these cases… What?!?

    Next, you appear to misunderstand the situation entirely. A court, state or federal does not have the constitutional role to define what an NBC is, although the federal courts MIGHT have a role in interpreting what the phrase means if there was some dissent within Congress as to what it meant.

    Congress is the ultimate constitutional arbiter in terms of presidential elections AND citizenship issues, so the question of the courts getting involved is a tricky one.

    As an example, if Congress declares war, could a federal court halt that declaration? Or maybe declare war if Congress declined? I don’t think so.

    If a state legislature of state court attempts to usurp Congressional authority by making their own determination of presidential eligibility, the federal courts WOULD not themselves take up the task of definition. Rather, they would rule that the states could not, and void any state law or ruling as unconstitutional.

    Lastly, yes, I suggest we do nothing, as nothing is needed. Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen at birth and thus would be eligible to serve as President if all other conditions are met.

    What else is there?


    Interesting take but not wholly correct.

    Please show me were the CONGRESS has determined who may be considered a NBC describing the process and/or circumstances requisite.

    Show me the words or the words that require that A2S1C5 has been ‘Amended and/or redefined’ from the meaning and intent of the ‘idioms’ original usage.

    You throw a BROAD NET and accept for your table any and all nature of creatures when in fact the Constitution requires a specific lure to catch a specific type of fish.

    Nice try though, no harm in studying the question ’till you get it right.

  • 424
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 13:20

    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 11:56 am
    slcraig,

    “The case making reference to presidential eligibility is a piece of “orbita dicta” right out of left field in the context of the case but is consistent with what the 10th Circuit bespoke in my case, i.e., NBC or otherwise, there is NO property interest in the Office of POTUS, which extends to the occupant.”

    “Orbita dicta”; don’t you mean “obiter dicta?”

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/obiter-dicta
    “obiter dicta definition – legal
    adv
    Latin

    “By the way . . . .” A passing statement reached in a court opinion that is irrelevant to the outcome of the case. See also dictum.”

    “That the courts used hyphen as a devise with which to group the words giving the appearance they are intended as the same as the Constitutional ‘idiom’ is a matter that is, in part, a subject currently under review.”

    ROTFL. I will be sure and inform Tes of this “review.”

    Here, (sic), copy and paste that to all the little foe paws that you catch, it will elevate your status amongst your peers.

    According to Sandra Day O’Conner, ‘there is no de minimus when it comes to the Articles of the Constitution’.(paraphrased)

  • 425
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 13:59

    Who has the power/duty to define constitutional issues?

    ALL 3 Branches, in this town hall lectures series, the scholars & professors also explain how the colonists had adopted the law of nations until the Brits came in and forced changes & over the course of time, the oppresive form of government could no longer be tolerated & the colonists wished to return to their ‘freeman’ status & thus the revolution silently began. I recommend all 5 parts, but this one directly speaks to interpreting the constitution.

    http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/hillsdale/100130/default.cfm?id=11995&type=flv&test=0&live=0

    And what did the founders say as to interpretation of constitutional issues by the courts?

    Alexander Hamilton was the key organizer of the movement to hold the Constitutional Convention, that wrote the U.S. Constitution. As the nations’s first Secretary of the Treasury, he played a crucual role in shaping the policies that became known as the American System. Here we examine how his thinking was shaped by Emmerich de Vattel’s work, “The Law of Nations.”

    The issue of whether the American Republic would be a true republic, or merely a new government of landed aristocrats and financial oligarchs, was the central issue of the dispute, in which Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson became leaders on the two opposing sides. Contrary to most of today’s lying historians, Hamilton was the leader of the republicans, and Jefferson, a leader of the aristocratic party. Although many men contributed to the founding of the United States, it is useful to focus on Hamilton, since of all of America’s founders, he was most clearly influenced by Vattel, and his actions were most coherent with Leibnizian natural law. No one played a more important role than Hamilton, in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and in fulfilling its Leibnizian mandate. A number of Hamilton’s key initiatives show how Vattel’s {The Law of Nations} shaped Hamilton’s thinking and actions, and thereby shaped the founding of the United States.

    Exerpts from Vattel’s Law of Nations

    http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id5.html

    “Rutgers v. Waddington.” Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) is an excellent example of how Vattel shaped Hamilton’s philosophical outlook. Furthermore, Hamilton’s arguments in Rutgers v. Waddington were a milestone in the formulation of the American doctrine of judicial review, or the doctrine that legislative decisions must be reviewed by the courts, to determine if they are coherent with higher forms of law. In this case, a British merchant, Mr. Waddington, had occupied a brewery after its owner, Mrs. Rutgers, a patriot widow, fled New York City, following British occupation. In February 1784, at the height of anti-Tory feeling, Mrs. Rutgers filed a suit against Waddington under the Trespass Act. Hamilton represented the defendant, Waddington.

    The Trespass Act and other acts by the New York legislature were extremely destructive, forcing one-fifth of the state’s population to flee, and thereby weakening the nation. Even worse, Hamilton saw these legislative actions as a new form of tyranny, spawned by the momentary passions of the mob, which could lead to a new aristocracy or oligarchy.

    The case contrasts the Lockean approach of popular sovereignty, to Hamilton’s reliance on natural law. Lawyers for the plaintiff argued that the legislature was the supreme law-giving authority of the state, and was subject to no control except that of the people. However, the New York State Constitution had adopted the common law of England, as part of the Constitution of New York. This British feature, of making past precedents part of the Constitution, Hamilton turned on its head, by arguing that, since the law of nations was part of the common law, the decisions of the New York Legislature must be consistent with the law of nations, in order to have validity. And Hamilton used Vattel as the standard for defining the law of nations.

  • 426
    qwertyman
    February 1st, 2010 14:07

    Linda,

    You have not responded to this point:

    Um, what? Here’s footnote 1:

    “… The exception excludes children born in the United States to a foreign diplomat from acquiring American nationality at birth.”

    Footnote 2 is referring entirely to “persons born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the US, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof.” The footnote itself says that citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the US. But that’s referring explicitly to children born outside the US.

    If you are born inside the US, then what is stated in footnote 1 applies, which includes all but children of foreign diplomats. If born outside the US, then the paper discusses the various issues in footnote 2.

    This paper does not come anywhere close to saying that the child of a US citizen born on US soil is not a natural born citizen. And Linda, I’m not sure if you’ve extended your apology yet for your complete misreading of SD law regarding your belief that birth certificates required “naturalization records.”

    The link that you had posted, an article of the American Journal of International law, was something that you completely misrepresented in your post. Were you lying when you said that it supported your conclusion or are you just that thick not to understand what you read and merely cherry pick a phrase without even bothering to look at context?

  • 427
    Black Lion
    February 1st, 2010 14:26

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 1:59 pm
    Who has the power/duty to define constitutional issues?

    ALL 3 Branches, in this town hall lectures series, the scholars & professors also explain how the colonists had adopted the law of nations until the Brits came in and forced changes & over the course of time, the oppresive form of government could no longer be tolerated & the colonists wished to return to their ‘freeman’ status & thus the revolution silently began. I recommend all 5 parts, but this one directly speaks to interpreting the constitution.

    http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/hillsdale/100130/default.cfm?id=11995&type=flv&test=0&live=0

    And what did the founders say as to interpretation of constitutional issues by the courts?

    Alexander Hamilton was the key organizer of the movement to hold the Constitutional Convention, that wrote the U.S. Constitution. As the nations’s first Secretary of the Treasury, he played a crucual role in shaping the policies that became known as the American System. Here we examine how his thinking was shaped by Emmerich de Vattel’s work, “The Law of Nations.”

    The issue of whether the American Republic would be a true republic, or merely a new government of landed aristocrats and financial oligarchs, was the central issue of the dispute, in which Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson became leaders on the two opposing sides. Contrary to most of today’s lying historians, Hamilton was the leader of the republicans, and Jefferson, a leader of the aristocratic party. Although many men contributed to the founding of the United States, it is useful to focus on Hamilton, since of all of America’s founders, he was most clearly influenced by Vattel, and his actions were most coherent with Leibnizian natural law. No one played a more important role than Hamilton, in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and in fulfilling its Leibnizian mandate. A number of Hamilton’s key initiatives show how Vattel’s {The Law of Nations} shaped Hamilton’s thinking and actions, and thereby shaped the founding of the United States.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Linda takes quite a leap in logic. She wants us to believe that the colonists would have somehow used a relatively unknown Swiss philospher without an English translation over English Common law which was known to them stretches the bounds of common sense. That is so farfetched that it is laughable. Any historian knows that although the colonists disagreed with England and how repressive the King had become, they still for the most part considered themselves mostly Englishmen. There is no way they would have used a Swiss philospher over English Common law.

    Now if Linda or the author could just show us documented proof where Hamilton or any other founder considered Vattel to be more important or superior to English Common law then the argument might have some life. But all early historians from Blackstone on down showed how the founders referenced English Common law alomst exclusivly. Again there is no evidence that any founder looked to Vattel to define citizenship.

    Linda has still be unable to show us that or any ruling since WKA in 1898 that uses the Vattel definition to define citizenship. That is becasue as we all know there is no scholar or consttitutional law expert that agrees with her.

    Actually there is a good article over at the nativeborn citizen site by NBC that specifically refutes Linda’s argument….

    Citizenship, Children and Choice – Vattel et al

    “Some have argued that President Obama would fail to qualify as a natural born citizen under Vattel’s principles of International Law (also known as the Law of Nations). However, even Vattel is clear that children born to parents in a foreign country which extends protection to their father and themselves may cause such children, when reaching the age of majority to determine which birthright citizenship to pursue; their father’s or the birth right obtained through birth on the soil of the country, which in turn provides them with protection and security. It should become clear that although at birth, multiple nations may claim a child as a citizen of their country, it is the decision of the child when reaching the age of majority, to decide to which nation he truly wants to belong. And while in the intermediate time, the general principle is that the child follows the condition of the father, the father cannot renounce a child’s birth right citizenship nor can he prevent such a child when growing up, from continuing a different citizenship than his father’s. Of course, when a father’s involvement in the raising of the child has been minimal, and the child never followed his father to his father’s native country, but rather continued his presence in the country of his birth, it becomes hard to argue that such a child does not have the right to elect and continue his birth right native citizenship.”

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/citizenship-children-and-choice-vattel-et-al/

    Or the following article which specifically refutes Linda’s so called theory…

    “The fact that many terms in our Constitution are not specifically defined has sometimes led people to propose novel and inventive definitions to suit their political causes. However, our courts have always recognized that the Constitution was written mostly by common law lawyers, sent to a convention by states that had adopted the common law and is full of undefined terms that were terms of art under, and in some cases had no other meaning other than with respect to, the English common law. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has always told us to look primarily to the common law to define terms in the Constitution, including the phrase “natural born citizen.” Thus, the phrase “natural born citizen” has always been understood to descend from the English common law and Lord Coke’s famous report in Calvin’s Case, 77 eng. Rep. 377, 409 (K.B. 1608) which embraced a rule based upon the locality of birth (jus soli) rather than parentage or descent (jus sanguinis) and made natural born subjects of anyone born within the realm regardless of parentage, subject to a few discrete exceptions. The correctness of such conclusion is underscored by the fact there appears that there were no alternative definitions of “natural born” in the founding era or the early republic, the fact that there is overwhelming authority that the English common law defined citizenship generally in the founding period and early republic and that early interpretation of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution uniformly followed the English common law meaning. The correctness of this conclusion is further underscored by the fact that after the debacle of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), the 14th Amendment was adopted to expressly incorporate the English common law rule of Calvin’s Case into the Constitution so it would never be ignored or misinterpreted again.

    It is clear that the Appellants have little or no authority to support their two-parent theory. Their primary argument appears to be that the meaning of “natural born citizen” can be traced to the writings of Switzerland’s Emmerich de Vattel. However, they apparently cannot support this claim with any early American authority at all. Their other arguments appear to consist of cherry-picking insubstantial authority such as the opinion of one Congressman 79 years after the federal convention, trying to re-interpret the 14th amendment based on cherry-picking a few snippets of favorable legislative history from the 39th Congress and trying to read support for their theory into court cases that, honestly read, do not support their theory.”

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

  • 428
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 14:32

    Black Lion says:
    January 29, 2010 at 4:02 pm
    MGB says:
    January 29, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    mis: I’ll go you one better. I believe that he was born very early in 1961, not in August. More like January/February.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Why not 1958 before HI was a state? That would work good with your beliefs and then you can say he was born before HI was a state. It is a good thing for us it doesn’t matter what you believe. The facts (COLB) and Dr. Fukino say otherwise. But thanks for playing…
    *********

    Black Lion: Why not say he was born before HI was a state? Because I’m dealing with evidence, albeit circumstantial, not with what you think that I believe.

    There’s a statement by a former babysitter that places in doubt WHEN in 1961 he was born. There’s also the evidence that his mother was registered in college in the state of Washington just weeks after his birth, IF he truly was born in August. I’m not going to rehash it, though, because we’ve discused it here before.

    You have no FACTS with regard to any COLB. The FACT is that the DOH stated that they CANNOT say WHAT that online COLB represents. No authority has EVER verified that they have SEEN an authentic, Hawaii-issued and certified, unaltered COLB. Nobody. Neither has ANY authority stated that the digital image purported to be a scan of his COLB OR the photos purported to be of his COLB were based upon a legitimate COLB that was produced by the state of Hawaii.

    Dr. Fukino stated that “vital records” she has on file indicate that he was born in Hawaii. She doesn’t say that herself. She says papers on file in Hawaii say it; however, nowhere does she affirm that the state of Hawaii VERIFIED this as fact.

    We know that a person born in 1961 could get a Hawaiian birth certificate based upon nothing more than testimony of a relative and also that a foreign-born child could get a Hawaiian birth certificate, so long as his parents resided at least one year in Hawaii prior to the birth.

    SO, the vital records, whatever they are, could say that he was born in Hawaii, but that doesn’t make it so until that is verified AS fact by a controlling legal authority.

    A statement by an official is NOT equal to proof. A statement is a statement. It is more reliable if submitted under oath and subject to verification and cross examination. Why not simply disclose these vital records? Why not simply let reporters watch the DOH generate a new COLB from their database, which the DOH then certifies? Why not?

    Full disclosure.

  • 429
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 14:40

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    MGB: The SD response addresses SD law, not federal law with regard to presidential eligibility according to the Constitution.

    Interesting that you state this as ‘SUSAN@sdvitalrecords’ also said that SD only grants state citizenship, US citizenship is not automatic. For US citizenship you have to contact the feds in DC.

    ******

    Gee, Linda. Consider the possibilities. I based my statement upon reading between the lines of the statement bystander got from SD. But now think about this: SD says their birth certificate indicates SD citizenship. So what does a Hawaiian BC indicate? Hawaiian citizenship but not necessarily US citizenship? I think so, when you consider that their own statutes, in 1961, allowed for birth certificates based upon statements, and also birth certificates for children born abroad to persons who merely resided in Hawaii for a year. Did they have to be citizens of the US or Hawaii, too, or merely residents?

  • 430
    Black Lion
    February 1st, 2010 15:00

    MGB says:
    February 1, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Black Lion says:
    January 29, 2010 at 4:02 pm
    MGB says:
    January 29, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    mis: I’ll go you one better. I believe that he was born very early in 1961, not in August. More like January/February.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Why not 1958 before HI was a state? That would work good with your beliefs and then you can say he was born before HI was a state. It is a good thing for us it doesn’t matter what you believe. The facts (COLB) and Dr. Fukino say otherwise. But thanks for playing…
    *********

    Black Lion: Why not say he was born before HI was a state? Because I’m dealing with evidence, albeit circumstantial, not with what you think that I believe.

    There’s a statement by a former babysitter that places in doubt WHEN in 1961 he was born. There’s also the evidence that his mother was registered in college in the state of Washington just weeks after his birth, IF he truly was born in August. I’m not going to rehash it, though, because we’ve discused it here before.

    A former babysitter is going to remember the exact dates 40 years later? Really. While a COLB has a specific date and the newspaper has a specific date. But we would prefer to believe someone trying to remember an event so many years later. How do we know she is right.?

    You have no FACTS with regard to any COLB. The FACT is that the DOH stated that they CANNOT say WHAT that online COLB represents. No authority has EVER verified that they have SEEN an authentic, Hawaii-issued and certified, unaltered COLB. Nobody. Neither has ANY authority stated that the digital image purported to be a scan of his COLB OR the photos purported to be of his COLB were based upon a legitimate COLB that was produced by the state of Hawaii.

    That is not the point. The COLB, if requested would be provided. No one has said that the COLB is anything other than a copy of a document that is in existence. That is unless you are claiming that the state of HI is lying for the President. If then we would need some proof.

    Dr. Fukino stated that “vital records” she has on file indicate that he was born in Hawaii. She doesn’t say that herself. She says papers on file in Hawaii say it; however, nowhere does she affirm that the state of Hawaii VERIFIED this as fact.

    Again semantics. She said BORN IN HAWAII. Period. Unless the meaning of born has changed since 1961, born means that his mother gave birth to him in the state of Hawaii and the state has proof of that event. Now if you don’t believe that then it is your right. But you would need some admissible evidence. Not conjucture of what possibly could have happened if something occured. Tehn we could say that George Bush was born in Mexico and his parents used their significant influence to get him a CT BC. Maybe not beliveable but as believable as the birther’s so called theory. We never had any evidence of where the last 4 Presidents were born other than their world.

    We know that a person born in 1961 could get a Hawaiian birth certificate based upon nothing more than testimony of a relative and also that a foreign-born child could get a Hawaiian birth certificate, so long as his parents resided at least one year in Hawaii prior to the birth.

    Again for the millionth time this is not correct. That law did not come into existence until 1981 and the previous law was regarding a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (COHB), which the President does not have. The 1981 law required the city of birth to reflect where the baby was born. And in this case it says Honolulu. And no HI law would have allowed that. You need to provide evidence that someone received a Hawaiian COLB that lists them being born in HI when they were born somewhere else.

    SO, the vital records, whatever they are, could say that he was born in Hawaii, but that doesn’t make it so until that is verified AS fact by a controlling legal authority.

    And since there has been no evidence to the contrary, that is a moot point. Just because something may be possible doesn’t make it so. That is why we have laws. You need to provide some sort of admissible proof to show that he may not have been born in HI. If not then there is no issue.

    A statement by an official is NOT equal to proof. A statement is a statement. It is more reliable if submitted under oath and subject to verification and cross examination. Why not simply disclose these vital records? Why not simply let reporters watch the DOH generate a new COLB from their database, which the DOH then certifies? Why not?

    Not true. Dr. Fukino’s statement would be admissible. Because she is the individual charged as the custodian of said records, what she says has meaning and carries the weight of the state of HI. She said she has proof that he was BORN IN HI. That is enough for most. People trying to twist her words and imply that she could be parsing her statement mean nothing. She obviously has the facts to back up her statement.

    Full disclosure.

    When warranted….

  • 431
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 15:04

    jvn and bystander: Foul! No name calling. Linda is neither dangerous nor an idiot, but the two of you are extremely rude. Debate honestly. Stop the name calling. Grow up.

  • 432
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 15:09

    qwertyman says:
    February 1, 2010 at 2:07 pm
    Linda,

    You have not responded to this point:

    Um, what? Here’s footnote 1:

    “… The exception excludes children born in the United States to a foreign diplomat from acquiring American nationality at birth.”

    Footnote 2 is referring entirely to “persons born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the US, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof.” The footnote itself says that citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the US. But that’s referring explicitly to children born outside the US.

    If you are born inside the US, then what is stated in footnote 1 applies, which includes all but children of foreign diplomats. If born outside the US, then the paper discusses the various issues in footnote 2.

    This paper does not come anywhere close to saying that the child of a US citizen born on US soil is not a natural born citizen. And Linda, I’m not sure if you’ve extended your apology yet for your complete misreading of SD law regarding your belief that birth certificates required “naturalization records.”

    The link that you had posted, an article of the American Journal of International law, was something that you completely misrepresented in your post. Were you lying when you said that it supported your conclusion or are you just that thick not to understand what you read and merely cherry pick a phrase without even bothering to look at context?

    Ahh…urrr. ummm…..without jumping in on the entire conversation I am just curious, what was the context of the WKA case?

  • 433
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 15:10

    slscraig: And bystander says Obama was fairly elected and so is president. One has to wonder how many of those “votes” were legitimate. How many illegal aliens illegally voted? Besides playing fast and loose with passport and citizenship rules, one wonders if bystander also votes and, if so, if that’s legal. Of course, it may be allowed, meaning one is able to get away with it so far. But is it fair and is it legal? I continue to be amused by how closely bystander follows this issue. Why? Are we Americans so concerned with Blair or Brown or the Cougar Lady in Ireland, she of the cradle-robbing affair, that we spend hours per day online, commenting on their political blogs (if such things exist)?

  • 434
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 15:16

    bystander: my guess as to your question about children of diplomats is that diplomats don’t technically reside in the US. They’re residents of their embassies, which are little mini-states within the US, the way I understand it. It’s an interesting question, but if you consider that somehow instructive, then you must also wonder about the grandfather clause in the Constitution–the one concerning citizens at the time of the founding.

  • 435
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 15:22

    Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin’s key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, “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 …|.

    The study of {The Law of Nations} by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions “of the circumstances of a rising state,” is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel’s arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people. Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused. Repeated appeals were made to our “British Brethren,” but since they “have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity,” we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace. Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government, “to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.”

    The inclusion of the central conception of {The Law of Nations,} Vattel’s Leibnizian concept of happiness, as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration’s Leibnizian character. The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration, after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities. The fact, that Jefferson was a strong proponent of the philosophy of John Locke by as early as 1771, is often used as evidence that the Declaration was based on Locke’s philosophy. However, Locke had argued, in his {Two Treatises of Government,} that the fundamental right of men is to “Life, Liberty, and Property.” The inclusion of “the pursuit of happiness,” rather than “property,” as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property.

  • 436
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 15:27

    Sharon2: Thanks for the compliment. I’ll be around sometimes. Sometimes not. Got a life, too, like you. Take care. We’ll miss you. Come back soon. Adios, amiga.

  • 437
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 15:47

    mis: they’re the Light Brigade.

  • 438
    qwertyman
    February 1st, 2010 15:50

    Ahh…urrr. ummm…..without jumping in on the entire conversation I am just curious, what was the context of the WKA case?

    Yeah, you’re completely missing what’s going on here.

    Linda posted this link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2190926?seq=1

    She claims that footnotes 1 and 2 support her view of the natural born citizenship clause. She is completely incorrect on this point.

    Footnote 1 refers to “persons born within the territory of the US, subject to its jurisdiction.”

    Footnote 2 refers to “persons born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the US, whose fathers were or may be… birth citizens.”

    Linda cherry-picks language in footnote 2 without noting that that language in the footnote is only applicable to a person born outside of the United States.

    And now, as is her wont, Linda completely ignores the fact that she has been caught either lying or displaying gross stupidity or inability to comprehend what she reads.

  • 439
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 15:54

    Linda,

    Could you provide a source for your recent rant?

  • 440
    Benaiah
    February 1st, 2010 15:59

    Haiti earthquake: voodoo high priest claims aid monopolised by Christians
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7119572/Haiti-earthquake-voodoo-high-priest-claims-aid-monopolised-by-Christians.html

    Voodoo in Obama’s White House
    http://www.infowars.com/voodoo-in-obamas-white-house/

    [...]

    Isn’t it strange that Obama, described ad nauseam as a Christian, would carry around a pagan idol?

  • 441
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 16:03

    Black Lion said, “A former babysitter is going to remember the exact dates 40 years later?”

    I didn’t say that. Read the statement by the babysitter. Read the details she provided about HER own child, that child’s age when she babysat for infant Obama, her child’s date of birth.

    A mother doesn’t forget when her own child was born.

    A babysitter does not forget that she was watching her own child, a toddler, while caring for an infant (Obama).

    One does tend to remember important details like the difference between caring for a toddler and an infant, or two toddlers, or two infants.

    Her original memories do not match purported “facts”.

  • 442
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 16:05

    qwertyman says:
    February 1, 2010 at 3:50 pm
    Ahh…urrr. ummm…..without jumping in on the entire conversation I am just curious, what was the context of the WKA case?

    Yeah, you’re completely missing what’s going on here.

    Linda posted this link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2190926?seq=1

    She claims that footnotes 1 and 2 support her view of the natural born citizenship clause. She is completely incorrect on this point.

    Footnote 1 refers to “persons born within the territory of the US, subject to its jurisdiction.”

    Footnote 2 refers to “persons born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the US, whose fathers were or may be… birth citizens.”

    Linda cherry-picks language in footnote 2 without noting that that language in the footnote is only applicable to a person born outside of the United States.

    And now, as is her wont, Linda completely ignores the fact that she has been caught either lying or displaying gross stupidity or inability to comprehend what she reads.

    Yes, I understand your side of the argument, that is simple and any simple minded person ends up thinking like you, but you did not answer the question, again……….. so, again,

    ‘What was the context of the WKA case’?

  • 443
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 16:08

    Black Lion:”While a COLB has a specific date and the newspaper has a specific date. But we would prefer to believe someone trying to remember an event so many years later.”

    Not necessarily inconsistent. A late registration of a birth, based upon a statement by a relative, could result in an incorrect date on the registration, which would then trigger a newspaper announcement.

    Full disclosure of these “vital records” would answer all questions. Or let’s see the Hawaiian DOH produce and certify a COLB from their database, as interested members of the public watch. Then let’s compare that COLB to the online images. Ok? Full disclosure.

  • 444
    Black Lion
    February 1st, 2010 16:14

    MGB says:
    February 1, 2010 at 4:03 pm
    Black Lion said, “A former babysitter is going to remember the exact dates 40 years later?”

    I didn’t say that. Read the statement by the babysitter. Read the details she provided about HER own child, that child’s age when she babysat for infant Obama, her child’s date of birth.

    A mother doesn’t forget when her own child was born.

    A babysitter does not forget that she was watching her own child, a toddler, while caring for an infant (Obama).

    One does tend to remember important details like the difference between caring for a toddler and an infant, or two toddlers, or two infants.

    Her original memories do not match purported “facts”.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    With respect MGB, they are still her memories unable to be substantiated by any facts. She could remember that clear as day but be wrong. We are talking about over 40 years. While you have a state document, the COLB, and the statement by Dr. Fukino stating that the President was BORN in HI, as well as the vital statistic data that Leo got that showed a baby boy being born on August 4th named Barack Obama II. I will take those facts over the babysitters “memories”.

  • 445
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 16:21

    Black Lion: “You need to provide evidence that someone received a Hawaiian COLB that lists them being born in HI when they were born somewhere else.”

    The statutes have been linked by others. Upon what do you base your contention that they refer only to COHBs?

    You need to provide evidence that OBAMA received a Hawaiian COLB that lists him as born in HI. There is NONE. A digital image on a partisan blog is not evidence of a legitimate, Hawaiian-produced and certified, unaltered COLB. You say it would be provided, so why hasn’t it been provided? Are you so sure that it can be provided and that it would read exactly as the documents posted on that partisan blog?

    btw, how do you know that he doesn’t have a COHB?

    Full disclosure is more than warranted.

  • 446
    Black Lion
    February 1st, 2010 16:21

    MGB says:
    February 1, 2010 at 4:08 pm
    Black Lion:”While a COLB has a specific date and the newspaper has a specific date. But we would prefer to believe someone trying to remember an event so many years later.”

    Not necessarily inconsistent. A late registration of a birth, based upon a statement by a relative, could result in an incorrect date on the registration, which would then trigger a newspaper announcement.

    Full disclosure of these “vital records” would answer all questions. Or let’s see the Hawaiian DOH produce and certify a COLB from their database, as interested members of the public watch. Then let’s compare that COLB to the online images. Ok? Full disclosure.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Again with respect MGB, you have a case of “what if” or it could have happened. What we don’t have is any admissible evidence that even comes close to supporting such theories, so while they may be possible, they are definately not probable. My neighbor could be a killer. But is he, I don’t know. But I know there is no evidence that he is. So while it is possible, it is not probable.

    Most Americans don’t have questions. They belive Dr. Fukino when she says that the President was born in HI. They belive the COLB which says the same thing. Most of all they believe the President when he says that he was born in HI. Just like we believed the last 4 President when they said they were born where they claimed. We did not request additional documentation. We did not question if they were lying nor was the state they were born in lying. The so called Kenyan birth never made any logistical sense. And there has been no evidence to support that. There will always be someone that questions something. But that doesn’t always mean that they deserve an answer.

  • 447
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 16:22

    MGB says:
    February 1, 2010 at 3:10 pm
    slscraig: And bystander says Obama was fairly elected and so is president. One has to wonder how many of those “votes” were legitimate. How many illegal aliens illegally voted? Besides playing fast and loose with passport and citizenship rules, one wonders if bystander also votes and, if so, if that’s legal. Of course, it may be allowed, meaning one is able to get away with it so far. But is it fair and is it legal? I continue to be amused by how closely bystander follows this issue. Why? Are we Americans so concerned with Blair or Brown or the Cougar Lady in Ireland, she of the cradle-robbing affair, that we spend hours per day online, commenting on their political blogs (if such things exist)?

    Under the current National and State Voting Laws, there is NO WAY to know. Add to that the jerry-manned (sic) districts with poling stations in the control precinct bosses and you have democracy run amok.

    There was a time when a US citizen voted in foreign elections it was regarded as ‘expatriation’. I forget the case at the moment about an AWOL service man that voted in a French election and nearly lost his US citizenship but it has caused a nagging question in the back of my mind, ‘Since it takes an affirmative action now in order to expatriate does that mean the affirmative action of coming into the US illegally mean the person elects to consent to the benefits of citizenship as long as they are not caught?

    I can rephrase that a number of different ways which in the end addresses the question of ‘jurisdiction’ and the meaning of ‘within the jurisdiction’.

  • 448
    Benaiah
    February 1st, 2010 16:24

    Obama to travel to Indonesia, Australia in March
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100201/pl_afp/usindonesiaaustraliadiplomacyobama_20100201193915

    US President Barack Obama will make what will be an emotional trip with his family to his childhood home of Indonesia in March, and will also visit Australia, the White House announced on Monday.

    Obama, who was known as “Little Barry [SOETORO]” when he lived in Jakarta with his mother in the 1960s, said last year in Singapore that he was looking forward to visiting his old haunts in Indonesia…

    It is possible he will introduce his wife Michelle and their daughters Malia [MALIK] and Sasha [SHABAZZ] to neighborhoods he knew as a boy and also to some old school friends.

    Obama’s visit will be greeted with massive expectations in Indonesia, and a comprehensive security operation in the world’s most populous Muslim nation…

    Obama spent part of his childhood in Indonesia after his divorced mother married an Indonesian and attended a primary school in Jakarta between 1967 and 1971.

    The childhood connection and his knowledge of a few words of the Indonesian language [AND OBAMA'S MUSLIM FAITH] have made him hugely popular in the country of 234 million people, 90 percent of whom are Muslim.

  • 449
    qwertyman
    February 1st, 2010 16:25

    Yes, I understand your side of the argument, that is simple and any simple minded person ends up thinking like you, but you did not answer the question, again……….. so, again,

    ‘What was the context of the WKA case’?

    I like the gratuitous and entirely pointless insult there. It demonstrates maturity and thoughtfulness.

    Facts of Wong: Wong was born in SF to two parents who had immigrated from China to the US, neither of whom were US citizens. Wong was not allowed back into the US following a temporary journey to China.

    The Chinese Exclusion Act had prevented people from China or of Chinese descent from entering the US or becoming US citizens.

    What does this have to do with the fact that Linda linked to something and claimed that it stated something that it absolutely does not say?

  • 450
    Black Lion
    February 1st, 2010 16:27

    MGB says:
    February 1, 2010 at 4:21 pm
    Black Lion: “You need to provide evidence that someone received a Hawaiian COLB that lists them being born in HI when they were born somewhere else.”

    The statutes have been linked by others. Upon what do you base your contention that they refer only to COHBs?

    You need to provide evidence that OBAMA received a Hawaiian COLB that lists him as born in HI. There is NONE. A digital image on a partisan blog is not evidence of a legitimate, Hawaiian-produced and certified, unaltered COLB. You say it would be provided, so why hasn’t it been provided? Are you so sure that it can be provided and that it would read exactly as the documents posted on that partisan blog?

    btw, how do you know that he doesn’t have a COHB?

    Full disclosure is more than warranted.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Because I read them. The statute Orly and the others like to mention, 338, was enacted in 1981, 20 years after Obama’s birth. And the previous one they like to mention, the one that was discontinued in 1971, was for Hawaiians that did not have a birth certificate to get a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. Similar to what the infamous Sun-Yat Sen received. And the 1981 statute required the state of HI to put the actual city of birth for any foreign registration births…

    I don’t need to provide any evidence to prove a thing. Actually you are making the accusation that the online COLB is not authentic, so you need to provide us with admissible proof that states otherwise. Without that you have a difficult time to overcome the official statement of Dr. Fukino stating that the President was BORN in HI, the COLB which is prima facia evidence, and the vital statistic that Leo received from HI that verfies that there was a birth of a baby boy named Barack Hussein Obama II on 8/4/61.

  • 451
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 16:31

    With respect, Black Lion, we do not “have a state document, the COLB.”

    There is NO COLB. There are only digital images of unknown provenance placed upon partisan blogs, about which the DOH in Hawaii, when asked, states that they cannot tell anyone WHAT those images represent.

    IF those COLB images correctly and completely match the information on whatever “vital records” are on file in Hawaii, then why won’t the DOH officials verify the information on those digital images? Why do they pointedly refuse to do so, when asked? Why will no named individual state, on the record, that he or she has seen, handled, photographed, verified the authenticity of the document that supposedly was scanned and placed on partisan blogs, but, interestingly enough, NEVER presented to the court in any of the infamous 67 cases concerning eligibility?

  • 452
    smrstrauss
    February 1st, 2010 16:37

    Re: “A late registration of a birth, based upon a statement by a relative…”

    Hawaii did not allow an unconfirmed statement by a relative to be the basis of a birth certificate that had “born in Hawaii” on it. It required a witness if the child was born outside of a hospital. Moreover, the officials in Hawaii have said twice that the original document shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. The total confidence of this statement indicates that it was not based on any kind of document that might have been amended or submitted without evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

    They would have to be lying for this to be wrong, and why should the two officials (members of a Republican governor’s administration) lie? And, of course, there is not a shred of evidence or even reasonable reports that Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere other than in Hawaii.

  • 453
    ann
    February 1st, 2010 16:39

    Re: “A late registration of a birth, based upon a statement by a relative…”

    Hawaii did not allow an unconfirmed statement by a relative to be the basis of a birth certificate that had “born in Hawaii” on it. It required a witness if the child was born outside of a hospital. Moreover, the officials in Hawaii have said twice that the original document shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, not that there could have been any kind of document that might have been amended or submitted without evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

    They would have to be lying for this to be wrong, and why should the two officials (members of a Republican governor’s administration) lie? And, of course, there is not a shred of evidence or even reasonable reports that Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere other than in Hawaii.

  • 454
    Black Lion
    February 1st, 2010 16:42

    MGB says:
    February 1, 2010 at 4:31 pm
    With respect, Black Lion, we do not “have a state document, the COLB.”

    There is NO COLB. There are only digital images of unknown provenance placed upon partisan blogs, about which the DOH in Hawaii, when asked, states that they cannot tell anyone WHAT those images represent.

    IF those COLB images correctly and completely match the information on whatever “vital records” are on file in Hawaii, then why won’t the DOH officials verify the information on those digital images? Why do they pointedly refuse to do so, when asked? Why will no named individual state, on the record, that he or she has seen, handled, photographed, verified the authenticity of the document that supposedly was scanned and placed on partisan blogs, but, interestingly enough, NEVER presented to the court in any of the infamous 67 cases concerning eligibility?
    ___________________________________________________________________
    MGB, it is called federal privacy laws. They cannot. The most under the law the state of HI was allowed to say was the statement by Dr. Fukino. Which for most was enough, especially when she states “BORN IN HAWAII”.

    And in regards to the 67 cases that the birthers have lost, why would they. If you understood the law you would know that if you know a case has no standing and will not make it to trial, you do nothing but move for the case to be dismissed. Simple. The DOJ would be guilty of malpractice if they did anything else but move for a dismissal.

    And somehow if it did go to trial, all the judge would do is request a copy of the COLB from the state if HI. And if he received it from the state, the case would be over. There would be no document experts or open court or long form and supporting documentation requested. That is just a birther pipe dream.

  • 455
    Benaiah
    February 1st, 2010 16:42

    El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz
    http://www.africawithin.com/malcolmx/malcolm.htm

    ObaMalik Shabazz: “You are absolutely right that John McCain has not…uh… talked about my Muslim faith…”

  • 456
    ann
    February 1st, 2010 16:43

    Re: “IF those COLB images correctly and completely match the information on whatever “vital records” are on file in Hawaii, then why won’t the DOH officials verify the information on those digital images?”

    They HAVE verified the information on those digital images by saying repeatedly that the facts on the COLB that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 are confirmed by the original document in the files.

    In the latest such statement, Fukino said: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

    Notice the word VERIFYING. Fukino says that the original verifies the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. This is the second time that the DoH issued a statement saying that the original document shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  • 457
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 16:52

    qwerty,

    What I pointed out was 1st, footnote #1 wherein the court refers to the 1866 Act which congress defined as:

    “[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.”

    #2 points out the fact of residency requirement and exclusion to foreigners who hold a permanent residence in their foreign country which is also addressed by congress & is also addressed in the federalist & anti-federalist papers.

    The article also defines derivative citizenship & direct citizenship. Direct citizenship is one born to US citizen parents who either also acquired their citizenship by birth or by naturalization prior to the child being born as discussed in the Elg case.

    Derivative citizenship is acquired after the parents have been naturalized.

    What you all like to ignor & hide is the fact that until 1922, women & children’s citizenship was that of the husband/father respectively and that is the law that was adopted & the law that defines NBC.

    If the founding fathers had accepted as you say, Blackstone’s theory of ‘natural born subject’, then there would have been no need for a grandfather clause & there would never have been laws on the books as to that fact well into the 20th century and all the laws on the books wherein children born abroad to US citizens are merely window dressing and US citizens can now just forget all that red tape they have to go through to get US citizenship established for their children. You know, all those silly statutes that the Brits have never had.

    What you are saying is that all those laws are unconstitutional & should be abolished. Right?

    And parents amending a minor child’s BC after the parents have been naturalized therefore giving the child derivative citizenship are all just administrative mistakes and therefore negligible as well as unconstitutional?

  • 458
    Dennis
    February 1st, 2010 16:54

    Attn.: jvn, Byrgenon and Sue

    RE: Which branch of government should interpret the nbc language of the Constitution?

    I said the Judicial Branch and I stand by my opinion.

    You all disagree and some of you handed down your opinions very patronizingly.

    Most of you say Congress. Some of you imply it is not important to define nbc, the uncertainty and the division of the nation on this issue is just fine.

    One of you said: the Electors; many of whom officially declared that vetting is not their duty. Actually I tend to agree that the Electors may have duty to vet, but not duty to define nbc. They are however powerless (no subpoena power). And in many states even their election power is limited.

    The political parties used their lack of subpoena power as an excuse not to vet. But I am off my original subject; let us not confuse the two issues. Definition of nbc is not the same as vetting.

    So the situation is as follows: The Judicial Branch so far refused to define the term. Congress is not even talking about it and totally unlikely that they would attempt to do it, assuming that you are right that it is their duty. The political parties flat don’t want to do it. Same with the Electors. The mainstream media is totally silent about this issue.

    Some state lawmakers made some weak noises in that regard. Will it amount to a definition by the state courts? We don’t know. But you all say that it does not really matter because SCOTUS would not rule on the definition anyway if two states came up with different answers. I admitted that it is a possibility that SCOTUS could continue their “dereliction of duty”.

    I have given up trying to convince anyone at this point. I just ask this question: If there is no one who will define this vital constitutional language what is the use of the Constitution? Is it a dead, useless, unenforceable thing? If that is the case the US is no better than an average banana republic, where laws mean nothing.

    And if the hypothetical US born son of Bin Laden would run at some future election, wish you good luck supporting him. He may be one of your future presidents. Bin would not have to use planes to fly into buildings to destroy the US, what a neat present you are handing him.

  • 459
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 16:55

    Black Lion said, “Most Americans don’t have questions.”

    I don’t know your definition of “most”, but there is a growing number of people who DO have questions about his eligibility. Have you seen recent polls?

    Do you know anything about memory? The sort of details the babysitter mentions are exactly the kind of details that make her memories seem authentic. They’re the kind of details juries consider, when determining credibility and reliability. Memories are associated with pertinent details. For example, most people know where they were when they heard Kennedy was shot, or what exactly they were doing when they heard about 9/11.

    You have NO evidence to support your belief that he has a legitimate COLB that was produced and certified by the state of Hawaii and was scanned and photographed UNALTERED. Or that, if asked to do so, Hawaii could and would produce and certify a COLB that matches what’s online.

    It is not up to us to prove that what he claims is NOT true. It is up to HIM to prove to US that he is eligible for the position which he currently holds.

    He is a self-avowed Constitutional scholar. He claims he is for transparency and the rule of law. Therefore, if what he claims about the circumstances of his birth are true, then why will he not simply answer the calls of the people he professes to serve and present to the people the vital records that will prove his eligibility?

    It’s a simple thing. It’s a simple question that MUST nag at you, too, when you wake in the night and ponder this issue.

    Why not full disclosure? Why not prove once and for all that he is truthful and worthy of our trust?

    Why not?

  • 460
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 16:57

    MGB says:
    February 1, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    slscraig: And bystander says Obama was fairly elected and so is president. One has to wonder how many of those “votes” were legitimate. How many illegal aliens illegally voted? Besides playing fast and loose with passport and citizenship rules, one wonders if bystander also votes and, if so, if that’s legal. Of course, it may be allowed, meaning one is able to get away with it so far. But is it fair and is it legal? I continue to be amused by how closely bystander follows this issue. Why? Are we Americans so concerned with Blair or Brown or the Cougar Lady in Ireland, she of the cradle-robbing affair, that we spend hours per day online, commenting on their political blogs (if such things exist)?

    ……….
    Of course I don’t vote – are you now accusing me of a felony? I am a UK citizen, I vote in the UK. How on earth would I register to vote in the US – what is the matter with you?

    Do you realise the size of the margin Obama won with? Does it make you feel better to imagine it was a fraud? Shame you don’t have any evidence – but when was that ever a problem for birthers?

  • 461
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 17:02

    qwertyman says:
    February 1, 2010 at 4:25 pm
    Yes, I understand your side of the argument, that is simple and any simple minded person ends up thinking like you, but you did not answer the question, again……….. so, again,

    ‘What was the context of the WKA case’?

    I like the gratuitous and entirely pointless insult there. It demonstrates maturity and thoughtfulness.

    Facts of Wong: Wong was born in SF to two parents who had immigrated from China to the US, neither of whom were US citizens. Wong was not allowed back into the US following a temporary journey to China.

    The Chinese Exclusion Act had prevented people from China or of Chinese descent from entering the US or becoming US citizens.

    What does this have to do with the fact that Linda linked to something and claimed that it stated something that it absolutely does not say?


    Well, you were concerned with context. But I might point out you have a couple of factual errors in your summary of WKA. The parents DID NOT emigrate to the US, they were part of a Labor/Trade agreement legally admitted for a period of time certain. While here they had a child. They and the child returned to China after that period of time certain under the terms of the Treaty.

    WKA arrived at the age of majority after the 14th was ratified and was encouraged to test the courts to see if it applied to ‘Chinese’ born in the US in retaliation to the Exclusion Act.*

    *(Largely supposition on my part derived from the limited history of those representing WKA, the Chinese connections those representatives maintained and the state of poverty of WKA and the lack of repercussions to the family of WKA back in China for the Crime of Expatriation by a Chinese National.)

    The sole question was if he was a ‘citizen’ under the 14th which groups the persons relying on the 14th for citizenship with those that are naturalized, i.e., 1st generation citizens as were the Founding Fathers, none of which considered them selves as natural born citizens for Constitutional purposes.

    WKA was not a natural born citizen in spite of your interpretation of the 14th and the WKA case.

  • 462
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 17:03

    MGB says:
    February 1, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Linda says:
    January 29, 2010 at 3:53 pm
    MGB: The SD response addresses SD law, not federal law with regard to presidential eligibility according to the Constitution.

    Interesting that you state this as ‘SUSAN@sdvitalrecords’ also said that SD only grants state citizenship, US citizenship is not automatic. For US citizenship you have to contact the feds in DC.

    …… Susan said no such thing. This is another out and out lie from Linda – and she will never be able to back it up. She was caught out lying about the SD laws, I proved it with an email from the SD DoH, and now she compounds it by making up another huge whopper. Why don’t you contact Susan yourself MGB – she will confirm that Linda is lying. Nobody has to contact DC regarding citizenship. THERE ARE NO CITIZENSHIP PAPERS _- WHAT WOULD YOU CONTACT DC FOR? Your state issues you a bc, and you use that to get a passport – that’s it, nothing else. Linda is a liar.

  • 463
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 17:18

    byst: Susan said no such thing. This is another out and out lie from Linda

    hmm, just like you said I lied when I called BL out on a lie, he ignored because he knew I was right & I had left it at that. However, you couldn’t see it for what is was so you had to insert yourself into our debate in some sense of allegiance to rescue BL in some effort to smear me.

    I do not operate in muddy waters, and it doesn’t matter what law I quote from. The definition of alien is still the same no matter where you go to look for it.

    American International law or the numerous US laws on the books all state the same thing and that is a child is an alien if born in a foreign country to parents who are foreign to that country. And that definition is under immigration & naturalization.

    It takes at least 1 citizen parent to confer citizenship & that is where your argument falls flat on its face.

    Now have you contacted Susan and asked her why a child’s BC would have to be amended after the parents produce their naturalization papers? If it wasn’t important, then there would be absolutely no need for it to even appear on the form.

    I am not ignorant & I am neither a liar, but I do make mistakes and when I do I admit them.

    And one can not define NBC without studying the history & laws of ALL paths to US citizenship and in that area you also fail miserably.

  • 464
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 17:24

    Linda need to obtain an e-mail from Susan to confirm the alleged phone conversation. Easy peasy.

  • 465
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 17:27

    What is a LAW?

    A law in its basic form is a nothing more than a contract. In every contract there are details & fine print.

    Forget to read those details & the fine print & your liable to not understand the full implications of the contract.

    And that is how one has to think when interpreting US laws & codes. The fine print is the congressional record of the original immigration & nationality Act of 1790, 1866 Act, the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act & the definition of a child born in the US to foreign parents in the revised Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965.

  • 466
    qwertyman
    February 1st, 2010 17:28

    What I pointed out was 1st, footnote #1 wherein the court refers to the 1866 Act which congress defined as:

    “[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.”

    Congress never said that, not in the 1866 Civil Rights Act or anywhere else.. That language comes from the Slaughterhouse Cases, which the article you linked to does not cite.

    The article also defines derivative citizenship & direct citizenship. Direct citizenship is one born to US citizen parents who either also acquired their citizenship by birth or by naturalization prior to the child being born as discussed in the Elg case.

    Do you just assume that I’m not going to check what you say and take your word for it? Here’s what the article says about direct citizenship:

    Direct citizenship… is acquired at birth by persons born within the territory of the United States, subject to its jurisdiction[1] or by persons born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the US, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof[2] or by aliens naturalized.

    The article mentions nothing about a requirement of parents being US citizens if one is born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. Why would footnote 1 go out of its way to note that “The exception excludes children born in the US to a foreign diplomat from acquiring American nationality at birth” if according to you, all children of non-citizen fathers are not citizens at birth?

    If the founding fathers had accepted as you say, Blackstone’s theory of ‘natural born subject’, then there would have been no need for a grandfather clause & there would never have been laws on the books as to that fact well into the 20th century and all the laws on the books wherein children born abroad to US citizens are merely window dressing and US citizens can now just forget all that red tape they have to go through to get US citizenship established for their children. You know, all those silly statutes that the Brits have never had

    And this is where you pivot away from the point that your article does not support or say what you believe it to, going onto an unrelated tangent.

    The grandfather clause was inserted for Founding Fathers born outside the territorial US, such as Alexander Hamilton.

    Your article absolutely does not come close to stating that the child of a US citizen born on US soil is not a natural born citizen.

  • 467
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 17:30

    “And one can not define NBC without studying the history & laws of ALL paths to US citizenship and in that area you also fail miserably.”

    Actually, Linda, you fail miserably. You misrepresent, mislead and misunderstand the history and laws of US citizenship.

  • 468
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 17:30

    Black Lion says:
    February 1, 2010 at 4:42 pm
    MGB says:
    February 1, 2010 at 4:31 pm
    With respect, Black Lion, we do not “have a state document, the COLB.”

    There is NO COLB. There are only digital images of unknown provenance placed upon partisan blogs, about which the DOH in Hawaii, when asked, states that they cannot tell anyone WHAT those images represent.

    IF those COLB images correctly and completely match the information on whatever “vital records” are on file in Hawaii, then why won’t the DOH officials verify the information on those digital images? Why do they pointedly refuse to do so, when asked? Why will no named individual state, on the record, that he or she has seen, handled, photographed, verified the authenticity of the document that supposedly was scanned and placed on partisan blogs, but, interestingly enough, NEVER presented to the court in any of the infamous 67 cases concerning eligibility?
    ___________________________________________________________________
    MGB, it is called federal privacy laws. They cannot. The most under the law the state of HI was allowed to say was the statement by Dr. Fukino. Which for most was enough, especially when she states “BORN IN HAWAII”.

    And in regards to the 67 cases that the birthers have lost, why would they. If you understood the law you would know that if you know a case has no standing and will not make it to trial, you do nothing but move for the case to be dismissed. Simple. The DOJ would be guilty of malpractice if they did anything else but move for a dismissal.

    And somehow if it did go to trial, all the judge would do is request a copy of the COLB from the state if HI. And if he received it from the state, the case would be over. There would be no document experts or open court or long form and supporting documentation requested. That is just a birther pipe dream.

    We’ll see………….

  • 469
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 17:31

    sue: Linda need to obtain an e-mail from Susan to confirm the alleged phone conversation. Easy peasy.

    It sure is, so if it concerns you so much, why don’t you call her up on your dime or e-mail her. Phone records are kept & I gave her my name. Should be easy enough for you I would think.

  • 470
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 17:31

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    American International law or the numerous US laws on the books all state the same thing and that is a child is an alien if born in a foreign country to parents who are foreign to that country. And that definition is under immigration & naturalization.

    …. another lie Linda. The email from SD confirmed any child born in the state is a US citizen regardless of the parents’ citizenship- shall I repost it here?

    It takes at least 1 citizen parent to confer citizenship & that is where your argument falls flat on its face.

    …. no the email explicitly says that you are a citizen whether you have one, two or no US citizen parents. Are you back to denying my children are US citizens? Shall I email you their US passport and birth certificates? Have you learnt nothing from the email form Susan?

    Now have you contacted Susan and asked her why a child’s BC would have to be amended after the parents produce their naturalization papers? If it wasn’t important, then there would be absolutely no need for it to even appear on the form.

    … I showed how you lied about that too. There is nothing to amend on a child’s birth certificate, because there is no field for the parent’s nationality. The form you linked to is to change the name of the child or parents. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE AMENDED BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORM THAT MENTIONS CITIZENSHIP. I linked to it once – shall I prove you lied again?

    I am not ignorant & I am neither a liar, but I do make mistakes and when I do I admit them.

    …. then you must admit you have lied about all the points above. If not, I will post them all again for everyone to see how you are lying.

    And one can not define NBC without studying the history & laws of ALL paths to US citizenship and in that area you also fail miserably.

    … no Linda you fail miserably. I think I will side with the SCOTUS – do you actually believe you know better than them – you can’t even read a SD statute properly. You are ridiculous.

  • 471
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 17:34

    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:30 pm
    “And one can not define NBC without studying the history & laws of ALL paths to US citizenship and in that area you also fail miserably.”

    Actually, Linda, you fail miserably. You misrepresent, mislead and misunderstand the history and laws of US citizenship.

    Thank you for showing your true colors. You have no intentions of representing the laws, you only have one agenda and that is the one Dr Consiracy, er, uh, I mean foggy stated on PHN:

    “use any means necessary to disrupt & divide”

    How’s that working our for ya?

  • 472
    qwertyman
    February 1st, 2010 17:35

    It takes at least 1 citizen parent to confer citizenship & that is where your argument falls flat on its face.

    WHAT?!

    Please state the statute that requires that. If your claim is true, then I know at least a dozen people who have been voting illegally for at least a decade.

    Are you suggesting that Governor Jindal has been voting illegally since he turned 18 and is not a US citizen?

    Are you suggesting that

    I am not ignorant & I am neither a liar, but I do make mistakes and when I do I admit them.

    You are paranoid and unable to comprehend what you read and yes, and either deeply ignorant or deeply dishonest if you believe that the children of parents legally in the US aren’t US citizens at all.

  • 473
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 17:35

    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:30 pm
    “And one can not define NBC without studying the history & laws of ALL paths to US citizenship and in that area you also fail miserably.”

    Actually, Linda, you fail miserably. You misrepresent, mislead and misunderstand the history and laws of US citizenship.

    How many ‘natural born citizens’ did the Ratification of the Constitution ‘make’, ‘deem into existence’, ‘create’ or otherwise ‘designate’?

    Where are the words or the words that require the A2S1C5 to be Amended?

    None and there are none are the two correct answers which makes all of your dancing around the truth little more than VooDoo ritual trying to scare off those you are most afraid of.

  • 474
    qwertyman
    February 1st, 2010 17:35

    It takes at least 1 citizen parent to confer citizenship & that is where your argument falls flat on its face.

    WHAT?!

    Please state the statute that requires that. If your claim is true, then I know at least a dozen people who have been voting illegally for at least a decade.

    Are you suggesting that Governor Jindal has been voting illegally since he turned 18 and is not a US citizen?

    I am not ignorant & I am neither a liar, but I do make mistakes and when I do I admit them.

    You are paranoid and unable to comprehend what you read and yes, and either deeply ignorant or deeply dishonest if you believe that the children of parents legally in the US aren’t US citizens at all.

  • 475
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 17:39

    Vital Records
    207 E Missouri Ave, Ste 1-A
    Pierre, South Dakota 57501

    BIRTH AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM
    Mail completed form to:Vital Records, ATTN:Birth Amendments, 207 E Missouri Ave, Ste 1-A, Pierre, SD 57501

    Section 4 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION INFORMATION
    One supporting document must be provided that shows the change that you are requesting. The document must be the original or a
    certified photocopy of the original and also be 7 years older than your date of application. In order to verify the document’s age, please
    make sure that the document has a date of creation listed.

    q Baptismal Certificate
    q Census Record
    q Medical Record
    q Military Record
    q Marriage Record
    q Insurance Policy
    q Cradle Roll Record
    q School Record
    q Early Income Tax Record
    q Tribal Membership Papers
    q Parent’s Naturalization Papers
    q Early Application for Employment or Retirement Record
    q Application for Voting Registration
    q Social Security Numident (No SS cards accepted)
    q Other, specify:

    Now tell me why would a a parents naturalization papers have any significance to amending a birth cert?

    Its called derivative citizenship!

  • 476
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 17:43

    slcraig,

    “Well, you were concerned with context. But I might point out you have a couple of factual errors in your summary of WKA. The parents DID NOT emigrate to the US, they were part of a Labor/Trade agreement legally admitted for a period of time certain. While here they had a child. They and the child returned to China after that period of time certain under the terms of the Treaty.”

    “WKA arrived at the age of majority after the 14th was ratified and was encouraged to test the courts to see if it applied to ‘Chinese’ born in the US in retaliation to the Exclusion Act.*”

    Actually, you are not correct.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

    “The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, in the city of San Francisco, in the state of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China. They were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and are still enjoying a permanent domicile and residence therein at San Francisco. They continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China; and, during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to wit, in California, within the United States and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence; n d neither he, nor his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [169 U.S. 649, 653] therefrom. In 1890 (when he must have been about 17 years of age) he departed for China, on a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States, upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States. After such return, he remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until 1894, when he (being about 21 years of age, but whether a little above or a little under that age does not appear) again departed for China on a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States; and he did return thereto, by sea, in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission, upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.”

  • 477
    qwertyman
    February 1st, 2010 17:45

    But I might point out you have a couple of factual errors in your summary of WKA. The parents DID NOT emigrate to the US, they were part of a Labor/Trade agreement legally admitted for a period of time certain. While here they had a child. They and the child returned to China after that period of time certain under the terms of the Treaty.

    I don’t necessarily see any of that being factual error, but a difference in how you interpret immigrate or immigrant. But I really don’t think it matters, except that Wong did not return with his parents, but afterwards. He made two trips to China, the first time being allowed into the US because he was a native born US citizen, and then was denied the second time, after which the case came about.

    Here’s the question presented by that case.

    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 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, 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.’

    But yeah, I’ll agree that what you say about the facts of the case are true. However, a big part of why Wong was ruled a citizen of the US was the lengthy discussion of what it means to be a natural born citizen. The dissent certainly understood the meaning of the decision and that Wong would now be eligible for the presidency, even if the majority didn’t explicitly say so in a single sentence.

  • 478
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 17:46

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    byst: Susan said no such thing. This is another out and out lie from Linda

    hmm, just like you said I lied when I called BL out on a lie, he ignored because he knew I was right & I had left it at that. However, you couldn’t see it for what is was so you had to insert yourself into our debate in some sense of allegiance to rescue BL in some effort to smear me.

    I do not operate in muddy waters, and it doesn’t matter what law I quote from. The definition of alien is still the same no matter where you go to look for it.

    American International law or the numerous US laws on the books all state the same thing and that is a child is an alien if born in a foreign country to parents who are foreign to that country. And that definition is under immigration & naturalization.

    It takes at least 1 citizen parent to confer citizenship & that is where your argument falls flat on its face.

    Now have you contacted Susan and asked her why a child’s BC would have to be amended after the parents produce their naturalization papers? If it wasn’t important, then there would be absolutely no need for it to even appear on the form.

    I am not ignorant & I am neither a liar, but I do make mistakes and when I do I admit them.

    And one can not define NBC without studying the history & laws of ALL paths to US citizenship and in that area you also fail miserably.

    …………………Linda you are very devious. Why don’t you reproduce the part of the form which asks what details you wish to amend on the birth certificate? The ONLY options available are NAME of child or parent, DATE OF BIRTH, SEX and COUNTY. So please tell me how this supports your claim that you amend citizenship by supplying naturalisation papers. They would be used to support a request to change the parents name. Come on Linda – you’ve been caught out. Admit you lied about this.

  • 479
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 17:51

    slcraig,

    BTW, the 14th amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.

    http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html
    14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    “The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.”

  • 480
    qwertyman
    February 1st, 2010 17:52

    Now tell me why would a a parents naturalization papers have any significance to amending a birth cert?

    Perhaps you should have mentioned that that list begins with the statement:

    Only one document is required from the list below:

    http://doh.sd.gov/VitalRecords/Forms/BirthRecordAmend.pdf

    Interesting that you should include everything in the prior paragraph but miss that one sentence…

    Naturalization papers may have significance in that they are official government documents. If you have changed the name of a parent or child, and subsequently was naturalized, then that name appearing on a US government document would prove it.

    But all of that is an attempt on your part to move away from your original statement, which was that naturalization papers are required. Obviously if that is just one possible item among many then it’s not required for amending a birth certificate, is it?

  • 481
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 17:52

    byst: … no Linda you fail miserably. I think I will side with the SCOTUS – do you actually believe you know better than them – you can’t even read a SD statute properly. You are ridiculous.

    Byst, if SCOTUS decisions are ipso facto law, then why was it that the laws on the books, including the 1965 Act clearly did not grant citizenship upon birth on US soil regardless of the parents nationality?

    For all your bloviating comments, you, nor sue, qwerty, BL & all the others, have shown 1 US law on the books that state your case and that is all I have ever asked. Show me the one law passed by Congress, including all the fine print of that law aka congressional record wherein all the previous laws & definitions were repealed.

  • 482
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 17:57

    Again, qwerty nit picks a copy & paste error. The fact is there are many reasons to amend a birth cert & they are not all inclusive, you check the one that pertains to your situation, such as home birth, naturalization, birth abroad, adoption, etc.

    Nice try. Want to try again? As I said I do make mistakes & when I do I admit them, I just didn’t think I would have to admit to every little typo or cross posting error that is insignificant and not relevant to the direct question in which you refrained from answering.

    why was that anyway?

  • 483
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 17:58

    Linda,

    “Thank you for showing your true colors. You have no intentions of representing the laws, you only have one agenda and that is the one Dr Consiracy, er, uh, I mean foggy stated on PHN:”

    Dr. Conspiracy and Foggy are NOT the same person.

  • 484
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 18:02

    ” qwertyman says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    Now tell me why would a a parents naturalization papers have any significance to amending a birth cert?
    Perhaps you should have mentioned that that list begins with the statement:

    Only one document is required from the list below:
    http://doh.sd.gov/VitalRecords/Forms/BirthRecordAmend.pdf

    Interesting that you should include everything in the prior paragraph but miss that one sentence…”

    Yep, Linda does this quite frequently.

    Linda, why don’t you have Susan confirm your alleged phone conversation?

  • 485
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 18:04

    Linda:
    Again, qwerty nit picks a copy & paste error. The fact is there are many reasons to amend a birth cert & they are not all inclusive, you check the one that pertains to your situation, such as home birth, naturalization, birth abroad, adoption, etc.

    Linda this is another blatant lie. The ONLY things you can amend on a birth certificate with the form you quote from are NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, SEX and COUNTY. There is no box to tick for any of the items you list above. Prove me wrong, Linda.

  • 486
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 18:10

    qwerty: Naturalization papers may have significance in that they are official government documents. If you have changed the name of a parent or child, and subsequently was naturalized, then that name appearing on a US government document would prove it.
    _____________________________________________________

    You did admit parents naturalization matters. Sorry, the statement had me confused for a bit and it continues to stymies the mind your logic of this one.

    You all have been claiming parents naturalizing is not a requirement, but then you state just the opposite that supports what we have been saying. ;)

  • 487
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 18:12

    Linda:

    Byst, if SCOTUS decisions are ipso facto law, then why was it that the laws on the books, including the 1965 Act clearly did not grant citizenship upon birth on US soil regardless of the parents nationality?

    .. I know you have reading comprehension problems but you need to get your head around this. An immigration law does not apply to people born in the US, because people born in the US are not immigrants. Got it now? Neither are people legally in the country on work visas immigrants. Ok got that? So the law you quote is totally irrelevant.

    100 years of settled law following WKA determines that any child born in the US is a nbc, unless the child of diplomats. It’s the law Linda, as you have previously admitted (although you thought it was wrongly decided, you did at least admit it was current law – shall I dig that post out too?)

  • 488
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 18:16

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    qwerty: Naturalization papers may have significance in that they are official government documents. If you have changed the name of a parent or child, and subsequently was naturalized, then that name appearing on a US government document would prove it.
    _____________________________________________________

    You did admit parents naturalization matters. Sorry, the statement had me confused for a bit and it continues to stymies the mind your logic of this one.

    You all have been claiming parents naturalizing is not a requirement, but then you state just the opposite that supports what we have been saying. ;)

    … oh dear god you are insane. Q said papers might be relevant TO CHANGING A NAME – nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship, and in any case NOT REQUIRED. They can’t be relevant to citizenship – there is no option for that on the form. The only things you can amend are name, date of birth, sex or county. Got it now?.

  • 489
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 18:16

    bystander: You say that you are a dual citizen. You say that you vote in the UK and are a UK citizen and that you don’t vote in the US.

    How could you register in the US? Didn’t you tell us that you own a residence here? Couldn’t you vote absentee, if you were so inclined?

    I’m not accusing you of anything. I’m asking a question. If you don’t vote here, I take your word for it. But if you don’t think there’s voter fraud in the US, then you are truly naive. Have you ever heard of ACORN?

    You are completely and inexplicably caught up in Obama’s eligibility. WHY? What is it to you, who are a UK citizen and who doesn’t vote in the USA? It makes no sense.

    I wouldn’t spend time on UK blogs, arguing in defense of Tony Blair (although I did like him). So why do you devote so much time to Phil’s blog, arguing about a subject that does not touch you? It makes no sense.

  • 490
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 18:18

    bystander, what part of a parent/s having to show their naturalization papers to amend a birth cert do you not understand?

    This, we are addressing with further legislation as there used to be 2 different forms issued and one was mysteriously dropped and there is no law on the books stating there was ever congressional action to do so.

    Certified US birth certificate

    Certified ‘Statement of Birth’ from a US or State official for children born to aliens inwhich they were to turn over to their consulate or embassy to verify that childs birth.

  • 491
    misanthropicus
    February 1st, 2010 18:18

    RE MGB RE BL misanthropicus:

    [...] January 29, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    mis: I’ll go you one better. I believe that he was born very early in 1961, not in August. More like January/February. [...]

    MGB: or, as as you continued this idea today, the birth date can be even earlier – we’ll see.
    The Franziskus registration page is like a stubborn thistle – it just doesn’t go away, and requires special attention and expenses:
    * “Born in Honolulu”/ – so when happened the first citizenship switch (and change of name to Soetoro), then when happened the “alleged” switch to US citizenship?
    * “religion: Muslim” – when and where dba Obama’s conversion to Christianity occurred? After all, he’s been more that an year in the WH, and mystery mister Obama hasn’t found the time to go to a church yet (compare this with his myriad of golf outings, NYC junkets, parties, etc.) –

    So, dba Obama’s just announced trip to Indonesia is a good opportunity for him (or someone very close to him, like Rahm or Axelrod), to discreetly remind the Indonesian president, or other influential people around, that mister Obama would greatly appreciate from them their maintaining as much obscurity as possible over his Indonesian years and citizenship status there -
    Desire which has been so far respected –

    Mane, Tekel, Fares, Franziskus…

    Regards

  • 492
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 18:20

    You are completely and inexplicably caught up in Obama’s eligibility. WHY? What is it to you, who are a UK citizen and who doesn’t vote in the USA? It makes no sense.

    ….I’ve explained this many times, most recently yesterday – just go back over the current threads. I’m tired of repeating myself.

  • 493
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 18:24

    bystander,

    WKA is not codified law and the current SCOTUS decision is proof precedent does not make law. SCOTUS decisions merely MAY set a precedence for future decisions, but as past posting history has shown, it did not in quite a few cases in the 20th century wherein the child was not deemed to be a US citizen.

    Talk about a lack of comprehension of how the law works.

  • 494
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 18:26

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    bystander, what part of a parent/s having to show their naturalization papers to amend a birth cert do you not understand?

    …. I understand perfectly well that they DON’T HAVE to show any naturalisationpapers. As Q said – “one of the following is acceptable”. The form lists many documents that are acceptable to change a Name, date of birth, sex or county. Naturalisation papers are one of many documents that MAY be used – they are not REQUIRED. After all, many children are born in the US to non-citizen parents who do not have naturalisation papers. Their children are still citizens.

    The simple thing you fail to understand is that if you have a US birth certificate, unless you are the child of diplomats, you are a US citizen. Why would you need to amend your birth certificate.

    Now where is that email from Susan backing up your silly claim??

  • 495
    MGB
    February 1st, 2010 18:27

    Black Lion: I have common sense and I don’t need to understand the law in order to ask the simple question: IF his vital records are in order and if they prove he’s eligible under the Constitution to be POTUS, then why, oh, why WON’T HE SIMPLY PRODUCE THEM?

    Did you read these statutes:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57

  • 496
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 18:29

    http://doh.sd.gov/VitalRecords/Forms/BirthRecordAmend.pdf

    Here’s the form again Linda. Please show me the words that relate to citizenship, and a REQUIREMENT to show naturalisation papers. Can you do that please?

  • 497
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 18:32

    MGB,

    bystander is not a dual citizen. She claims her children are. She & her husband have always been UK citizens who have always held permanent residence in the UK. They do have US social security numbers so that they may work in the US.

    She said her brother is a naturalized US citizen whatever that meant as it has no relavence to this debate.

    I just thought I should let you know as byst evidently wants to contiunue to mislead you that she somehow has claim to our elections, but she only chooses not to exercise her imaginary political right.

  • 498
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 18:36

    I just thought I should let you know as byst evidently wants to contiunue to mislead you that she somehow has claim to our elections, but she only chooses not to exercise her imaginary political right.

    …. yet another lie – show me where I have ever made a “claim to our elections”. Now, back to that form Linda – stop changing the subject – where are the words relating to citizenship?

  • 499
    bystander
    February 1st, 2010 18:37

    who have always held permanent residence in the UK.

    … another lie – we have lived in the us for long periods.

  • 500
    tancy
    February 1st, 2010 18:38

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 6:24 pm
    “WKA is not codified law”

    It is case law, it is a binding precedent. Lower courts may not rule against a binding precedent.

    I would direct you to the amicus briefs filed in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in which conservative legal minds tried to persuade the court that Hamdi should not be considered a US citizen simply because he was born here. In each instance, these writers acknowledge what the law says, that Hamdi is a citizen simply because he was born here, but that shouldn’t be the case. They cite Wong Kim Ark and essentially are encouraging the court to overturn Wong Kim Ark as part of their decision in Hamdi. The court ignored them and in fact, the case progressed with the understanding that everyone accepted Hamdi was a US citizen.

  • 501
    misanthropicus
    February 1st, 2010 18:52

    Re MGB:

    [...] What is it to you, who are a UK citizen and who doesn’t vote in the USA? [...] So why do you devote so much time to Phil’s blog, arguing about a subject that does not touch you? It makes no sense. [...]

    MGB, it does if we consider Britain or England streets in Oakland, Philadelphia or elsewhere in the continental USA -
    The known obfuscation, and this done with much naivity, because:
    a) Euros seldom keep two cars, seldom, seldom – not like Bysta’s vaunted Mercedes AND Beemer, which actually are all ACORN worker’s wet dreams –
    b) then his own unwitting confession – poor him – in a prior skirmish with me:
    ———————

    Bysta: [...] mis – I know logic isn’t your thing, but I would have thought checking the times of my posts would give you a pretty good idea as to what time zone I live in – and it certainly isn’t Pacific Time. [...]

    Misanthropicus: Dear, looks like even matching color coded things is beyond you -
    Still, [will] you show me how could I figure out from the blog’s time stamp your time zone?
    My post was published at 5:40 pm.; yours at 5:49 pm [...]
    ————————

    So … 5:49 PST would be in Britain… about 2 am… then Bysta posts well into the PST evening which would be… dawn in Britain -

    Now we sure have a heroic Obamaton here – Bysta, hope you’ll get a promotion for your dedication to the cause –

    Beam me up Scotty, again one of those MoveOn.Org types -

    Regards -

  • 502
    brygenon
    February 1st, 2010 18:57

    Linda says:

    Byst, if SCOTUS decisions are ipso facto law, then why was it that the laws on the books, including the 1965 Act clearly did not grant citizenship upon birth on US soil regardless of the parents nationality?

    Linda, we checked the 1965 act, and it does not say what you claimed it does.

    For all your bloviating comments, you, nor sue, qwerty, BL & all the others, have shown 1 US law on the books that state your case and that is all I have ever asked.

    And I cited a law that is remarkably specific:

    “A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.” — 8 U.S.C. 1405

    [And to head off another bogus argument: "Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to." -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]

    Show me the one law passed by Congress, including all the fine print of that law aka congressional record wherein all the previous laws & definitions were repealed.

    The laws you make up require no repeal.

  • 503
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 19:01

    Customer’s Relationship to the person named on record
    q Self q Parent q Legal guardian (must provide documentation)

    and one form of documentation is the parents naturalization papers. Now why the need to show them if naturalization is not as you say an important issue regarding birth certs? And it does not just include name change as qwerty would have one believe.

    SD 44:09:05:04. Who may request an amendment. A birth certificate may be amended upon the request of the registrant if of legal age, one of the parents, the guardian, or the individual responsible for filing the certificate. Any item in the statistical portion of the birth certificate, however, may be amended only upon receipt of oral or written notification of an error from the person responsible for the completion of the items. Any item amended in the statistical portion of the birth certificate may not be marked amended.

    There will be more forth coming on this.

  • 504
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 19:05

    qwerty,

    if you want you arguments taken legitimately then post the link to the items you post so that we may see them for ourselves.

    I havce already proven how you all take things out of context and mix & match citiations from presidential eligiblity & immigration & nationality laws to try & prove your case so just saying so does not cut the mustard.

  • 505
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 19:08

    Linda,

    “There will be more forth coming on this.”

    I hope you include a link to your source.

  • 506
    brygenon
    February 1st, 2010 19:10

    MGB says:

    I have common sense and I don’t need to understand the law in order to ask the simple question: IF his vital records are in order and if they prove he’s eligible under the Constitution to be POTUS, then why, oh, why WON’T HE SIMPLY PRODUCE THEM?

    He did that back in 2008. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

  • 507
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 19:13

    bystander,

    According to SCOTUS in WKA, residing temporily in the US for work & having permanent life long residence in the US are 2 very different things. Grey was clear that the US did not confer citizenship onto children born to foreigners temporarily residing in the US. WKA’s parents were permanent residents & WKA never resided anywhere but the US and that is where you & your politjab cohorts fail to make your case.

    Where WKA went wrong was usurping the law that allowed for a legal foreign national to become a US citizeen upon coming of age. But because of the Chinese exclusion Act, WKA did not qualify so Grey tried to skirt the law & got busted on it by the Chief Justice in the dissenting opinion wherein he called out Grey for neglecting to adhere to the 1866 Act in which Grey defended so eloquently in the Elk case.

  • 508
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 19:23

    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:43 pm
    slcraig,

    “Well, you were concerned with context. But I might point out you have a couple of factual errors in your summary of WKA. The parents DID NOT emigrate to the US, they were part of a Labor/Trade agreement legally admitted for a period of time certain. While here they had a child. They and the child returned to China after that period of time certain under the terms of the Treaty.”

    “WKA arrived at the age of majority after the 14th was ratified and was encouraged to test the courts to see if it applied to ‘Chinese’ born in the US in retaliation to the Exclusion Act.*”

    Actually, you are not correct.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

    “The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, in the city of San Francisco, in the state of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China. They were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and are still enjoying a permanent domicile and residence therein at San Francisco. They continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China; and, during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to wit, in California, within the United States and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence; n d neither he, nor his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [169 U.S. 649, 653] therefrom. In 1890 (when he must have been about 17 years of age) he departed for China, on a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States, upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States. After such return, he remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until 1894, when he (being about 21 years of age, but whether a little above or a little under that age does not appear) again departed for China on a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States; and he did return thereto, by sea, in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission, upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.”

    So the parents were here for a ‘time certain’, Sometime before 1873 to 1890 during which time they had a child and they always ‘resided’ in the same place while here. They left in 1890, with the 17yr old ‘child’ to return to China, the time certain period having ended. They left KNOWING the Exclusion Act would probably not allow them to return.

    What did I say that you disagree with?

  • 509
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 19:28

    http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1152.html

    Each independent country, self-governing dominion, mandated territory, and territory under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations, other than the United States and its outlying possessions, shall be treated as a separate foreign state for the purposes of a numerical level established under subsection (a)(2) of this section when approved by the Secretary of State…

    (3) an alien born in the United States shall be considered as having been born in the country of which he is a citizen or subject, or, if he is not a citizen or subject of any country, in the last foreign country in which he had his residence as determined by the consular officer; and (4) an alien born within any foreign state in which neither of his parents was born and in which neither of his parents had a residence at the time of such alien’s birth may be charged to the foreign state of either parent.

    Now if the child was to be deemed an automatic citizen, this would have read an alien born in the United States shall be considered a US citizen. Instead it refers to the country of the parents and that is where the consular must look to for determing citizeenship of the alien child.

    Again, this isn’t rocket science. Its the law and no matter how you slice it, the law continues to fall on the side of NBC=born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

  • 510
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 19:31

    qwertyman says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:45 pm
    But I might point out you have a couple of factual errors in your summary of WKA. The parents DID NOT emigrate to the US, they were part of a Labor/Trade agreement legally admitted for a period of time certain. While here they had a child. They and the child returned to China after that period of time certain under the terms of the Treaty.

    I don’t necessarily see any of that being factual error, but a difference in how you interpret immigrate or immigrant. But I really don’t think it matters, except that Wong did not return with his parents, but afterwards. He made two trips to China, the first time being allowed into the US because he was a native born US citizen, and then was denied the second time, after which the case came about.

    Here’s the question presented by that case.

    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 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, 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.’

    But yeah, I’ll agree that what you say about the facts of the case are true. However, a big part of why Wong was ruled a citizen of the US was the lengthy discussion of what it means to be a natural born citizen. The dissent certainly understood the meaning of the decision and that Wong would now be eligible for the presidency, even if the majority didn’t explicitly say so in a single sentence.


    So you still want to maintain that the ‘words’ of the WKA Opinion Amend A2S1C5?

    Words which are NOT ‘specific’ as to WKA other than his being a ’14th Amendment’ citizen while NO WHERE in the 14th are there ‘words’, specific or otherwise, that would suggest that A2S1C5 is or would be Amended.

    You need a new hat rack………….

  • 511
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 19:35

    qwerty: But yeah, I’ll agree that what you say about the facts of the case are true. However, a big part of why Wong was ruled a citizen of the US was the lengthy discussion of what it means to be a natural born citizen

    Grey bloviated long and hard on the meaning of a British natural born subject, not a US natural born citizen.

  • 512
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 19:39

    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:51 pm
    slcraig,

    BTW, the 14th amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.

    http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html
    14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    “The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.”


    Yea, although there remains doubt as to when his parents actually arrived and what year WKA was actually born, it would not have been inconsistent for a passage of time before the implications of the 14th filtered through the ‘emigrant’ population.

    But I’ll concede I may have condensed my thoughts of how the 14th and the Exclusion Act motivated WKA supporters insofar as the dates are concerned.

  • 513
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 19:50

    The 1965 immigration act was all about quotas for racial equality’s sake. It’s nothing more than simple accounting. A debt is charged to the account in which it pertains to therefore, children born to aliens on US soil was charged back to the country of the parents/father and to gain citizenship, the parents had to naturalize and once naturalized, that total number was charged against the total number of naturalized immigrants from that country that were allowed by law.

    Yes, it merely is all common sense, accounting and contract law.

  • 514
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 20:08

    qwerty,

    Jindal falls under the 1965 immigration Act and therefore according to law, his citizenship is charged to that of his parents not the US.

    qwerty: WHAT?!

    Please state the statute that requires that. If your claim is true, then I know at least a dozen people who have been voting illegally for at least a decade.

    The 1970 Act, the concurring 1795, 1803, 1906 & current title 8 of USC

    I also didn’t realize stating facts was an admission of paranois. If so, I am in good company with many great men & women.

  • 515
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 20:14

    correction:

    The 1790 Act, not the 1970 Act.

    I just figured I had better fix my typo so I don’t get called a liar because of it.

  • 516
    brygenon
    February 1st, 2010 20:41

    Dennis wrote:

    Attn.: jvn, Byrgenon and Sue

    RE: Which branch of government should interpret the nbc language of the Constitution?

    I said the Judicial Branch and I stand by my opinion.

    No problem: In US v. Wong Kim Ark the U.S. Supreme Court explained the language is from the English and quoted British jurist A.V. Dicey: “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’”

    You all disagree and some of you handed down your opinions very patronizingly.

    I think it was your false facts and extreme gullibility that earned you most of the condescension. Should I go over the list?

    So the situation is as follows: The Judicial Branch so far refused to define the term. Congress is not even talking about it and totally unlikely that they would attempt to do it, assuming that you are right that it is their duty. The political parties flat don’t want to do it. Same with the Electors. The mainstream media is totally silent about this issue.

    The situation is that a small crank fringe is so desperate to believe Barack Obama cannot really be President of the United states that they’ve somehow convinced themselves that they don’t know what “natural born citizen” means. The courts rule on real cases and controversies; self-inflicted cluelessness does not qualify.

    You want the definition of “natural born citizen”? The standard reference book for terms in U.S. law is Black’s Law Dictionary; the U.S. Supreme Court cites it frequently. Why make a federal case of it when you can just look it up?

    But you all say that it does not really matter because SCOTUS would not rule on the definition anyway if two states came up with different answers.

    Dennis, you are not telling the truth; that’s very much not what I say. I say face reality: the states are *not* coming up with different answers. Eligibility deniers recently got a unanimous opinion from the Court of Appeals of Indiana that clearly explains what “natural born citizen” means; the Court quoted the same bit of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that I’ve been quoting. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    There are no courts, no law review articles, no serious legal scholars saying that the Hawaiian-born son of a Kenyan student is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Just cranks.

  • 517
    Black Lion
    February 1st, 2010 21:01

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    byst: … no Linda you fail miserably. I think I will side with the SCOTUS – do you actually believe you know better than them – you can’t even read a SD statute properly. You are ridiculous.

    Byst, if SCOTUS decisions are ipso facto law, then why was it that the laws on the books, including the 1965 Act clearly did not grant citizenship upon birth on US soil regardless of the parents nationality?

    For all your bloviating comments, you, nor sue, qwerty, BL & all the others, have shown 1 US law on the books that state your case and that is all I have ever asked. Show me the one law passed by Congress, including all the fine print of that law aka congressional record wherein all the previous laws & definitions were repealed.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Are you that unsure of how SCOTUS rulings work? Once the court rules, no law needs to be written. For instance Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in the US. But does every state have a law on the books that states that abortion is legal? Did state legislatures pass laws making it legal? Or because the SCOTUS ruled it is assumed to be legal binding precedent?

    Whether you accept it or not you need to realize that WKA is the law of the land. Anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen
    with the only exceptions of children of diplomats or invading armies.

  • 518
    brygenon
    February 1st, 2010 21:08

    Linda says:

    What is a LAW?

    A law in its basic form is a nothing more than a contract.

    A contract is a binding agreement (I looked it up). Linda, what do you think the result is if you don’t agree to the law?

  • 519
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 21:14

    Black Lion says:
    February 1, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    (snip)

    There are no courts, no law review articles, no serious legal scholars saying that the Hawaiian-born son of a Kenyan student is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Just cranks.

    In that you make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that this is YOUR position relying on the works of others and that you, in your own considerations on the subject, have chosen to accept, protect and defend,….Would you be so kind as to reconcile that position with the A1S1C5 as it existing on the day of Ratification of the Constitution penned, as it was, by men and citizens of the day and as it remains in tack, having NEVER been Amended?

  • 520
    Phil
    February 1st, 2010 21:16

    brygenon,

    Phil, it would be helpful if you would provide links so we could tell who the “they” are.

    “They” = “opposition,” as I clearly pointed out in the above quote you pulled; as in, “You see, the opposition does continue to move goalposts.”

    So in your tales of moving goal posts, Phil, was your team’s goal to get a dozen of 435 U.S. House Representatives to back a bill that doesn’t even challenge President Obama? Was seeing the proposals die in state legislatures what you wanted to achieve?

    My goal, from the beginning, is to get to the truth, in spite of rhetorical encumbrances that … “they” put up.
    :)

    -Phil

  • 521
    Phil
    February 1st, 2010 21:18

    bystander,

    I went ahead in order to get the courts on record as to just EXACTLY where and what the deficiencies were while I have been working other ’situations and circumstances’ that ’should’ cure those deficiencies when I return on remand.

    ….. Steve what part of this statement in your appellate court judgement do you not understand: “We REMAND to the district court with instructions to dismiss”? How are the deficiencies going to be cured when all the district court will do is recieve the papers and dismiss as instructed? You have been explicitly denied the opportunity to present an amended appeal with the word “FUTILE”. And you call obots delusional. Come on birthers – do any of you think Steve’s case is still alive ? Phil?

    I do not see a statute of limitations on presidential eligibility.

    -Phil

  • 522
    Phil
    February 1st, 2010 21:22

    Sue,

    Phil,

    “Are there “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers” who frequent PJ? If so, how have their credentials been confirmed?”

    My comment: “I observed the debate/discussion you engaged in with real, credible, competent PJ lawyers who actually practice law. You were no match for them.”

    I don’t believe I stated that the PJ lawyers were “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers.” I did not put “constitutional lawyer, expert or scholar” in front of PJ lawyer, now did I?

    I do believe I’ve asked you a question, to which you have yet to answer. Would you mind doing so now?

    To repeat:

    Are there “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers” who frequent PJ? If so, how have their credentials been confirmed?

    Are you now implying that there are two classes of natural born citizens? One for WKA/Elg and one for presidential eligibility?

    I’ve gone well beyond “implying” to specifically state that, unless someone can disprove otherwise, no SCOTUS case has ever been heard regarding any sort of citizenship with respect to a specific question on presidential eligibility.

    -Phil

  • 523
    Phil
    February 1st, 2010 21:24

    Sue,

    Phil,

    “Ah, scripts. Yes, reminds me of when the dear Latter-Day Saints or Jehovah’s Witnesses would come to the door. Being ever the antagonist, I’d relish a chance to make them stop what they were doing and answer my questions, such as, “What is truth?”, “How did God forgive you of your sins if Jesus isn’t God?”, “What are you getting out of going around to peoples’ houses? Have you been promised an eternity somewhere if and only if you fulfill a quota of some sort?”, “Why do you have to step back into Gnosticism when the orthodox church has long since settled that debate?”, and, “Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses have an entirely different Bible? Are the dozens of existing translations just not good enough for you people to study? Why not simply use an Interlinear and get to the original languages that way?””

    Hmmm, it appears you are saying that you do not believe in upholding the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    Fascinating. Since when did my disagreeing with what a certain belief system mean anything with respect to the 1st Amendment?

    Hopefully you have some factual basis upon which to suggest that somehow I’d be against a section of the Bill of Rights.

    -Phil

  • 524
    Phil
    February 1st, 2010 21:32

    Dennis,

    Attn.: Phil and jvn
    Phil said: “What I think will be absolutely fascinating is that if one of the numerous States who have decided to take up eligibility enforcement get pulled into Court by a “disenfranchised” candidate (I’m sure that’s what they’ll claim), then it will become an issue for the Judiciary to decide. “

    Phil,

    I fully agree. And I think that is the route which has a good probability ending up at SCOTUS. As I said SCOTUS usually feels that its duty to be a referee in cases where one state decides an issue differently than the other state.

    Please read by note a few minutes ago to jvn’s attention. I would like to know if you agree with my assessment.
    Thanks,
    Dennis

    In general, I agree, with few exceptions.

    -Phil

  • 525
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 21:50

    “Are there “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers” who frequent PJ? If so, how have their credentials been confirmed?”

    It is my understanding that you are a member of PJ. Therefore, to obtain first hand information, I suggest you ask them yourself.:)

  • 526
    brygenon
    February 1st, 2010 21:51

    Linda says:

    The 1965 immigration act was all about quotas for racial equality’s sake. It’s nothing more than simple accounting. A debt is charged to the account in which it pertains to therefore, children born to aliens on US soil was charged back to the country of the parents/father and to gain citizenship, the parents had to naturalize and once naturalized, that total number was charged against the total number of naturalized immigrants from that country that were allowed by law.

    No Linda, there’s nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 saying that to be citizens children born to aliens on US soil need to be naturalized, nor that their numbers are charged against any immigration quota.
    http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/79%20stat%20911.pdf

    Linda, previously it seemed that you were misreading the clause about aliens who were born in the U.S. There do exist aliens who were born in the U.S., such as children of foreign diplomats, and former citizens who relinquished their citizenship. That clause makes no reference to the parents, so that doesn’t seem to be the source of your current claim.

    Is your claim just an outright fabrication, or what?

  • 527
    tancy
    February 1st, 2010 21:55

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:39 pm
    “One supporting document must be provided that shows the change that you are requesting.”

    Go back and carefully read what you posted. One supporting document from the list must be provided. Not all the documents in that list. Just One. If the one you have that supports the changes is naturalization papers you may use that one. And that’s to amend a birth record, not to register a birth. No citizenship requirement to amend a birth record either though.

  • 528
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 22:08

    Are you that unsure of how SCOTUS rulings work? Once the court rules, no law needs to be written. For instance Roe v. Wade
    _____________________________________________________________

    The SCOTUS ruling did not make the law, Roe v Wade struck down certain state laws already in place that were completely constitutional as the issue is a state one, not a federal one.

    That is why this is such a hot topic. It is another case a Federal entity usurping their power to override state power. Last year SD came close to striking down Roe in a state ballot initiative & we are looking forward to another big battle this year. With the rise of conservatism & getting back to our founding, I am sure the country will once again be watching our state very closely this year come Nov.

    Therefore, other laws may have been adopted after Roe v Wade, but the Scotus ruling did not make it law as it was already deemed legal in many states under certain circumstances such as rape.

    So, with that said, WKA decided one way, but there is SCOTUS ruling after WKA which states otherwise and that is why US & state laws continued to cite that children born to aliens not naturalized, were themselves aliens.

  • 529
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 22:14

    byr,

    Please don’t patronize me. I know what a contract is, I have written plenty of them over the past 30 years.

    Instead, why don’t you study the history of legislation/law and go back to its roots to discover where the term ‘law’ was derived from.

    BTW, if they are not contracts, then they are not binding and thus we do not have to adhere to them. Any SCOTUS justice will tell you that.

  • 530
    Linda
    February 1st, 2010 22:25

    bry: No Linda, there’s nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 saying that to be citizens children born to aliens on US soil need to be naturalized, nor that their numbers are charged against any immigration quota.

    http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/79%20stat%20911.pdf

    I posted the part of the act wherein it described the citizenship status of children born to aliens on US soil. They were deemed citizens of the foreign country of the parents.

    Do you not understand the use of the term ‘chargeback’? Like you don’t understand the root meaning of the word ‘law’.

  • 531
    brygenon
    February 1st, 2010 22:37

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote:],

    Phil, it would be helpful if you would provide links so we could tell who the “they” are.

    “They” = “opposition,” as I clearly pointed out in the above quote you pulled; as in, “You see, the opposition does continue to move goalposts.”

    So that’s zero citations of anyone actually saying what you claimed your opposition said.

    My goal, from the beginning, is to get to the truth, in spite of rhetorical encumbrances that … “they” put up.

    While my attempt to get to the truth behind what you claimed stands thwarted.

  • 532
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 22:38

    http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1152.html
    “For the purposes of this chapter”

    Does the above very limiting language that precedes (b)(3) have significance? Does statutory law amend the Constitution; specifically the 14th Amendment?

  • 533
    brygenon
    February 1st, 2010 23:18

    Linda says:

    bry: [wrote]

    No Linda, there’s nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 saying that to be citizens children born to aliens on US soil need to be naturalized, nor that their numbers are charged against any immigration quota.

    http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/79%20stat%20911.pdf

    I posted the part of the act wherein it described the citizenship status of children born to aliens on US soil. They were deemed citizens of the foreign country of the parents.

    No Linda, there is no part of the act that says what you claim, and you provide no such citation. When you first made the claim it looked like a misreading, a mistake, but when you repeat the false claim in the face of documented correction, it is something else.

    Do you not understand the use of the term ‘chargeback’? Like you don’t understand the root meaning of the word ‘law’.

    I find “charge”, “charged”, and “chargeable” in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, but please cite “the use of the term ‘chargeback’” to which you refer.

  • 534
    Sue
    February 1st, 2010 23:25

    Linda,

    “I posted the part of the act wherein it described the citizenship status of children born to aliens on US soil. They were deemed citizens of the foreign country of the parents.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/citizen.children/index.html
    Study: 4 million ‘illegal’ immigrant children are native-born citizens
    By Wayne Drash
    CNN

    “(CNN) — Julie Quiroz, a 14-year-old U.S. citizen, has been separated from her mother for nearly two years. Her mom was deported to Mexico for being in the United States illegally.

    At the age of 12, Julie was forced to decide between her country and her family. With the help of a Christian philanthropist, she chose to stay in the United States.

    “It’s really, really hard to leave your family,” she told CNN by phone.

    A study issued Tuesday provides one of the most comprehensive looks at “citizen children” like Julie who are caught in the cross hairs of the nation’s illegal immigration battle.”

  • 535
    slcraig
    February 1st, 2010 23:56

    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 11:25 pm
    Linda,

    “I posted the part of the act wherein it described the citizenship status of children born to aliens on US soil. They were deemed citizens of the foreign country of the parents.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/citizen.children/index.html
    Study: 4 million ‘illegal’ immigrant children are native-born citizens
    By Wayne Drash
    CNN

    “(CNN) — Julie Quiroz, a 14-year-old U.S. citizen, has been separated from her mother for nearly two years. Her mom was deported to Mexico for being in the United States illegally.

    At the age of 12, Julie was forced to decide between her country and her family. With the help of a Christian philanthropist, she chose to stay in the United States.

    “It’s really, really hard to leave your family,” she told CNN by phone.

    A study issued Tuesday provides one of the most comprehensive looks at “citizen children” like Julie who are caught in the cross hairs of the nation’s illegal immigration battle.”

    Well, since you bring up this heart wrenching stories of the children of CRIMINALS who invade a generous country, let me ask if you consider these parents as being ‘within the jurisdiction in the Constitutional meaning’ when their children are born while they are still evading the LAW?

    ““ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is 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…. . . ”

    - John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

  • 536
    qwertyman
    February 2nd, 2010 00:13

    Would you be so kind as to reconcile that position with the A1S1C5 as it existing on the day of Ratification of the Constitution penned, as it was, by men and citizens of the day and as it remains in tack, having NEVER been Amended?

    You ask this question over and over and over again, when the natural born citizen clause was amended. This is based on assumption that it meant one particular thing on the day it was signed. You have not proven that, as there is plenty of contemporary support to suggest that anybody born on US soil regardless of parentage was a natural born citizen from birth. Wong explicitly states this. This is not an attempt to amend the Constitution. You have failed to prove your claim that the natural born citizenship clause meant what you believe it does at any point in American history.

    There is not a single current judge, member of Congress, law professor or constitutional scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause.

  • 537
    qwertyman
    February 2nd, 2010 00:17

    Jindal falls under the 1965 immigration Act and therefore according to law, his citizenship is charged to that of his parents not the US.

    So you are claiming that Bobby Jindal is not a US citizen?

    Are you claiming that the dozen people off the top of my head who have been voting for over a decade and possess US passports have been committing serious violations of state and federal laws?

  • 538
    bystander
    February 2nd, 2010 02:43

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    bystander,

    According to SCOTUS in WKA, residing temporily in the US for work & having permanent life long residence in the US are 2 very different things. Grey was clear that the US did not confer citizenship onto children born to foreigners temporarily residing in the US. WKA’s parents were permanent residents & WKA never resided anywhere but the US and that is where you & your politjab cohorts fail to make your case.

    Where WKA went wrong was usurping the law that allowed for a legal foreign national to become a US citizeen upon coming of age. But because of the Chinese exclusion Act, WKA did not qualify so Grey tried to skirt the law & got busted on it by the Chief Justice in the dissenting opinion wherein he called out Grey for neglecting to adhere to the 1866 Act in which Grey defended so eloquently in the Elk case.

    …..wrong again. Any child born in the US is a US citizen, except a child of diplomats or invading army, and has been for over 100 years.

  • 539
    bystander
    February 2nd, 2010 02:49

    So … 5:49 PST would be in Britain… about 2 am… then Bysta posts well into the PST evening which would be… dawn in Britain -

    Now we sure have a heroic Obamaton here – Bysta, hope you’ll get a promotion for your dedication to the cause –

    Beam me up Scotty, again one of those MoveOn.Org types -

    Regards -

    …. wrong again. The time of posts is set to Eastern Standard – this post will come up as 2.47, it is currently 7.47 in the UK. So my post you refer to above would be 10.49pm UK time. I await you apology for accusing me of lying.

  • 540
    bystander
    February 2nd, 2010 02:53

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    The 1965 immigration act was all about quotas for racial equality’s sake. It’s nothing more than simple accounting. A debt is charged to the account in which it pertains to therefore, children born to aliens on US soil was charged back to the country of the parents/father and to gain citizenship, the parents had to naturalize and once naturalized, that total number was charged against the total number of naturalized immigrants from that country that were allowed by law.

    Yes, it merely is all common sense, accounting and contract law.

    … this is so mind numbingly stupid I hardly know where to start. You say you have dealt in contracts for 30 years – so you will surely know that a prerequisite for a contract to exist is CONSIDERATION (that’s payment for you Linda). So please tell me where contract law applies citizenship, and what the contract is?

  • 541
    bystander
    February 2nd, 2010 02:59

    So, with that said, WKA decided one way, but there is SCOTUS ruling after WKA which states otherwise and that is why US & state laws continued to cite that children born to aliens not naturalized, were themselves aliens.

    … please cite the South Dakota state law that deals with this. Because as you know, the official from SD has explicitly said this is not true, and Bry and I have searched all the SD statutes and failed to find it. As you also know, I showed you the statute that dealt with birth certificates, and there was no mention whatsoever of the parents’ citizenship. You are blatantly making stuff up. Here it is again Linda:

    http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=34-25-8

  • 542
    brygenon
    February 2nd, 2010 03:32

    qwertyman wrote:

    [Linda had written:]

    Jindal falls under the 1965 immigration Act and therefore according to law, his citizenship is charged to that of his parents not the US.

    So you are claiming that Bobby Jindal is not a US citizen?

    Good point, but they won’t get it. No one seriously expects their seething, blinding hatred of our first African-American President to be tempered by the prospect of an Indian-American President.

  • 543
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 08:05

    qwertyman says:
    February 2, 2010 at 12:13 am
    Would you be so kind as to reconcile that position with the A1S1C5 as it existing on the day of Ratification of the Constitution penned, as it was, by men and citizens of the day and as it remains in tack, having NEVER been Amended?

    You ask this question over and over and over again, when the natural born citizen clause was amended. This is based on assumption that it meant one particular thing on the day it was signed. You have not proven that, as there is plenty of contemporary support to suggest that anybody born on US soil regardless of parentage was a natural born citizen from birth. Wong explicitly states this. This is not an attempt to amend the Constitution. You have failed to prove your claim that the natural born citizenship clause meant what you believe it does at any point in American history.

    There is not a single current judge, member of Congress, law professor or constitutional scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause.

    OK, ‘Reconcile’ my be the wrong word for you, and I suppose I should not expect you to make any attempt to ‘UNDERSTAND’ that the construction of ‘citizenship’ as you would have it was/is not possible under the construction of the Constitution.

    But, when you can show me the ‘words or the words that require’ the Amendment of A2S1C5 I would be able to UNDERSTAND and RECONCILE what it is you see in your construction of citizenship.

    But all you have offered is that the A2S1C5 ‘has been usurped’ by a Public Policy that is not anywhere in the FEDERAL REGISTER, that I can find, and if this PUBLIC POLICY is somehow in the FEDERAL REGISTER hidden from the PUBLIC VIEW it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL without an Amendment expressly made with words to do so.

    “A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

  • 544
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 08:26

    qwertyman says:
    February 2, 2010 at 12:13 am
    Would you be so kind as to reconcile that position with the A1S1C5 as it existing on the day of Ratification of the Constitution penned, as it was, by men and citizens of the day and as it remains in tack, having NEVER been Amended?

    You ask this question over and over and over again, when the natural born citizen clause was amended. This is based on assumption that it meant one particular thing on the day it was signed. You have not proven that, as there is plenty of contemporary support to suggest that anybody born on US soil regardless of parentage was a natural born citizen from birth. Wong explicitly states this. This is not an attempt to amend the Constitution. You have failed to prove your claim that the natural born citizenship clause meant what you believe it does at any point in American history.

    There is not a single current judge, member of Congress, law professor or constitutional scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause.

    Being born blind in sight or mind is no crime or sin, not too, when by act of unfortunate circumstance in God’s nature, but when by choice, not to see the truth, the glory and the wondrous possibilities of life seen with clear sight that makes way for pure heart, what is and what could be, then, it is more than crime and sin, it is a waste of space.

  • 545
    Black Lion
    February 2nd, 2010 08:33

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 10:08 pm
    Are you that unsure of how SCOTUS rulings work? Once the court rules, no law needs to be written. For instance Roe v. Wade
    _____________________________________________________________

    The SCOTUS ruling did not make the law, Roe v Wade struck down certain state laws already in place that were completely constitutional as the issue is a state one, not a federal one.

    That is why this is such a hot topic. It is another case a Federal entity usurping their power to override state power. Last year SD came close to striking down Roe in a state ballot initiative & we are looking forward to another big battle this year. With the rise of conservatism & getting back to our founding, I am sure the country will once again be watching our state very closely this year come Nov.

    Therefore, other laws may have been adopted after Roe v Wade, but the Scotus ruling did not make it law as it was already deemed legal in many states under certain circumstances such as rape.

    So, with that said, WKA decided one way, but there is SCOTUS ruling after WKA which states otherwise and that is why US & state laws continued to cite that children born to aliens not naturalized, were themselves aliens.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Not quite Linda. Roe made abortion legal, so any laws currently on the books prohibiting abortion became illegal. However no states were required to write laws to make abortion legal because of the SCOTUS ruling made that moot. So if a state did not have a law which prohibited the practice, they would not be required to write a law to accept the practive. And in the contrary if a state attempted to write a law which contradicted Roe, it would be litigated and eventually struck down.

    So in regards to WKA ( which was a 6-2 decision in favor of Wong), no state needed to address citizenship laws because that was a federal issue. And all immigration laws are for immigrants, not natural born US citizens who are born in the US. That is address by the Constitution. All WKA did is clarify for everyone that the meaning on natural born citizen in the Constitution meant anyone born in the US regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. Period. So no law was needed.

    So now that you have become familar with how SCOTUS rulings affect the law, you again bring up the ruling in Perkins v. Elg under the misguided attempt to confuse people into thinking that it somehow helps your position. It doesn’t. Remember the Court had no problem with determining that Elg was natural born, since she would satisfy both the so called Vattel and Blackstone Common Law definitions of NBC. If the court had not determined that, the ruling would have been meaningless.

    And if you recall in the decision the Court used the terms natural born citizen and citizen at birth of the United States as synonyms. The SCOTUS was just acknowledging what the lower court had stated, which was that Ms. Elg met the definition of natural born as per the ruling in WKA. Remember WKA determined that the definition of NBC only required that someone was born in the US, the citizenship status of the parents did not matter. So Wong still applied. In your misguided attempt to think that the Elg ruling supports your claim, you neglected to understand the ruling.

    From the actual ruling…

    “We think the decision of the lower court is in all respects correct.

    The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration 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 the Constitution has recognised 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. The Roman rule is different and is in effect in many of the continental European countries. This is called the jus sanguinis and depends upon the nationality of the parents and not upon the place of birth. Professor Bluntschild, in speaking of the latter doctrine, said:
    “The bond of the family lies at the foundation of national and political life, and attaches the child to the people among whom he is born. The opinion that fixes upon the locality of nativity, instead of the personal tie of the family, as the cause of nationality, abases the person to be a dependence of the soil.”[2]

    But this was not the common law.[3] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890. When the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.” Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1938), modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

  • 546
    Sue
    February 2nd, 2010 08:36

    “Well, since you bring up this heart wrenching stories of the children of CRIMINALS who invade a generous country, let me ask if you consider these parents as being ‘within the jurisdiction in the Constitutional meaning’ when their children are born while they are still evading the LAW?”

    The parents have nothing to do with the child’s citizenship as she was born in US and is a citizen at birth, birthright citizen, native born citizen, natural born citizen.

  • 547
    Black Lion
    February 2nd, 2010 08:43

    slcraig says:
    February 1, 2010 at 9:14 pm
    Black Lion says:
    February 1, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    (snip)

    There are no courts, no law review articles, no serious legal scholars saying that the Hawaiian-born son of a Kenyan student is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Just cranks.

    In that you make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that this is YOUR position relying on the works of others and that you, in your own considerations on the subject, have chosen to accept, protect and defend,….Would you be so kind as to reconcile that position with the A1S1C5 as it existing on the day of Ratification of the Constitution penned, as it was, by men and citizens of the day and as it remains in tack, having NEVER been Amended?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Steve, it has not been amended. Q and Bry have been trying to tell you that. That is because there was and is no amendment needed. All the SCOTUS did in the WKA ruling is CLARIFY the intent of the founders in regards to the definition of natural born citizen. So no amendment was needed. And I don’t need to rely on the works of others. My own reading of the ruling and relevant judical opinions has led me and a majority of legal and constitutional legal scholars to determine the same thing. Whether you want to believe it or not the Court, led by the esteemed Justice Gray, determined that natural born citizen was defined as anyone born in the United States with the exception the children of diplomats and foreign armies, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.

  • 548
    sharon2
    February 2nd, 2010 08:44

    So you are claiming that Bobby Jindal is not a US citizen?

    Good point, but they won’t get it. No one seriously expects their seething, blinding hatred of our first African-American President to be tempered by the prospect of an Indian-American President.
    (the a**wipe from 3:32 a.m.)

    Sharon 2 says:
    March 6, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    “SCOTUS routinely denies applications and cert. petitions without an opinion.”

    I know that, Bob. That is part of my point. The eligibility issue is of such importance that some service members have taken risks with their reputations and careers. A state is trying to legislate eligibility requirements. This is not a routine issue. Yes, there are those on the fringe whom I wish would either reign in their comments or “stifle.” I don’t think you are being fair if you think that every person who has commented on this issue is on the fringe. You seem to be fighting so hard against an issue that an attorney should find fascinating. I was a tepid McCain supporter (I voted for him but not enthusiastically). Should he have won and should eligibility have been resolved against him, then I would have been behind that decision. I would like to see Jindal as President but if the natural born citizen issue should be resolved against him, then I would not support him either.

    __________________
    The 3:32 a.m.statement is the kind of goading to which Phil refers. You pollute this site. YOU are the one who doesn’t get it. YOU are trying to tear apart this country through racial divide.

    I won’t get caught up with exposing this disgusting tactic at the expense of my family. Coming back after being gone a couple of days opened my eyes again.

    The opposition has failed badly once again.

  • 549
    Black Lion
    February 2nd, 2010 08:51

    slcraig says:
    February 1, 2010 at 11:56 pm
    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 11:25 pm
    Linda,

    “I posted the part of the act wherein it described the citizenship status of children born to aliens on US soil. They were deemed citizens of the foreign country of the parents.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/citizen.children/index.html
    Study: 4 million ‘illegal’ immigrant children are native-born citizens
    By Wayne Drash
    CNN

    “(CNN) — Julie Quiroz, a 14-year-old U.S. citizen, has been separated from her mother for nearly two years. Her mom was deported to Mexico for being in the United States illegally.

    At the age of 12, Julie was forced to decide between her country and her family. With the help of a Christian philanthropist, she chose to stay in the United States.

    “It’s really, really hard to leave your family,” she told CNN by phone.

    A study issued Tuesday provides one of the most comprehensive looks at “citizen children” like Julie who are caught in the cross hairs of the nation’s illegal immigration battle.”

    Well, since you bring up this heart wrenching stories of the children of CRIMINALS who invade a generous country, let me ask if you consider these parents as being ‘within the jurisdiction in the Constitutional meaning’ when their children are born while they are still evading the LAW?

    ““ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is 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…. . . ”

    - John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
    ____________________________________________________________________
    The following paragraph sums up your response Steve….

    “It is clear that the [birthers] have little or no authority to support their two-parent theory. Their primary argument appears to be that the meaning of “natural born citizen” can be traced to the writings of Switzerland’s Emmerich de Vattel. However, they apparently cannot support this claim with any early American authority at all. Their other arguments appear to consist of cherry-picking insubstantial authority such as the opinion of one Congressman 79 years after the federal convention, trying to re-interpret the 14th amendment based on cherry-picking a few snippets of favorable legislative history from the 39th Congress and trying to read support for their theory into court cases that, honestly read, do not support their theory.”

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

    And the snippet “consist of cherry-picking insubstantial authority such as the opinion of one Congressman 79 years after the federal convention” is directly releated when you and Linda attempt to cite Bingham to support your obselete theory…Again citing one guy or case before the Wong ruling is useless. No matter what you attempt to say or do Wong is the correct ruling and all citizenship cases reference that ruling in order to make a decision.

  • 550
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 10:18

    Black Lion says:
    February 2, 2010 at 8:51 am
    slcraig says:
    February 1, 2010 at 11:56 pm
    Sue says:
    February 1, 2010 at 11:25 pm
    Linda,

    “I posted the part of the act wherein it described the citizenship status of children born to aliens on US soil. They were deemed citizens of the foreign country of the parents.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/14/citizen.children/index.html
    Study: 4 million ‘illegal’ immigrant children are native-born citizens
    By Wayne Drash
    CNN

    “(CNN) — Julie Quiroz, a 14-year-old U.S. citizen, has been separated from her mother for nearly two years. Her mom was deported to Mexico for being in the United States illegally.

    At the age of 12, Julie was forced to decide between her country and her family. With the help of a Christian philanthropist, she chose to stay in the United States.

    “It’s really, really hard to leave your family,” she told CNN by phone.

    A study issued Tuesday provides one of the most comprehensive looks at “citizen children” like Julie who are caught in the cross hairs of the nation’s illegal immigration battle.”

    Well, since you bring up this heart wrenching stories of the children of CRIMINALS who invade a generous country, let me ask if you consider these parents as being ‘within the jurisdiction in the Constitutional meaning’ when their children are born while they are still evading the LAW?

    ““ [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is 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…. . . ”

    - John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
    ____________________________________________________________________
    The following paragraph sums up your response Steve….

    “It is clear that the [birthers] have little or no authority to support their two-parent theory. Their primary argument appears to be that the meaning of “natural born citizen” can be traced to the writings of Switzerland’s Emmerich de Vattel. However, they apparently cannot support this claim with any early American authority at all. Their other arguments appear to consist of cherry-picking insubstantial authority such as the opinion of one Congressman 79 years after the federal convention, trying to re-interpret the 14th amendment based on cherry-picking a few snippets of favorable legislative history from the 39th Congress and trying to read support for their theory into court cases that, honestly read, do not support their theory.”

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/

    And the snippet “consist of cherry-picking insubstantial authority such as the opinion of one Congressman 79 years after the federal convention” is directly releated when you and Linda attempt to cite Bingham to support your obselete theory…Again citing one guy or case before the Wong ruling is useless. No matter what you attempt to say or do Wong is the correct ruling and all citizenship cases reference that ruling in order to make a decision.


    You hang in there, whatever your motive, being wrong and ignorant of history and the lessons it teaches is not a shame that instruction can not cure.

    Just as with the nature of natural born citizen which I support, defend and protect, let us allow TIME to be the arbiter.

  • 551
    jvn
    February 2nd, 2010 10:34

    Steve -

    You insist that the NBC clause intended to set up two separate classes of American born citizens, only one of which could aspire to the Presidency.

    This was not based on de Vattel, since he wrote only of citizenship in a country, and did not speak of a political class superior to the “simply born” citizen.

    Certainly this was not based in English common law which was in effect in the US up to the time of the signing of the Constitution.

    Doesn’t it seem likely that the Founders would have made some special notes somewhere if they were establishing the citizenship of the United States in a way that had never been seen before in history?

    And yet, all you have is a letter from John Jay to George Washington suggesting a requirement that is just as easily met if we understand “natural born” to be the same as “native born” which was, in fact, what was in effect in the US through English common law.

    Can you show us that it was the Founder’s intent to create a separate class of citizen at birth, a “super native born citizen” if you will, that alone could seek the Presidency?

  • 552
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 11:08

    Linda: Thanks. I may be mistaken but I thought that months ago bystander said that she herself is a dual citizen.

  • 553
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 11:20

    brygenon: Did not. Are those photographs the “vital records” to which Fukino referred? Hardly.

  • 554
    misanthropicus
    February 2nd, 2010 11:22

    RE Bystander:

    Bellow is your post as it appears on my screen (again my time is PST) – please remark the time of “2:49 am”

    “bystander says:
    February 2, 2010 at 2:49 am
    So … 5:49 PST would be in Britain… about 2 am… then Bysta posts well into the PST evening which would be… dawn in Britain -

    Now we sure have a heroic Obamaton here – Bysta, hope you’ll get a promotion for your dedication to the cause –

    Beam me up Scotty, again one of those MoveOn.Org types -

    Regards -

    …. wrong again. The time of posts is set to Eastern Standard – this post will come up as 2.47, it is currently 7.47 in the UK. So my post you refer to above would be 10.49pm UK time. I await you apology for accusing me of lying.”

    ——

    Bystander, I wish I could post a screenshot of your entry which would confirm my (and not only mine) suspicions that you are broadcasting from somewhere in the USA, and not from Briatain – in case Phil would be willing to go throught the troubles and allow for an attachment –
    ’till then, in this Elie Light story sidebar, you don’t appear that nice -

    Regards – and posted at 8:19 PST

  • 555
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 11:32

    JVN,

    212. Citizens and natives.

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    How many times must this be posted. It is pretty clear to anyone who can read. Vattel was a very strong influence at the time the Constitution was written. References to his work are everywhere during this time period. And the fact that the framers used his exact language is also very telling.

  • 556
    theOriginalist
    February 2nd, 2010 11:35

    Black Lion says:
    February 2, 2010 at 8:51 am

    “It is clear that the [birthers] have little or no authority to support their two-parent theory. Their primary argument appears to be that the meaning of “natural born citizen” can be traced to the writings of Switzerland’s Emmerich de Vattel. However, they apparently cannot support this claim with any early American authority at all.

    This is why you are never going to understand the meaning of the Constitution as intended by the framers. This represents Progressive thought and the founders were Enlightenment thinkers. Progressive thinking is based on blind faith in the opinions of recognized authorities. Enlightenment thinkers rejected reliance on rote authority and instead depended on the authority of truth derived from the application of reason upon the laws of nature. The Constitution is a product of the Enlightenment and cannot be understood outside of that context.

  • 557
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 11:35

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57

    I have asked Black Lion if he read these territorial laws. I have seen no response yet, but I may have missed it.

    In any case, what can one make of the contention that the laws in effect prior to 1982 gave even greater latitude, with regard to registering foreign-born children and/or obtaining a Hawaiian birth certificate based only upon testimony?

  • 558
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 11:55

    theOriginalist

    This is why you are never going to understand the meaning of the Constitution as intended by the framers. This represents Progressive thought and the founders were Enlightenment thinkers. Progressive thinking is based on blind faith in the opinions of recognized authorities. Enlightenment thinkers rejected reliance on rote authority and instead depended on the authority of truth derived from the application of reason upon the laws of nature. The Constitution is a product of the Enlightenment and cannot be understood outside of that context.

    Is that really all you have? The founders references to Vattel are numerous. I only had to do a little sleuthing to find them. So to try and argue that Vattel had no influence on the Framers is ridiculous.

  • 559
    qwertyman
    February 2nd, 2010 12:20

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57

    I have asked Black Lion if he read these territorial laws. I have seen no response yet, but I may have missed it.

    In any case, what can one make of the contention that the laws in effect prior to 1982 gave even greater latitude, with regard to registering foreign-born children and/or obtaining a Hawaiian birth certificate based only upon testimony?

    A couple of points:

    Several states I searched on a cursory search will use affidavit from midwives or registrars to be sufficient for a birth certificate. HI’s law is really not that unusual. And to claim that a person born in a foreign country was born in HI constituted a crime in the very statute quoted.

    Also, the law in no way shows anything. What that entire thing seems to boil down to is that it’s theoretically possible that somebody could break the law and claim that a person was born in HI who wasn’t.

    How does that prove or suggest in any way whatsoever that that’s what actually happened?

  • 560
    tancy
    February 2nd, 2010 12:29

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 10:08 pm
    “So, with that said, WKA decided one way, but there is SCOTUS ruling after WKA which states otherwise and that is why US & state laws continued to cite that children born to aliens not naturalized, were themselves aliens.”

    That’s completely untrue. You have repeatedly tried to misrepresent the citizenship laws of the United States. The 14th amendment and USC 8 1401 both say that anyone born in this country is a United States citizen from birth, without regard for the status of his parents. Over the past weeks on this blog you have repeated again and again the pattern of stating something completely false,insisting vigorously it is completely true,and supported by statute and case precedent. When challenged to cite the statute or precedent that supports you, you just drop it and move on to a new falsehood. When it is pointed out you are wrong, with the proof to back it up, you ignore it as if it never happened. It is a very odd pattern of behavior, like you think just putting something out there, true or false, it becomes true.

    In addition, you clearly do not understand the difference between and immigrant and an alien.

  • 561
    brygenon
    February 2nd, 2010 13:03

    AnotherReader says:

    Vattel was a very strong influence at the time the Constitution was written. References to his work are everywhere during this time period. And the fact that the framers used his exact language is also very telling.

    That’s not Vattel’s exact language. Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen”. He wrote in French.

  • 562
    brygenon
    February 2nd, 2010 13:16

    MGB says:

    brygenon: Did not. Are those photographs the “vital records” to which Fukino referred? Hardly.

    Try reading the article: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html The FactCheck reporters took the photographs. The Obama campaign provided the actual paper certificate that Hawaii issued. Of course the original records remain with the Hawaiian Department of Health.

    As Hawaii’s FAQ on the matter explains http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html , Fukino’s statements speak for themselves:

    “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

  • 563
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 13:30

    qwertyman: Are you Black Lion?

    The Hawaiian law seems not to require a midwife or registrar statement. Any person with knowledge of the so-called birth could apply for a BC.

    Anything’s possible when the person in question hides from public view ALL original documents. Show the “vital records” that Hawaii has on file. Let the people decide. In addition, show all the other personal documents that are hidden from view–college transcripts, student loan papers, etc.

    Why not be transparent, as promised?

    Full disclosure.

  • 564
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 13:37

    brygenon: You give me the opportunity to repeat myself. A comment that I wrote to bystander this morning:

    I have long known about that article at FactCheck BLOG–in fact, I saw it the same day that it was posted (in its original form, before they downsized the photos and removed the exif data).

    I did NOT say that no “journalists” have ever been named. I said and I repeat that not one person has EVER said on the record that the photographed COLB is a Hawaiian-issued and certified, unaltered, COLB. Not one NAMED person.

    The same is true for the digital image of something that purports to be a scan of a Hawaiian-issued and certified, unaltered, COLB.

    So now there’s a caption on the blog that contends that Miller is the person holding the “birth certificate,” which a COLB is not. In any case, where’s the statement by either Miller or Henig affirming on the record that they know for a fact that that document was issued and certified by the state of Hawaii and that it was unaltered when they photographed it?

    Let’s talk for a moment about the accuracy of captions. Look at the caption under the first photo that FactCheck offers, on the left side of the page. It says, “Birth certificate photo 1: Fold and seal (.jpg 1.35 mb)” Is this caption accurate? Hardly; the true size of that photo is 200kb. Download it yourself and see. The resolution was greatly decreased, after people began to analyze the photos. Why?

    Here’s what they say about that document: “We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.”

    So, you see, (like bystander) they talk about State Dept. requirements for citizenship. NOT Constitutional requirements for POTUS. In fact, any naturalized citizen could meet State Dept. requirements for proving citizenship, and still remain INELIGIBLE to be POTUS.

    They go on: “Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false.”

    So, you see, they say it has A raised seal and signature. But where do they affirm that they know for a fact that the seal and signature were placed upon that document BY the State of Hawaii DOH AND that the seal IS the seal used by the DOH? Nowhere. Why? Because if you examine this so-called raised seal, it is NOT the seal used by the Hawaiian DOH.

    They say, “we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it’s stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka.”

    Again, they say it’s a real paper. They say it bears A raised seal and a stamp reading “Alvin T. Onaka”. But they don’t say that they know for a FACT that the state of Hawaii placed that seal and signature on that piece of paper, although they do imply that Onaka stamped it himself, which of course is untrue because even IF the DOH stamped that paper, Onaka himself would not have done it. A clerk would have. But there’s no way for them to know that the DOH stamped it. While the DOH may have, there’s no way for FactCheck to know, unless they were there at the time.

    Nobody at the Hawaiian DOH has EVER stated that that paper was produced and certified by them. In fact, they said they cannot say what the so-called scan of a COLB represents. Since the embossed seal that FactCheck staffers saw and photographed on that piece of paper is NOT the seal of the state of Hawaii, then one must question whether that stamp is legitimate, too. One must also wonder why the photo of the stamp is isolated from the rest of the paper. Why not photograph the ENTIRE back side? What else might be on the back side that they don’t want us to see? Or perhaps the back side of the paper that they photographed from the front is blank.

    They say, “You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven’t been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.”

    False, they removed the exif data (which indicates details such as the date and time of the photos, even what sort of camera was used) and also reduced the size of the photos, greatly reducing the resolution and the ability of others to examine the photos in depth. Why?

    They say, “The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport.”

    So they set out to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to be POTUS, but all they end up with “proving” is that he has some document that purports to be sufficient to get a US passport. Again, any naturalized citizen, while eligible for a passport, is NOT eligible to be POTUS. So what did they prove and WHY did they focus on the misdirection of mere citizenship instead of natural born citizenship? Why? This, to my mind, is the most significant “tell” of the entire piece.

    They footnote the State Dept. requirements for a passport, but NOT the Constitution’s requirement for eligibility for the Oval Office. Why?

  • 565
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 13:43

    “in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    As has been demonstrated, state policies and procedures allowed for issuance of birth certificates to foreign-born children, to children born to persons who had resided in Hawaii at least a year, to children based upon an affidavit only. So this proves nothing.

    Perhaps that “original birth certificate” and the “vital records” (plural) might prove something. That is, if they were released.

    Full disclosure.

  • 566
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 13:46

    That’s not Vattel’s exact language. Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen”. He wrote in French.

    Now that’s really a stretch. LOL :-D

    This rates as one of the lamest responses yet. The English copy which I have already cited and posted numerous times does. There really isn’t anything you can show or cite to disprove the influence that Vattel had during that time frame.

  • 567
    qwertyman
    February 2nd, 2010 13:55

    qwertyman: Are you Black Lion?

    You asked an open question and I answered it.

    This is the second time that you’ve gotten upset that I’ve answered a question when you mention another poster’s name in the same post. You need to realize that on an open forum, when you ask a question, anybody is able to answer it.

    The Hawaiian law seems not to require a midwife or registrar statement. Any person with knowledge of the so-called birth could apply for a BC.

    Again, the possibility of something being true does nothing to increase the likelihood that something is true.

  • 568
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 14:26

    jvn says:
    February 2, 2010 at 10:34 am
    Steve -

    You insist that the NBC clause intended to set up two separate classes of American born citizens, only one of which could aspire to the Presidency.

    This was not based on de Vattel, since he wrote only of citizenship in a country, and did not speak of a political class superior to the “simply born” citizen.

    Certainly this was not based in English common law which was in effect in the US up to the time of the signing of the Constitution.

    Doesn’t it seem likely that the Founders would have made some special notes somewhere if they were establishing the citizenship of the United States in a way that had never been seen before in history?

    And yet, all you have is a letter from John Jay to George Washington suggesting a requirement that is just as easily met if we understand “natural born” to be the same as “native born” which was, in fact, what was in effect in the US through English common law.

    Can you show us that it was the Founder’s intent to create a separate class of citizen at birth, a “super native born citizen” if you will, that alone could seek the Presidency?

    You do have trouble with the construction of the Constitution because of your BLIND FAITH in your ‘protected one’; I understand and have empathy for you.

    There were ‘PLENTY’ of ‘native born non-citizens’ roaming around the various Colony/States and extended continental territories as the Founders Framed the Constitution. ‘Vagrants, vagabonds, indentured servants, those enslaved, indigenous Indians and those emigrants that have as yet declared intentions as well as those that had but had yet to complete the process of naturalization owing to TIME and establishment of ‘good character’.

    Be Blind to history, rewrite away, utopia awaits you and your fellow travelers.

    With the ratification only those that were ALREADY CITIZENS of the various Colony/States were made ‘citizens’ and rightfully deserve the Honorific of the Founding Citizens.

    They ANTICIPATED by the WORDS of the Constitution, two PATHS to citizenship, Naturalization and the Birth Right Prerogative of ALL civilized societies, the Natural Born Child of citizen parents.

    The Founding Fathers expressly, by their words, REJECTED the English Laws on Citizenship by the ACT of REFUSING to DEEM them-selves as Natural Born Citizens, as if so from birth, as the ENGLISH Laws on Citizenship would have it.

    But I understand your inability to see the PRUDENCE of such a measure in the Founding Document of a NEW FORM of Government, what with the Progressive Marxists having gained control at all levels of education in this Generous Country.

    I am curious how you would respond if I were to ask if you ‘feel’, ‘think’ or ‘believe’ that the ‘Marxist Theories of Political and Social Structure’ could be considered a FOREIGN INFLUENCE in Constitutional meanings and intent?

    And still you can not show me the words or the words that require A2S1C5 to be Amended….can you?

  • 569
    Black Lion
    February 2nd, 2010 14:28

    qwertyman says:
    February 2, 2010 at 12:20 pm
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57

    I have asked Black Lion if he read these territorial laws. I have seen no response yet, but I may have missed it.

    In any case, what can one make of the contention that the laws in effect prior to 1982 gave even greater latitude, with regard to registering foreign-born children and/or obtaining a Hawaiian birth certificate based only upon testimony?
    A couple of points:

    Several states I searched on a cursory search will use affidavit from midwives or registrars to be sufficient for a birth certificate. HI’s law is really not that unusual. And to claim that a person born in a foreign country was born in HI constituted a crime in the very statute quoted.

    Also, the law in no way shows anything. What that entire thing seems to boil down to is that it’s theoretically possible that somebody could break the law and claim that a person was born in HI who wasn’t.

    How does that prove or suggest in any way whatsoever that that’s what actually happened?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    To follow up on what Q has written yes I have reviewed the so called terriitorial laws relevant to the situation. And like anything else could be possible but the situation is just not probable. First of all the territorial law that is most relevant to this situation is the following…

    “The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.”

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html

    The operative phrase is register someone 1 year or older whose birth had not been previously registered. This is not the President’s situation since his birth was registered 4 days later…

    The other relevant statute regarding out of state births was the following, which was passed in 1982.

    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

    (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

    (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

    You can look up the laws yourself. The fact remains that you cannot reasonably infer that the President’s birth was not done in accordance to normal procedures, which involved birth in a hospital and the information being sent by the hospital to the department of vital records, which then sent the information to the newspapers. At home births at that time consisted of less that 1% of all births in Honolulu, so to think that the President’s was in that 1% is really reaching.

    The bottom line is that anything other than a hospital birth for the President in HI was not only improbable, but it was virtually impossible. That is unless you want to believe in the most ridiculous conspiracy theory since people thought the moon landing was faked….

    And the HI Website explains the whole COHB and COLB differences quite well…

    A “Certification of Live Birth” is a short form birth certificate. The information included in the document may differ from state to state. A “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii will include the name and sex of the person, date of birth, hour of birth, island of birth, county of birth, mother’s maiden name, mother’s race, father’s name, father’s race, date accepted by registrar, a certificate number and seal. The seal may be different depending on the year it was printed.

    A “Certificate of Live Birth,” is the long form birth certificate and contains more detailed information, including signatures of doctor(s), witnesses, vital statistics (length and weight), etc.
    According to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands:
    Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

    The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.

    So, a long form Certificate has additional information on it that that is useful for genealogical purposes, however both the certificate and the certification are certified government records providing prima facia proof of the information they contain.

  • 570
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 14:35

    Dr_taitz@yahoo.com

    Update on DC Quo Warranto -Summons were served on Obama, Holder, Phillips
    Posted on | February 2, 2010 |

    U.S. District Court
    District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-00151-RCL
    TAITZ v. OBAMA
    Assigned to: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
    Case: 1:09-mc-00346-RCL
    Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
    Date Filed: 01/27/2010
    Jury Demand: None
    Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
    Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
    Plaintiff
    ORLY TAITZ represented by ORLY TAITZ
    29839 Santa Margarita Parkway
    Suite 100
    Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
    (949) 683 – 5411
    Fax: (949) 766 – 7603
    PRO SE

    V.
    Defendant
    BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

    Date Filed # Docket Text
    01/27/2010 1 COMPLAINT against BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616027174) filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
    01/27/2010 SUMMONS (3) Issued as to BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
    01/27/2010 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by ORLY TAITZ. Case related to Case No. 09mc346. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
    01/27/2010 3 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaintby ORLY TAITZ. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
    01/27/2010 4 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA served on 1/27/2010, answer due 3/29/2010 (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
    01/27/2010 5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 1/27/10. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

    Memo on Quo Warranto
    Posted on | February 2, 2010 |

  • 571
    jvn
    February 2nd, 2010 14:38

    Steve -

    I appreciate your reply, but what I would REALLY like is an answer to the question:

    “Can you show us your evidence that the Founders intended to create two separate classes of native born American of which only one could seek the Presidency?”

    We are not talking about persons the Founders might not have considered as American citizens. We are talking about people who were American citizens at birth.

    This division of citizenship would have been unique in the history of Western Civilization, not outlined in either de Vattel or English common law. certainly there must be some documentation available for such a different and creative construction, no?

  • 572
    Black Lion
    February 2nd, 2010 14:47

    AnotherReader says:
    February 2, 2010 at 1:46 pm
    That’s not Vattel’s exact language. Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen”. He wrote in French.
    Now that’s really a stretch. LOL

    This rates as one of the lamest responses yet. The English copy which I have already cited and posted numerous times does. There really isn’t anything you can show or cite to disprove the influence that Vattel had during that time frame.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    AR, Vattel is relevant only if you can show that the founders would have accepted the Vattel definitions over the English Common law definitions of natural born citizenship. Secondly it doesn’t matter what the English copy of Vattel states because it was only written in French until after the Constitution was ratified.

    However if by chance the Founders did rely on the so called “Law of Nations”, why did most nations at the time not follow that book in regards to their own citizenship issues? It makes more sense that the founders did not rely on the “Law of Nations” in defining citizenship or natural-born citizenship, because, as has been made clear, there WAS none. Vattel says one thing, but Pufendorf, Grotius, Burlamaqui all say something different. What Vattel says was his own opinion, he was not relying on any nation because there was no uniformity in how nations practiced citizenship. See Story on Conflict of Laws, Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark on this complete lack of a “Law of Nations!”

    Secondly it doesn’t make a lot of sense that the Founder’s followed Vattel or thought that a NBC needed 2 parents because that was not the rule ANYWHERE. The Founders more likely had adopted the British rule, specifically natural born = born here, regardless of parental citizenship and jus sanguinis by statute.

    And finally most birthers ignore the parts of Wong that are fatal to their case. Wong specifically rejects the notion that the “Law of Nations” said anything about our citizenship. Wong finds there to be NO “Law of Nations” on the subject! It rejects any distinction between the phrase “natural born” when used with citizen and when used with subject. Wong also does not distinguish between a citizen born here of alien parents and a citizen born here of citizen parents. There is nothing in the case to suggest that the former would not be able to run for president.

    The bottom line is that Vattel’s book includes so many unconstitutional laws, it is absurd to think they would be incorporated into the Constitution at all, much less “enforced”. For instance try Chapter 9 where he declares the law making it okay for a country with a woman shortage to kidnap women from other countries. Or Chapter 12 where he outlines the law giving the head of the government authority over religion and those who teach it!

    Actually Blackstone references a “Law of Nations” which at the time meant international law but many of Vattel’s “laws” are now crimes. Most historians are aware that Vattel’s book, which was only subtitled “Law of Nations” was actually just an expanded version of Christian Wolff’s prior treatise, which was actually titled, “The Law of Nations”.

  • 573
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 14:56

    qwertyman: How is asking a simple question “getting upset?” I’m curious; that’s all.

    Your interpretation that I asked an “open question” is interesting. If you notice, both times I specifically asked Black Lion.

    I do realize this is an open forum. You don’t have to remind me and you don’t have to quibble.

    All I did was to ask if you’re Black Lion, since you answered a question directed TO Black Lion.

    To answer your contention: That it IS possible, is why it’s important to SEE and examine the actual historical documents, so that it can be determined once and for all whether or not he’s a natural born citizen as specified in the Constitution.

    I did not say that because it could be true, that makes it more likely to be true. But when a person goes to great lengths to hide information that most people think nothing of producing, one is left to wonder what there is to hide. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

    Nearly every person in this country must produce a birth certificate on a regular basis. Why is the POTUS different? Natural born citizenship, as he well knows, is a requirement spelled out in the Constitution, which he recently claimed to respect and honor. So why doesn’t he simply ask the DOH in Hawaii to bring forth these “vital records” that we know exist, because Fukino told us so?

    OPINIONS put forward by state officials, even if informed by consultation with a state attorney general (which has been denied), are not sufficient to meet federal requirements.

    We the People have a right to know whether or not this person is eligible to serve us as POTUS. Got that?

    To SERVE us. He needs to prove that he is eligible for the job. He promised transparency. So far, he’s not lived up to his promise (in more ways than one).

  • 574
    Black Lion
    February 2nd, 2010 14:59

    slcraig says:
    February 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm
    Dr_taitz@yahoo.com

    Update on DC Quo Warranto -Summons were served on Obama, Holder, Phillips
    Posted on | February 2, 2010 |

    U.S. District Court
    District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10-cv-00151-RCL
    TAITZ v. OBAMA
    Assigned to: Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth
    ____________________________________________________________________
    So Judge Lamberth will have another case to dismiss? Especially when we are dealing with someone like Orly, whose last case in front of the 11th district went something like the following…

    Orly Taitz
    Attorney at Law
    29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
    Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

    Appeal Number: 09-1469S.CC
    Case Style: Stefan Frederick Cook v. Wanda L. Good
    District Court Number: 09-00082 CV-CDL-4
    For rules and forms visit
    http://www.ca11.uSGourts.gov

    The enclosed documents you recently submitted to this office are being returned for the reason(s) state:

    A. Brief Deficiencies
    I. Certificate of Interested Persons must be included
    2. Statement Regarding Oral Argument must be included
    3. Summary of Argument (currently, it is combined with Argwnent,
    which is not allowed)
    4. Handwritten Signature is required on Conclusion and Certificate of Selvicc
    5. Pages are numbered incorrectly according to Table of Contents

    B. ReCOrd Excerpt Deficiencies – the following should be included
    I. Appeal Information on Cover (like information on cover of brief)
    2, Index
    3. Index Tabs
    4. Complaint
    5. Answer or Motion to Dismiss
    6. Certificate of Service

    C. Motion to Reinstate Deficiencies
    I. Motion must be separated from brief
    2. Handwritten Signature

    The above document is dated December 16, 2009.

    The appeal of Cook v. Good had been dismissed in late November:

    11/24/2009 Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R.42-2(c), this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to file brief and record excerpts within the time fixed by the rules.

    And the Order published on November 30:

    11/30/2009 17 USCA Order dismissing 11 [RECAP] Notice of Appeal filed by Stefan Frederick Cook. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Cover Letter – 11/24/09)(tls) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

    The bottom line is that this rehash of the same unsubstantiated garbarage, even with Strunk serving, will be getting dismissed. In an extraordinary writ proceeding (whether habeas corpus, writ of mandamus, quo warranto or anything else) — the first step is that the movant files a verified petition to the court, setting forth their claims.

    The court then reviews the petition to determine whether or not there is sufficient cause to proceed. If yes, the court issues the writ prayed for, which is essentially an order directed to the opposing side directing them to show cause why the relief prayed for in the writ should not be granted. If not, then the court summarily denies the writ. This case will just add to the losing record of Orly and the birther movement. One can only hope that sooner or later they get the message before the losses get over 100….

    Read it for yourself…

    http://files.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/news/2010/01/orly2.pdf

  • 575
    keith
    February 2nd, 2010 15:19

    for all you people who think it takes 1 parent and that child born on us soil to be a NBC then let me ask this

    if OBL,Hugo,Dinnerjacket,or any other non us citizen male gets a girl pregant and that child be born in ohio you mean to tell me that child could become president? where would that child loyality be?

  • 576
    Sue
    February 2nd, 2010 15:20

    slcraig,

    Pretty sure this is old news.:)

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3208&start=100#p106744
    realist wrote:
    Docket for Taitz v Obama (Judge Lamberth)

    01/27/2010 5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 1/27/10. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

    01/27/2010 4 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA served on 1/27/2010, answer due 3/29/2010 (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

    01/27/2010 3 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaintby ORLY TAITZ. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

    01/27/2010 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by ORLY TAITZ. Case related to Case No. 09mc346. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
    01/27/2010 SUMMONS (3) Issued as to BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

    01/27/2010 1 COMPLAINT against BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616027174) filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

  • 577
    qwertyman
    February 2nd, 2010 15:26

    qwertyman: How is asking a simple question “getting upset?” I’m curious; that’s all.

    Your interpretation that I asked an “open question” is interesting. If you notice, both times I specifically asked Black Lion.

    I do realize this is an open forum. You don’t have to remind me and you don’t have to quibble.

    All I did was to ask if you’re Black Lion, since you answered a question directed TO Black Lion.

    I’ll just note that you’re saying I shouldn’t quibble, taking four paragraphs to say that your question was meant for Black Lion only. I have nothing more to say, except that I will respond to posts here whenever and to whomever I want.

    To answer your contention: That it IS possible, is why it’s important to SEE and examine the actual historical documents, so that it can be determined once and for all whether or not he’s a natural born citizen as specified in the Constitution.

    It is also possible that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, and since it IS possible, that’s why it’s important to SEE and examine the actual historical documents, so that it can be determined once and for all whether or not Beck is a murderer who should be sent to prison.

    I did not say that because it could be true, that makes it more likely to be true.

    You’ve just said that because a person could have theoretically broken the law and engage in a massive conspiracy and cover up over 40 years ago, that documents need to be examined to see if that did happen. That’s not how litigation works. That’s not how privacy laws work, that’s not how justice in America works.

    But when a person goes to great lengths to hide information that most people think nothing of producing, one is left to wonder what there is to hide. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

    President Obama scanned his birth certificate and posted it on the internet. You would think nothing about putting your birth certificate on the internet for anybody to see? Obama has not gone to great lengths to hide anything either. The vast majority of birther cases have not involved Obama as a defendant, and the few that have have been dismissed following a single motion to dismiss, the quickest and easiest way to end any lawsuit.

    Nearly every person in this country must produce a birth certificate on a regular basis. Why is the POTUS different? Natural born citizenship, as he well knows, is a requirement spelled out in the Constitution, which he recently claimed to respect and honor. So why doesn’t he simply ask the DOH in Hawaii to bring forth these “vital records” that we know exist, because Fukino told us so?

    Who do you want President Obama to produce a birth certificate to? The electoral college and 50 secretaries of state all had no objection, nor did any members of Congress object either in writing or spoken, either before or after the certification of the electoral college vote.

    We the People have a right to know whether or not this person is eligible to serve us as POTUS. Got that?

    To SERVE us. He needs to prove that he is eligible for the job. He promised transparency. So far, he’s not lived up to his promise (in more ways than one).

    Prove to whom? Over 69 million people in November 2008 believed he was the best person for the job, and not a single member of Congress, judge, member of the electoral college or anybody outside of the extreme right who will believe absolutely anything negative about President Obama has felt that he has not proven his eligibility. Also, please remind me of when President Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, or any other president in American history “prove[d] that he is eligible for the job.” Please let me know of any other president in American history who released their birth certificate to the public.

    For all your bloviating and ranting, you have not come close to making an actual point. You have not come close to showing a single fact of scrap of evidence that makes you believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii. You have nothing except wild speculation and baseless conspiracy theories.

  • 578
    qwertyman
    February 2nd, 2010 15:36

    for all you people who think it takes 1 parent and that child born on us soil to be a NBC then let me ask this

    if OBL,Hugo,Dinnerjacket,or any other non us citizen male gets a girl pregant and that child be born in ohio you mean to tell me that child could become president? where would that child loyality be?

    Hugo Chavez, probably not, as he would be a representative of a foreign government. The other two, yes, so long as they were at least 35 and had spent at least 14 years as a US resident. It’s not a value judgment or an affirmation or an agreement with who they are or what they have done, it’s simply the law.

    I mean, I could play the same game with you and it would be just as crass: what if Hitler had a son who immigrated to the US and naturalized and he had a son born in Ohio of an American wife? Are you telling me that Hitler’s grandson could become president?

  • 579
    c.scott
    February 2nd, 2010 15:40

    tancy says:
    February 2, 2010 at 12:29 pm
    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 10:08 pm
    “So, with that said, WKA decided one way, but there is SCOTUS ruling after WKA which states otherwise and that is why US & state laws continued to cite that children born to aliens not naturalized, were themselves aliens.”

    “That’s completely untrue. You have repeatedly tried to misrepresent the citizenship laws of the United States. The 14th amendment and USC 8 1401 both say that anyone born in this country is a United States citizen from birth, without regard for the status of his parents”

    @ Tancy Please explain the following……

    [A woman born in the United States1 of foreign parents, regardless of whether either of her parents was naturalized, is a citizen, unless such parents were temporarily in the United States.A woman citizen of the United States who marries an alien thereby forfeits her citizenship, whether such alien is a resident of the United States or not.]

    http://books.google.com/books?id=rmI9AAAAYAAJ&dq=Charles%20Evans%20Hughes%2C%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen&pg=PA492#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Evans%20Hughes,%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen&f=false

    [is a citizen, unless such parents were temporarily in the United States]

    This was illinois law in 1916.

    Obviously after WKA and the 14th Ammendment.

  • 580
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 16:13

    Black Lion: I am talking about Chapter 57 of the Territorial Laws of Hawaii, which address vital statistics and birth records, these being the laws in effect prior to 1982. They are reproduced in that link. They do speak about COHBs, but the pertinent sections are prior to that section.

    These sections address birth certificates for unattended births. Since no hospital will admit that he was born there and since there have been conflicting reports about which hospital he was born in and since there are even conflicting reports about where his mother lived at the time of his birth, there is reason to suspect that he was not born in a hospital.

    See especially section 57-9, about preparing and FILING a (presumably pending) birth certificate, in anticipation of a “supplementary report,” to be filed within a specific timeframe, which will contain the rest of the information.

    Such a (pending) birth certificate could be FILED (not necessarily accepted) upon information from “any person having knowledge of the birth.”

    Notice also section 57-10, with regard to foundling children or children of unknown parentage. A person can assume custody of such a child and “the place where the child was found OR custody assumed SHALL be known as the place of birth.” Furthermore, the “foundling report shall constitute the certificate of birth.”

    Now, am I suggesting that he was a foundling? NO. What I’m saying is that there are enough loopholes in Hawaiian laws that one could have a birth certificate that states a person WAS born in Hawaii when that person was not born in Hawaii.

    Take note of section 57-15, with regard to evidentiary character of certificates. Do you see the terms that must be met in order for a certificate to BE “prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated?” The phrases about paternity are interesting, given that Obama admitted that he was not a legal heir–meaning he received no inheritance when his father died.

    See 57-20, with regard to the probative value of delayed or altered certificates–must be determined by the “JUDICIAL or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”

    And then, of course, there are the paragraphs about adoptions, new birth certificates being created with the original being sealed.

    Notice 57-1a, which defines public health statistics.

  • 581
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 16:28

    Black Lion,

    Thank you for a reasoned response. For me personally, I believe Vattel was a strong influence on the Founders based on my own research.

    Yes, I am aware of SCOTUS decisions that have been argued endlessly on this forum. And much like the current Administration’s questioning of the recent SCOTUS opinion regarding campaign finance, I would question any ruling that tries to explain away a different meaning of NBC as it is stated in Article II. That is my prerogative. Just as it is yours and others to believe otherwise. And further, until SCOTUS hears a case that addresses this specific phrase and how it relates to the Presidency then I will not be satisfied. Again, my prerogative as an American. I happen to believe that our Constitution should be strictly enforced as it was originally intended.

    None of this this implies or intends that I am ignorant, stupid, uneducated, bigoted, racist, afraid, or any of the other pejoratives that a number of posters on this board love to throw at people who simply disagree with their position. ( I am not accusing you of calling me any of these) But it is very common with certain posters. In fact they can not post a message without doing so.

    That is one of the things that I personally find so fascinating about these blogs. We spend a lot of time talking about tolerance and yet the folks who are constantly preaching it have no idea what it means. They find it necessary to spend innumerable hours on this blog simply trying to tamp down an opinion that disagrees from their own. The reasons why are certainly questionable. It’s just like all the flak over the Tebow Super Bowl commercial recently. People who call themselves “Pro Choice” are up in arms about an ad that simply recounts the “Choice” that one mother made. And yet there is something wrong with that. I don’t really see the same tolerance that they themselves demanded of others for their point of view. Yes, the commercial celebrates the life choice one mother made. So let the people see it and decide for themselves. That would truly be “Pro Choice” and tolerant for that matter.

    So what if there are people who question Obama’s eligibility? Who is it hurting? Why not let our highly touted system work? If as many posters point out, there is nothing to it, why spend all the time here fighting it? I have watched this blog since it’s inception and I don’t really see anyone changing sides.

    So quote all the decisions, etc. that you like. Knock yourself out. I personally believe that it is a question that is yet unanswered. You may think that it has been, and if so, why not spend your time working on your own unanswered questions? It would seem to me time better spent than on this blog attempting to change other peoples opinion on something that you believe is settled business. If the facts are truly in your favor, nothing written on this blog can harm you or Obama.

    I personally believe that there is something to it, if for no other reason than so many people feel compelled to spend their time fighting it on this and other blogs.

  • 582
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 16:32

    qwertyman: you’re the one “bloviating and ranting.”

    If I don’t make pertinent points, then why do you waste your time answering questions that I address to others?

    You said, “President Obama scanned his birth certificate and posted it on the internet.”

    Did he now? HE scanned it? HE posted it? Where did he ever state that? Has he himself EVER acknowledged that image to be a scan of his “birth certificate?”

    It’s not a SCAN of a document, no matter what you say.

    You are using bystander’s talking points today and oddly enough bystander is AWOL. bystander was around all day yesterday, and you weren’t. Interesting.

  • 583
    keith
    February 2nd, 2010 16:33

    qwertyman: if hitler son became a us citizen and the american female is a us citizen then that child would be a NBC but if the father was NEVER a us citizen then that child would not be a NBC.

  • 584
    theOriginalist
    February 2nd, 2010 16:35

    AnotherReader says:
    February 2, 2010 at 11:55 am

    Is that really all you have? The founders references to Vattel are numerous. I only had to do a little sleuthing to find them. So to try and argue that Vattel had no influence on the Framers is ridiculous.

    You missed my point. It is hard to argue that Vattel’s “Le Droit des Gens” did not have a major influence on the founders. To do so one would have to believe Benjamin Franklin lied to his friend Charles Dumas when he wrote, “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 send 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.”

    My point is that there is such a fundamental difference in the basic approach to thinking between the founders and contemporary progressives may serve as a barrier to their understanding of the intent of the framers.

  • 585
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 16:36

    AnotherReader: Bravo! Well said.

  • 586
    MGB
    February 2nd, 2010 16:38

    btw, Black Lion, when it is Black Lion, always gives reasoned responses.

  • 587
    qwertyman
    February 2nd, 2010 16:44

    If I don’t make pertinent points, then why do you waste your time answering questions that I address to others?

    Birthers virtually never make pertinent points.

    The only thing that you talked about in your lengthy post was about how under the HI act, theoretically somebody could break the law and lie when putting information on a birth certificate. Your entire point is that because something was theoretically possible that you think it’s likely to have happened. Based on what? There is no fact anywhere that suggests that President Obama was not born in Hawaii.

    You said, “President Obama scanned his birth certificate and posted it on the internet.”

    Did he now? HE scanned it? HE posted it? Where did he ever state that? Has he himself EVER acknowledged that image to be a scan of his “birth certificate?”

    It’s not a SCAN of a document, no matter what you say.

    The birth certificate was posted on Obama’s campaign’s website, and was vouched for by his press secretary. The press secretary speaks for the president.

    You are using bystander’s talking points today and oddly enough bystander is AWOL. bystander was around all day yesterday, and you weren’t. Interesting.

    Hey, more paranoid conspiracy theories!

    So I didn’t post yesterday but bystander did. Interesting. Apparently that would mean that I AM bystander. Just one problem with that:

    qwertyman says:
    February 1, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    On the other hand you’re a birther, so I expect that you will not acknowledge this fact and continue to imply that I am bystander and that I did not post yesterday.

    qwertyman: if hitler son became a us citizen and the american female is a us citizen then that child would be a NBC but if the father was NEVER a us citizen then that child would not be a NBC.

    Keith, perhaps I wasn’t clear about my point. The law on citizenship does not make value judgments based on who the parent is. Under US law, anybody born on US soil, except for irrelevant exceptions here, is a natural born citizen.

  • 588
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 16:49

    theOriginalist says,

    My point is that there is such a fundamental difference in the basic approach to thinking between the founders and contemporary progressives may serve as a barrier to their understanding of the intent of the framers.

    OK. I’ll bite. Point me to an original text, not someone’s opinion, that would confirm that the founders would have chosen the English method over Vattel. I’m not interested in a court opinion, but something from their time period.

  • 589
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 17:52

    jvn says:
    February 2, 2010 at 2:38 pm
    Steve -

    I appreciate your reply, but what I would REALLY like is an answer to the question:

    “Can you show us your evidence that the Founders intended to create two separate classes of native born American of which only one could seek the Presidency?”

    We are not talking about persons the Founders might not have considered as American citizens. We are talking about people who were American citizens at birth.

    This division of citizenship would have been unique in the history of Western Civilization, not outlined in either de Vattel or English common law. certainly there must be some documentation available for such a different and creative construction, no?

    Well, let’s see if this remedy will improve your sight.

    At the time of the construction of the Constitution ONLY men were admitted as ‘citizen’s’, whether improving their conditions from ‘vagrant or Vagabond’ or newly arrived emigrant, not being an indentured servant or enslaved, who, after expressing their intent, went about showing good character and attending to the process of TIME, with the ardent hope of becoming a ‘naturalized citizen’ of one of the various ‘colonies/States.

    These were the MEN that were made part of the Founding Citizens, equal in all respects, save one.

    Again, it was not the intention of the Constitution to ‘Automatically NATURALIZE every born person’ that wandered, traveled or otherwise made their way to the ‘soil of America’ or the ‘Jurisdiction of the Constitution’.

    That did happen with the ‘expansion’ of the intent of the 14th Amendment, but the 14th did not Amend A2S1C5, the ‘natural born citizens’ who were in NO NEED of the 14th or naturalization, being citizens by the birth right perogitive of CITIZEN Parents. Keeping in mind that ONLY men at the time ‘possessed’ citizenship and his citizenship extended to his WIFE and his natural born citizen CHILDREN.

    This WAS the COMMON LAW of the times with which the Founders were well familiar.

    It was the 14th that, by its unintended expansion, ‘created’ a native born citizen, being a person without known father or on or more parents of Foreign citizenship, i.e., born Dual-Citizen.

    I know you find the idea of a child with a father of unknown origin would be considered less than a natural born citizen offensive, but show me by WHAT reconciliation you can get there without offending A2S1C5.

    (Also look at the laws covering such circumstances in the English Common Law and the Colony States of the time, you will come to understand just how ‘liberal and generous’ the proposition is compared to the words used there.)

    Without the ‘words expressed that say so or require it’ the A2S1C5 HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED and reconciling the CURRENT state of affairs is NOT as remarkable as you would think. Just look at the USCIS Laws that cover EVERY CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCE, save one.

  • 590
    misanthropicus
    February 2nd, 2010 17:52

    Re brygenon [...]

    1) [...] The FactCheck reporters took the photographs. The Obama campaign provided the actual paper certificate that Hawaii issued. Of course the original records remain with the Hawaiian Department of Health. [...]
    * So what? Since the Hawaii HD adamantly refuses to confirm or deny whether the “document photographed or scanned” has been issued by them, the issue of authenticity is gone in four winds – a US bill of 3.76 dollars photo would be of the same worthiness – try something else, Bry –

    2) [...] “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i [...] have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record [...]” -
    * Thanks a lot, dr. Fukino – but why is she avoiding to say that what she saw is a HAWAII, US birth certificate? The birth certificate she mentions could well have been issued in Tashkent, Ushuhaia, Melbourne or… Kenya or Indonesia -
    Why can’t we have at LEAST this minimal acknowledgement that the document in cause WAS ISSUED BY THE HAWAII HD?
    Are there some anxieties in the Hawaii HD over being drawn in a perjury issue regarding this situation, so they have prudently preempted the possible charges by obscuring the issue – like in the “birth certificate” term suddenly becoming “vital data”?
    It looks so -

    Bry, you’re stuck with Fukino in a workshop of semantics contortions -

  • 591
    jvn
    February 2nd, 2010 18:13

    Steve -

    So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that at the time the Constitution was ratified, only men were considered citizens and any man who was a native born citizen – as the term was understood at that time – was an NBC, right?

  • 592
    theOriginalist
    February 2nd, 2010 18:16

    AnotherReader says:
    February 2, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    OK. I’ll bite. Point me to an original text, not someone’s opinion, that would confirm that the founders would have chosen the English method over Vattel. I’m not interested in a court opinion, but something from their time period.

    If by English method you mean the rambling opinion of Justice Gray in Wong, I don’t find merit in that opinion and I would not expect to find a record of any of the founders making such an argument. The political thinking of the founders was based on natural law theory.

  • 593
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 18:18

    qwertyman says:
    February 2, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    for all you people who think it takes 1 parent and that child born on us soil to be a NBC then let me ask this

    if OBL,Hugo,Dinnerjacket,or any other non us citizen male gets a girl pregant and that child be born in ohio you mean to tell me that child could become president? where would that child loyality be?

    Hugo Chavez, probably not, as he would be a representative of a foreign government. The other two, yes, so long as they were at least 35 and had spent at least 14 years as a US resident. It’s not a value judgment or an affirmation or an agreement with who they are or what they have done, it’s simply the law.

    I mean, I could play the same game with you and it would be just as crass: what if Hitler had a son who immigrated to the US and naturalized and he had a son born in Ohio of an American wife? Are you telling me that Hitler’s grandson could become president?

    Excuuuuuuuuse me for jumping in, but I’ve been meaning to ask one of you guys about this scenario.

    Do you ‘feel’, ‘think’, ‘believe’ or otherwise consider that is what the Framers of the Constitution intended upon ITS Ratification?

    And, if you would care to, would you reconcile that answer with your understanding of the 14th Amendment that DID NOT Amend A2S1C5, ITS words not saying so nor requiring it?

  • 594
    Sue
    February 2nd, 2010 18:20

    “keith says:
    February 2, 2010 at 4:33 pm
    qwertyman: if hitler son became a us citizen and the american female is a us citizen then that child would be a NBC but if the father was NEVER a us citizen then that child would not be a NBC.”

    Spiro Agnew, VP father was not a citizen; however, Agnew was born in US. It was never an issue. Same requirements for VP as President.

  • 595
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 18:31

    Sue says:
    February 2, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    slcraig,

    Pretty sure this is old news.:)

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3208&start=100#p106744
    realist wrote:
    Docket for Taitz v Obama (Judge Lamberth)

    01/27/2010 5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 1/27/10. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

    01/27/2010 4 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA served on 1/27/2010, answer due 3/29/2010 (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

    01/27/2010 3 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaintby ORLY TAITZ. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

    01/27/2010 2 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by ORLY TAITZ. Case related to Case No. 09mc346. (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
    01/27/2010 SUMMONS (3) Issued as to BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)

    01/27/2010 1 COMPLAINT against BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616027174) filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rdj) (Entered: 01/28/2010)


    Oh, I did notice the filing date but I thought the release may have been with held a few days for some reason.

    I have tried to determine if this is the initial ‘Leave to File’ request to the Court or what. Orley does mix things up a bit.

    Haven’t visited PJ site but I can imagine that if this was filed without ‘Leave of the Court’ Orley will soon learn the meaning of Sua Sponte.

    Guess I’ll jump over there and see what they have come up with.

  • 596
    misanthropicus
    February 2nd, 2010 19:48

    Re Sue Re Keith

    [...] Spiro Agnew, VP father was not a citizen; however, Agnew was born in US. It was never an issue. Same requirements for VP as President. [...]

    1) “never an isue” – correct -
    Yet this negligence should not be repeated – remember the circus when Ronald Reagan was shot?
    Bad enough that Haig blew it when it came to the succession line – now imagine such a problem (unfortunately not that hypothetical) spiced with the revelation that the VP IS ACTUALLY NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY qualified for succession –
    We have just assisted at a presidential mascarade in Honduras – does our need for multiculturalism go that far that we have to re-do their performace?

    2) “Same requirements for VP as President” – you got it -
    Burges bill should be expanded – these anachronisms and loopholes are not funny – they have explosive potential, and I don’t think that we should wait for a wisening experience -

    Burges’ bill is a good project – and dba Obama needs to be forced on the constitutional legitimacy issue -

    Regards -

  • 597
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 20:09

    Alright opposition posters, I present a challenge to you. Point me to a credible source that would indicate that they favored or even talked about a system other than Vattel. It must be originally from their time period. I’m not interested in a court interpretation from a later date.

    If your going to convince me, It needs to be an original source. Maybe something like Madison’s convention notes. Everything I find from that era all points to Vattel, so show me what I’m missing.

  • 598
    Phil
    February 2nd, 2010 20:13

    Sue,

    “Are there “constitutional experts, scholars or lawyers” who frequent PJ? If so, how have their credentials been confirmed?”

    It is my understanding that you are a member of PJ. Therefore, to obtain first hand information, I suggest you ask them yourself.:)

    No; I have never registered myself at PolitiJab. I used to be able to freely lurk from time to time before they required user registration. Also, I simply do not take the time to frequent other sites.

    Part of the reason why I’m asking you about the information is that you otherwise have no problems with wallpapering my comment threads with all sorts of opposition research on various postings; at least my request would be reasonably useful.

    -Phil

  • 599
    brygenon
    February 2nd, 2010 20:13

    MGB says:

    brygenon: You give me the opportunity to repeat myself. A comment that I wrote to bystander this morning:

    I have long known about that article at FactCheck

    So you were dishonest rather than uninformed.

    I did NOT say that no “journalists” have ever been named.

    You implied that Barack Obama had provided the document, and that is not true — he did. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    I said and I repeat that not one person has EVER said on the record that the photographed COLB is a Hawaiian-issued and certified, unaltered, COLB. Not one NAMED person.

    The same is true for the digital image of something that purports to be a scan of a Hawaiian-issued and certified, unaltered, COLB.

    There is no document you can not fantasize to be a forgery, no testimony you can imagine to be a lie, no one you cannot fold into your crank conspiracy theory.

    Here’s what they say about that document: “We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.”

    So, you see, (like bystander) they talk about State Dept. requirements for citizenship. NOT Constitutional requirements for POTUS.

    We have precedent for what birth documentation is required: The previous 43 presidents attained the office without showing any birth certificate at all.

    Nobody at the Hawaiian DOH has EVER stated that that paper was produced and certified by them. In fact, they said they cannot say what the so-called scan of a COLB represents.

    They did better and confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai`i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    Note that the link is to hawaii.gov. You can read that document directly from the source, so unless you think the the Obama campaign has hijacked Hawaii’s web site or intercepted your connection they’ve no opportunity to forge it or alter anything. The Executive Branch of the Hawaiian government is under Republican Governor Linda Lingle, who campaigned for John S. McCain in the 2008 presidential election.

  • 600
    Phil
    February 2nd, 2010 20:18

    brygenon,

    So that’s zero citations of anyone actually saying what you claimed your opposition said.

    Obviously, the written word does not carry the same connotations of venting as does the spoken word.

    Pulling you out of the pit of obtuseness, no, I’m not going to go through my tens of thousands of comments (some actually posted by you) and produce citations for every claim that I made in my venting.

    However, if I thought it would be worth the time and energy to prove you wrong, I would do so; but for you, it would go in one eye and immediately out the other, with the typical retort of, essentially, “Well, the FactCheck.org site says that the COLB is legitimate. I believe what they say because they’re backed by Annenberg which was also supported by Republicans. Therefore, it must be legitimate.”

    While my attempt to get to the truth behind what you claimed stands thwarted.

    Cry me a river.

    I’m sure I’ll soon be posting something whereby you can continue to spout the same old verbiage you’ve been spouting since not long after I started my site.

    -Phil

  • 601
    Phil
    February 2nd, 2010 20:24

    sharon2,

    So you are claiming that Bobby Jindal is not a US citizen?

    Good point, but they won’t get it. No one seriously expects their seething, blinding hatred of our first African-American President to be tempered by the prospect of an Indian-American President.
    (the a**wipe from 3:32 a.m.)

    Sharon 2 says:
    March 6, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    “SCOTUS routinely denies applications and cert. petitions without an opinion.”

    I know that, Bob. That is part of my point. The eligibility issue is of such importance that some service members have taken risks with their reputations and careers. A state is trying to legislate eligibility requirements. This is not a routine issue. Yes, there are those on the fringe whom I wish would either reign in their comments or “stifle.” I don’t think you are being fair if you think that every person who has commented on this issue is on the fringe. You seem to be fighting so hard against an issue that an attorney should find fascinating. I was a tepid McCain supporter (I voted for him but not enthusiastically). Should he have won and should eligibility have been resolved against him, then I would have been behind that decision. I would like to see Jindal as President but if the natural born citizen issue should be resolved against him, then I would not support him either.

    __________________
    The 3:32 a.m.statement is the kind of goading to which Phil refers. You pollute this site. YOU are the one who doesn’t get it. YOU are trying to tear apart this country through racial divide.

    I won’t get caught up with exposing this disgusting tactic at the expense of my family. Coming back after being gone a couple of days opened my eyes again.

    The opposition has failed badly once again.

    OK. Let’s get the tone under control here and get to the root of the issue.

    Eligibility is not about melanin; it’s about the Constitution (hey — I just made an excellent sound-byte-proof point!)

    If someone thinks that Mr. Obama’s legitimately holding the presidential office, then good for them. That’s the beauty of America and the Constitution: we don’t all have to agree, especially if some of us have reason to doubt. And, there’s nothing wrong with doubting.

    -Phil

  • 602
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 20:34

    AnotherReader says:
    February 2, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    Alright opposition posters, I present a challenge to you. Point me to a credible source that would indicate that they favored or even talked about a system other than Vattel. It must be originally from their time period. I’m not interested in a court interpretation from a later date.

    If your going to convince me, It needs to be an original source. Maybe something like Madison’s convention notes. Everything I find from that era all points to Vattel, so show me what I’m missing.

    Although I am not in the enemy camp the answer is apparent even though shrouded in the language of the natural common law.

    That would be the English Common Law, which the CROWN usurped, codified, immunized their-selves then began providing interpretations that suited them when necessary.

    The proof of what I am saying can be found in the Declaration of Independence, among other works of the time.

    See Blackstones comments on Prowden, who was the first English Law Scholar to ‘codify’ the ‘common laws’.

  • 603
    Stock
    February 2nd, 2010 20:47

    When will all of you just face the facts as they are:

    1. Art II of the Constitution-requires the President to be a “natural born citizen”
    2. Our very own Senate in their very own Resolution 511 following the inquiry as to John McCain set forth the definition of “natural born citizen” (born to American citizens) in the last two lines of that document.
    3 Barack in his very own book and in his various bios has clearly stated that he was born to a Kenyan father (who was not a citizen)

    1 plus 2 plus 3 = not Constitutionally eligible to be President.

    Lets move on to the next and more important subject-how are the void or voidable laws signed and enacted by Obama to be treated, how he is to be removed from Office-and why our elected Officials who are bound by Oath to support and defend the Constitution have not acted appropriately and what should be done about them as well.

  • 604
    Sue
    February 2nd, 2010 20:52

    Phil,

    “Part of the reason why I’m asking you about the information is that you otherwise have no problems with wallpapering my comment threads with all sorts of opposition research on various postings; at least my request would be reasonably useful.”

    Useful? How?

    I honestly do not feel that providing you with info regarding individuals at PJ that you could obtain from the forum as a registered member is appropriate.

  • 605
    brygenon
    February 2nd, 2010 20:52

    misanthropicus says:

    Re brygenon [...]

    1) [...] The FactCheck reporters took the photographs. The Obama campaign provided the actual paper certificate that Hawaii issued. Of course the original records remain with the Hawaiian Department of Health. [...]
    * So what?

    So the implication that all Obama had provided were digital images was false. Obama provided a perfectly good, perfectly legal, and perfectly ordinary Hawaiian birth certificate. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Since the Hawaii HD adamantly refuses to confirm or deny whether the “document photographed or scanned” has been issued by them, the issue of authenticity is gone in four winds – a US bill of 3.76 dollars photo would be of the same worthiness – try something else, Bry –

    That’s simply how Hawaii’s system works, though due to the interest in this case they confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii. There’s no need to try something else; Obama fought this smear during the campaign, and his election shows he fought it effectively.

    2) [...] “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i [...] have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record [...]” -
    * Thanks a lot, dr. Fukino – but why is she avoiding to say that what she saw is a HAWAII, US birth certificate? The birth certificate she mentions could well have been issued in Tashkent, Ushuhaia, Melbourne or… Kenya or Indonesia -

    But Barack H. Obama II was not born in Tashkent, Ushuhaia, Melbourne etc.

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai`i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.” –
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    Why can’t we have at LEAST this minimal acknowledgement that the document in cause WAS ISSUED BY THE HAWAII HD?

    Hawaii puts that right on the document.

    Are there some anxieties in the Hawaii HD over being drawn in a perjury issue regarding this situation, so they have prudently preempted the possible charges by obscuring the issue – like in the “birth certificate” term suddenly becoming “vital data”?
    It looks so -

    The FactCheck article describes the distress of the Hawaii HD over this: “‘This has gotten ridiculous,’ state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. [...] Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? ‘I hope so,’ Fukino said. ‘We need to get some work done.’”

    Bry, you’re stuck with Fukino in a workshop of semantics contortions -

    The “workshop of semantics contortions” is in your head, not in Fukino’s statements. As Hawaii’s FAQ on the issue explains, “The statements speak for themselves”.

  • 606
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 21:01

    jvn says:
    February 2, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    Steve -

    So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that at the time the Constitution was ratified, only men were considered citizens and any man who was a native born citizen – as the term was understood at that time – was an NBC, right?

    NO. No. NO.

    There were NO American Natural Born Citizens. Those that were of English decent, by their Laws, were natural-born subjects of the Crown.

    But there were NO American Natural Born Citizens until AFTER the Constitution was Ratified and a child was born of a ‘citizen family’, (the husband being a citizen making his wife and child the same.)

    Like the watch for the New Years baby, the 1st child born after the Ratification born to citizen parents was the FIRST Natural Born Citizen.

    I expressed that twice in hopes the it sinks in.

    The PROOF of that construction is the existence and usage and self expiring feature of the ‘Grand Father Clause of the Original Text of the A2S1C5.

    By the time of the death of the LAST Founding Father there were a sufficient number of natural born citizens to satisfy the needs of A2S1C5 and there are an estimated 285 million +/- in existence today.

    Why look to anyone else? Why suffer the same fates as fallen nations of the past who were undone from within due to Foreign Influence.

    Reading and listening to those that would have it your way I understand why the Founders were ALL in agreement that not everyone is necessarily suited for the republican form of representative governance.

    Some are more suited to a socialistic welfare state that manufactures tokens that represent Utopia they gaze at while standing in lines waiting for bread and beer.

  • 607
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 21:10

    slcraig,

    So where is the tie in with the Framers? Where do we find evidence of them using English common law vs. Vattel?

  • 608
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 21:38

    AnotherReader says:
    February 2, 2010 at 9:10 pm
    slcraig,

    So where is the tie in with the Framers? Where do we find evidence of them using English common law vs. Vattel?

    Ok, sorry I wasn’t clearer. It was a knee-jerk response to the lay up you gave to immediately attempt to show they DID NOT use English Common Law.

    Try reading it again.

    But the larger point I should make is that they read and considered many constructions of ‘citizenship’.

    These were well read men with substantial educations. If they had read Blackstone they had read Prowden and Vattel and Rousseau and Locke and Hobbs,Liebinitz, Grotis and Puefendorf as well as the ‘ancients, Aristotle and Cicero and Plato on Politics.

    All of these had views of one SORT or ANOTHER on citizenship.

    There is NO other Nation that STARTED with SOVEREIGN CITIZENS establishing a government that would be subservient to the Contract consented to.

    A natural born citizen describes the circumstance of an intact family unit being of on ‘citizenship’ within the community wherein they reside. As old as ANY TRIBAL construction of groups banded together for self-protection.

    What Tribe would allow an outsider in to RULE them?

    Many are confused when thinking I am saying only white male descendents of the Founding Fathers are NBC’s. That is erroneous.

    What I am saying is that a NBC is the child of CITIZEN parents, regardless of how those parents obtained their citizenship, i.e., by naturalizations, the 14th Amendment or from parents who were also NBC’s.

  • 609
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 21:56

    slcraig says:

    What I am saying is that a NBC is the child of CITIZEN parents, regardless of how those parents obtained their citizenship, i.e., by naturalizations, the 14th Amendment or from parents who were also NBC’s.

    OK, so following your line of thought, how does this differ significantly from Vattel’s definition? It certainly seems the same.
    Those who are arguing it is based on English common law seem to be saying that simply being born on U.S soil confers NBC status.

  • 610
    brygenon
    February 2nd, 2010 22:26

    misanthropicus says:

    [Sue had written:]

    [...] Spiro Agnew, VP father was not a citizen; however, Agnew was born in US. It was never an issue. Same requirements for VP as President. [...]

    1) “never an isue” – correct -
    Yet this negligence should not be repeated – remember the circus when Ronald Reagan was shot?

    Except there was no such negligence. Shortly before Agnew resigned, Henry Kissinger became Secretary of State, and an exception had to be made in the order of presidential succession because Kissinger, who would have been forth in line, is not a natural-born citizen. The same thing happened in the Clinton administration with Madeleine Albright. Everyone respected the Constitutional eligibility requirements.

    Law references and legal scholars uniformly agree that children born in the United States, with such exceptions as children of diplomats with legal immunity and any born to invading armies, are natural-born U.S. citizens. See, for example, Black’s Law Dictionary.

    For a century or so before the 2008 election, the Donofrio/Apuzzo/Taitz theory had no advocates, not even Donfrio, Apuzzo and Taitz. Where were their law-review articles challenging the prevailing view? How come no one heard them speak up for (their reading of) the Constitution until they needed reasons why Barack Hussein Obama cannot be President of the United States?

  • 611
    brygenon
    February 2nd, 2010 22:43

    AnotherReader says:

    That’s not Vattel’s exact language. Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen”. He wrote in French.

    Now that’s really a stretch. LOL :-D

    This rates as one of the lamest responses yet. The English copy which I have already cited and posted numerous times does.

    Don’t know what you’re trying to pull now, but what you wrote was: “And the fact that the framers used his exact language is also very telling.” Did you think Vattel wrote in English, or that the Constitution is in French?

    The term “natural born citizen” is English, based on “natural born subject”. It means a subject or citizen from birth, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark) and Black’s Law Dictionary.

  • 612
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 23:05

    AnotherReader says:
    February 2, 2010 at 9:56 pm
    slcraig says:

    What I am saying is that a NBC is the child of CITIZEN parents, regardless of how those parents obtained their citizenship, i.e., by naturalizations, the 14th Amendment or from parents who were also NBC’s.

    OK, so following your line of thought, how does this differ significantly from Vattel’s definition? It certainly seems the same.
    Those who are arguing it is based on English common law seem to be saying that simply being born on U.S soil confers NBC status.

    It is the exactly the same as Vattel, and Vattel recognized that it was the same ‘circumstances’ of many societies based on the ‘natural family units’ that bonded together for self-protection and formed the base of civil societies.

    The POINT is that VATTEL did not express anything NEW. Read Aristotle on Politics Book 1,(BC).and you will find it expressed there as well.

    It is how societies form NATURALLY when NOT constrained by some tyrannical influence that imposes some ARTIFICIAL method of dividing the societies. And the fact that it is condoned by the Bible is no small thing either.

  • 613
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 23:12

    brygenon says:

    The term “natural born citizen” is English, based on “natural born subject”. It means a subject or citizen from birth, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark) and Black’s Law Dictionary.

    I am not pulling anything. I haven’t suggested anything other than Vattel was a strong influence. If they could not read it, how could they reference it? I’m not the one twisting things.

    Did you think Vattel wrote in English, or that the Constitution is in French?

    What kind of garbage is this?

    Text from Article II

    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.

    Text from Vattel

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    Are you suggesting that the Founders made continual reference to Vattel while not being able to read or understand it?

  • 614
    brygenon
    February 2nd, 2010 23:13

    AnotherReader says:

    Alright opposition posters, I present a challenge to you. Point me to a credible source that would indicate that they favored or even talked about a system other than Vattel.

    Vattel calls for the the state to establish a religion; see Book 1 Chapter XII. That’s the system you think the framers of the Constitution favored?

    It must be originally from their time period. I’m not interested in a court interpretation from a later date.

    If your going to convince me, It needs to be an original source. Maybe something like Madison’s convention notes. Everything I find from that era all points to Vattel, so show me what I’m missing.

    So you failed to find anything pointing to, say, John Locke? Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Bacon, Locke and Newton … I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences”.
    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm033.html

    As for convincing you, AnotherReader, that’s not the goal. Whether to cling to ignorance is a choice you have to make for yourself.

  • 615
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 23:17

    slcraig,

    All good food for thought. Thanks for your explanations. If you don’t mind my asking, are your insights into this based on professional experience?

  • 616
    Phil
    February 2nd, 2010 23:22

    Sue,

    Phil,

    “Part of the reason why I’m asking you about the information is that you otherwise have no problems with wallpapering my comment threads with all sorts of opposition research on various postings; at least my request would be reasonably useful.”

    Useful? How?

    I honestly do not feel that providing you with info regarding individuals at PJ that you could obtain from the forum as a registered member is appropriate.

    To answer your two questions, it would be useful to know this information because it has a direct bearing on virtually all of the eligibility-related commentary you and other opposition commenters have ever produced on my — and, likely, other — site(s). After all, if we could get an actual constitutional scholar and/or lawyer to make comment, that would at least be a good starting point for a debate.

    If I recall correctly, I do believe that you are one of those opposition commenters who has commented profusely in many a thread about obtaining a professional opinion on such a concept as eligibility. If this is the case, then I would think that individuals such as yourself would be itching to get such opinions posted across the blogosphere.

    Either way, one person’s controversy is another person’s confirmed opinion.

    And I’m not going to register at PJ. Nothing personal to them; I simply don’t believe it would benefit me from a limited resource standpoint.

    -Phil

  • 617
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 23:23

    brygenon says:
    February 2, 2010 at 10:43 pm
    AnotherReader says:

    That’s not Vattel’s exact language. Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen”. He wrote in French.

    Now that’s really a stretch. LOL

    This rates as one of the lamest responses yet. The English copy which I have already cited and posted numerous times does.

    Don’t know what you’re trying to pull now, but what you wrote was: “And the fact that the framers used his exact language is also very telling.” Did you think Vattel wrote in English, or that the Constitution is in French?

    The term “natural born citizen” is English, based on “natural born subject”. It means a subject or citizen from birth, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark) and Black’s Law Dictionary.

    Do me a favor and scan me the page from the 1797 English Version Published in London would you?

    That particular edition seems to be somewhat rare and expensive and I’ve not found a library in my area that has a copy.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    TO THE EDITION OF A.D. 1797.
    IN undertaking this new edition of Monsieur De Vattel’s treatise, it was not my intention to give what might strictly be called a new translation. To add the author’s valuable notes from the posthumous edition, printed at Neufchatel in 1773, — to correct some errors I had observed in the former version, — and occasionally to amend the language where doubtful or obscure, — were the utmost limits of my original plan. As I proceeded, however, my alterations became more numerous; but whether they will be acknowledged as amendments, it must rest with the reader to determine. Even if this decision should be more favourable than I have any reason to expect, I lay no claim to praise for my humble efforts, but shall esteem myself very fortunate if I escape the severity of censure for presenting the work to the public in a state still so far short of perfection. Conscious of its defects, I declare, with great sincerity, —

    … Veniam pro laude peto, — laudatus abunde, Non fastiditus si tibi, lector, ero.

    THE EDITOR,

    London, May 1, 1797.

  • 618
    AnotherReader
    February 2nd, 2010 23:34

    brygenon,

    Then save yourself the keystrokes and stop responding. You contradict yourself at every turn.

    You can’t even accept an honest question and present an answer without going on the attack. Which in and of itself reveals your true motives here.

    So specifically, what text or dialog from any of the three are referenced regarding Citizenship status? Of course, you won’t answer. You’re not capable of anything more than drivel disguised as an actual argument. Do you go to bed at night feeling taller after your laser sharp barbs? :-D

    Don’t blow a gasket writing your response.

  • 619
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 23:47

    slcraig says:
    February 2, 2010 at 11:23 pm
    brygenon says:
    February 2, 2010 at 10:43 pm
    AnotherReader says:

    That’s not Vattel’s exact language. Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen”. He wrote in French.

    Now that’s really a stretch. LOL

    This rates as one of the lamest responses yet. The English copy which I have already cited and posted numerous times does.

    Don’t know what you’re trying to pull now, but what you wrote was: “And the fact that the framers used his exact language is also very telling.” Did you think Vattel wrote in English, or that the Constitution is in French?

    The term “natural born citizen” is English, based on “natural born subject”. It means a subject or citizen from birth, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark) and Black’s Law Dictionary.

    Do me a favor and scan me the page from the 1797 English Version Published in London would you?

    That particular edition seems to be somewhat rare and expensive and I’ve not found a library in my area that has a copy.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    TO THE EDITION OF A.D. 1797.
    IN undertaking this new edition of Monsieur De Vattel’s treatise, it was not my intention to give what might strictly be called a new translation. To add the author’s valuable notes from the posthumous edition, printed at Neufchatel in 1773, — to correct some errors I had observed in the former version, — and occasionally to amend the language where doubtful or obscure, — were the utmost limits of my original plan. As I proceeded, however, my alterations became more numerous; but whether they will be acknowledged as amendments, it must rest with the reader to determine. Even if this decision should be more favourable than I have any reason to expect, I lay no claim to praise for my humble efforts, but shall esteem myself very fortunate if I escape the severity of censure for presenting the work to the public in a state still so far short of perfection. Conscious of its defects, I declare, with great sincerity, —

    … Veniam pro laude peto, — laudatus abunde, Non fastiditus si tibi, lector, ero.

    THE EDITOR,
    London, May 1, 1797.

    Oh, wait, I made an error and meant to say the ’1758′ English Version……………..silly me……the Founders would not have used the 1797 Version I’ve been told, but I believe Franklin may have received a few copies of THIS VERSION, as well as owning French versions, which I am led to believe he was quite fluent in and understood the subtle differences that affect translations.

    PREFACE
    [Vattel 1758]

    THE Law of Nations, though so noble and important a subject, has not, hitherto, been treated of with all the care it deserves. The greater part of mankind have, therefore, only a vague, a very incomplete, and often even a false notion of it. The generality of writers, and even celebrated authors, almost exclusively confine the name of “Law of Nations” to certain maxims and treatises recognised among nations, and which the mutual consent of the parties has rendered obligatory on them. This is confining within very narrow bounds a law so extensive in its own nature, and in which the whole human race are so intimately concerned; it is, at the same time, a degradation of that law, in consequence of a misconception of its real origin.

    There certainly exists a natural law of nations, since the obligations of the law of nature are no less binding on states, on men united in political society, than on individuals. But, to acquire an exact knowledge of that law, it is not sufficient to know what the law of nature prescribes to the individuals of the human race. The application of a rule to various subjects, can no otherwise be made than in a manner agreeable to the nature of each subject. Hence, it follows, that the natural law of nations is a particular science, consisting in a just and rational application of the law of nature to the affairs and conduct of nations or sovereigns. All treatises, therefore, in which the law of nations is blended and confounded with the ordinary law of nature, are incapable of conveying a distinct idea, or a substantial knowledge of the sacred law of nations.

    The Romans often confounded the law of nations with the law of nature, giving the name of “the law of nations” (Jus Gentium) to the law of nature, as being generally acknowledged and adopted by all civilized nations.1 The definitions given by the emperor Justinian, of the law of nature, the law of nations, and the civil law, are well known. “The law of nature,” says he, “is that which nature teaches to all animals”:2 thus he defines the natural law in its most extensive sense, not that natural law which is peculiar to man, and which is derived as well from his rational as from his animal nature. “The civil law,” that emperor adds, “is that which each nation has established for herself, and which peculiarly belongs to each state or civil society. And that law, which natural reason has established among all mankind, and which is equally observed by all people, is called the law of nations, as being law which all nations follow.3 In the succeeding paragraph, the emperor seems to approach nearer to the sense we at present give to that term. “The law of nations,” says he, “is common to the whole human race. The exigencies and necessities of mankind have induced all nations to lay down and adopt certain rules of right. For wars have arisen, and produced captivity and servitude, which are contrary to the law of nature; since, by the law of nature, all men were originally born free.”4 But from what he adds, — that almost all kinds of contracts, those of buying and selling, of hire, partnership, trust, and an infinite number of others, owe their origin to that law of nations,— it plainly appears to have been Justinian’s idea, that, according to the situations and circumstances in which men were placed, right reason has dictated to them certain maxims of equity, so founded on the nature of things, that they have been universally acknowledged and adopted. Still this is nothing more than the law of nature, which is equally applicable to all mankind.

    The Romans, however, acknowledged a law whose obligations are reciprocally binding on nations: and to that law they referred the right of embassies. They had also their fecial law, which was nothing more than the law of nations in its particular relation to public treaties, and especially to war. The feciales were the interpreters, the guardians, and, in a manner, the priests of the public faith.5 The moderns are generally agreed in restricting the appellation of “the law of nations” to that system of right and justice which ought to prevail between nations or sovereign states. They differ only in the ideas they entertain of the origin whence that system arose, and of the foundations upon which it rests. The celebrated Grotius understands it to be a system established by the common consent of nations: and he thus distinguishes it from the law of nature: “When several persons, at different times, and in various places, maintain the same thing as certain, such coincidence of sentiment must be attributed to some general cause. Now, in the questions before us, that cause must necessarily be one or the other of these two — either a just consequence drawn from natural principles, or a universal consent. The former discovers to us the law of nature, and the latter the law of nations.”6

    That great man, as appears from many passages in his excellent work, had a glimpse of the truth: but as he had the task of extracting from the rude ore, as it were, and reducing into regular shape and form, a new and important subject, which had been much neglected before this time, it is not surprising that, having his mind burthened with an immense variety of objects, and with a numberless train of quotations, which formed a part of his plan, he could not always acquire those distinct ideas so necessary in the sciences. Persuaded that nations, or sovereign powers, are subject to the authority of the law of nature, the observance of which he so frequently recommends to them, that learned man, in fact, acknowledged a natural law of nations, which he somewhere calls the internal law of nations: and, perhaps it will appear that the only difference between him and us lies in the terms. But we have already observed, that, in order to form this natural law of nations, it is not sufficient simply to apply to nations what the law of nature decides with respect to individuals. And, besides, Grotius, by his very distinction, and by exclusively appropriating the name of “the law of nations” to those maxims which have been established by the common consent of mankind, seems to intimate that sovereigns, in their transactions with each other, cannot insist on the observance of any but those last-mentioned maxims, reserving the internal law for the direction of their own consciences. If, setting out with the idea that political societies or nations live, with respect to each other, in a reciprocal independence, in the state of nature, and that, as political bodies, they are subject to the natural law, Grotius had, moreover, considered that the law must be applied to these new subjects in a manner suitable to their nature, that judicious author would easily have discovered that the natural law of nations is a particular science; that it produces between nations even an external obligation wholly independent of their will; and that the common consent of mankind is only the foundation and source of a particular kind of law, called the Arbitrary Law of Nations.

    Hobbes, in whose work we discover the hand of a master, notwithstanding his paradoxes and detestable maxims, — Hobbes was, I believe, the first who gave a distinct, though imperfect idea, of the law of nations. He divides the law of nature into that of man, and that of states: and the latter is, according to him, what we usually call the law of nations. “The maxims,” he adds, “of each of these laws are precisely the same: but as states, once established, assume personal properties, that which is termed the natural law, when we speak of the duties of individuals is called the law of nations when applied to whole nations or states.”7 This author has well observed, that the law of nations is the law of nature applied to states or nations. But we shall see, in the course of this work, that he was mistaken in the idea that the law of nature does not suffer any necessary change in that application, an idea, from which he concluded that the maxims of the law of nature and those of the law of nations are precisely the same.

    Pufendorf declares that he unreservedly subscribes to this opinion espoused by Hobbes.8 He has not, therefore, separately treated of the law of nations, but has everywhere blended it with the law of nature, properly so called.

    Barbeyrac, who performed the office of translator and commentator to Grotius and Pufendorf, has approached much nearer to the true idea of the law of nations. Though the work is in everybody’s hands, I shall here, for the readers’ convenience, transcribe one of that learned translator’s notes on Grotius’s Law of War and Peace.9 “I acknowledge,” says he, “that there are laws common to all nations — things which all nations ought to practise towards each other: and if people choose to call these the law of nations, they may do so with great propriety. But, setting aside the consideration that the consent of mankind is not the basis of the obligation by which we are bound to observe those laws, and that it cannot even possibly take place in this instance — the principles and the rules of such a law are, in fact, the same as these of the law of nature, properly so called; the only difference consisting in the mode of their application, which may be somewhat varied, on account of the difference that sometimes happens in the manner in which nations settle their affairs with each other.”

    It did not escape the notice of the author we have just quoted, that the rules and decisions of the law of nature cannot be purely and simply applied to sovereign states, and that they must necessarily undergo some modifications in order to accommodate them to the nature of the new subjects to which they are applied. But it does not appear that he discovered the full extent of this idea, since he seems not to approve of the mode of treating the law of nations separately from the law of nature as relating to individuals. He only commends Budæus’s method, saying, “It was right in that author to point out,10 after each article of the law of nature, the application which may be made of it to nations in their mutual relations to each other, so far, at least as his plan permitted or required that he should do this,”11 Here Barbeyrac made one step, at least, in the right track: but it required more profound reflection, and more extensive views, in order to conceive the idea of a system of natural law of nations, which should claim the obedience of states and sovereigns, to perceive the utility of such a work, and especially to be the first to execute it.

    This glory was reserved for the Baron de Wolf. That great philosopher saw that the law of nature could not, with such modifications as the nature of the subjects required, and with sufficient precision, clearness, and solidity, be applied to incorporated nations, or states, without the assistance of those general principles and leading ideas by which the application is to be directed; that it is by those principles alone we are enabled evidently to demonstrate that the decisions of the law of nature, respecting individuals, must, pursuant to the intentions of that very taw, be changed and modified in their application to states and political societies, and thus to form a natural and necessary law of nations:12 whence he concluded, that it was proper to form a distinct system of the law of nations, a task which he has happily executed. But it is just that we should hear what Wolf himself says in his Preface.

    “Nations,”13 says he, “do not, in their mutual relations to each other, acknowledge any other law than that which Nature herself has established. Perhaps, therefore, it may appear superfluous to give a treatise on the law of nations, as distinct from the law of nature. But those who entertain this idea have not sufficiently studied the subject. Nations, it is true, can only be considered as so many individual persons living together in the state of nature; and, for that reason, we must apply to them all the duties and rights which nature prescribes and attributes to men in general, as being naturally born free, and bound to each other by no ties but those of nature alone. The law which arises from this application, and the obligations resulting from it, proceed from that immutable law founded on the nature of man; and thus the law of nations certainly belongs to the law of nature: it is, therefore, on account of its origin, called the natural, and, by reason of its obligatory force, the necessary law of nations. That law is common to all nations; and if any one of them does not respect it in her actions, she violates the common rights of all the others.

    “But nations or sovereign states being moral persons, and the subjects of the obligations and rights resulting, in virtue of the law of nature, from the act of association which has formed the political body, the nature and essence of these moral persons necessarily differ, in many respects, from the nature and essence of the physical individuals, or men, of whom they are composed. When, therefore, we would apply to nations the duties which the law of nature prescribes to individual man, and the rights it confers on him in order to enable him to fulfil his duties, since those rights and those duties can be no other than what are consistent with the nature of their subjects, they must, in their application, necessarily undergo a change suitable to the new subjects to which they are applied. Thus, we see that the law of nations does not, in every particular, remain the same as the law of nature, regulating the actions of individuals. Why may it not, therefore, be separately treated of, as a law peculiar to nations?”

    Being myself convinced of the utility of such a work, I impatiently waited for Monsieur Wolf’s production, and, as soon as it appeared, formed the design of facilitating, for the advantage of a greater number of readers, the knowledge of the luminous ideas which it contains. The treatise of the philosopher of Hall on the law of nations is dependent on all those of the same author on philosophy and the law of nature. In order to read and understand it, it is necessary to have previously studied sixteen or seventeen quarto volumes which precede it. Besides, it is written in the manner and even in the formal method of geometrical works. These circumstances present obstacles which render it nearly useless to those very persons in whom the knowledge and taste of the true principles of the law of nations are most important and most desirable. At first I thought that I should have had nothing farther to do than to detach this treatise from the entire system, by rendering it independent of every thing Monsieur Wolf had said before, and to give it a new form, more agreeable, and better calculated to insure it a reception in the polite world. With that view, I made some attempts; but I soon found, that if I indulged the expectation of procuring readers among that class of persons for whom I intended to write, and of rendering my efforts beneficial to mankind, it was necessary that I should form a very different work from that which lay before me, and undertake to furnish an original production. The method followed by Monsieur Wolf has had the effect of rendering his work dry, and in many respects incomplete. The different subjects are scattered through it in a manner that is extremely fatiguing to the attention; and, as the author had, in his “Law of Nature,” treated of universal public law, he frequently contents himself with a bare reference to his former production, when, in handling the law of nations, he speaks of the duties of a nation towards herself.

    From Monsieur Wolf’s treatise, therefore, I have only borrowed whatever appeared most worth of attention, especially the definitions and general principles; but I have been careful in selecting what I drew from that source, and have accommodated to my own plan the materials with which he furnished me. Those who have read Monsieur Wolf’s treatises on the law of nature and the law of nations, will see what advantage I have made of them. Had I everywhere pointed out what I have borrowed, my pages would be crowded with quotations equally useless and disagreeable to the reader. It is better to acknowledge here, once for all, the obligations I am under to that great master. Although my work be very different from his, (as will appear to those who are willing to take the trouble of making the comparison,) I confess that I should never have had the courage to launch into so extensive a field, if the celebrated philosopher of Hall had not preceded my steps, and held forth a torch to guide me on my way.

    Sometimes, however, I have ventured to deviate from the path which he had pointed out, and adopted sentiments opposite to his.

    I will here quote a few instances. Monsieur Wolf, influenced, perhaps, by the example of numerous other writers, has devoted several sections14 to the express purpose of treating of the nature of patrimonial kingdoms, without rejecting or rectifying that idea so degrading to human kind. I do not even admit of such a denomination, which I think equally shocking, improper, and dangerous, both in its effects, and in the impressions it may give to sovereigns: and in this, I flatter myself I shall obtain the suffrage of every man who possesses the smallest spark of reason and sentiment, in short, of every true citizen.

    Monsieur Wolf determines (Jus Gent. § 878) that it is naturally lawful to make use of poisoned weapons in war. I am shocked at such a decision, and sorry to find it in the work of so great a man. Happily for the human race, it is not difficult to prove the contrary, even from Monsieur Wolf’s own principles. What I have said on this subject may be seen in Book III. § 156.

    In the very outset of my work, it will be found that I differ entirely from Monsieur Wolf in the manner of establishing the foundations of that species of law of nations which we call voluntary. Monsieur Wolf deduces it from the idea of a great republic (civitatis maximæ) instituted by nature herself, and of which all nations of the world are members. According to him, the voluntary law of nations is, as it were, the civil law of that great republic. This idea does not satisfy me; nor do I think the fiction of such a republic either admissible in itself, or capable of affording sufficiently solid grounds on which to build the rules of the universal law of nations, which shall necessarily claim the obedient acquiescence of sovereign stales. I acknowledge no other natural society between nations than that which nature has established between mankind in general. It is essential to every civil society (civitati) that each member have resigned a part of his right to the body of the society, and that there exist in it an authority capable of commanding all the members, of giving them laws, and of compelling those who should refuse to obey. Nothing of this kind can be conceived or supposed to subsist between nations. Each sovereign state claims, and actually possesses an absolute independence on all the others. They are all, according to Monsieur Wolf himself, to be considered as so many individuals who live together in the slate of nature, and who acknowledge no other laws but those of nature, or of her Great Author. Now, although nature has indeed established a general society between mankind, by creating them subject to such wants as render me assistance of their fellow creatures indispensably necessary to enable them to live in a manner suitable to men, yet she has not imposed on them any particular obligation to unite in civil society, properly so called: and if the all obeyed the injunctions of that good parent, their subjection to the restraints of civil society would be unnecessary. It is true, that as there does not exist in mankind a disposition voluntarily to observe towards each other the rules of the law of nature, they have had recourse to a political association, as the only adequate remedy against the depravity of the majority the only means of securing the condition of the good, and repressing the wicked: and the law of nature itself approves of this establishment. But it is easy to perceive that the civic association is very far from being equally necessary between nations, as it was between individuals. We cannot, therefore, say, that nature equally recommends it, much less that she has prescribed it. Individuals are so constituted, and are capable of doing so little by themselves, that they can scarcely subsist without the aid and the laws of civil society. But, as soon as a considerable number of them have united under this same government, they become able to supply most of their wants; and the assistance of other political societies is not so necessary to them as that of individuals is to an individual. These societies have still, it is true, powerful motives for carrying on a communication and commerce with each other; and it is even their duty to do it; since no man can, without good reasons, refuse assistance to another man. But the law of nature may suffice to regulate this commerce, and this correspondence. States conduct themselves in a different manner from individuals. It is not usually the caprice or blind impetuosity of a single person that forms the resolutions and determines the measures of the public: they are carried on with more deliberation and circumspection; and, on difficult or important occasions, arrangements are made and regulations established by means of treaties. To this we may add, that independence is even necessary to each state, in order to enable her properly to discharge the duties she owes to herself and to her citizens, and to govern herself in the manner best suited to her circumstances. It is, therefore, sufficient (as I have already said) that nations should conform to what is required of them by the natural and general society established between all mankind.

    But, says Monsieur Wolf, a rigid adherence to the law of nature cannot always prevail in that commerce and society of nations; it must undergo various modifications, which can only be deduced from this idea of a kind of great republic of nations, whose laws, dictated by sound reason, and founded on necessity, shall regulate the alterations to be made in the natural and necessary law of nations, as the civil laws of a particular state determine what modifications shall take place in the natural law of individuals. I do not perceive the necessity of this consequence; and I flatter myself that I shall, in the course of this work, be able to prove, that all the modifications, all the restrictions, — in a word, all the alterations which the rigour of the natural law must be made to undergo in the affairs of nations, and from which the voluntary law of nations is formed, — to prove, I say, that all these alterations are deducible from the natural liberty of nations, from the attention due to their common safely, from the nature of their mutual correspondence, their reciprocal duties, and the distinctions of their various rights, internal and external, perfect and imperfect, — by a mode of reasoning nearly similar to that which Monsieur Wolf has pursued, with respect to individuals, in his treatise on the law of nature.

    In that treatise it is made to appear that the rules which, in consequence of the natural liberty of mankind, must be admitted in questions of external right, do not cancel the obligation which the internal right imposes on the conscience of each individual. It is easy to apply this doctrine to nations, and, by carefully drawing the line of distinction between the internal and external right — between the necessary and the voluntary law of nations — to teach them not to indulge themselves in the commission of every act which they may do with impunity, unless it be approved by the immutable laws of justice and the voice of conscience.

    Since nations, in their transactions with each other, are equally bound to admit those exceptions to, and those modifications of, the rigour of the necessary law, whether they be deduced from the idea of a great republic of which all nations are supposed to be the members, or derived from the source from whence I propose to draw them, — there can be no reason why the system which thence results should not be called the Voluntary Law of nations, in contradistinction to the necessary, internal, and consciential law. Names are of very little consequence: but it is of considerable importance carefully to distinguish these two kinds of law, in order that we may never confound what is just and good in itself, with what is only tolerated through necessity.

    The necessary and the voluntary laws of nations are therefore both established by nature, but each in a different manner: the former, as a sacred law which nations and sovereigns are bound to respect and follow in all their actions; the latter, as a rule which the general welfare and safety oblige them to admit in their transactions with each other. The necessary law immediately proceeds from nature; and that common mother of mankind recommends the observance of the voluntary law of nations, in consideration of the state in which nations stand with respect to each other, and for the advantage of their affairs. This double law, founded on certain and invariable principles, is susceptible of demonstration, and will constitute the principal subject of this work.

    There is another kind of law of nations, which authors call arbitrary, because it proceeds from the will or consent of nations. States, as well as individuals, may acquire rights and contract obligations, by express engagements, by compact and treaties; hence results a conventional law of nations, peculiar to the contracting powers. Nations may also bind themselves by their tacit consent: upon this ground rest all those regulations which custom has introduced between different states, and which constitute the wage of nations, or the law of nations founded on custom. It is evident that this law cannot impose any obligation except on those particular nations who have, by long use, given their sanction to its maxims: it is a peculiar law, and limited in its operations, as the conventional law; both the one and the other derive all their obligatory force from that maxim of the natural law which makes it the duty of nations to fulfil their engagements, whether express or tacit. The same maxim ought to regulate the conduct of states with regard to the treaties they conclude and the customs they adopt. I must content myself with simply laying down the general rules and principles which the law of nature furnishes for the direction of sovereigns in this respect. A particular detail of the various treaties and customs of different states belongs to history, and not to a systematic treatise on the law of nations.

    Such a treatise ought, as we have already observed, principally to consist in a judicious and rational application of the principles of the law of nature to the affairs and conduct of nations and sovereigns. The study of the law of nations supposes therefore a previous knowledge of the ordinary law of nature; and, in fact, I proceed on the supposition that my readers are already, to a certain degree at least, possessed of that knowledge. Nevertheless, as it is not agreeable to readers in general to be obliged to recur to other authorities for proofs of what an author advances, I have taken care to establish, in a few words, the most important of those principles of the law of nature which I intend to apply to nations. But I have not always thought it necessary to trace them to their primary foundations for the purpose of demonstration, but have sometimes contented myself with supporting them by common truths which are acknowledged by every candid reader, without carrying the analysis any farther. It is sufficient for me to persuade, and for this purpose to advance nothing as a principle that will not readily be admitted by every sensible man.

    The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. It is principally for them, and for their ministers, that it ought to be written. All mankind are indeed interested in it; and, in a free country, the study of its maxims is a proper employment for every citizen; but it would be of little consequence to impart the knowledge of it only to private individuals, who are not called to the councils of nations, and who have no influence in directing the public measures. If the conductors of slates, if all those who are employed in public affairs, condescended to apply seriously to the study of a science which ought to be their law, and, as it were, the compass by which to steer their course, what happy effects might we not expect from a good treatise on the law of nations! We every day feel the advantages of a good body of laws in civil society: — the law of nations is, in point of importance, as much superior to the civil law, as the proceedings of nations and sovereigns are more momentous in their consequences than those of private persons.

    But fatal experience too plainly proves how little regard those who are at the head of affairs pay to the dictates of justice, in conjunctures where they hope to find their advantage. Satisfied with bestowing their attention on a system of politics which is often false, since often unjust, the generality of them think they have done enough when they have thoroughly studied that. Nevertheless, we may truly apply to states a maxim which has long been acknowledged as true with respect to individuals, — that the best and safest policy is that which is founded on virtue. Cicero, as a great master in the art of government as in eloquence and philosophy, does not content himself with rejecting the vulgar maxim, that “a state cannot be happily governed without committing injustice;” he even proceeds so far as to lay down the very reverse of the proposition as an invariable truth, and maintains, that “without a strict attention to the most rigid justice, public affairs cannot be advantageously administered.”15

    Providence occasionally bestows on the world kings and ministers whose minds are impressed with this great truth. Let us not renounce the pleasing hope that the number of those wise conductors of nations will one day be multiplied; and in the interim let us, each in his own sphere, exert our best efforts to accelerate the happy period.

    It is principally with a view of rendering my work palatable to those by whom it is of the most importance that it should be read and relished, that I have sometimes joined examples to the maxims I advance: and in that idea I have been confirmed by the approbation of one of those ministers who are the enlightened friends of the human race, and who alone ought to be admitted into the councils of kings. But I have been sparing in the use of such embellishments. Without ever aiming at a vain parade of erudition, I only sought to afford an occasional relaxation to the reader’s mind, or to render the doctrine more impressive by an example, and sometimes to show that the practice of nations is conformable to the principles laid down: and, whenever I found a convenient opportunity, I have, above all things, endeavoured to inspire a love of virtue, by showing, from striking passage of history, how amiable it is, how worthy of our homage in some truly great men, and even productive of solid advantage. I have quoted the chief part of my examples from modern history, as well because these are more interesting, as to avoid a repetition of those which have been already accumulated by Grotius, Pufendorf, and their commentators.

    As to the rest, I have, both in these examples and in my reasonings studiously endeavoured to avoid giving offence; it being my intention religiously to observe the respect due to nations and sovereign powers: but I have made it a still more sacred rule to respect the truth, and the interests of the human race. If among the base flatterers of despotic power, my principles meet with opponents, I shall have on my side the virtuous man, the friend of the laws, the man of probity, and the true citizen.

    I should prefer the alternative of total silence, were I not at liberty in my writings to obey the dictates of my conscience. By my pen lies under no restraint, and I am incapable of prostituting it to flattery. I was born in a country of which liberty is the soul, the treasure, and the fundamental law; and my birth qualifies me to be the friend of all nations. These favourable circumstances have encouraged me in the attempt to render myself useful to mankind by this work. I felt conscious of my deficiency in knowledge and abilities: I saw that I was undertaking an arduous task; but I shall rest satisfied if that class of readers whose opinions are entitled to respect, discover in my labours the traces of the honest man and the good citizen.

    ——————————————————————————–

    [Notes to the Vattel Preface]
    1. Neque vero hoc solum naturâ. Id est, jure gentium, &c. Cicero do Offic. lib. iii. c.5.

    2. Jus naturale est, quod natura omnia animalia docuit. Instit. lib. i. tit. 2.

    3. Quod quisque populus ipse sibi jus constituit, id ipsius proprium civitatis, est, vocaturque jus civile, quasi jus proprium ipsius civitatis: quod vero naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, id apud omnes perœque custoditur, vacaturque jus gentium, quasi quo jure omnes gentes utantur. Instit. lib. i. tit. ii. § 1.

    4. Jus autem gentium omni humano generi commune est; nam usu exigente et humanis necessitatibus, gentes humanœ jura quædam sibi constituerunt. Bella etenim orta sunt, et captivitates secutæ et servitutes, quæ sunt naturali juri contrariæ. Jure enim naturali omnes homines ab initio liberi nascebantur Id. § 2.

    5. Feciales, quod fidel publicæ inter populos prærant: nam per hos fiebat ut justum conciperetur bellum (et inde desitum), et ut foedere fides pacis cons tit ueretur. Ex his mittebant, antequam conciperetur, qui res repeterent: et per hos etiam nunc fit foedus. Varro de Ling. Lat. lib. iv.

    6. De Jure Belli et Pacis, translated by Barbeyrac: Preliminary Discourse, § 41.

    7. Rursus (lex) naturalis dividi potest in naturalem hominum. quæ sola obtinuit dici lex Naturæ, et naturalem civitatum, quæ dici potest Lex Gentium, vulgo autem Jus Gentium appellatur. Præcepta utriusque eadem sunt: sed quia civitates semel institutæ induunt proprietates hominum personales, lex quam, loquentes de hominum singulorum officio, naturalem dicimus, applicata totis civitatibus, nationibus, sive gentlbus, vocatur Jus Gentium, De Cive, c. xiv. § 4.

    8. Pufendorf’s Law of Nature and Nations, book ii. chap. iii. § 23.

    9. Book i. chap. i. § 14, note 3.

    10. In his Elementa Philos. Pract.

    11. Note 2 on Pufendorf’s Law of Nature and Nations, book ii. chap. 3, § 23. I have not been able to procure Budæus’s work from which I suspect that Barbeyrac derived this idea of the Law of Nations.

    12. If it were not more advisable for the sake of brevity, of avoiding repetitions, and taking advantage of the Ideas already formed and established in the minds of men, — if, for all these reasons. It were not more convenient to presuppose, in this instance, a knowledge of the ordinary law of nature, and on that ground to undertake the task of applying it to sovereign states, — it would, instead of speaking of such application, be more accurate to say, that, as the law of nature, properly so called, is the natural law of individuals and founded on the nature of man, so the natural law of nations is the natural law of political societies, and founded on the nature of those societies. But as the result of either mode is ultimately the same, I have, in preference, adopted the more compendious one. As the law of nature has already been treated of in an ample and satisfactory manner, the shortest way is simply to make a rational application of it to nations.

    13. A nation here means a sovereign state, an independent political society.

    14. In the VIIIth part of his Law of Nature, and in his Law of Nations.

    15. Nihil est quod adhuc de republica putem dictum, et quo possim longius progredi, nisi sit confirmatum, non modo falsum esse istud, sine injuria non posse; sed hoc verissimum, sine summa justicia remplubicam regi non posse. Cicero, Fragment, ex lib. de Republica.

    Phil, hope you don’t mind but it is worth the read………….

  • 620
    brygenon
    February 2nd, 2010 23:51

    AnotherReader says:

    brygenon,

    Then save yourself the keystrokes and stop responding. You contradict yourself at every turn.

    You can’t even accept an honest question and present an answer without going on the attack. Which in and of itself reveals your true motives here.

    Yeah, no one ever says, “Thanks for debunking me.”

  • 621
    slcraig
    February 2nd, 2010 23:57

    brygenon says:
    February 2, 2010 at 10:26 pm
    misanthropicus says:

    [Sue had written:]

    [...] Spiro Agnew, VP father was not a citizen; however, Agnew was born in US. It was never an issue. Same requirements for VP as President. [...]

    1) “never an isue” – correct -
    Yet this negligence should not be repeated – remember the circus when Ronald Reagan was shot?

    Except there was no such negligence. Shortly before Agnew resigned, Henry Kissinger became Secretary of State, and an exception had to be made in the order of presidential succession because Kissinger, who would have been forth in line, is not a natural-born citizen. The same thing happened in the Clinton administration with Madeleine Albright. Everyone respected the Constitutional eligibility requirements.

    Law references and legal scholars uniformly agree that children born in the United States, with such exceptions as children of diplomats with legal immunity and any born to invading armies, are natural-born U.S. citizens. See, for example, Black’s Law Dictionary.

    For a century or so before the 2008 election, the Donofrio/Apuzzo/Taitz theory had no advocates, not even Donfrio, Apuzzo and Taitz. Where were their law-review articles challenging the prevailing view? How come no one heard them speak up for (their reading of) the Constitution until they needed reasons why Barack Hussein Obama cannot be President of the United States?

    How come your side has stopped trotting out all those memo’s and Treatise’s and grad student papers on why the A2S1C5 is obsolete and should be Amended?

    I have copies of them all and I know you know which ones I’m talking about.

    Why did they all argue in favor of AMENDING A2S1C5 if it has NO effect NOW?

    Oh, I asked that question a number of months ago and no one is willing to bring them up any more when they know I’m around.

  • 622
    qwertyman
    February 3rd, 2010 00:38

    How come your side has stopped trotting out all those memo’s and Treatise’s and grad student papers on why the A2S1C5 is obsolete and should be Amended?

    I have copies of them all and I know you know which ones I’m talking about.

    Why did they all argue in favor of AMENDING A2S1C5 if it has NO effect NOW?

    Oh, I asked that question a number of months ago and no one is willing to bring them up any more when they know I’m around.

    I suppose you forgot that it was Orrin Hatch that wrote the most recent major amendment to amend the natural born citizen clause.

    The natural born citizenship clause still has teeth. Those born outside the US who have no American parents are not natural born citizens and are ineligible for the presidency. A lot of people think that Schwarzenegger or Kissinger could have made a good president.

    You might not get the number of responses that you want because your posts are often, as the court aptly put it, incomprehensible.

  • 623
    brygenon
    February 3rd, 2010 00:39

    AnotherReader says:

    brygenon says:

    The term “natural born citizen” is English, based on “natural born subject”. It means a subject or citizen from birth, at least according to the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark) and Black’s Law Dictionary.

    I am not pulling anything. I haven’t suggested anything other than Vattel was a strong influence.

    No, you did not just say Vattel was was a strong influence; you wrote: “And the fact that the framers used his exact language is also very telling.” Understand that when you snip it, that just means it won’t appear in your new post; snipping doesn’t make the facts go away.

    Did you think Vattel wrote in English, or that the Constitution is in French?

    What kind of garbage is this?

    Well, yours, obviously. You thought the framers used Vattel’s exact language. No, they did not. Vattel wrote in French.

    So if they did not get the language from Vattel, where did they get it? According to the U.S. Supreme Court: “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith v. Alabama, also U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    Text from Article II

    No person except a natural born Citizen,[...]

    Text from Vattel

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born [...]

    Vattel’s text was in French, and thus never used the English term “natural born”.

    Are you suggesting that the Founders made continual reference to Vattel while not being able to read or understand it?

    No, I’m suggesting that a Swiss author writing in French, about a body of legal principles largely contrary to ours, does not tell us what an English term in our Constitution means.

  • 624
    brygenon
    February 3rd, 2010 00:52

    slcraig says:

    How come your side has stopped trotting out all those memo’s and Treatise’s and grad student papers on why the A2S1C5 is obsolete and should be Amended?

    Because that’s irrelevant. I favored its removal when Congress considered an amendment in 2004, but I didn’t get my way on that.

    I have copies of them all and I know you know which ones I’m talking about.

    Why did they all argue in favor of AMENDING A2S1C5 if it has NO effect NOW?

    Sounds like you are arguing with yourself, Mr. Craig. My position is that it clearly does have an effect, for example: my Governor cannot be President.

    Oh, I asked that question a number of months ago and no one is willing to bring them up any more when they know I’m around.

    Well, sure. I’m happy to leave bringing up utterly impertinent questions to you.

  • 625
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 01:38

    Stock says:
    February 2, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    When will all of you just face the facts as they are:

    1. Art II of the Constitution-requires the President to be a “natural born citizen”
    2. Our very own Senate in their very own Resolution 511 following the inquiry as to John McCain set forth the definition of “natural born citizen” (born to American citizens) in the last two lines of that document.
    3 Barack in his very own book and in his various bios has clearly stated that he was born to a Kenyan father (who was not a citizen)

    ……stock you have made a very basic error of logic. McCain is a nbc because he was born overseas to US citizens. There are additional requirements if you are not born on US soil. If you are, you are a US nb citizen regardless of your parentage.

  • 626
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 01:47

    slcraig says:
    February 2, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    qwertyman says:
    February 2, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    for all you people who think it takes 1 parent and that child born on us soil to be a NBC then let me ask this

    if OBL,Hugo,Dinnerjacket,or any other non us citizen male gets a girl pregant and that child be born in ohio you mean to tell me that child could become president? where would that child loyality be?

    Hugo Chavez, probably not, as he would be a representative of a foreign government. The other two, yes, so long as they were at least 35 and had spent at least 14 years as a US resident. It’s not a value judgment or an affirmation or an agreement with who they are or what they have done, it’s simply the law.

    I mean, I could play the same game with you and it would be just as crass: what if Hitler had a son who immigrated to the US and naturalized and he had a son born in Ohio of an American wife? Are you telling me that Hitler’s grandson could become president?

    Excuuuuuuuuse me for jumping in, but I’ve been meaning to ask one of you guys about this scenario.

    Do you ‘feel’, ‘think’, ‘believe’ or otherwise consider that is what the Framers of the Constitution intended upon ITS Ratification?

    ……. I think the Framers had the intelligence to realise that the voters have enough sense to make these decisions for themselves. Do you think it is likely that Hitler’s son would get enough votes to be elected President?

  • 627
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 01:53

    MGB says:
    February 2, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    You are using bystander’s talking points today and oddly enough bystander is AWOL. bystander was around all day yesterday, and you weren’t. Interesting.

    MGB I was not able to post for most of yesterday as I was in hospital having my three weekly chemo. Sorry to disappoint you – I will try and do better today.

  • 628
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 02:01

    MGB says:
    February 2, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Black Lion: I am talking about Chapter 57 of the Territorial Laws of Hawaii, which address vital statistics and birth records, these being the laws in effect prior to 1982. They are reproduced in that link. They do speak about COHBs, but the pertinent sections are prior to that section.

    These sections address birth certificates for unattended births. Since no hospital will admit that he was born there and since there have been conflicting reports about which hospital he was born in and since there are even conflicting reports about where his mother lived at the time of his birth, there is reason to suspect that he was not born in a hospital.

    ……The hospital has gone as far as they can within privacy laws by reproducing Obama’s letter to them. They are not allowed to do anything more – just the same as if you ask a hospital if Palin was born there, they will not tell you.

    As regards address at time of birth – the address given in the newspaper birth announcement has been confirmed as that Of Obama’s grandparents from a contemporary Polk directory. Even the nutters at FR had to concede that was game over on that aspect of the conspiracy theory.

  • 629
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 02:19

    Mis…
    Bystander, I wish I could post a screenshot of your entry which would confirm my (and not only mine) suspicions that you are broadcasting from somewhere in the USA, and not from Briatain – in case Phil would be willing to go throught the troubles and allow for an attachment –
    ’till then, in this Elie Light story sidebar, you don’t appear that nice -

    Regards – and posted at 8:19 PST

    Mis my posts are all set to ET – I can only go by what I see on my screen. For example it is currently 7.17 in London – what does this post show on your screen?

    Here is my IP address 92.24.74.212, service provider Opal Telecom. Now will that satisfy you?

    Phil – would you please confirm to mis that my IP address is from London. Thank you.

  • 630
    slcraig
    February 3rd, 2010 04:00

    bystander says:
    February 3, 2010 at 1:38 am
    Stock says:
    February 2, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    When will all of you just face the facts as they are:

    1. Art II of the Constitution-requires the President to be a “natural born citizen”
    2. Our very own Senate in their very own Resolution 511 following the inquiry as to John McCain set forth the definition of “natural born citizen” (born to American citizens) in the last two lines of that document.
    3 Barack in his very own book and in his various bios has clearly stated that he was born to a Kenyan father (who was not a citizen)

    ……stock you have made a very basic error of logic. McCain is a nbc because he was born overseas to US citizens. There are additional requirements if you are not born on US soil. If you are, you are a US nb citizen regardless of your parentage.

    Objection, statement of inadmisable conjecture NOT in evidence, see Marbury v Madison.

  • 631
    Sue
    February 3rd, 2010 05:16

    Phil,

    “To answer your two questions, it would be useful to know this information because it has a direct bearing on virtually all of the eligibility-related commentary you and other opposition commenters have ever produced on my — and, likely, other — site(s). After all, if we could get an actual constitutional scholar and/or lawyer to make comment, that would at least be a good starting point for a debate.”

    Actually, I have never stated that any of the PJ lawyers were “constitutional lawyers or scholars.” However, they are lawyers who actually practice law. I did provide an e-mail that I obtained from a constitutional scholar. Perhaps you missed it?

    “If I recall correctly, I do believe that you are one of those opposition commenters who has commented profusely in many a thread about obtaining a professional opinion on such a concept as eligibility. If this is the case, then I would think that individuals such as yourself would be itching to get such opinions posted across the blogosphere.”

    I have posted a brief that one of the members of PJ wrote. Perhaps you missed it? My comment regarding obtaining a “professional” opinion is because some individuals here do not appear to believe anything the opposition contributes regarding eligibility. GeorgetownJD IS a real lawyer and has been ridiculed here when her comment/professional opinion proved to be 100% factual, not only regarding the eligibility issue but legal rules of law, procedure and precedent. Therefore, my suggestion was to print out the information and obtain another credible legal opinion if they did not believe GeorgetownJD.

    “And I’m not going to register at PJ. Nothing personal to them; I simply don’t believe it would benefit me from a limited resource standpoint.”

    Understood.

  • 632
    brygenon
    February 3rd, 2010 05:19

    slcraig says:

    bystander says:

    Stock says:

    2. Our very own Senate in their very own Resolution 511 following the inquiry as to John McCain set forth the definition of “natural born citizen” (born to American citizens) in the last two lines of that document.

    ……stock you have made a very basic error of logic. McCain is a nbc because he was born overseas to US citizens. There are additional requirements if you are not born on US soil. If you are, you are a US nb citizen regardless of your parentage.

    Objection, statement of inadmisable conjecture NOT in evidence, see Marbury v Madison.

    And the result of Mr. Craig’s legal acumen was that he was dismissed on the Court’s own motions, without the defense ever having had to say anything. We obots sometimes note that no eligibility-denier case has overcome the first motion to dismiss, but we might also point out that some plaintiffs, such as Mr. Craig, did even worse.

  • 633
    slcraig
    February 3rd, 2010 06:04

    brygenon says:
    February 3, 2010 at 5:19 am
    slcraig says:

    bystander says:

    And the result of Mr. Craig’s legal acumen was that he was dismissed on the Court’s own motions, without the defense ever having had to say anything. We obots sometimes note that no eligibility-denier case has overcome the first motion to dismiss, but we might also point out that some plaintiffs, such as Mr. Craig, did even worse.

    Your problem is you think I would/should take your little pricks as a personal attack on my abilities.

    You glance over the brief I submit and the response from the court to them and you giggle like a kid in the playground.

    What you do not see or care to consider, is that I now have the text and structure as if a designed syllabus specifically addressing the cause at hand. The courts, being in agreement, are on record of several key points which may well prove to be their undoing and of the doing of that which I pray the court.

  • 634
    slcraig
    February 3rd, 2010 06:10

    5. Of patrimonial and usufructuary kingdoms.

    LI. In order to finish this chapter, let us observe, that there is still another accidental difference in the manner of possessing the sovereignty, especially with respect to kings. Some are masters of their crown in the way of patrimony, which they are permitted to share, transfer, or alienate to whom they have a mind; in a word, of which they can dispose, as they think proper; others hold the sovereignty in the way of use only, not of property; and this either for themselves only, or with the power of transmitting it to their descendants according to the laws, established for the succession. It is upon this foundation, that the learned distinguish kingdoms into patrimonial, and usufructuary or not patrimonial.

    LII. We shall here add, that those kings possess the crown in full property, who have acquired the sovereignty by right of conquest; or those, to whom a people have delivered themselves up without reserve, in order to avoid a greater evil; but that, on the contrary, those kings, who have been established by a free consent of the people, possess the crown in the way of use only. This is the manner, in which Grotius explains this distinction, in which he has been followed by Puffendorf, and by most of the other commentators or writers.[4]

    LIII. On this we may make the following remarks.

    1. There is no reason to hinder the sovereign power, as well as every other right, from being alienated or transferred. In this there is nothing contrary to the nature of the thing; and, if the agreement between the prince and the people bears, that the prince shall have full right to dispose of the crown, as he shall think proper, this will he what we call a patrimonial kingdom.

    2. But examples of such agreements are very rare; and we hardly find any other except that of the Egyptians with their king, mentioned in Genesis.[5]

    3. The sovereign power, however absolute, is not of itself invested with the right of property, nor consequently with the power of alienation. These two ideas are intirely distinct, and have no necessary connexion with each other.

    4. It is true, some alledge a great many examples of alienations, made in all ages by sovereigns; but either those alienations had no effect; or they were made with an express or tacit consent of the people; or lastly they were founded on no other title, than that of force.

    5. Let us therefore take it for an incontestible principle, that, in dubious cases, every kingdom ought to be judged not patrimonial, so long as it cannot be proved, that a people submitted themselves on that footing to a sovereign.

    THE
    PRINCIPLES
    OF
    POLITIC
    LAW
    By J. J. BURLAMAQUI,
    [1748]
    COUNSELLOR OF STATE, AND LATE PROFESSOR OF NATURAL AND CIVIL LAW AT GENEVA.
    VOL. II.
    TRANSLATED [IN 1752] INTO ENGLISH BY MR. NUGENT.
    FIFTH EDITION, CORRECTED.
    CAMBRIDGE,
    PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
    BY W. HILLIARD, AND SOLD AT HIS BOOKSTORE,
    AND BY THE BOOKSELLERS IN BOSTON.
    1807.

  • 635
    slcraig
    February 3rd, 2010 06:57

    Politics (Aristotle)

    Book III

     Who is a citizen?

    “He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state; and speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purpose of life.

    But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say two or three or more grandparents.”

  • 636
    slcraig
    February 3rd, 2010 08:37

    Even in the overgrown mazes and tunnels and catacombs of bureaucracies ‘light’ is sometimes found;

    [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 20, Volume 2] [Revised as of April 1, 2009] From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 20CFR404]

    Sec. 404.355 Who is the insured’s natural child?

    (a) Eligibility as a natural child. You may be eligible for benefits as the insured’s natural child if any of the following conditions is met:

    (1) You could inherit the insured’s personal property as his or her natural child under State inheritance laws, as described in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (2) You are the insured’s natural child and the insured and your mother or father went through a ceremony which would have resulted in a valid marriage between them except for a “legal impediment” as described in Sec. 404.346(a).

    (3) You are the insured’s natural child and your mother or father has not married the insured, but the insured has either acknowledged in writing that you are his or her child, been decreed by a court to be your father or mother, or been ordered by a court to contribute to your support because you are his or her child. If the insured is deceased, the acknowledgment, court decree, or court order must have been made or issued before his or her death. To determine whether the conditions of entitlement are met throughout the first month as stated in Sec. 404.352(a), the written acknowledgment, court decree, or court order will be considered to have occurred on the first day of the month in which it actually occurred.

    (4) Your mother or father has not married the insured but you have evidence other than the evidence described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section to show that the insured is your natural father or mother.

    MMM…MMM…MMM

  • 637
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 08:38

    Steve:
    What you do not see or care to consider, is that I now have the text and structure as if a designed syllabus specifically addressing the cause at hand. The courts, being in agreement, are on record of several key points which may well prove to be their undoing and of the doing of that which I pray the court.

    …. would you care to point out what gave you cause for optimism –
    because there was nothing in the judgement that would give rise to it – and your nbc theories have been explicitly rejected in other courts?

    And if it is super secret, I think we will be free to draw our own conclusions.

  • 638
    AnotherReader
    February 3rd, 2010 08:40

    brygenon says

    Yeah, no one ever says, “Thanks for debunking me.”

    brygenon, you are truly a legend in your own mind. You think that your strong language somehow validates what your saying. And nothing could be further from the truth. So, what’s the point? Just what is it that you think you are accomplishing with your juvenile attacks?

    You don’t get to be “right” because you say so, which you do constantly. Your overcompensating. Which means, your probably just working out your own inferiority complex from the confines of your mothers basement.

  • 639
    sharon2
    February 3rd, 2010 08:40

    “stock you have made a very basic error of logic. McCain is a nbc because he was born overseas to US citizens.”

    You have made an error in logic. There would have been no need to put forth a resolution to state what already is. Not only that, McCaskill wrote a bill that would have made children of military parents born overseas nbc’s eligible for the presidency. The bill was dropped because, according to a Senate aide, its passage may have interfered with immigration cases which concerned the definition of citizenship (this is from a link I have cited several times; it is one one of the most recent threads). In other words, if a bill were introduced now to declare that children with dual citizenship are nbc’s eligible for the presidency, wouldn’t that indicate that they are not currently eligible? Laws aren’t written to clarify what already is; that is the job of the judiciary.

    “Do you think it is likely that Hitler’s son would get enough votes to be elected President?”

    No, but we have now Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, member of the Saudi royal family and with part ownership of Fox News who is married to an American. If his wife should have a child on American soil (or has a child already that was born here, which I doubt but don’t know for sure), that child under your view would be eligible for the presidency (Black Lion suggested that as a child of a diplomat, that would probably bar him/her but the Prince is not a diplomat.) Such a child would not need any financing to run a political campaign. Let’s say that our country continues on a downward financial spiral. Thirty-five years from now, we have a kind philanthropist, son/daughter of a billionaire Saudi Prince who through the years has helped millions across the country.* Let’s say that this person has no evil intent, is a good person. He/she is charismatic with his/her own message of hope and change.

    What would be the problem with a child whose parent is a member of the royal Saudi family becoming president? Plenty. (that example was obviously hypothetical)

    Scenario #2:

    “The United States has had no experience with what is now taking place in the American Southwest…This Hispanization…is sometimes called the Reconquista…”

    “The possibility looms that in the next generation or so we will see a kind of Chicano Quebec take shape in the American Southwest…” “[Mexican-Americans] could even precipitate a debate over a ‘special relationship’ with Mexico that would make the controversy over the North American Free Trade Agreement look like a college bull session. In the process, Americans could be pitched into a soul-searching redefinition of fundamental ideas such as the meaning of citizenship and national identity.”

    http://www.americanpatrol.com/RECONQUISTA/KENNATLMO.html (I don’t know anything about this site but am using the quote supposedly from David M. Kennedy, the Donald J. McLachlan Professor of American History at Stanford University)

    There are those (and I don’t know the number) of Mexicans who believe that the Southwest belongs to Mexico. With an expanding Hispanic population, illegal immigration out of control, it is possible to run a candidate, and in this instance, I mean surreptitiously, with an agenda. I am not stating this to say that Mexican Americans can’t be trusted. I am not saying that British Americans can’t be trusted. I am saying that I don’t believe that every child born here meets the eligibility clause for the same reason that concerned our forefathers: loyalty. You can’t ensure loyalty 100% but a safeguard can, and was, implemented by the NBC Clause. Our forefathers intended to discriminate or that Clause would not have included that term “natural born.”

    Those are my thoughts for the day.

    As an aside, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered I think 10 million dollars to help NYC after 9/11, which Mayor Giuliani rejected after the Prince wanted to US to take some blame.

  • 640
    tancy
    February 3rd, 2010 08:55

    c.scott says:
    February 2, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    Sorry c scott, your link went to a page in a current events quarterly that described ship movements in the European war. I have no idea what your point is. The individual states don’t make laws dictating who is a US citizen. The 14th amendment and its subsequent statutory definition, USC 8, 1401 tell us who is a US citizen at birth, and it’s anyone born within the United States without regard for the status of parents. This was most recently upheld in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Hamdi was born to Saudi citizens studying in the US and returned to Saudi Arabia as an infant, never to return here until his arrest in Afghanistan. Yet, the Supreme Court never even considered that he was not a US citizen entitled to full due process rights. Read some of the amicus briefs in which conservatives advocated for the judges to not consider Hamdi a citizen. They were encouraging the judges to overturn Wong Kim Ark! Now why would they do that if the Wong Kim Ark decision doesn’t mean exactly that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents? This is a losing argument for your side.

  • 641
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 09:22

    sharon2 says:
    February 3, 2010 at 8:40 am

    “stock you have made a very basic error of logic. McCain is a nbc because he was born overseas to US citizens.”

    You have made an error in logic. There would have been no need to put forth a resolution to state what already is.

    …. you are quite right – there was no need to put forward a resolution. And the fact that it was a NON BINDING resolution, is your confirmation that it did not change anything, merely confirmed what everyone knew anyway. I believe it was just put forward to stop the stupid chattering. Didn’t work.

  • 642
    slcraig
    February 3rd, 2010 09:23

    tancy says:
    February 3, 2010 at 8:55 am

    This is a losing argument for your side.

    We’ll see.

    A 14th Amendment child by definition, (since the expiration of the original intent to ‘make citizens of those recently emancipated), is either an immigrants child before the naturalization is complete, an Alien Foreign National legally admitted on a Visa in transit or the child of illegal Aliens. They, along with Dual Citizens are not NBC’s, all being collectively naturalized by the 14th or by derivative citizenship* from the one citizen parent.

    *( At the time of the founding a woman having child with an alien non-citizen would acquire the citizenship of the husband, as would the child. The 14th put the burden and parenting individuals to take care of and to be aware of the consequences of mixed citizenship parentage.)

    Life is sometimes a bitch and at others a bastard, isn’t it?

  • 643
    sharon2
    February 3rd, 2010 09:30

    bystander,

    You totally ignored that fact that there was a bill first. The bill was dropped, because according to a Senate aide, its passage may have interfered with immigration cases which concerned the definition of citizenship. There would have been no need to write the bill and get sponsors (of which Obama was one). The answer the aide gave was not that the bill was dropped because legal counsel advised McCain is already eligible but well, I have already quoted the aide.

  • 644
    Phil
    February 3rd, 2010 09:38

    brygenon,

    Yeah, no one ever says, “Thanks for debunking me.”

    OK, then. Answer this hypothetical*:

    If it were shown that Mr. Obama were ineligible for the presidency, would you admit that such a truth existed?

    * This hypothetical question in no way, shape or form means that you’re actually agreeing with “birthers.” It is purely a theoretical proposition meant to gauge how intellectually honest you are in taking up the opposition’s viewpoint and seeing where it takes you. All others who view this comment should not see your affirmative answer, if that’s what it turns out to be, as an endorsement of the so-called “fringe,” “right-wing,” “crazy” and otherwise “avante garde” theories that some characterize as being espoused by this site. Objects in mirror are closer than they appear, and the party of the first part in no way guarantees the fitness for a particular purpose what the party of the second part may do with respect to the activities of the party of the third part. Who’s on first, what’s on second, and I don’t know’s on third.

    -Phil

  • 645
    sharon2
    February 3rd, 2010 09:44

    bystander,

    “And the fact that it was a NON BINDING resolution, is your confirmation that it did not change anything, merely confirmed what everyone knew anyway.”

    I want to limit time here so whatever the response, it will stand as is without an assumption that I agree with whatever is said.

    A nonbinding resolution does not confirm anything I believe. You knew what my point was and tried to turn it into something else. Point: They saw a problem with eligibility and yes, tried to stop the chattering, to use your words. If they didn’t see a problem, they would not have bothered.

  • 646
    Phil
    February 3rd, 2010 09:47

    bystander,

    Mis…
    Bystander, I wish I could post a screenshot of your entry which would confirm my (and not only mine) suspicions that you are broadcasting from somewhere in the USA, and not from Briatain – in case Phil would be willing to go throught the troubles and allow for an attachment –
    ’till then, in this Elie Light story sidebar, you don’t appear that nice -

    Regards – and posted at 8:19 PST

    Mis my posts are all set to ET – I can only go by what I see on my screen. For example it is currently 7.17 in London – what does this post show on your screen?

    Here is my IP address 92.24.74.212, service provider Opal Telecom. Now will that satisfy you?

    Phil – would you please confirm to mis that my IP address is from London. Thank you.

    Aside from the fact that I don’t reveal any sort of info about anyone unless required by law to do so (yes, I take privacy very seriously, and I won’t knowingly reveal an individual’s identity or parts thereof), welcome to the club!

    You’re not the only one that gets accused of alleged falsehoods about certain topics. I’ve had to deal with it for more than a year, and this web site is purely my hobby — which means I actually want to do this!

    Perhaps I should be more fair. I live by holy writ (e.g.: biblical scripture) that says that I should simply let my “yes” be “yes,” and my “no, “no;” that means I proceed by my word and I don’t have to make swearings or promises to back it up.

    If you live your life requiring other peoples’ approval (i.e.: need their validation for what you already know to be true), you will never be satisfied with yourself because you’ll never fully and really be yourself.

    Wait a second — this site isn’t your psychological couch! Move along..

    -Phil

  • 647
    c.scott
    February 3rd, 2010 09:54

    @ Tancy

    http://books.google.com/books?id=rmI9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    INFORMATION
    A Digest of Current Events
    Volume tt
    New York
    R. P. BOWKER COMPANY
    Page 492

    I thought my point was pretty clear. Law makers in Illinois obviously knew that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant not having allegiance to any foreign power.

    Il. law in 1916 clearly stated that a child born on US soil to alien parents temporarily in the US was not a citizen. This was the law in Illinois in 1916 after WKA, the 14th ammnendment and in direct contradiction to the New York case Lynch V Clarke, which obowmatrons like to cite.
    Il. law in 1916 also did not grant Natural Born Citizenship to a child born of non citizen parents.

    (Foreign-born women. whose parents become naturalized after they have reached their majority, are not citizens of the United States. A woman born in the United States1 of foreign parents, regardless of whether either of her parents was naturalized, is a citizen, unless such parents were temporarily in the United States. A woman citizen of the United States who marries an alien thereby forfeits her citizenship, whether such alien is a resident of the United States or not.)

    The obowmatrons that post here seem to be playing a good game of whack a mole. Their ganme is kind of like 911 truthers.
    Very entertaining.
    Thanks for providing this forum Phil!

  • 648
    qwertyman
    February 3rd, 2010 09:56

    You totally ignored that fact that there was a bill first. The bill was dropped, because according to a Senate aide, its passage may have interfered with immigration cases which concerned the definition of citizenship. There would have been no need to write the bill and get sponsors (of which Obama was one). The answer the aide gave was not that the bill was dropped because legal counsel advised McCain is already eligible but well, I have already quoted the aide.

    Do you have a link to this? I’ve done some searching on this and found nothing except birther blogs, and I take the accuracy of anything on those sites with truck-fulls of salt.

    If it were shown that Mr. Obama were ineligible for the presidency, would you admit that such a truth existed?

    Yes.

    Of course, that’s about as serious a question as asking whether a person would acknowledge the truth of a situation if it were to be proven that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon, or that George Bush was the architect of 9/11.

    Is that going to happen? No. President Obama was born in Hawaii, and there has never, ever been a scrap of factual evidence to support otherwise. Any theories that Obama was not born in the US start with wild speculation and easily debunked lies and go from there.

    Additionally, if a court were to define natural born citizen in such a way that President Obama were ineligible and that he is to be removed from office, that would constitute the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. Overturning the results of a democratic election on the basis of a theory that would also declare another former president and vice president retroactively ineligible as well as many former candidates would be ridiculous.

  • 649
    sharon2
    February 3rd, 2010 10:01

    Q,

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/04/citizen_mccain_contd.html

    I disagree with the reporter’s use of the term “clarifying” because a bill cannot clarify; that is the job of the judiciary.

    I really cannot engage anyone anymore for now.

  • 650
    AnotherReader
    February 3rd, 2010 10:05

    Bystander,

    IP addresses are pretty meaningless. You can bounce off of a remote proxy from anywhere in the world to disguise your true location. There also are any number of other methods to disguise your computer from the prying eyes of Website operators.

    And as Phil has actually admitted to being an I.T. guy :-)

    I’m sure he is well aware of such shenanigans.

  • 651
    qwertyman
    February 3rd, 2010 10:28

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/04/citizen_mccain_contd.html

    Thanks for the link!

    Il. law in 1916 clearly stated that a child born on US soil to alien parents temporarily in the US was not a citizen.

    Well it’s a good thing that Obama was born to a US citizen on US soil! Also, are you really going to rely on a sexist bill that put restrictions on the right of women to vote as part of your argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen?

    It just seems so fitting, that birther arguments often use arguments used to justify slavery and deny women suffrage to make an argument against President Obama’s ineligibility for office.

  • 652
    Sue
    February 3rd, 2010 10:31

    “You have made an error in logic. There would have been no need to put forth a resolution to state what already is. Not only that, McCaskill wrote a bill that would have made children of military parents born overseas nbc’s eligible for the presidency. The bill was dropped because, according to a Senate aide, its passage may have interfered with immigration cases which concerned the definition of citizenship (this is from a link I have cited several times; it is one one of the most recent threads). In other words, if a bill were introduced now to declare that children with dual citizenship are nbc’s eligible for the presidency, wouldn’t that indicate that they are not currently eligible? Laws aren’t written to clarify what already is; that is the job of the judiciary.”

    You need to read this regarding McCain.

    http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/mc/11/343544.shtml

  • 653
    MGB
    February 3rd, 2010 11:58

    mis said, “The birth certificate she mentions could well have been issued in Tashkent, Ushuhaia, Melbourne or… Kenya or Indonesia.”

    Or Canada, and it would still conform with Fukino’s statement that he’s a natural born AMERICAN citizen. Canada being part of North America. :)

  • 654
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 12:03

    AnotherReader says:
    February 3, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Bystander,

    IP addresses are pretty meaningless. You can bounce off of a remote proxy from anywhere in the world to disguise your true location. There also are any number of other methods to disguise your computer from the prying eyes of Website operators.

    And as Phil has actually admitted to being an I.T. guy :-)

    I’m sure he is well aware of such shenanigans.

    …. yes because I sure would go to those lengths to convince you I am in the UK, even going to the trouble of being nocturnal to post while you are all asleep. Sheesh – that’s the trouble with being a conspiracy theorist, you aren’t able to accept anything at face value. And remind me again why I would bother faking my place of residence? Your other clue would be my UK spelling – or is that all part of my cunning plan?

  • 655
    MGB
    February 3rd, 2010 12:06

    I said, “I have long known about that article at FactCheck.”

    brygenon responded, “So you were dishonest rather than uninformed.”

    I was neither. I take extreme offense to your insults and ridicule. I am NOT dishonest, neither was I uninformed in this instance.

    You simply read into that article what is NOT in that article.

    Read what I have said and please do not read into what I have said something that I did not say.

  • 656
    MGB
    February 3rd, 2010 12:11

    brygenon: A host of non sequiturs does not answer my most pertinent points.

    Not surprising, because most who oppose those of us who merely ask WHY he won’t prove his claims CANNOT answer those pertinent points.

    They will not concede any point, so they obfuscate or misdirect. Anything to bump pertinent comments off the front page.

  • 657
    MGB
    February 3rd, 2010 12:21

    “……The hospital has gone as far as they can within privacy laws by reproducing Obama’s letter to them. They are not allowed to do anything more –”

    Uh, would this be the hospital that pulled that letter from their site when someone pointed out that there might be legal implications from using it for fundraising when it may or may not be true?

    Would this be the letter that Gibbs would not confirm as coming from the WH?

  • 658
    MGB
    February 3rd, 2010 12:23

    “As regards address at time of birth – the address given in the newspaper birth announcement has been confirmed as that Of Obama’s grandparents from a contemporary Polk directory.”

    Why would she live with her parents and not her husband?

  • 659
    AnotherReader
    February 3rd, 2010 12:31

    bystander,

    …. yes because I sure would go to those lengths to convince you I am in the UK, even going to the trouble of being nocturnal to post while you are all asleep. Sheesh – that’s the trouble with being a conspiracy theorist, you aren’t able to accept anything at face value. And remind me again why I would bother faking my place of residence? Your other clue would be my UK spelling – or is that all part of my cunning plan?

    I thought we were interested in the facts here? You don’t take anything for face value, so save the indignation. You pose the question why would you? Everyone here is anonymous. The reasons are many. I did not accuse you of anything and am not presenting any conspiracy theory. But on the other hand, I don’t inherently trust unknown entities either.

    I am only pointing out the facts of how easy it is to conceal one’s identity when connecting to a blog. Phil has in past been forced to ban a UserID or two due to poor behavior and I would not put it past any of them to resort to such tactics. Especially considering the zeal in which many of them go after posters here who simply disagree with them.

    You claim it’s not true, fine. I have pointed out the simplicity of gaming the system. Everyone else can decide for themselves what to think about it. After all, this all about swaying public opinion is it not?

  • 660
    MGB
    February 3rd, 2010 12:35

    Black Lion: I added to our conversation about the territorial laws, but the comment was bumped to older pages. See MGB says: February 2, 2010 at 4:13 pm, on this thread.

    Do you care to respond? You stated something like, in your opinion, the most applicable sections would be those concerning COHBs. But you didn’t address other potentially pertinent sections. Sometimes, silence is instructive.

  • 661
    Black Lion
    February 3rd, 2010 12:43

    MGB says:
    February 3, 2010 at 11:58 am
    mis said, “The birth certificate she mentions could well have been issued in Tashkent, Ushuhaia, Melbourne or… Kenya or Indonesia.”

    Or Canada, and it would still conform with Fukino’s statement that he’s a natural born AMERICAN citizen. Canada being part of North America.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    But it wouldn’t confirm the part where she says he was born IN HAWAII…Unless all of those countries now have a place called Hawaii also. So the birth certificate she mentions is the one the state of HI issued in 1961 regarding the President’s birth. It is funny how the birthers continually attack her “natural born citizen” statement and forgets that she confirmed that he was BORN IN HAWAII.

    Again you need to show evidence that someone born elswehere received a COLB stating that they were BORN in HI where it could be proved that they were born elsewhere. And that would be since the statehood era. All you have is that something could have happened. But the law doesn’t work of what if’s or could have’s. It works on proof, and the burden is not on the President but anyone making those wild accusations. Again no proof that supports anything other than being born in HI.

  • 662
    Black Lion
    February 3rd, 2010 12:54

    MGB says:
    February 3, 2010 at 12:35 pm
    Black Lion: I added to our conversation about the territorial laws, but the comment was bumped to older pages. See MGB says: February 2, 2010 at 4:13 pm, on this thread.

    Do you care to respond? You stated something like, in your opinion, the most applicable sections would be those concerning COHBs. But you didn’t address other potentially pertinent sections. Sometimes, silence is instructive.

    ___________________________________________________________________
    I didn’t respond because you didn’t prove anything. I didn’t read a law that would have been pertinent in the situation of the President. I was wating for you to show us the specific law from the territory era (even though HI was a state when the President was born) that possibly could have allowed the President to receive a BC stating that he was born in HI and explain the verification from DR. Fukino that he was born in HI. I couldn’t find any law that would explain that. So I was hoping that since you claim that there was such a law in effect that had some sort of loophole that would allow this that you could show it to us. I cited and copied the specific laws that showed it could not happen so I would be interested to see what you can provide us that supports your contention.

  • 663
    brygenon
    February 3rd, 2010 12:59

    MGB says:

    I said, “I have long known about that article at FactCheck.”

    brygenon responded, “So you were dishonest rather than uninformed.”

    I was neither. I take extreme offense to your insults and ridicule. I am NOT dishonest, neither was I uninformed in this instance.

    MGB, snipping doesn’t make the facts go away. You implied President Obama had only provided a web image of his birth certificate, but when presented with the proof that he provided the actual paper document, you said you were already aware of it.

    You simply read into that article what is NOT in that article.

    Then people click the link, read the article, and you are debunked.
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

  • 664
    brygenon
    February 3rd, 2010 13:16

    MGB says:

    Not surprising, because most who oppose those of us who merely ask WHY he won’t prove his claims CANNOT answer those pertinent points.

    The pertinent claims are all proven. For example:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai`i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    So you MGB, are left asking a bunch of impertinent questions. Why did Dr. Fukino say what she did instead of something else that you imagine? No matter. As Hawaii’s FAQ on the subject explains, “The statements speak for themselves”.

  • 665
    Linda
    February 3rd, 2010 13:17

    You need to read this regarding McCain.

    http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/mc/11/343544.shtml

    And then after reading that bloviating pice of disinformation, you can hop on over and read the entire ugly truth about those that testified to McCain’s eligibility.

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

    I also break down the FACTS of McCaskill’s bill and it was to change A2 so that only 1 parent had to be a citizen.

    hmmmm

  • 666
    theOriginalist
    February 3rd, 2010 13:30

    MGB says:
    February 3, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    “As regards address at time of birth – the address given in the newspaper birth announcement has been confirmed as that Of Obama’s grandparents from a contemporary Polk directory.”

    Why would she live with her parents and not her husband?

    You know, that is a really good question. Why was she living with her parents rather than her husband? A newly married woman lives with her husband not her parents unless there is something seriously wrong with the marriage. If there was something seriously wrong with the marriage to the point that she left him and moved back in with her parents, why would Barack Obama Sr. be filling out the paperwork at the hospital rather than her parents as speculated by factcheck.org?

    “Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as “African.” It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.”

    One of the differences between the truth and a cover story is that a cover story needs to be adjusted as new facts come to light whereas the truth is only further confirmed by additional facts. At this point I’m getting a strong urge to start quoting Hamlet and Macbeth. I’ll resist.

  • 667
    keith
    February 3rd, 2010 13:35

    read the Res. about McCain where it states born to American Citizens(Plural)

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:sr511ats.txt.pdf

  • 668
    Sue
    February 3rd, 2010 13:48

    theOriginalist says:
    February 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    “You know, that is a really good question. Why was she living with her parents rather than her husband? A newly married woman lives with her husband not her parents unless there is something seriously wrong with the marriage. If there was something seriously wrong with the marriage to the point that she left him and moved back in with her parents, why would Barack Obama Sr. be filling out the paperwork at the hospital rather than her parents as speculated by factcheck.org?”

    Actually, purely speculation on your part regarding that status of Obama’s parent’s relationship. Perhaps, Obama’s mother was going to be staying at her parent’s house post-partum because she needed assistance with the baby. Not unusual, even in this day and age. Thus, the use of the parent’s address. Of course, this is purely speculation on my part. There could have been any number of reasons why Obama’s mother’s parents address was used.

    ““Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as “African.” It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.””

    I suspect that Obama’s mother provided the information to the nurse and/or filled out the form. I also suspect that Obama’s mother would refer to Obama’s father as “African”, since that is exactly what he was; an African from Africa. Of course, this is purely speculation on my part.

    Now, what does this have to do with Obama’s eligibility?

  • 669
    brygenon
    February 3rd, 2010 13:50

    Phil says:

    brygenon,
    OK, then. Answer this hypothetical*:

    If it were shown that Mr. Obama were ineligible for the presidency, would you admit that such a truth existed?

    Sure, (and I think there’s a good chance of that happening, specifically on January 20′th 2017) but…

    * This hypothetical question in no way, shape or form means that you’re actually agreeing with “birthers.” It is purely a theoretical proposition meant to gauge how intellectually honest you are in taking up the opposition’s viewpoint and seeing where it takes you.

    It doesn’t do that. Everyone *says* they’re after the truth.

    The test is how people actually act when shown actual proof. For example, when Hawaii’s Department of Health issues an official news release saying:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai`i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    That gives us solid proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Do the doubters check that question off their list? Or do they act like the issue is something else, and ask utter nonsense such as whether Dr. Fukino was talking specifically about the COLB?

  • 670
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 14:02

    MGB says:
    February 3, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    “As regards address at time of birth – the address given in the newspaper birth announcement has been confirmed as that Of Obama’s grandparents from a contemporary Polk directory.”

    Why would she live with her parents and not her husband?

    … maybe because she was 17 and her husband was a poor student? Does it matter?

  • 671
    brygenon
    February 3rd, 2010 14:09

    AnotherReader says:

    brygenon says

    Yeah, no one ever says, “Thanks for debunking me.”

    brygenon, you are truly a legend in your own mind. You think that your strong language somehow validates what your saying.

    No, I think my evidence does. You thought the framers of the Constitution used Vattel’s exact language, which is pretty funny since Vattel wrote in French. I quoted the U.S. Supreme Court on the language of the Constitution:

    “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith v. Alabama, also U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    You don’t get to be “right” because you say so, which you do constantly.

    But it’s not just my say so just because you snip the proof, which you do constantly.

    Your overcompensating. Which means, your probably just working out your own inferiority complex from the confines of your mothers basement.

    Note the difference between our attacks: I debunk what you *say*. You insult me personally. No worries — hurting my feelings is pretty hard.

  • 672
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 14:10

    MGB says:
    February 3, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    “……The hospital has gone as far as they can within privacy laws by reproducing Obama’s letter to them. They are not allowed to do anything more –”

    Uh, would this be the hospital that pulled that letter from their site when someone pointed out that there might be legal implications from using it for fundraising when it may or may not be true?

    Would this be the letter that Gibbs would not confirm as coming from the WH?

    …. link please?

  • 673
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 14:14

    Linda says:
    February 3, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    You need to read this regarding McCain.

    http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/mc/11/343544.shtml

    And then after reading that bloviating pice of disinformation, you can hop on over and read the entire ugly truth about those that testified to McCain’s eligibility.

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

    I also break down the FACTS of McCaskill’s bill and it was to change A2 so that only 1 parent had to be a citizen.

    hmmmm

    …. Linda are you confusing a NON-BINDING RESOLUTION, for which there was no debate or testimony, with a bill that could alter the constitution? That is your best whopper yet.

  • 674
    theOriginalist
    February 3rd, 2010 14:19

    Sue says:
    February 3, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Of course, this is purely speculation on my part.

    Welcome to the speculation.

  • 675
    AnotherReader
    February 3rd, 2010 14:22

    brygenon says:

    No, I think my evidence does. You thought the framers of the Constitution used Vattel’s exact language, which is pretty funny since Vattel wrote in French.

    OK brygenon, money where your mouth is time. Are you on the record that there was NO English translation of Vattel available to the Framers? Are you on the record as saying that none of the Framers had read and studied Vattel?

  • 676
    slcraig
    February 3rd, 2010 14:23

    Sue says:
    February 3, 2010 at 10:31 am
    “You have made an error in logic. There would have been no need to put forth a resolution to state what already is. Not only that, McCaskill wrote a bill that would have made children of military parents born overseas nbc’s eligible for the presidency. The bill was dropped because, according to a Senate aide, its passage may have interfered with immigration cases which concerned the definition of citizenship (this is from a link I have cited several times; it is one one of the most recent threads). In other words, if a bill were introduced now to declare that children with dual citizenship are nbc’s eligible for the presidency, wouldn’t that indicate that they are not currently eligible? Laws aren’t written to clarify what already is; that is the job of the judiciary.”

    You need to read this regarding McCain.

    http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/mc/11/343544.shtml

    And such a ‘Bill”, just as with any ‘State Bill’ to define a Candidate’s Eligibility with an NBC definition, would immediately be challenged in Court.

    It should be obvious to every interested observer of the subject, any and all such measures will be contested by the opposition.

  • 677
    slcraig
    February 3rd, 2010 14:29

    Black Lion says:
    February 3, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    MGB says:
    February 3, 2010 at 11:58 am
    mis said, “The birth certificate she mentions could well have been issued in Tashkent, Ushuhaia, Melbourne or… Kenya or Indonesia.”

    Or Canada, and it would still conform with Fukino’s statement that he’s a natural born AMERICAN citizen. Canada being part of North America.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    But it wouldn’t confirm the part where she says he was born IN HAWAII…Unless all of those countries now have a place called Hawaii also. So the birth certificate she mentions is the one the state of HI issued in 1961 regarding the President’s birth. It is funny how the birthers continually attack her “natural born citizen” statement and forgets that she confirmed that he was BORN IN HAWAII.

    Again you need to show evidence that someone born elswehere received a COLB stating that they were BORN in HI where it could be proved that they were born elsewhere. And that would be since the statehood era. All you have is that something could have happened. But the law doesn’t work of what if’s or could have’s. It works on proof, and the burden is not on the President but anyone making those wild accusations. Again no proof that supports anything other than being born in HI.

    Well, according to the English Common Law you wish to adhere to, he was also a natural born British subject, so that may explain why she was advised that she could use those words.

  • 678
    slcraig
    February 3rd, 2010 14:34

    theOriginalist says:
    February 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm
    MGB says:
    February 3, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    “As regards address at time of birth – the address given in the newspaper birth announcement has been confirmed as that Of Obama’s grandparents from a contemporary Polk directory.”

    Why would she live with her parents and not her husband?

    You know, that is a really good question. Why was she living with her parents rather than her husband? A newly married woman lives with her husband not her parents unless there is something seriously wrong with the marriage. If there was something seriously wrong with the marriage to the point that she left him and moved back in with her parents, why would Barack Obama Sr. be filling out the paperwork at the hospital rather than her parents as speculated by factcheck.org?

    “Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as “African.” It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.”

    One of the differences between the truth and a cover story is that a cover story needs to be adjusted as new facts come to light whereas the truth is only further confirmed by additional facts. At this point I’m getting a strong urge to start quoting Hamlet and Macbeth. I’ll resist.


    Yea, as an extension to proposition the ’0′ has stated and feels strongly about, it’s a shame and he feels terrible about the punishment his mother and grandparents endured over a pregnancy no one wanted, mmm….mmm….mmmm………….

    As far as the African as opposed to some other, the supposed COLB was produced in 2007 and the PC Police would have regs in place to clean up any offensive designations………

  • 679
    bystander
    February 3rd, 2010 14:41

    As far as the African as opposed to some other, the supposed COLB was produced in 2007 and the PC Police would have regs in place to clean up any offensive designations………

    …. the 2007 COLB reproduced the information on the 1961 document – it hasn’t changed anything. And what could possibly be offensive about an African calling themselves African?

  • 680
    Linda
    February 3rd, 2010 14:50

    Well, with much persistance & the luck of finding a good legalese that is up on current US laws pertaining to citizenship, we have this. The most current law that IS IN EFFECT to this day and it proves that there is a reason why a certain amendment to a child’s birth status would require the parents to show their naturalization papers (i.e. birth certs do not grant citizenship)

    2000 citizenship law amendments (Pub.L. 106-395)

    On 30 October 2000, President Clinton signed Public Law 106-395, the “Child Citizenship Act of 2000″. This bill, which took effect on 27 February 2001, made two changes to the laws pertaining to naturalization.

    A child (under 18) — natural or adopted — of a US citizen, who is living in the US with his/her American parent as a permanent resident (i.e., “green card” holder), is automatically a US citizen, without any need to apply for naturalization. Children who already met these requirements as of 27 February 2001 became US citizens automatically on that date. This provision also means that a minor child of an alien permanent resident (or residents) automatically becomes a US citizen upon the naturalization of either parent.

    A child (again, under 18, and either natural or adopted) of a US citizen, who lives outside the US, can be naturalized if either a parent or grandparent has fulfilled a five-year US physical presence requirement (including at least two years after the parent’s or grandparent’s 14th birthday). The child (along with his/her American parent) must travel to the US in order to be naturalized, but this can be done on a temporary visit and need not involve immigration as a permanent resident. One key difference between this provision and a similar provision in Public Law 103-416 is that the child’s parent or grandparent can now fulfill the US physical presence requirement after the child’s birth. Under the 1994 law, US presence by the parent or grandparent after the child’s birth was irrelevant.

    Note, in both of these cases, that the child’s US citizenship is not retroactive to his/her birth. Thus, there is still a difference between these situations and the “natural-born” cases provided for by INA 301 [8 USC § 1401].

    Information about the implementation of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 can be found on the USCIS’s web site: http://www.uscis.gov.

  • 681
    Sue
    February 3rd, 2010 15:00

    Linda says:
    February 3, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    You need to read this regarding McCain.

    http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/mc/11/343544.shtml

    “And then after reading that bloviating pice of disinformation, you can hop on over and read the entire ugly truth about those that testified to McCain’s eligibility.”

    What exactly do you consider disinformation in the article I provided?

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

    “I also break down the FACTS of McCaskill’s bill and it was to change A2 so that only 1 parent had to be a citizen.”

    hmmmm”

    Hmmm, you might want to read this.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
    Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

    The controversy regarding McCain’s eligibility was regarding WHERE and WHEN he was born.

    Here is the first Naturalization Act of 1790.

    http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/fourscoreandseven/forum/topics/the-naturalization-act-of-1790
    excerpt
    “The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization, “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.”

    It is my understanding this is the only Naturalization Act that ever referenced “natural born citizen”.

  • 682
    Sue
    February 3rd, 2010 15:12

    Linda,

    “You need to read this regarding McCain.

    http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/mc/11/343544.shtml

    And then after reading that bloviating pice of disinformation, you can hop on over and read the entire ugly truth about those that testified to McCain’s eligibility.”

    Exactly what do you consider disinformation?

  • 683
    c.scott
    February 3rd, 2010 15:15

    @qwerty
    [Well it’s a good thing that Obama was born to a US citizen]

    As far as I know that’s not been proven, but I will Barack’s word on that one.

    [on US soil!]

    Same reply as above

    [Also, are you really going to rely on a sexist bill that put restrictions on the right of women to vote as part of your argument that Obama is not a natural born citizen?]

    Uhhh Yes.

    [It just seems so fitting, that birther arguments often use arguments used to justify slavery and deny women suffrage to make an argument against President Obama’s ineligibility for office.]

    You cite some law, I cite some law that contradicts your law, you infer that I am pro slavery, anti womens rights etc…

    That didn’t take long, Whack A Mole should last longer than that.

  • 684
    Sue
    February 3rd, 2010 15:38

    Linda,

    If I recall correctly, you stated that children who were born in US to legal aliens, required the parents naturalization papers to obtain a birth certificate as in Bystander’s children.

    The 2000 citizenship law amendments (Pub.L. 106-395)has nothing whatsoever to do with children born in US to naturalized citizens, legal aliens or illegal aliens.

  • 685
    Linda
    February 3rd, 2010 15:38

    Correction to my last post:

    Disregard for the moment until I get further confirmation from DC as there is definately a misrepresentation in the Title 8, Sec 301 codes.

  • 686
    brygenon
    February 3rd, 2010 15:39

    AnotherReader says:

    brygenon says:

    No, I think my evidence does. You thought the framers of the Constitution used Vattel’s exact language, which is pretty funny since Vattel wrote in French.

    OK brygenon, money where your mouth is time. Are you on the record that there was NO English translation of Vattel available to the Framers? Are you on the record as saying that none of the Framers had read and studied Vattel?

    If you want what I’m on record saying, just stop snipping it in your replies. How hard is that? Obviously I’m not on record saying the stuff you are coming up with now. I am on record citing the U.S. Supreme Court on the language of the Constitution:

    “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith v. Alabama, also U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

  • 687
    AnotherReader
    February 3rd, 2010 15:49

    Since you specifically ignored the actual question, I’ll take that as you conceding that there was an English copy of Vattel available to the Framers and that they did read and study it.

  • 688
    Linda
    February 3rd, 2010 15:52

    Exactly what do you consider disinformation?

    Ummm, could you not comprehend my series & read the disinformation surrounding McCain’s so called birth in the Canal Zone?

    S.Res. 511 is based on fabricated lies and McCain’s original birth records atest to the fact. If being born out of country didn’t matter, then why lie about it?

    Geez, like the GOP doesn’t have usurpers of their own? This has nothing to do with race or party politics. It is about the highest law of the land and upholding it.

  • 689
    Sue
    February 3rd, 2010 15:57

    http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1312.html
    Overview

    “The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 allows certain foreign-born, biological and adopted children of American citizens to acquire American citizenship automatically. These children did not acquire American citizenship at birth, but they are granted citizenship when they enter the United States as lawful permanent residents (LPRs).

    What Are the Requirements of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000?

    The child must meet the following requirements:

    Have at least one American citizen parent by birth or naturalization;
    Be under 18 years of age;
    Live in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent; and
    Be admitted as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence.
    In addition, if the child is adopted, the adoption must be full and final.

    What Is the Effective Date of the Child Citizenship Act?

    The effective date of the Child Citizenship Act is February 27, 2001. Children who met these requirements on that date automatically became American citizens. Children who were 18 years of age or older on that date did not acquire American citizenship from the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.

    What Happens When the Child is Adopted in the United States?

    A child who enters the United States on an IR4 visa (to be adopted in the United States) will acquire American citizenship when the adoption is full and final in the United States.

    How Does a Child Show Lawful Permanent Residence?

    A child who has lawful permanent residence (LPR status) will have a permanent resident card (green card). Another way to show LPR status is the I-551 stamp in the child’s passport. This stamp shows the child has entered the United States on an immigrant visa and/or has been admitted as a lawful permanent resident.

    Must the Child Get a Certificate of Citizenship?

    You do not have to apply for a certificate of citizenship for your child. If you want to apply for a certificate, please go to How to Get a Certificate of Citizenship for your Child for instructions.

    How Does the Child Get a Passport Under the Child Citizenship Act?

    You will need the following when the child applies for a passport:

    Proof of the child’s relationship to the American citizen parent. For the biological child of the American citizen this will be a certified copy of the foreign birth certificate (and translation if not in English). For an adopted child, it is a certified copy of the final adoption decree (and translation if not in English);
    The child’s foreign passport showing the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security (USCIS) I-551 stamp in the passport, or the child’s permanent resident card (green card);
    Proof of identity of the American citizen parent(s)
    Passport application, passport photographs and fees. Go to Passport Services for forms and full instructions.
    Can My Child Get a Birth Certificate (Consular Report of Birth Abroad or CROBA) from the Embassy or Consulate?

    No. Only a child who acquired citizenship at birth can get a birth certificate from an embassy or consulate.

    What Are the Other Provisions of the Child Citizenship Act?

    “Another section of the Child Citizenship Act provides that children (biological or adopted) of American citizens who are born and reside abroad, and who do not become American citizens at birth can apply to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security for a certificate of citizenship if the following conditions are met.”

    “At least one parent of the child is an American citizen by birth or naturalization.
    The American citizen parent has been physically present in the United States for a total of at least five years, at least two of which are after the age of 14. If the child’s American citizen parent cannot meet the physical presence requirement, it is enough if one of the child’s American citizen grandparents can meet it.
    The child is under the age of eighteen.
    The child lives abroad in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent and has been lawfully admitted into the United States as a nonimmigrant.
    Children who acquire citizenship under this new provision do not acquire citizenship automatically. They must apply to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service in the Department of Homeland Security and go through the naturalization process.”

  • 690
    Sue
    February 3rd, 2010 16:07

    ” Linda says:
    February 3, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    Exactly what do you consider disinformation?

    Ummm, could you not comprehend my series & read the disinformation surrounding McCain’s so called birth in the Canal Zone?

    S.Res. 511 is based on fabricated lies and McCain’s original birth records atest to the fact. If being born out of country didn’t matter, then why lie about it?

    Geez, like the GOP doesn’t have usurpers of their own? This has nothing to do with race or party politics. It is about the highest law of the land and upholding it.”

    Obviously, you did not read the article I linked to because that is exactly what this article states.

    http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/mc/11/343544.shtml

    “Is McCain a natural-born U.S. citizen, and thus eligible to be president?
    Yes and No. Legal experts disagree because McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone.”

    “S.Res. 511 is based on fabricated lies and McCain’s original birth records atest to the fact. If being born out of country didn’t matter, then why lie about it?”

    When did you see McCain’s original birth certificate? Why do you believe McCain lied about being born out of the country?

  • 691
    Linda
    February 3rd, 2010 16:24

    When did you see McCain’s original birth certificate? Why do you believe McCain lied about being born out of the country?
    ____________________________________________________________________

    When it was released via the mainstream media in 2008. And also, according US FAM, the Canal Zone was not sovereign US territory. They were strictly under judical jurisdiction because of the construction of the canal by the Americans, however, Panama at no point and in NO traety ever relinquished its sovereignty over the territory.

    McCain was born in Colon Hosp. Colon, Panama which was not part of the canal zone. The zone hosp had NOT been built yet.

  • 692
    Linda
    February 3rd, 2010 16:30

    Sue,

    Want to take it a step further?

    McCain’s parents didn’t even live in the canal zone. The zone was crude, dirty & disgusting. Living condiditons for those there at the time was very precarious.

    Articles on McCain start back in 1998. Surf away.

  • 693
    Sue
    February 3rd, 2010 16:37

    Linda,

    “When it was released via the mainstream media in 2008.”

    Nope, you are incorrect. McCain’s birth certificate was never released to the media. There are links on this thread regarding this info.

  • 694
    Linda
    February 3rd, 2010 16:46

    A Natural subject is one born within the king’s allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person’s being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance.
    An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
    - Thomas Jefferson (1783)

    Letter 151: Jefferson Notes

    http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&