Where Did the Presidential Eligibility Protocol Go?
We already knew that, in recent political history, the press took its role in helping the public to vet presidential candidates seriously by investigating the background of previous presidential contenders and winners.
But did you know that evidence exists much further back in history that there were protocols in place to vet a presidential candidate?
Via BirtherReport.com, Linda Bentley over at SonoranNews.com continues her responsible reporting by continuing to take the eligibility question seriously enough to compile yet another article, this time regarding President Eisenhower.
She reported a few days ago that a concerned citizen had forwarded her a copy of an online image from the Deseret News and Telegram, a long-since defunct newspaper, from 1952. In part, the following was discovered:
The article appeared on page 6A with a dateline of Sherman, Texas. It was headlined: “General’s birth certificate officially filed,” and stated, “A certificate recording Dwight Eisenhower’s birth in Denison on Oct. 14, 1890, was filed Wednesday [Oct. 1, 1952] in the Grayson County Clerk’s office.
“Nobody had bothered to make out a certificate when the Republican presidential candidate was born in a house at the corner of Lamar and Day streets in nearby Denison.
“A copy of the certificate filed Wednesday was mailed to Mrs. Eisenhower in Denver. Eisenhower’s older brother, Arthur, signed the certificate. It was also signed by the Grayson County Judge J.N. Dickson and recorded by County Clerk J.C. Buchanan.”
Assuming that the newspaper article was verified as legitimate by Ms. Bentley (Update: Linda commented below on its authenticity; thanks, Linda!), we could safely assume a few things regarding the history of presidential eligibility:
- Regardless of any outstanding laws at the time, clearly a birth certificate was considered “enough” evidence to help in determining presidential eligibility (this has long since been a question individuals such as myself have asked in terms of the thoroughness to which a candidate ought to be considered eligible);
- Such a birth certificate was “officially filed” (we’re not talking about third-party institutions or organizations here; we’re talking about being filed with the government, per se);
- The official filing was executed at the County Clerk’s office (this suggests that the Secretary of State’s office is, in fact, the one who is accountable to be sure that all eligibility requirements are properly fulfilled);
- Even though President Eisenhower was born outside of a hospital, the actual certificate was not only signed by at least one family member, but an official — a judge — at the local government extension (in this case, a local courthouse) also signed it and the paperwork was officially recorded by the clerk.
So:
Where did the protocol go? Does Denison, TX still have this protocol in place?
Regardless, another presidential election season will soon be at hand, and I have a few ideas on how to get a head start on the eligibility issue.
In the meantime, the first wave of governmental accountability is coming soon to a ballot box near you.
-Phil
phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com
80 responses to Where Did the Presidential Eligibility Protocol Go?
Thanks, Phil!
Here’s a link to the archived Deseret News Page:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jbMwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RU4DAAAAIBAJ&dq=local%20births%201952&pg=6769%2C300677
Linda,
You’re the woman!
Thanks,
-Phil
We MUST not waste anytime after Nov. 2. Obama should NOT be allowed to run again without proper producing the mystery documents. Period. The people won’t stand for it……
Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!
Read the proposals of Hamilton v Jay in the evolution of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution regarding the type of Citizen who is eligible to be the President and commander of our military
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-being-born-citizen-of-united-states.html
I looked through the newspaper at the link that Linda posted. Fun to look at prices and products being advertised in 1952. There were a couple of other things I found interesting, as well.
One is an article about a grand jury dropping a case against a Salt Lake City man who was accused of threatening the life of President Harry S Truman. Since there is so much misunderstanding about grand juries, I found a 1952 article which discussed a grand jury interesting, especially considering how we’ve been lead to believe that grand juries are no longer allowed/needed. I read somewhere that a man got off of his charges after a trial because he’d never been indicted by a grand jury.
Also, on page 9 in the top right corner is an article that states the Progressive Party thinks the country has been altered enough by the Korean War that they can now be accepted — as if to say before the Korean War Americans found them unacceptable. Quite interesting, I thought.
This is interesting, I lived in Denison TX from 1978 until 2003. Eisenhower’s birthplace is a large tourist destination, and a state park and a marina are named after him at Lake Texoma.
If as much attention was paid to Obama’s birthplace, we could learn the truth about the circumstances surrounding his birth. Currently all we know is, if his father was Barack Obama Sr, Obama Jr, is not a natural born citizen of the USA. If Obama Jr was not born in Hawaii, he is an illegal alien, citizenship yet to be determined.
As for Hawaii, there are no plaques, or places, that claim to be the birthplace of Obama anywhere. Compared to Denison Tx, Hawaii is missing out on a tourist destination opportunity. Sometimes the absence of evidence, is evidence, of Obama’s birthplace being somewhere other than Hawaii. So far the only claim to be his birthplace, says he was born in Kenya.
[...] thing: Precident September 25, 2010, 10:35pm By Janet Smiles Leave a Comment From the The Right Side of Life Where Did the Presidential Eligibility Protocol [...]
I might sound like going tangential, but I believe that the DOJ legal attack on the AZ 1070 has been actually caused by DNC’s worries that the Burgess bill might be re-introduced this incoming session in Arizona, and that it would pass –
A short reminder: AZ 1070 was part of a troika of Arizona conservative bills, of which
* (x?), addressed the absurd dimenssions the multiculturalist approach and studies in schools has reached – it passed – very well -
* then 1070, which passed – very nice -
* then it was the Burgess bill, which requires that any presidential candidate planning to campaign in Arizona FILE SOLID EVIDENCE of constitutional eligibility with the state of Arizona – unfortunately, the Burgess bill wasn’t submitted for vote – my understanding is that the republicans feared that it would be too much for one session -
Back to my point – and I think that the DOJ/ DNC (is there a difference?) hoped that joining the assault on 1070 might intimidate the Arizona republicans and make then more reluctant to revive the Burgess bill -
A modest insight from your servant,
Misanthropicus -
Election season…
And Elections news…
“Citizens’ Group Helps Uncover Alleged Rampant Voter Fraud in Houston”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/23/voter-fraud-houston-tea-party-truethevote-texas/?test=latestnews
The story is an interesting bit of history, but the “protocol” here is not about vetting eligibility of presidential candidates; it’s a process to legally register a birth long after the fact. It seems our 34′th President did not have a birth certificate until he was in his 60′s. He had become a 5-star general without one. That’s not to suggest there was anything amiss about Eisenhower’s service or authority.
The Reagan Presidential Library displays a facsimile of Ronald Reagan’s birth certificate, enlarged from an Illinois certificate made in 1991. It shows our 40′th President’s birth registered in 1942, when he was in his early 30′s.
http://terryfrank.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/dscn0552.jpg
Times have changed and the need for the “protocol” has faded away. Eisenhower was the last president to be born before the 20′th century; there will not be another. Reagan was the last to be born before WWI. We are unlikely to have another president born before WWII. Home births have become unusual, and unregistered births almost unheard of. Look at President Obama’s Hawaiian COLB: it shows he was born on August 4, 1961, and the papers filed with the registrar on August 8, 1961. Not 62 years like Eisenhower; not 31 years like Reagan; Obama’s birth was registered in four days. Our progeny will roll their eyes at stories our of paperwork that took so long as four days to register a birth.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
I also don’t’ follow the bit of the article here: “The official filing was executed at the County Clerk’s office (this suggests that the Secretary of State’s office is, in fact, the one who is accountable to be sure that all eligibility requirements are properly fulfilled);” Phil, you lost me. I understand you as far as the federal government and most state governments have a “secretary of state”. The report here is that in President Eisenhower’s time — time of his birth or time of the registration — the matter was handled by the county clerk. Phil, how did you jump from there to suggesting that “the Secretary of State’s office is, in fact, the one who is accountable”?
brygenon says:
September 27, 2010 at 2:21 am
Look at President Obama’s Hawaiian COLB: it shows he was born on August 4, 1961, and the papers filed with the registrar on August 8, 1961.
*************************************************
Nice try bry. Obama’s COLB is a proven forgery.
I love the way you weave the forged COLB into the story in an effort to give the COLB some legitimacy.
Dr Ron Polarik has totally exposed Obama’s COLB as a forgery in a multi part video available on You Tube.
brygenon,
Regarding protocol, if it has “faded away,” then it is amazing that my own site — at the very least — has cataloged quite the exchange of verbiage over a nearly 2-year time span regarding the very issue. To me, on the face of it, while certain “protocols” (versus laws) may have faded, this suggests that, for whatever reason, some folks want the “protocol” back.
While I appreciate the fact that the article wasn’t explicitly about presidential vetting, per se, at least we can say that Mr. Eisenhower’s birth certificate was actually filed at a physical government location, unlike the current President — at least for all anyone knows.
Regarding your last paragraph, at the outset, I don’t think we’ll ever see eye-to-eye on the presidential eligibility issue, and that’s fine by me (I’ve forgotten how many times I’ve said that). The point is not that — back during the first half of the twentieth century — there weren’t any “Secretaries of State” at the local level, but rather that a local courthouse sufficed as the main repository for local records and that one could potentially derive that such an official recording could be construed as equivalent to a Secretary of State office today, if one wanted to go the electoral route with this article (which, of course, I did).
Once again, the overall issue is that we have an actual, in-hand copy of Mr. Eisenhower’s birth certificate which, ironically, was executed in a very similar process that everyone appears to claim was Mr. Obama’s certificate. Of course, for some of us, the issue is that while certain HI Dept of Health officials claimed to have seen Mr. Obama’s “vital records” (I wonder for what reason they were snooping around the President’s files? Nobody knows at this point…), nobody with the authority to declare a presidential candidate eligible for office has seen one, certified, in hand.
As you’ve correctly pointed out, since there are no laws regarding presentation of background documentation, all that anyone has regarding Mr. Obama’s presidential eligibility is a piece of paper that he’s allegedly signed that claims that he’s eligible; he never filed background paperwork to any SoS’ office, as far as anyone knows.
But you have long since known this, so all of this should be of no surprise to you — or anyone else for that matter. Instead, it’s the continued questioning of this President that has bugged folks like you in the past.
For 2012, the issue changes; the question will be fully “ripe” (as Courts seemed to have agreed) to ask the question and request the documentation.
So, if folks such as yourself want to keep opposing questioning the question in 2012, feel free, but you’ll have at least one less leg to stand on in terms of timing. After all, isn’t that what a presidential campaign is for — to “Twitter” (as Judge Robertson now famously claimed) the President’s background, once again?
Birthers of the world unite! Ha!
-Phil
Good ol’ Bry is back!
Bry, I agree that the story on Eisehower’s BC is just a piece of history which cannot be used as a procedural template in other presidents’ constitutional eligibility issues -
But this doesn’t lessen a iota the growing suspicions regarding dba Obama’s birth certificat(ion) – dba Obama’s constitutional eligibility verification was just a hear-say process, with those who should have verified him passing to another level as a truth some prior, undocumented tales -
Pray, why, why no Honolulu Hospital does not step forward and claim the honor of being the place where Barry began his career?
Why no Honolulu hospital does accept the citizenry dedicate in site a memorial plaque commemorating the event?
Why, Bry, why? Why do they avoid this honor?
Isn’t it curious?
CDR Kerchner wrote:
CDR Kerchner writes far beyond his knowledge. John Jay’s letter is not a “direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential qualification”. Jay’s suggestion is about the commander in chief of our Army, and only later was it settled that the President would command the military. This disagreement Jay had with the language of Hamilton’s presidential eligibility clause is in CDR Kerchner’s imagination, not Jay’s letter.
Like CDR Kerchner, I am not a qualified expert on this subject, and if it were just own my say-so I too could be accused, fairly, of writing far beyond my knowledge. Let’s look at the work of real constitutional scholar. Akhil Reed Amar is Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University. During the 2008 election, he was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited Amar’s work twenty-some times. Amar’s book, /America’s Constitution: A Biography/ ISBN-13: 978-1400062621 explains on page 164 that the Article II Section 1 term “natural born Citizen” means “a citizen at the time of birth.”
Questions for CDR Kerchner: Is Professor Amar’s book is a good source? If not, why does your reply brief of 03 Aug 2009 cite it? If it’s not an acceptable authority, why is it in your table of authorities?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
The U.S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Kerchner v. Obama and found the appeal to be frivolous in an opinion dated June 29, 2010. CDR Kerchner and his attorney, Mario Apuzzo, have said they will petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. The Rules of the Supreme Court give them 90 days after entry of judgment by the lower court, so the deadline is right about now. Assuming they get their petition in on time, I predict raving reviews from their fellow eligibility deniers. Then the case will appear on the “certiorari denied” list to put the final end to Kerchner v. Obama.
misanthropicus asks:
One did: http://www.kapiolanigift.org/doc/centennial-magazine.pdf
We’ve seen how eligibility deniers treat anyone who provides the answers they claim to want. A plaque? Honor? Not so much. It’s all harassment and smears.
Look at what Phil just wrote:
We do know. Governor Lingle directed Dr. Fukino to check, and the purpose was to put an end to the false rumors. One might think an official news release, under the seal of the state and name of the Governor, would be just the kind of proof the doubters wanted. Did they thank Fukino for clearing this up?
Bry,
Not quite. The hospital, per se, never actually made such a claim. The letter to which the PDF refers was actually a part of an event featuring Rep. Neil Abercrombie (if I recall correctly).
To the best of anyone’s knowledge, there is still no plaque or proudly obvious display at any Hawaiian hospital announcing the President’s birth there.
Besides, do we even know if the President was born in a hospital? He could have been mid-wived, for all anyone knows.
All we have is a banquet letter, for what that’s worth; nothing official.
I guess I’m just a little confused. Let’s run down the facts as they are, shall we?
- To date, if there was a request on behalf of the Governor of Hawaii to request the HI DoH to view paperwork, one would expect that this would have been a formal request, yes? If so, where’s the paperwork on such a request? Or, is this a good ol’boy/girl “wink, wink — nudge, nudge”-type of thing?
Like with anyone else (including the President), I wouldn’t want government officials snooping around my vital records without empirically-based need-to-know, documented rationale for such a snoop.
- The only official Hawaiian documentation that has ever been released has been by Dr. Fukino, Director of HI DoH, who made a claim that Mr. Obama’s vital records are on file with the DoH.
She claimed that he is a natural born citizen, but so what? We don’t know exactly what she look at, nor is she any sort of authority on whether or not such documentation is otherwise sufficient to further prove that Mr. Obama is qualified for the presidency.
Now, let’s take this one step further. I might be — might be — willing to consider the efficacy of such a pronouncement if it were attached with the candidate filings for President. This way, we would at least have some semblance of a paper trail that an ambitious and tenacious reporter could actually follow — and hold someone accountable — to follow up on such issues.
See, here’s the bottom line:
Certain individuals want the questions to shut up in absence of any actual, in-hand evidence. I would otherwise not understand this premise, unless something is to remain hidden. Who cares if someone sees Mr. Obama’s birth certificate? What’s the big, freakin’ deal? It’s a piece of paper with signatures on it! It’s a proof of birth; nothing more, nothing less.
Some would say, “Well, Phil, isn’t that exactly what FactCheck.org and various other third-party web sites have on display for you?” Well, can you show me any signatures on that document? Can you prove to me who requested it and when they requested it? Who was the doctor (or mid-wife) who delivered the President?
The premise is that I am supposed to accept what someone has given me as being “enough,” and based on what I’ve just laid out, even for rank-and-file citizens, such a document wouldn’t be enough to substantiate certain other requests in life (e.g.: I was required to provide an actual copy of my children’s birth certificates — replete with signatures, et al. — to fulfill certain requests in their lives).
If some are satisfied with images of documents on third-party web sites, good on them; I’m not, because I know how easily such images can be manipulated/construed. Heck, I’d love to see 2012 candidate Obama take that exact same picture and submit it as backup documentation with his candidacy filings around the nation — that’d be fun to watch!
-Phil
Full disclosure.
O/T…hidden church in DC http://tinyurl.com/hiddenchurch
So much silly, so little time. Let me address just one of them with a little help from a source I’m sure you find impeccable: WND
Good ol’ SanDiegoSam is back!
Now — if only individuals such as yourself spent as much time actually finding background documentation on the current President as you do attempting to quasi-debunk questions on this humble site, we might get somewhere.
Not that I’m holding my breath, mind you.
-Phil
All the relevant “background information” is already available.
And debunking Birther silliness is much more fun anyway.
Phil wrote:
The question was “Pray, why, why no Honolulu Hospital does not step forward and claim the honor of being the place where Barry began his career?” The fact is that Kapiolani Medical center did claim that honor, as the link I provided proves. Now you want to pretend the question was about the officialness of their statement. Nope.
That’s your imagination, not facts. Your question was: “I wonder for what reason they were snooping around the President’s files? Nobody knows at this point.”
The fact is that Governor Lingle explained in an interview with WABC, “I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health”.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/06/birther.court.martial/index.html
Dr. Fukino answered your question, and your response was to smear her. She was following instructions from the Governor, not “snooping around”.
Yes, of course. It has the State Registrar, Alvin T. Onaka’s signature stamped on the back. The reason it has the embossed seal and attestation of the record keeper is that those are the features of non-judicial state records specified by Congress in 28 USC 1739. Check photo 7 at:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
State records are not proven by doctor or midwife signatures. They are proven as Congress prescribed. So your children happened to be born in a state that issues birth certificates by photo-copying a hospital document then applying the seal and attestation of the record keeper. It’s the state-applied features that make it legally authoritative, not signatures on the hospital record.
I’m taking a closer look at this post of Phil’s, and I’m struck with a realization. Phil seems to think that Eisenhower was filing this certificate to demonstrate his eligibility to be President.
In fact, this has nothing to do with any “eligibility protocol.” It simply has to do with the fact that prior to October 1, 1952 Ike Eisenhower had no birth certificate at all. This is similar to Ronald Reagan who also did not get a birth certificate until 1942.
The article does not report on Eisenhower filing a copy of his birth certificate to meet some sort of eligibility requirement. It reports on him finally getting his first birth certificate filed at his place of birth. He was born in Denison, Texas and is here recording his birth at the County seat in Sherman, Texas about 11 miles (and 62 years) away.
His brother Arthur (who signed the certificate) would have been 4 when Ike was born. Certainly, you don’t imagine that 4-year-olds sign birth certificates fro their brothers, right?
If Obama actually had a birth certificate he would have dragged the media down to the HDOH while he was there campaigning and made a big deal of it.
He did not, he offered a JPEG to some Left wing Radical website.
Regardless , he was born a British Subject, not eligible.
SDS says
“The article does not report on Eisenhower filing a copy of his birth certificate to meet some sort of eligibility requirement.”
The article mentions “Republican presidential candidate”, do you think the American public thought IKE was getting his BC for a drivers license, 1 month before the election?
Notice the LA and NY times both picked up the story.
DOH!
Bill,
I have no idea what the American public thought reading this article other than, “How funny. Ike never had a birth certificate.”
I do note that Ronald Reagan wasn’t running for anything when he did the same thing in 1942. So apparently, there actually are reasons for getting a birth certificate decades late other than some imaginary eligibility protocol.
SDS
(I have no idea what the American public thought reading this article other than, “How funny. Ike never had a birth certificate.”)
I am sure you don’t have many ideas…
Most likely IKE did not want to get ambushed by the (D) party with an October eligibility Suprise, like they did to Charles evans Hughes on October 23rd 1916. Which cost Hughes the election.
Bill,
Or maybe he just wanted to get a birth certificate finally.
From the Post&Email, Must read entire article.
POSITIVE LAW, NATURAL LAW, AND NATURAL RIGHTS
by Jedi Pauly
How did the Founding Fathers define the term “natural born Citizen”?
(Sept. 28, 2010) — I just wanted to teach everyone the true meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ because I am astounded at the level of incompetence and ignorance that exists surrounding this issue.
First, let me say that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ from Article II is NOT an undefined legal term. It is perfectly self-evident and defined within the context of Article II and the Declaration of Independence, Natural Law, and the opposite which is Positive Law, and the term just means exactly what it says.
Second, it most definitely DOES NOT require both parents to be citizens, or for the person to be born on U.S. soil, because ‘natural born Citizen’ has absolutely nothing to do with your mom or soil jurisdiction.
Third, the purpose and intent of Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is to preserve our Constitutional Republic form of government to be under NATURAL LAW by protecting our sovereignty from foreign royalty so that we will not become a MONARCHY form of government like England or Europe, which is what the founders feared most and were trying to separate themselves from.
It is declared in the Declaration of Independence that it is a SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH that all MEN are CREATED equal and that governments are instituted among MEN. The Declaration of Independence is not talking about women’s political rights! Women are not the source of sovereign political authority, MEN are. What is being declared is that in nature, under Natural Law, that all men INHERIT a SOVEREIGN POLITICAL AUTHORITY EQUAL TO A KING as a natural inalienable right and it is not just for the privileged few families of royalty that existed in Europe at the time, and still exists today. The Declaration specifically lists LIBERTY as one of the inherited inalienable natural rights. Liberty is just a fancy way of saying that one possesses a sovereign political authority. The person with the most liberty (freedom) is the king who is a sovereign authority. Under Natural Law, sovereign political authority is inherited from males, not females or soil. Women do not have natural political sovereignty. That is why we have to have a 19th Amendment to the Constitution in order to extend the legal PRIVILEGE of Positive Law to extend political rights (voting rights) to women. Men and women’s political rights are not equal under natural law due to a man’s natural superiority in physical strength. It is a self-evident truth that men fight the wars and defend the tribe, and negotiate the peace, and institute governments, and make and enforce the rules. Men do this as a function on nature, not women. The political authority of any clan is passed on with the surname inherited from the father. Even a queen can not be queen without a statutory law (privilege) put in place from the males from whom her authority comes from (her father because there are no male heirs).
Natural Law gives one Natural Rights which is an endowment from Nature or the Creator depending on your religious point of view. Even an atheist can accept Natural Law because the Laws of Nature (Declaration of Independence) are a scientific objective subject that one can just observe and realize independent of a Creator or God concept. The legal opposite of Natural Law is called Positive Law. The term Positive Law comes from the Latin root ‘posit’ which means that which is declared and agreed to. Positive Law is statutory man made law that gives you ‘Legal Rights’ which are PRIVILEGES of government and they are the opposite of Natural Rights which are NOT privileges.
Now, let us examine the self-evident meaning of Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ and prove that it is not an undefined legal term. First, just look at the part ‘natural born’. This is meant to convey that we are talking about being CREATED under Natural Law and not the opposite which is Positive Law legal privileges. This eliminates soil jurisdiction from any consideration because you only get legal privileges from soil jurisdiction. Soil does not give you natural inherited inalienable rights. Next, and here is what everyone is missing, let us apply the simple rules of English grammar to ‘Citizen’ and notice that ‘Citizen’ is capitalized. The word citizen is a noun, and when you capitalize a noun in a sentence that makes the noun a PROPER noun. A proper noun means a specific instance or special TYPE of citizen. What special TYPE is being referred to? The answer is they are referring to a SOVEREIGN U.S. Citizen. You can not have a sovereign nation if there are no sovereign citizens. Furthermore, you can not have any sovereign citizens without sovereign fathers to create them! A sovereign citizen is one who inherits a sovereign political authority as a natural inalienable right as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Since you only inherit a sovereign political authority from males under natural law, this eliminates your mom from consideration since she is a female and you only get ‘legal privileges’ from positive law due to your mom, not the natural inherited political sovereign authority which only comes from males. Simply put, ‘natural born Citizen’ just means that one must INHERIT their right to be President from their citizen father as a natural right and not a legal privilege, and we have just proven that your mom and soil jurisdiction are irrelevant and that ‘natural born Citizen’ is perfectly defined within the context of Article II, Natural Law, Positive Law and the Declaration of Independence.
Now let’s examine from the point of view of the purpose and intent of Article II ‘natural born Citizen’, which is to prevent a monarchy form of government and protect U.S. sovereignty from foreign royalty, in order that we may further prove that soil jurisdiction and your mom are totally irrelevant. Lets suppose for a moment that you could somehow inherit a sovereign political authority from just the soil or your mom. Then any foreign king could impregnate an American woman or have his child born on U.S. soil and that child could qualify for President due to an inherited sovereign political authority from mom or the soil, and at the same time would be a prince or king of a foreign country inherited as a sovereign political right from his foreign royal father. Oops! There goes the Republic! Now you have foreign royalty in power and you have a monarchy again. Clearly the founders prevented this by realizing that you only get legal privileges of positive law from your mom or soil jurisdiction and if you are created (natural born) by a citizen father from whom you inherit a sovereign political authority from (all MEN are created equal) then this would protect American sovereignty from foreign royal influence. I have settled the issue. the term ‘natural born Citizen’ just means inherited from a citizen father. Mom and soil are irrelevant. Obama is not qualified because he was not created by a U.S. citizen father.
Here endeth the lesson
Really, you’re still arguing that silly argument? I have cited history after history of the 1916 election, none of which contain any variation of an analysis that says that questioning of Hughes’ eligibility for office had anything to do with the result of the election.
The belief that a newspaper op-ed article written by a partisan a few weeks before an election tilted an election, yet has never shown up in a single historical analysis of one of the most important elections in American history is completely idiotic, but also typical birther behavior.
I suppose it fits in with the conspiracy theories, the head-in-the-sand attitude towards unfavorable facts, and a willingness to say or believe anything, regardless of whether it has any validity or semblance of reasonableness, so long as it has some tendency to make Obama look bad.
Edit: Jedi Pauly is making posts on P&E now? That guy is one of my favorite nutcases on the entire internet! Awesome! He’s got an entire mathematical-esque proof of why Obama is ineligible that makes the Timecube seem lucid!
SDS
“Or maybe he just wanted to get a birth certificate finally.”
Never underestimate the ignorance of an Obot.
“Really, you’re still arguing that silly argument? I have cited history after history of the 1916 election, none of which contain any variation of an analysis that says that questioning of Hughes’ eligibility for office had anything to do with the result of the election”
As i recall the argument was with dear old bob, who left a loser. You of course did not prove anything,typical OBOT fasion. Half truths and lies.
I would suggest you book up some more on the dynamics of the 1916 election if you wish some sort of debate with me.
Q
“The belief that a newspaper op-ed article written by a partisan a few weeks before an election tilted an election, yet has never shown up in a single historical analysis of one of the most important elections in American history is completely idiotic, but also typical birther behavior.”
Please stop with the lies,
Breck Long gave the Hughes eligibility speech the The ST Louis Democratic club, published his article in the Chicago Legal review which was reported in the Boston Globe.
And most likely carried in other papers as well ,IMO.
Just a note, Breck Long wrote the book Genesis of the Constitution in 1926, I have a signed copy.
Impressive!
I let loose on a few posts and am already bringing the opposition back out of the electronic wood work!
Yes, I’m still here, “my peeps” are still watching, and 2012 is just around the corner (as if the 2010 mid-terms weren’t going to be exciting enough).
One more thing:
“I’ll never turn to the Dark Side of the Force!”
-Phil
Anyone interested in researching the Ike birth certificate story can probably check out the archives at The Denison Hearald newspaper. Nothing happens pertaining to Ike’s birthplace that wasn’t a story in the “paper”, as we called it when I lived there.
Breck Long gave the Hughes eligibility speech the The ST Louis Democratic club, published his article in the Chicago Legal review which was reported in the Boston Globe.
You have demonstrated a speech was given, and the election results. You have not demonstrated a relationship between the two events.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
bob
“You have demonstrated a speech was given, and the election results. You have not demonstrated a relationship between the two events.”
Let me know when you have some evidence to back up your conclusions, so far you and the other Koolaid drinking Obot that posts here have offered nothing.
1916
Allegiance was on the mind of most thinking Americans, as the country was on the brink of war. Were Germans born in the US to non citizen parents Loyal to this country ?
( see Professor Henry Fletcher, A Country Divided , Alantic Monthly 1916)
2010
Seems Allegiance is on the mind of most thinking Americans, as a British Subject, Kenyan with Marxist ties Usurps the office of POTUS.
Come on 2012!!
Nothing in that quote goes anywhere close to saying “Charles Evan Hughes lost the election of 1916 because of doubts of his eligibility for office.”
In the last thread that you posted this hilarious exercise in historical ignorance, I posted links to several leading history books which analyzed the 1916 election, concluding in virtually all that the main reason for Wilson’s victory was in him keeping the US out of the war in Europe. Other reasons given by these history books were that Hughes was a poor campaigner, the economy was in relatively good shape (selling supplies to Europe rather than fighting against them). I have never read a single historical analysis of the 1916 election that says Hughes lost the election due to doubts about his eligibility for office.
Your sole evidence to back your radical interpretation of the election is a quote from a magazine which said that many Americans were doubtful of the ability of first generation Germans to remain loyal to the US. By 1916, it was increasingly likely that the US would enter the war against Germany, following the sinking of the Luscitania and years of unrestricted submarine warfare. This has no relationship to a concern about one man’s eligibility for office due to a British parent.
And welcome back to you, Phil!
“The opposition” has been where they’ve always been, at open forums like Politijab, the Fogbow, ObamaConspiracy, and eligibility doubters have always been welcome to debate there (they may feel the numbers are against them, but that’s certainly the case here at RSoL).
Anyway, the article is an interesting one, but I’ll take note that the “protocol,” is not mentioned anywhere in the text of the article about Ike filing a birth certificate, but in the commentary to the article in the remainder of the blog post. So in response to the question in the title of your post, it appears that there was never any “presidential eligibility protocol” to begin with.
qwertyman,
I certainly hope you’re meaning that you don’t think there was any presidential eligibility protocol with respect to President Eisenhower and not in a more general sense.
After all, there’s a reason why Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was put into the Constitution; by definition, its very existence begs the question of enforcement.
-Phil
And the Eisenhower article your post is about provides a perfect example of how our society has changed over the centuries. For most of US history, presidents and VPs and candidates never even had birth certificates to begin with. We had several presidents who were born in (or claimed to be born in) frontier log cabins. Reagan didn’t get his birth certificate until his 30s, Eisenhower didn’t until his 60s!
Until recently, there was really nothing that could possibly be done to “enforce” the clause – your only real choice was to take the candidate’s word on where they were born or look for any evidence to the contrary. When you have candidates like Calero who really should not have been allowed on any ballots, it does seem as though there’s some unaccountability (or laziness with state officials not doing their due diligence before putting third party candidates on the ballot). Perhaps there should be some procedure where candidates for federal office file, along with their FEC statements of candidacy, some form of proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers (for congressional candidates).
Phil, I think this is also the problem you were saying with your other post, where you’re concerned that “a photo of a document” is “all we have.” It seems like your concerns would (maybe?) completely dissipate if you knew there was some agency ensuring that every candidate was eligible for the office they sought. I don’t think you dispute that Obama never had any obligation to post his birth certificate on the internet in the first place. However, this could lead to real privacy concerns for candidates who would submit passports as their proof of citizenship. I don’t know how to get around that part of this.
And to be clear, all of this is separate from the question of President Obama’s eligibility for office, which I believe has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (even though there was never a burden of proof upon him in the first place).
qwertyman,
Pardon my outburst, but — finally! Some intellectual honesty from someone who happens to disagree with my position RE: Mr. Obama!
Good points in the above two paragraphs, and, in fact, Rep. Posey (R-FL) had already brought up (I think it was HR1503) a bill that would federally ensure eligibility. The main response to him? Abject ad hominems!
So, clearly, some folks have certain proverbial dogs in the race that keep them from more objectively considering such a bill. Further, as I’ve been saying all along, the issue isn’t even so much about enforcing eligibility as it is about deciding to what degree such enforcement would be satisfied. I think it’s worthy of debate.
Given your viewpoint, upon whom or what is the burden of proof to show presidential eligibility?
-Phil
Q
“Your sole evidence to back your radical interpretation of the election is a quote from a magazine which said that many Americans were doubtful of the ability of first generation Germans to remain loyal to the US.”
“Radical” you funny
No, maybe you should go back and read the other thread over again.
Why I think the 1916 election could and probably was affected by Hughes ineligibilty to hold office.
1. Breckinridge Long’s speech before the St Louis Democratic club, Oct. 1916
2. Coverage of Breck Long’s speech published in the Boston Globe. Maybe others?
3. Breck Long’s essay questioning Hughes eligibility published in the Chicago Legal News.
4. References to Breck Longs essay published other Legal journals.
5. The country was definitely anti war, ” he kept us out of the war”. Why risk electing a born British Subject with divided loyalty?
6. Possibly Breck Long was laying down the ground work for a challenge if Wilson lost.
I also see you have no idea why the Republicans lost the 1916 election.
Hint:
pro democrat
anti war
new voters
western state
Maybe you should read more books.
Yes, and the problem is that politically, Posey and others like him are playing footsie under the table with Obama eligibility doubters. It’s a catch 22. On it’s own, having a mechanism to enforce eligibility for federal office makes perfect sense. On the other hand, anybody advancing it now is on some level, winking at the hardcore base of people who are shouting “Where’s the birth certificate?!” at town meetings. It may not seem fair, but in the current political context, anybody making bills to enforce eligibility is seen (and I’m pretty sure actually are) making a sideways attempt to attack Obama politically.
For example, The Burges bill in AZ was drafted by somebody who went out of her way to say she wasn’t sure whether Obama was eligible for office. The bill was so transparent an attempt to attack Obama that her bill would have apparently violated the 12th Amendment as well as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Sharon Meroni’s constant attempts to challenge the eligibility of candidates for office in IL in court have been described by Meroni herself as ways to attack Obama’s eligibility in 2012.
In my view, the problem is that enforcing eligibility with documentation is an idea that makes sense on a fundamental level, but is being raised in a context of playing to the birther movement, which has never shown any legal or factual merit to its positions.
As it is right now, a simple affirmation of eligibility is sufficient to meet a burden of proof to show eligibility. From that point, anybody challenging a candidate’s eligibility has the burden of proof upon them. If there was any more formalized version of an enforcement of eligibility, a passport or birth certificate would be sufficient. Applying that strictly to Obama, submitting the paper copy of his COLB to the FEC would meet any burden of proof (and would HAVE to due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause).
That’s nice that you think that, but no historian (you know, the people whose job it is to study and fully understand what happened?) agrees with you. Not a single analysis of the 1916 election I have ever found has even discussed a question of eligibility. I linked several of them to you, feel free to read them!
Q
“That’s nice that you think that, but no historian (you know, the people whose job it is to study and fully understand what happened?) agrees with you. Not a single analysis of the 1916 election I have ever found has even discussed a question of eligibility. I linked several of them to you, feel free to read them!”
—————————————————————————————————–
I see your Historians and raise you some actual facts, maybe not reported in some history books, but facts all the same.
Wilson won California by 4000 some votes, about 1 vote per district. All Wilson had to do was convince 1 voter per district. It does not matter what the issue was, war , eligibility,suffrage,economy or all of the above.
By the way how many individual votes does the winning side need to take all of the electoral votes in a state? 1
Let us know when you find some exit poll data that eligibility had no bearing on the 1916 election. My bet,there is none.
Logical fallacy: argument from ignorance – “You have no proof there isn’t a teapot on the moon, so there must be one.”
“You have no proof that eligibility wasn’t an issue during the election, so it must have been one.”
False, your theory that eligibility made the difference in the election is reported in NO history books.
Again, you are making an argument about the cause of an election result, and your sole evidence in this argument is the fact that a speech was given, and that it was published in a few newspapers. The burden of proof is upon the person trying to prove a fact – in this case, the burden of proof is on you.
“The burden of proof is upon the person trying to prove a fact – in this case, the burden of proof is on you.”
—————————————————————————————————–
The facts are there you just choose to ignore them.
Breck Long gave the speech questioning Hughes eligibility due to him being Born a British Subject,it was reported in the Boston Globe, his essay was published in the Chicago legal news.
If 1 to 4000 votes were swayed either way, there was an effect on the election.
Case closed. Stop embarrassing yourself.
—————————————————————————————————–
The real question is why the Mc Cain campaign did not challenge Obama on the same issue?
Most likely he was afraid , because of Soebaraka’s skin color.
This is a classic “spot the flaw” LSAT question.
Evidence: A guy gave a speech which questioned the GOP candidate’s eligibility for office. The speech, and an essay of the topic, was published in a few newspapers.
Conclusion: This made the difference in a very close presidential election.
Assumption: The speech made a difference in people’s votes.
You have not proven the assumption. The most important word in your whole post here is “if.” You have not provided any evidence that even 4,000 voters in California who would have voted for Hughes voted for Wilson instead because they doubted Hughes’ eligibility for office.
Most likely because he knew the entire issue was not an issue. Feel free to keep up your race-baiting posting habits though.
Q
“Most likely because he knew the entire issue was not an issue. Feel free to keep up your race-baiting posting habits though.”
Anything that gains or loses you votes is an issue.
Most likely MC Cain pollsters and the establishment (R) decided they could lose more votes than they could gain by bringing Obama’s ineligibility.
If you don’t think that race was an issue in the 2008 election your delusional.
I am not afraid to discuss race in plolitics are you ?
Because they would be seen as completely delusional. “Well, you make a good point that some of the candidate in our own GOP primary, nominees going back 150 years, a former president and three former VPs wouldn’t qualify under the definition of natural born citizen that we’re backing now, but our argument stands! Obama is ineligible!” That would be seen as loony even for a Republican.
Seems interesting the racial dimensions of the tea party, the racist signs that seem to crop up so often at so many of those rallies, how it just happens that they’re about 98% older white folk, that white southern republicans are about 5 times more likely than anybody else to be birthers, according to a poll last year… yeah, race has (unfortunately) become an issue. I think it’s sad that conservative demagogues like Glenn Beck, Breitbart and O’Keefe have worked so hard to divide the country on racial lines over the past two years.
Bill Cutting says:
So apply your own logic and debunk your own claim. In 1916, questioning Charles Evans Hughes’ eligibility got less than zero traction. Contrary to your reporting, Hughes did not “get ambushed by the (D) party”. Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic Party simply ignored Breckenridge Long’s idiotic political hit piece on Hughes. Why? For one, “They could lose more votes than they could gain.”
Not afraid to discuss it, just reluctant to do so here where a serious issue might get conflated with utter bunk. Would you discuss terms for peace in Jerusalem with holocaust deniers?
Obviously race was in issue in the 2008 election. So was gender, at least on the D’s side. Did being black or biracial help or hurt Obama? We’ll never know. Did McCain’s class in politely shutting down some of his own supporters, when they aimed low against his opponents, help him or hurt him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLlIigHg1v0&feature=related
Here’s the deal: Obama is our the first black president, but not our last. We will have Latino presidents, Asian-American presidents, homosexual presidents, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, and infidel presidents. Not only will we have female presidents, the proportion of women will eventually get roughly even. I won’t live to see all that, but I’ll likely stick around long enough for some progress, and long enough to vote *against* some of them minority candidates. No free pass for anyone.
For everything that happens, there’s a first time. All the firsts are going to get the same crap that we’ve seen flung at Obama: You only got elected because you’re a…
Was race an issue in the 2008 election? Yeah, sure; but if getting elected President of the United States is so easy for a black person, how come President Obama is the first who ever did?
bry
[Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic Party simply ignored Breckenridge Long’s idiotic political hit piece on Hughes. Why? For one, “They could lose more votes than they could gain.”]
Where is your evidence?
You obviuosly do not have a clue as to who Breck Long was. Maybe Q can give you a reading list.
“Here’s the deal: Obama is our the first black president”
I thought Bill Clinton was
bry
[Did being black or biracial help or hurt Obama? We’ll never know.]
Hunh?
Stupid pollsters, they say Soebrkas approval rating is 92% among Blacks. That must not translate into votes.
q
[Because they would be seen as completely delusional. “Well, you make a good point that some of the candidate in our own GOP primary, nominees going back 150 years, a former president and three former VPs wouldn’t qualify under the definition of natural born citizen that we’re backing now,]
Where is your evidence?
“O” pologist blogs do not count.
q
[I think it’s sad that conservative demagogues like Glenn Beck, Breitbart and O’Keefe have worked so hard to divide the country on racial lines over the past two years.]
And Soebarka is the race uniter? dream on….
I’ll give you one very easy example:
Spiro Agnew’s father was not a US citizen according to the census in 1920. Agnew was born in 1919. Agnew’s father was not a citizen at the time of his birth – and yet his eligibility for the vice presidency was never questioned by anybody.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p5Ru9m0c4Ho/S05BipCq5GI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/6cNj7fCT_Sc/s1600-h/imageCAFPWLM0.jpg
As for others, I’m not going to do all your research for you when you’ve already made it clear you’re not willing to actually read what I link you to.
q
“I’ll give you one very easy example:”
sorry, this has already been debunked by a researcher.
The rest are BS too, and you know it.
Not only was your OBOT Agnew lie debunked, it was debunked at this blog…
DOH!
—————————————————————————————————–
MGB says:
March 4, 2010 at 5:00 pm
dunstvangeet: It’s been so much fun sparring with you on this issue that I was tempted to hold this back and let you blather on some more about my “pet theory,” but here goes: Game, set, match.
WWI Registration Card 559 A2691
Theodore Spiro Agnew
226 W. Madison St.
Baltimore City, Maryland
Age 40 Birthdate Sept. 12, 1878
Race White
NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZEN
Occupation Restaurant
Margaret M. Agnew, wife (nearest relative)
Registrar’s report
Height medium
Hair black
Eyes black
Build stout
No disabilities
DATE OF REGISTRATION: Sept. 12, 1918
Bottom line: When Spiro Agnew was born, BOTH of his parents were US Citizens.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/02/22/eligibility-hi-petition-launched-in-spite-of-introduced-bills/
I was hoping you were going to respond with that!
http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/politics-other-controversies/62106d1272625631-eligibility-thread-agnew1.jpg
This is from the 1930 census. It, along with the 1920 census, states that Agnew’s father was not naturalized at that time.
Here’s the point. There is at least a possibility that Agnew’s father was not a citizen at the time. We have some seriously conflicting facts. However, the point remains: Agnew’s eligibility for office was never questioned.
Hughes’ father was not a citizen. Aside from one partisan making a speech, which has not been demonstrated to have any influence on anybody, nobody questioned his citizenship (and he went on to serve as Secretary of State and as a Supreme Court justice, so he certainly had the respect of a huge portion of the American public.
John Fremont’s father was a Frenchman. There’s no indication that questioned his eligibility for office.
Ralph Nader’s parents are Lebanese. He still speaks Arabic in private conversations. Neither were citizens when he was born. While he never had a strong chance of winning any of his runs for office, nobody ever doubted whether he was eligible for the office in the first place.
qwertyman says:
October 7, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Here’s the point. There is at least a possibility that Agnew’s father was not a citizen at the time. We have some seriously conflicting facts. However, the point remains: Agnew’s eligibility for office was never questioned.
The same holds true for Obama, “We have some seriously conflicting facts” concerning his citizenship status, and his eligibility to be POTUS.
@ Robert Strauss
We do? As far as I can tell, we do not. There is no doubt that Obama’s father was not a citizen when he was born. No seriously conflicting “facts” at all.
What we do have is a bogus definition of natural born citizen that has no significant legal or historical support but that has become a straw grasped by folks who, for whatever reason, simply cannot get used to the fact that Barack Obama is their President.
Way to misinterpret what I said.
Agnew’s father: may or may not have been a citizen. In the end it didn’t matter to anybody.
Obama’s father: never a citizen. In the end, this doesn’t matter except to birthers desperately trying to find any means of reversing an election result they don’t like.
First I concur with RS’s conclusion
Unless somebody wants to go back and dig up SA’s father naturalization papers, we really do not know for sure.
As for John Fremont, if you have some info that the the illigitamcy of his birth was false. Please provide.His Natural Born Citizenship was drived from the mother.
I am sure his ancestors would like to know.
I am awaiting for the supreme court to declare British Subject Soebarka a Natural Born Citizen.
So far the Soebarka campaign has only admitted that he is a 14th ammendment Native Born citizen.
Bill Cutting wrote:
And Bill Cutting also wrote:
That’s why I wrote that I am reluctant, not afraid, to discus the serious issue of race of race in politics here. The challenge was:
“I am not afraid to discuss race in plolitics are you ?”
And my response began:
“Not afraid to discuss it, just reluctant to do so here where a serious issue might get conflated with utter bunk. Would you discuss terms for peace in Jerusalem with holocaust deniers?”
Then I made a mistake. I put aside my reluctance, and my better judgment, and wrote something here about a serious debate. Mr. Cutting quotes the bit of that post where I wrote, “Did being black or biracial help or hurt Obama? We’ll never know.” Obviously I acknowledged that race swayed votes on both sides. Did it, over all, gain him votes or lose him more votes? That’s a real question.
Yes, it was a mistake to discuss that here. Yes, obviously, I should have known better — heck — I did know better. Mr. Cutting’s response is basically what I deserved for getting lured into writing on a serious issue for an audience that is in denial about who is President of the United States. My bad.
qwertyman,
Where’s your evidence of this accusation on your part?
We’ll deal with your alleged “catch 22″ in a moment.
I am so glad, in the meantime, that we completely, formally, and wholeheartedly agree that “…having a mechanism to enforce eligibility for federal office makes perfect sense.”
That is the whole point. But I know, you have a reputation to keep up, so let’s keep going with your points…
Ah, but, fundamentally, why did this situation become such the “hardcore base of people” to begin with? Which political side (since it’s in the Constitution, it is, by definition, political) advanced the notion that anyone who dared to question anything about Mr. Obama “must be” some sort of racist or bigot?
I can tell you it was not the political right in America.
Once you’ve answered this question, you’ll see the “perfect storm” setup. An exceptionally liberal candidate who happens to appear black who is able to do nearly anything that he wants to because anyone who questions him is instantaneously labeled a racist or a bigot. Of course, eligibility falls into this, and is so much more of a controversial issue (to whom? To his supporters, of course!) because it strikes at who he is.
Oh, yes, and there’s a political aspect to it, of course, too. It’s constitutional, therefore it’s political!
The only “fairness” in America is that which is lawful.
Obviously I don’t care about being politically correct (except in those cases where it would belittle a person; going against the law, however, does not qualify for this caveat), so when it comes to constitutional issues, I see them as being well above any “current political context,” as it well should be.
At least it used to be.
Yeah, and?
If what you claim is true, then I would simply respond by saying, “Let’s make it happen, Capt’n!” Let’s get it into law — much like SB1070 — and see what the Courts have to say about it.
Because my wager would be that a Court would simultaneously have to consider the fact that any given State can regulate a federal election in any way that it so chooses as long as such regulations do not contradict the federal Constitution.
And enforcement of federal law does not equate to changing federal law (gee, that sounds exactly like not only what I’ve been proclaiming all along, but also what, for example, SB1070 proclaims to do, too!).
Again, yeah, and?
Who is above the Constitution in America? Nobody. If you or anyone else sees questions of eligibility as “attacks,” then that’s your prerogative. It doesn’t change the fact that he very well could be ineligible for office. Naturally (pun intended), this would ruin Mr. Obama politically, but guess what? If he were shown to be ineligible, then we all know that he himself would very likely have known this all along and would be seen as being a fraud.
Like I said, there is no fairness in life except in following the law. That’s the only true fairness there is in life. And I didn’t say it was never messy.
That’s akin to putting the proverbial cart before the horse.
Personally, I’ve already said that going the Judiciary route at this point in time is a bit of a waste. Other people think it’s wise. That’s the way it goes.
However, just because many lawsuits have raised the question but have been stricken based on predominantly standing issues in no way means that the question of eligibility, per se, is somehow illegitimate; it means that the Judiciary probably wasn’t the best route to take on this issue, even though it’s the path that many well-intentioned citizens took at the time.
In other words, when citizens are asking for justice for what they see as a wrong being done to them, they should not be castigated because they’re route to justice is wrong. It’s a real shame that there are many smart folks who are so “in the tank” for Obama (otherwise known as “O-bots”) that instead of helping their fellow citizens with whom they disagree down a better path, they have, instead, personally attacked them in practically every conceivable manner for even asking a question.
And that, to me, is beyond outrageous. That is the continuation of soft tyranny.
Well, obviously, else Mr. Obama would never have made it to the the Congressional Joint Session to be confirmed as President.
Of course, that’s not been the issue…
Again, no disagreement here. And even if this were the best route to challenge, it is currently blocked by privacy laws which, under any other circumstance, are perfectly legitimate in their intent.
You don’t know that, because such a requirement has not been formalized, to date. Therefore, you’re speculating on the degree to which eligibility is sufficient.
And that’s part of the point of having a free, open debate on eligibility and not a “smack down” where those who oppose the question immediately label those who question such pejoratives as “birthers.”
Frankly, that’s exactly what I’ve been asking for quite some time as well.
Instead of submitting some image of an alleged document to a third-party private web site, submit the stupid thing to a governmental web site such as the FEC. Let’s see what would happen.
-Phil
Interesting, Dicey once proposed common citizenship between the USA and England. To reverse the Revolution no doubt.
“So, on the other hand, a British subject, to whom American citizenship had been extended, might, on the necessary conditions being fulfilled, vote for a member of Congress, become a member of the House of Representatives, or even a Senator. To one glory, it must be admitted, he could not attain : he must forego any hope of the Presidentship, for none but a natural born citizen can become President of the United States.”
Looks like he got his wish with the election of Obama.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA593&dq=Dicey%20Natural%20Born%20Citizen&ei=83ywTM-hEo2RnwfQ4biDBg&ct=result&id=d3xHAAAAYAAJ&output=text
“The Problem with Dual Nationality in the Time of War”
Sept , 1915
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=990CE0DC153BE233A25751C1A96F9C946496D6CF
well well
Seems the citizenship of a child born to parents in the USA not naturalized, was disscuused in length in the New York Times.
1 year beofre the 1916 election.
Looks like my conclusions were correct. Read it and weep Obot’s.
I wonder if wiki will recognize this article?
full disclosure
Phil,
Most of the rest of my prior post was devoted to evidence of this “accusation,” from Burges to Meroni. Chris Matthews got Posey himself (after asking about 10 times) to admit that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Right wingers are experts at playing the victim. Sarah Palin has made millions of dollars doing so. When the NAACP said that elements of the tea party were racist (a fact, given the racist posters often seen at those rallies), the right wing blew it out of proportion and has been saying that the NAACP accused every single tea partier of racism.
When DHS put out two reports last year discussing left-wing and right-wing terrorism, tea parties ignored the left-wing report and took the right-wing report and twisted it to mean “DHS is calling all conservatives terrorists.” That’s a magnificent act of playing the victim and blowing things out of proportion.
Nobody has said that ANYBODY who questions Obama on his policies is a bigot. Never. There is plenty of room for people of good conscious to disagree with his health care reform bill, his lack of movement on closing Guantanamo, his willingness to continue Bush policies on warrantless wiretaps, and his (in my view misguided) escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
This is from the AZ bill:
Remember when I took this bill apart, bit by bit? It only requires the presidential candidate to make such a showing, even though the VP is constitutionally required to meet the same eligibility requirements as the President. By providing for this double standard, this bill violates the 12th Amendment. Further, the “reasonable cause” is left completely undefined. Would they reject another state’s official documentation? Doing so would violate Full Faith and Credit. No grounds is placed for appeal, thus providing for no due process. Again, this bill would be quickly struck down by any court in which a suit was brought for an injunction against the bill.
This bill was a perfect example of a birther so eager to undermine Obama that they crafted a bill so clumsy that it would blatantly violate the Constitution is at least two different ways. And just in case you still doubt that this bill was written up with Obama in mind:
http://themoderatevoice.com/70229/were-a-national-joke-laments-arizona-legislator/
“Asking a question?” There’s no questions being asked. It’s conclusion after conclusion. WND has “declared” Obama not to be eligible for office because he doesn’t cater to their whims. Birthers have lied SO MANY TIMES that it’s impossible to take them at their word anymore.
Remember the blatant lies about a travel ban to Pakistan in 1981?
Remember how non-citizens were BANNED from attending public school in Indonesia?
Remember how the COLB was “not good enough” for Little League?
Remember how SR 511 said that only somebody born of two parent citizens was a natural born citizen?
Remember that clip of Obama’s step-grandmother that conveniently cutoff seconds before she said that Obama was born in Hawaii while her father was studying in school there?
The list goes on and on. Birthers are attacked because they have told lie after lie. They argue, 120 years after the fact, that a former president is a retroactive usurper for the sole reason that he is inconvenient to their legal argument, and argument that not a single current Congressman, judge, constitutional scholar or law professor advocates. Birthers are attacked because it is perceived that their movement against Obama is racially based. In many cases, birthers are racists. I’ve debated some of them myself.
Fuck you! This right here is the problem with the birther movement and tea partiers. You have no idea how offensive your rhetoric is to anybody who disagrees with you on any point.
So I don’t agree with the point of view that birthers put forth? Then I must be supporting tyranny! You are talking with somebody with which you actually have a point of agreement, something pretty rare among your opposition commenters. And then you go ahead and say that they are advocating the “continuation of soft tyranny.” You don’t know who I am, and yet on the sole basis of being somebody who really doesn’t buy into the birther conspiracy theory, I’m a collaborator with “soft tyranny.”
This seems to be a pervasive habit among birthers. If they disagree with you, call them a name. Orly Taitz called a Jewish reporter a brownshirt during a TV interview. I get threatened with violence on this site, told I should go kill myself, and called an advocate of soft tyranny by the creator of this website for the sole reason that I don’t buy into birther rhetoric.
And absolutely nothing in that article suggests that that child is not a natural born citizen.
Do you just look for headlines and then post a link to the article without reading it, or checking to see if it actually states anything to support your birther legal interpretations? Do you assume that nobody will actually check what you link to? Maybe that’s what happens on FreeRepublic, but among people with brains, they’ll actually take the time to read what you post.
It makes skeptical people less likely to believe you when you claim an article says that a dual citizen cannot be a natural born citizen when the article itself says no such thing.
Absolutely nothing in this article suggests that a speech a year later attacking Hughes’ eligibility for office changed the mind of several thousand people in California. You still have a grand total of 0 historians who agree with your analysis of the 1916 election.
Quite a wonderful article… did you read it?
Apparently not.
SAS
“The Problem with Dual Nationality in the Time of War”
Sept , 1915
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=990CE0DC153BE233A25751C1A96F9C946496D6CF
Quite a wonderful article… did you read it?
Looks like my conclusions were correct.
Apparently not.
—————————————————————————————————–
Again Sammy the OBOT troll brings nothing.
A weird historical twist here, Teddy Roosevelt (R) who brought the Dual Nationality issue to the forefront actually set the stage for Breck Long (D)to write his article challenging Charles Evans Hughes(R).
Long brought this National issue to the next level.
How can a Natural Born Citizen have allegiance to 2 countries.?
A Natural Born Citizen can only have allegiance to one Country.
Pretty simple concept. Unless you are an OBOT….
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=990CE0DC153BE233A25751C1A96F9C946496D6CF
Does anyone know when the International convention took place clearing this up?
From The Article
{Meantime, on April 14, 1802, and Feb. 10, 1855, Congress had passed acts embodying the principle of the jus sanguinis.
The eminent Judge who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the well-known case of the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, the leading case on native American citizenship, said that ” it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own Constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship,” (169 U. S., 649, 668.) This is simple enough, but how to accommodate the conflicting claims of different countries to the allegiance of the same persons is a matter which has never been satisfactorily settled, and can only be settled through international conventions.}
more
{A conflict, however, is obviated by the rule—which is indeed but the practical formulation of the doctrine Itself—that the liability of the child to the performance of the duties of allegiance Is determined by the laws of that one of the two countries in which he actually is.
Oppenheim, in his recent work entitled ” International Law,” makes the following observations in his chapter headed, ” Double and Absent Nationality,” (Vol. I., Pp. 363 and 364):
An Individual may own double nationality knowingly and unknowingly, and with or without intention. And double nationality may be produced by every mode of acquiring nationality. Even birth can vest a child with double nationality. Thus, every child born in Great Britain of German parents acquires at the same time British and German nationality, for such child is British according to British, and German according to German municipal law.
Individuals owning double nationality bear in the language of diplomatists the name sujets mixtes. The position of such ” mixed subjects ” Is awkward on account of the fact that two different States claim them as subjects, and therefore their allegiance. In case a serious dispute arises between these two States which leads to war, an Irreconcilable conflict of duties is created for these unfortunate Individuals}
Again
[The position of such " mixed subjects " Is awkward on account of the fact that two different States claim them as subjects, and therefore their allegiance. In case a serious dispute arises between these two States which leads to war, an Irreconcilable conflict of duties is created for these unfortunate Individuals]
Remove “unforunate individuals” and insert Barack Hussein Obama.
A Natural Born American citizen would never be in such a position.
Two things:
1. There is not a single current judge, Congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with that argument.
2. Your argument would give every single country effective veto power over who would be eligible for POTUS or VP. If dual citizenship is a disqualifier (as you argue), then Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il could at a stroke disqualify every American by granting them citizenship of Venezuela or North Korea. After all, under your argument, those people would now be “unfortunate” and “a natural born American citizen would never be in such a position.”
Italy grants citizenship to grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Italian citizens. Under your argument, a third generation native-born American is thus ineligible for office. Israel grants citizenship to any Jew in the world who wants it. Does that mean that no Jew in America is eligible for the presidency? Until the 50s, France granted citizenship to all those of Huguenot ancestry. Your dual citizenship standard would prevent anybody with any Huguenot ancestry more than 50 years old from being able to run for the highest office.
I really don’t think you’ve thought this all the way through. Maybe that’s why there’s no current judge, Congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with you.
@ Bill Cutting:
Easy. In fact, if they are dual citizens they have twice as many opportunities to be natural born as a person with only one citizenship.
The United States has tens of millions of natural born citizens who are also dual citizens. I am one of them.
Not even Vattel ever made such a stupid assertion.
Too bad simple and wrong are not mutually exclusive.
@ qwertyman
Which of course means that (at least) the following Presidents were dual citizens of France:
JFK, FDR, William Taft, Harry Truman, John Tyler and (though he was grandfathered) George Washington.
Oh… and by the way though he was never president… so was John Jay.