Main Menu

Response to Eligibility Primer (Part 2)

This is a continuation of the discussion of the June 5, 2009, article titled Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer by Stephen Tonchen. We resume at the end of his section 4:

In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in ‘Wong Kim Ark’).

This is a major gloss over one of the most sweeping surveys of citizenship ever appearing in US jurisprudence. The question before the court was whether Wong Kim Ark, born in California of Chinese subjects at a time when racist legislation (the Chinese Exclusion Act) prohibited the Chinese from becoming naturalized citizens, was a citizen. The Court said that he was. But in the majority opinion, the Court said a great many things of importance, specifically:

  1. Citing Smith v. Alabama, the court said that the Constitution is framed in the language of English Common Law
  2. The Court cited English Common law, saying that those born in England are natural born subjects of England, without regard for the citizenship of their parents
  3. The Court asserted the equivalence of “citizen” and “subject”.

While US v. Wong did not decide the natural born citizen question, the majority opinion leads inevitably to the conclusion that those born within the United States (except the children of ambassadors) are our natural born citizens, without regard to the citizenship of their parents.

Next in Tonchen’s article we read some details about Barack Obama’s birth, that his father was a “British Subject” (technically Obama was a Citizen of the UK and Colonies, not a British subject). Tonchen says:

If Barack Obama Jr. was born in the United States but, at the time of his birth, his father was a citizen of a foreign country and not a U.S. citizen, does Barack Obama Jr. meet the Constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement for presidency?

Obama apologists say “Yes”.

Earlier in the piece, Tonchen says that a consensus of the Congress and the media believe that birth in the United States is sufficient, but now he relegates this view to “Obama apologists”.

I note that Tonchen uses the term “birther” differently than the editorial policy of this web site. For Tonchen, a birther  is anyone who doubts Obama’s eligibility to be president, where here we use it for anyone who doubts that Obama was born in the United States. Keep this in mind when comparing the two sources. Tonchen describes the born in Africa story as “unsubstantiated rumors,” so we will agree on this point and move on to his comment:

The U.S. Constitution, and the Naturalization Acts of Massachusetts (1776-1790), use the term “natural born citizen” but do not define it.

The Massachusetts acts, while not defining the term (implying that the term was established already in common law), do present some interesting language suggesting the absence of a parentage requirement (consistent with common law definitions). Here is a sample from the act naturalizing Peter Landais:

Be it enacted…that upon the taking and Subscribing the Oath of Allegiance…the said Peter Landais…shall be deemed and adjudged and taken to be a natural [other acts say “born” in this spot] Subject [other acts say “citizen” in this spot] of this State to all Intents and Purposes as if he the said Peter Landais had been Born within this State and had continued and dwelt therein from the Time of his Birth and having been here abiding on the fourth day of June…[1776].

Here we see that this grant of natural born subject status is equivalent to someone being born in the state and continuing to reside there. Not a word about  natural born subjects having a parental requirement. We see similar language (without any reference to parentage) in the Naturalization Acts of New York. It is quite clear from these acts, as well as from the Charter of Georgia and legislation in South Carolina that the phrase natural born citizen/subject was universally tied to birth within the state/colony without regard to the status of the parents.

Tonchen follows with:

Five years later, Congress repealed the 1790 [Naturalization] Act and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795. The wording of the 1795 Act was essentially the same as the 1790 Act, except that the term “natural born citizens” was deleted and replaced with “citizens”.

I would object to the assertion that the two acts were essentially the same. One is twice as long as the other, and the section specifically about children of citizens born overseas has been rewritten. It is not at all clear whether the drafters of the 1795 act dropped the phrase “natural born” for substantive legal reasons or just because they thought that all children who were citizens at birth are natural born, and therefore the phrase was unnecessary, and the change was made to improve the flow of the text (which it did). Compare the text of the two acts for yourself.

In Section 6, Tonchen relies on the Leo Donofrio’s slander of the late president Chester A. Arthur by saying:

When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President and later President, he told outright lies and burned historical records, to conceal the fact that, although he was born in the United States, his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his (President Arthur’s) birth. If “natural born citizen” means anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much trouble to convince the public that his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born? It is inconceivable that Chester Arthur would have taken such extraordinary measures, unless he believed that his birth to non-citizen parents made him ineligible to serve as VP or President (Historical Breakthrough — Chester Arthur).

There are a number of misleading statements and half-truths here. The facts are:

  1. While Chester Arthur lied saying he was one year younger than he really was, and he got some family details and dates wrong, he never said his father was a US Citizen when Arthur was born.
  2. While he did burn his papers before his death, he did not do so in the context or time of the election.
  3. Arthur made no statement implying that his father was a citizen when Arthur was born.
  4. Arthur, a lawyer from New York, may well have read the New York Chancery Court opinion that said the children of aliens born in the United States were eligible to be president (Lynch v. Clarke). Therefore, there is no rational explanation for the claim that Arthur thought he was ineligible, since the NY Court had said that the universal public opinion was that children of aliens born in the US are natural born citizens.
  5. Finally, through original research, Obama Conspiracy Theories has found evidence that at least one Arthur opponent was aware of Arthur’s father’s naturalization status.

This is discussed at length in two articles on this web site:

Tonchen then says:

On March 9, 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, said the following in a speech before House of Representatives:

[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, 1866, as quoted in Defining Natural Born Citizen)

The problem with this quotation, is that the reader is not treated to the context of what “allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” meant at the time. Allegiance in the United States (as is jurisdiction and citizenship) is attached to the place of birth as stated by framer of the Constitution, President James Madison:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.

Tonchen, continuing to provide true evidence, but misdirecting it says:

In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century

This is true, but we should emphasize that the English translation of de Vattel available at the time the Constitution was written said indigenes [a transliteration of the 0f the original French] and not “natural born citizen”. The 1779 translation is hardly a clarification, but an inexplicable departure from the original.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

254 Responses to Response to Eligibility Primer (Part 2)

  1. avatar
    Shrieking wombat June 21, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    Thanks to one of Orly’s commenters, the real reasons the Supreme Court won’t hear the eleigibility suits can now be revealed:

    “the only reason I can think of that bho threaten them with some kind of nuclear suitcase or massive bio terror to be released and he has the proof to hold us hostage and is blackmailing congress ans stalling for time. thats the only sane reason they won’t go after him. blackmail”

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=95&cpage=4#comment-6402

  2. avatar
    John June 21, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    The “Natural-Born” Term is unique to our constitution and is only found in one place; eligibility for Vice and POTUS. No court has ever settled this issue in terms of the POTUS. Interestingly in one Supreme Court Case (Minor), the court did say there was no doubt that a person born in US soil to US Citizens in a Natural Born citizen. The court followed that those who were born on US soil to alien parentage was in doubt as to be a Natural Born citizen.

    While, it is possible to consider an ordinary person born on US Soil to be a Natural Born citizen, a person who is the POTUS is much different than that of an ordinary citizen due to powers and abilities endowed to the POTUS and not an Ordinary citizen.

    Hence, the Natural Born citizenship requirement should be held to the highest degree and certain doubt should held to person who the POTUS who was born with alien parentage that might not necessarily by a concern for someone who not the POTUS.

    The POTUS must be treated differently than that of an ordinary citizen.

  3. avatar
    John June 21, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    The Natural Born Citizenship requirement should be weighed differently for a person who is POTUS than that of an ordinary citizen due to special and unique powers and abilities granted to the POTUS (Command in Chief for instance) that are not granted to an ordinary citizen.

    These powers and abilities no doubt depend on deep alligience to the person who the POTUS

  4. avatar
    Kevin Bellas June 21, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    “The POTUS must be treated differently than that of an ordinary citizen.”

    Let turn this upside down.

    If ordinary citizens are treated differently than POTUS. What pool will POTUS be elected from? There is no doubt according to the SCOTUS ruling what a NBC is. What you are doing is thinly veil Vattel argument.

    All citizens born in the US are NBC. I can’t see any government deciding well you are a only have one US parent, so you are a US citizen not a NBC. It’s dead point.

  5. avatar
    Gordon June 21, 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    Now you are arguing what it should be, and what it is.

  6. avatar
    NBC June 21, 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    The Natural Born Citizenship requirement should be weighed differently for a person who is POTUS than that of an ordinary citizen due to special and unique powers and abilities granted to the POTUS (Command in Chief for instance) that are not granted to an ordinary citizen.

    That’s a bit confusing. The Natural Born Citizenship requirement only exists for POTUS and VPOTUS, and does not depend on the status of the person but rather where said person was born. Allegiance is an interesting concept and basically refers to the laws which apply to said person. Which is why a child born on US soil is natural born, unless the child is born to an ambassador or invading military, since they are not under allegiance of the law of our country.
    Hope this clarifies.

  7. avatar
    NBC June 22, 2009 at 12:07 am #

    John

    No court has ever settled this issue in terms of the POTUS. Interestingly in one Supreme Court Case (Minor), the court did say there was no doubt that a person born in US soil to US Citizens in a Natural Born citizen. The court followed that those who were born on US soil to alien parentage was in doubt as to be a Natural Born citizen.

    Other courts however clearly ruled, that a person born on US soil is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of the parents. In fact, the minor court explicitly rejected addressing the natural born status for other classes than children born in the US to US citizens.
    What the court in Minor v Happersett stated was

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

    Although there may have been some doubts, mostly from the minority side in rulings, the majority rulings have consistently upheld the meaning of natural born to refer to children born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

    History and legal precendent clearly show that Natural Born status includes anyone born on US soil, except those who do not owe allegiance to the laws of the US (such as children of ambassadors and other official dignitaries).

    It’s somewhat strange that John quotes from the only case which appears to support his position but really doesn’t as the court does not reject or confirm the NBC status of children not born to US citizens. Other courts however have been clear.

    Can you explain why you failed to mention the other court rulings?

  8. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 22, 2009 at 1:37 am #

    I’ve never understood the Birther’s contention that proving your birthplace to the Federal Government is fundamentally different from proving your birth place to the Federal Government. But that may be just me.

  9. avatar
    Gordon June 22, 2009 at 2:46 am #

    O/T Doc I seem to recall you posting that 38 states currently use paperless Birth certificates. Do you have a link with the list?

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2009 at 8:00 am #

    I don’t know the exact number. You might try poking around naphsis.org. But many states have such systems with software installed at the hospital directly transmitting the information to the state systems.

    Now when I say paperless, I mean the feeder systems that fill the birth registration databases. For the public there is still the piece of paper with a raised seal on it, like Obama’s. See: http://www.naphsis.org/NAPHSIS/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000676/NAS%20VS%20Workshop-%20State%20Perspective-%204-23-08.pdf.

  11. avatar
    Bob June 22, 2009 at 1:01 pm #

    Interesting twist in the Schneller cert. denial (on page 8):

    The motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied, and the petitions for writs of certiorari are dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

    As the petitioners have repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed
    not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioners unless the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) are paid and the petitions are submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

    Justice Stevens dissents. See id., at 4, and cases cited therein.

    …will try to get full cert. order, so see what Stevens had to say.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    Another one gone, another one bites the dust.

    Note that Stevens dissented on an identically worded order in BRUNO, MIKE G. V. TEXAS (same list).

  13. avatar
    Bob June 22, 2009 at 1:59 pm #

    In Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992) (per curiam), Justice Stevens (joined by Justice Blackmun) dissented, writing:

    “In my opinion, the judicial resources of the Court could be used more effectively by simply denying Martin’s petitions than by drafting, entering, and policing the order the Court enters today. The theoretical administrative benefit the Court may derive from an order of this kind is far outweighed by the shadow it casts on the great tradition of open access that characterized the Court’s history prior to its unprecedented decisions in In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989) (per curiam), and In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991) (per curiam). I continue to adhere to the views expressed in the dissenting opinions filed in those cases, and in the dissenting opinion I filed in Zatko California, 502 U.S. 16, 18 (1991) (per curiam). See also Talamini v. Allstate Ins. Co., 470 U.S. 1067 (1985), appeal dism’d (STEVENS J., concurring).”

    …in other words, Stevens doesn’t think SCOTUS should be putting people on frequent filer list (as they are called in the biz).

  14. avatar
    Jez June 22, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    If the President and the Vice President are to be treated differently, or held to a different standard in regards to their citizenship, how are we to know when to apply that different citizenship standard?
    Doesn’t that create a caste system? That only those born within a specific circumstance are allowed to be President or Vice President? Are we to segregate those special people from the “ordinary citizens” so as not to sully them?

  15. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 22, 2009 at 4:07 pm #

    Nothing on Polarik’s claim Hawaii did not send out a COLB on Obama in June, 2007?

    That would seem to undermine the claim Obama has provided evidence as to his birth record.

  16. avatar
    nbc June 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    Nothing on Polarik’s claim Hawaii did not send out a COLB on Obama in June, 2007?

    That would seem to undermine the claim Obama has provided evidence as to his birth record.

    I am trying to parse the message.Are you saying that there is support for this claim?

  17. avatar
    Bob June 22, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    Nothing on Polarik’s claim Hawaii did not send out a COLB on Obama in June, 2007?

    “Dr. Polarik” is neither a doctor nor named Polarik. Ample refutation (by people willing to sign their real names) of “Polarik”‘s “opinion” is here.

  18. avatar
    nbc June 22, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    I found the following

    Hawaii never confirmed a request for, nor the printing of, this Certification of Live Birth.

    Is that the claim?

  19. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 22, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    Jez, its pretty obvious why the birthers want a “different standard” NOW. Quite simply they don’t like THIS President.

    In any case, John’s argument is specious. Circumstances of birth have very little to do with actual loyalty — if anything, the children of immigrants are often far more fiercely loyal to the US, especially if their parents left countries with limited opportunities or repressive governments; they have been raised to truly appreciate the opportunities that many multi-generational Americans take for granted.

    The general legal rules of construction in any lawsuit governing election law and eligibility favor BROAD interpretation of any arguably ambiguous language, in favor of eligibility. That is, any election lawyer would know that if a case did come to the court, and the judges agreed that language could properly be interpreted in more than one way, then the legal standard would be opt for the choice that widens rather than narrows the range of eligible candidates.

  20. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 22, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    I’m looking forward to Polarik’s Perry Mason moment.

    I think Doctor Polarik is concerned Obama’s cultist will bring harm to him. Wouldn’t it be easier for Obama to authorize the release of his birth record to end the speculation?

  21. avatar
    Bob June 22, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    Except that won’t end the speculation.

  22. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 22, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    It was my understanding Hawaii “has” confirmed a request for Obama’s COLB was not processed in June, 2007.

  23. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 22, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    By the way, prove that he is a doctor, Sven. Show me what college he actually got his Ph.D. from? How do you know that this is true? Considering that Dr. Polarik doesn’t even give his true name, then how do you know that he even has the degrees that he claims to have?

    Furthermore, his techniques have been debunked by an actual computer forensic scientist who will actually stand behind the quality of his work, rather than hiding behind a false name.

  24. avatar
    nbc June 22, 2009 at 4:48 pm #

    Is it? And is there any supporting evidence? Rumors are quickly generated but much harder to support.

    Let us know when you have some facts?

  25. avatar
    nbc June 22, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    I think Doctor Polarik is concerned Obama’s cultist will bring harm to him. Wouldn’t it be easier for Obama to authorize the release of his birth record to end the speculation?

    He did and see what happened?

  26. avatar
    richCares June 22, 2009 at 5:06 pm #

    “Hawaii never confirmed a request for, nor the printing of, this Certification of Live Birth.”

    False – Alvin T Onaka signed back of Obama’s BC certifying it is a true copy June 6, 2007
    see it here:
    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg

  27. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 22, 2009 at 5:07 pm #

    Doc Conspiracy … you’re mentioned on MommaE’s radio program

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradioRebels/2009/06/20/Momma-E-and-the-Radio-Rebels

  28. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 22, 2009 at 5:16 pm #

    If I recall correctly, Polarik made some sort of claim that the 2007-issued COLB was not valid due to anomalies in the seal. He compared it to the seal of another COLB and claimed (without citation to evidence or authority) that Hawaii changes the seal it uses annually, and the Obama seal didn’t match the purported 2007-seal. (Or maybe it was something to do with borders on papers).

    In any case, it was a premise that Polarik simply made up — there is no evidence that Hawaii engages in the practices he claims. Raised seals on documents are made with impressions from metal dies, and generally agencies will have several machines to do that — and they do not have any sort of practice of changing or recasting the metal dies on an annual basis. So basically “Polarik” simply makes up “facts” to support his arguments. (“My dog can’t talk. Real dogs know how to talk. Therefore my dog is not real” –> the syllogism holds, but the premise is false).

  29. avatar
    jtx June 22, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Your part 2 has more than a few “misplaced facts” among the glaring ones that the Naturalization Act(s) of both 1790 and 1795 both contain this sentence:

    “Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”

    The clear meaning of that is that a person being born – as was the O-borter – of a non-resident daddy could not be a “natural born citizen”. In fact the legal findings when this is heard on merit will show that to still be true.

    There are other misstatements where you attempt to foist your opinion off as fact, but I find Mr. Tonchen’s paper far better reasoned than your blog, but thanks anyway.

    It is truly wierd that so many of you are not willing to have the eligibility issue settled in a court of law since that’s (presumably) what we live under. Is it that you believe having a person occupying the Oval Office (who has never shown legally that he is eligible and may therefore be a usurper if he is not eligible) is OK and laws do not matter??? Interesting, if so, that you are all for the idea of mob rule rather than that of law.

  30. avatar
    Kevin Bellas June 22, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    How can you be concern when you make your claims like a coward behind a fake name? This is one angle of Polarik that really pisses me off and it should be of concern to his supporters.

  31. avatar
    jtx June 22, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    richCares:

    Nonsense!! A digitally manipulated image of a signature is as worthless as the rest of the FactCheck COLB.

  32. avatar
    jtx June 22, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    He’s probably just as much a doctor as is Doctor Consipracy … but more to be believed if you’ve digested his 80 or so page analysis.

  33. avatar
    jtx June 22, 2009 at 5:26 pm #

    nbc:

    Sorry – no – the O-borter never authorized anything of the sort nor can you show that he did. Perhaps that will come out in the court action.

  34. avatar
    nbc June 22, 2009 at 5:34 pm #

    Nonsense!! A digitally manipulated image of a signature is as worthless as the rest of the FactCheck COLB.

    The factcheck COLB shows that Obama did provide his COLB for inspection. You can argue that the COLB is flawed but lacking evidence of such, the COLB remains the strongest evidence of Obama’s US birth. That the DOH confirmed the validity of the certificate is just icing on the cake 😉

  35. avatar
    nbc June 22, 2009 at 5:36 pm #

    Still believing in fairy tales I notice. Obama or someone in his campaign however released the COLB which shows Obama born in the US.

    Why is it so hard to accept the facts and instead focus on fantasy?

  36. avatar
    richCares June 22, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    that’s so easy for you to confirm or prove wrong, you can nail Obama on this, just call Alvin T Onaka (he recently received an award on his work), that will shut us up, but we know you are scared of what the answer will be. Call him at (808) 586-4533 or email inquiry to vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov
    we all know that you won’t do that, don’t we! You don’t want a confirmation that you are wrong. Call, double dare, call or shut up.

  37. avatar
    Gordon June 22, 2009 at 5:59 pm #

    I knew what you meant by “paperless”, thanks.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2009 at 6:48 pm #

    Polarik’s rant is no more an “analysis” than his name is “Polarik”. It’s crank science designed to fool the technically naive.

  39. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 22, 2009 at 6:59 pm #

    Doctor Conspiracy doesn’t claim to have a Ph.D. in anything. He doesn’t claim to be an expert in anything but what he’s actually read. He doesn’t claim to have any special knowledge or skills. Polarik does. My question is can we check his credentials against anything other than his own word?

  40. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 22, 2009 at 7:05 pm #

    Hawaii circles through 4 borders. However, if you actually do the analysis yourself, you can see that he’s full of holes.

    Someone actually the image of his “test COLB” and took Obama’s. After getting them to the right size, he overlaid them, and then laid them out over eachother. The borders matched up EXACTLY.

    You can read it here.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/colb-comparing-two-2007-versions/

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2009 at 7:12 pm #

    jtx, your comment is not a valid objection. The extended citation is:

    And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided also, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:…

    First, even taking it out context, Barack Obama’s father WAS a resident in the United States. Second, the condition only applies in regard to persons born overseas, and Barack Obama was born in the United States. Finally, the 1790 act was repealed, and replaced by the 1795 act, which doesn’t say “natural born citizen”.

    I believe they say that three strikes, and you’re out.

    While I get quite a few general rants from the likes of jtx, specific criticisms are rare, and valid criticisms are almost non-existent (and corrected).

  42. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 22, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    I see that the Obot’s are attacking Lame Cherry.

    “Imagine though my surprise today in finding this bobcat screaming around in my ditch smashing rare species of grass, hacking to pieces a 40 year old green willow of a specific genus that is almost extinct, disturbing a doe and her fawn, and smashing through one of the last habitats of an almost extinct small snake in North America.

    The person had been hired by my township which is interesting, almost as interesting as the 6 foot pile of debris he smashed and pushed through onto my land which not only is an eye sore, but is going to be infested by skunks and woodchucks, and those lovely ticks……….all in what was a bed of forest violets.”

    http://www.lamecherry.blogspot.com

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2009 at 7:15 pm #

    Where did you pick up that little bit of disinformation?

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    I would love to see Polarik on the witness stand under oath, but it will never happen.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2009 at 7:20 pm #

    I appreciate your letting me know, but there’s no way I could stomach and hour and a half of MommaE to listen to the comment.

  46. avatar
    misha June 22, 2009 at 7:27 pm #

    “Jez, its pretty obvious why the birthers want a “different standard” NOW. Quite simply they don’t like THIS President.”

    That’s what I have been saying all along. The face of America is changing, and a lot of people are frightened. Orly is making noise because she feels McSame and Sarah Sidekick would be better for Israel. Same with Berg.

    I’m Jewish, and I fully support Obama. As noted before, he got 78% of the Jewish vote.

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    Sorry, my attention span is too short to figure this on out. I’ve had link to Lame Cherry since the early days of this web site.

  48. avatar
    Shrieking wombat June 22, 2009 at 8:06 pm #

    Ahhh…It makes me yearn for the days of TechDude who, after similar exhaustive ‘analysis’ of the BC, concluded that it was a forgery based on the Hawaiian BC of Obama’s sister Maya.

    Then someone had to spoil the whole thing by pointing out that Maya was actually born in Indonesia.

  49. avatar
    Bob June 22, 2009 at 8:07 pm #

    Just the usual paranoia, a la Taitz: If anything bad happens (car malfunction, wild bobcats), blame Obama.

  50. avatar
    Kevin Bellas June 22, 2009 at 8:20 pm #

    Sorry to tell you this, but lamecherry’s writing is like reading a blog written by 1,000 blind monkeys.

  51. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 22, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    Nah. The Blind Monkeys will occassionally produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare. I have yet to see that from Lamecherry.

  52. avatar
    nbc June 22, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    And yet the rumor that Maya has a Hawaiian birth certificate persists. Funny how rumors tend to so often form the foundation of this nonsense.

  53. avatar
    Mark June 22, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    Hey Doc,

    Thanks for the fun web site.

    Debating birthers is an interesting intellectual exercise, like the Month Python argument skit.

    Yes it is.
    No it isn’t.
    Yes it is.
    No it isn’t.

  54. avatar
    Shrieking wombat June 22, 2009 at 9:16 pm #

    That’s not arguing, that’s just gainsaying.

  55. avatar
    Shrieking wombat June 22, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    This just gets better and better. Apparently:

    a)Obama may now be a German sleeper agent.
    b)Stanley Dunham may actually be alive and/or a zombie, stalking Washington state, and threatening to kill Orly in her relentless quest for brains.
    c)Obama’s grandmother may still be alive and/or a zombie. No information as yet re whereabout of crypt in which she’s being held.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=2522#comments

  56. avatar
    JeffM June 22, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    Interesting comments. However, the damning evidence against Barry Soetoro, AKA Barack Obama being a Natural Born Citizen can be found clear as day in the United States Constitution.

    First, let’s start by recapping a few items we know about the Constitution:

    1. All Amendments supersede prior amendments and the original Constitution itself.
    2. There are strict, distinct legal terms within the Constitution.
    3. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and supersedes any statute or law passed by Congress or states.

    That being said, let’s first look at the issue of birth. There are only two places in the entire Constitution that discusses “birth” and that is Article II (Natural Born Citizen) and Amendment XIV. Here is what Article II says about birth:

    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

    And here is what Amendment XIV says about birth:

    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.

    Recall what we said about item 1 mentioned above. Since amendments supersede prior statute, we must use the newest amendments to satisfy legal statute first. The real question is can proof of birth really be used to qualify someone for President? Let’s find out.

    Any proof of birth on its own merit will clearly satisfy Amendment XIV first. This means that a birth certificate proves that anyone born in the United States is a citizen(s) of the United States. Recall item 2 mentioned above. Where else in the U.S. Constitution is the phrase “citizen(s) of the United States” mentioned? There are 4 places:

    1. Amendment XIV
    2. Article I for the requirement for being a Senator
    3. Article I for the requirement for being a Representative
    4. Article II for the requirement for President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution ONLY!

    We know for a fact that the requirements for senators and representatives are less strict than that for President. We also know that there is a distinction between “Natural Born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States” because of the grandfather clause in Article II. Therefore “Citizen of the United States” is not enough to satisfy the “Natural Born Citizen” clause in Article II.

    But can a birth certificate be used to ensure a President is qualified at all? Can it even be used in conjunction with other paperwork to prove someone is a Natural Born Citizen? Let’s look at another distinct point of logic within Amendment XIV:

    All persons born OR naturalized in the United States…

    This clause right here ensures that proof of birth can not and should not be used as proof of eligibility because it would allow foreigners to become President!
    The “Or naturalized” clause means that anyone who satisfies Amendment XIV criteria on its own would be eligible and this is clearly false as “Natural Born Citizen” has the word “born” in it.

    That being said, there is only one other place we can go to prove Natural Born Citizenship and that’s to look at the citizenship of the parents at the time of birth. And we know that Soetoro is going to have a difficult, if not impossible time proving his parents were citizens of the United States on August 4, 1961. Even if his mother was a citizen on this date, naturalization law would have prevented her from transferring citizenship to Soetoro, an illegitimate child (bigamy was illegal in 1961). No proof has been provided and history will clearly prove Soetoro is not only ineligible, he’s a foreigner.

  57. avatar
    brygenon June 22, 2009 at 11:14 pm #

    Hawaii never confirmed a request for, nor the printing of, this Certification of Live Birth.

    When I first heard that argument, I thought they were joking. They’ve made themselves indistinguishable from parody. At the birther blog TheRightSideOfLife I suggested they should up more billboards, saying:

    “OK, BUT WHERE’S THE RECEIPT FOR THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?”

  58. avatar
    richCares June 22, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    “Soetoro is not only ineligible, he’s a foreigner.”
    his name is Obama and he is not a foreigner, he is the president of the USA (for over 6 months now), you may wish to imigrate to Iran where the leaders think like you do, go quickly!

  59. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 22, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    You really have no clue what you’re talking about, JeffM.

    Foreigners are obviously Naturalized in the United States. They’ll have birth certificates that state that they weren’t born in the United States. So, my question is why a Birth Certificate that states that you were BORN in the United States not be used in the United States?

    Read U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. They completely invalidate your argument. You state that in order to be a citizen, you have to be born of 2 citizens. First you go into the 14th Amendment, stating “Anybody born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. But then you completely invalidate the clause by stating that someone has to be born to 2 citizens to actually be a citizen.

    Then you bring up invalid points (such as the marriage. At most, that would mean that Obama was born to a single mother, and his citizenship would be completely defined by his mother, IF the 14th amendment was completely invalidated).

    Are you now claiming that Obama wasn’t actually born? Are you claiming that he was hatched, and therefore not a citizen under the 14th Amendment?

  60. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 22, 2009 at 11:28 pm #

    I was trying to follow his logic. It just gave me a headache.

  61. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 22, 2009 at 11:38 pm #

    And you do know what the word OR means, don’t you? That means someone can be BORN a citizen, or they can be NATURALIZED and made a citizen.

    So, let’s break this down.

    The 14th Amendment says

    “All persons born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States, and the State in which they reside.”

    The 14th Amendment also says:
    “All Persons … naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the State in which they resign.”

    OR means that they only have to meet 1 out of the requirements.

    Obama meets the BORN requirement. He was BORN in the State of Hawaii. He was Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States (he didn’t have diplomatic immunity, and wasn’t born to an invading army). Therefore he’s a citizen.

    You obviously don’t know simple logic. You don’t even know what the word OR means.

  62. avatar
    NBC June 22, 2009 at 11:48 pm #

    This is totally lacking any logical coherent argument. People are either born in the United states or naturalized. Since Obama was not naturalized but rather born in the United states, he is not naturalized and thus what remains is natural born, unless he were a son of a foreign dignitary or invading military.

    ven if his mother was a citizen on this date, naturalization law would have prevented her from transferring citizenship to Soetoro, an illegitimate child (bigamy was illegal in 1961).

    That’s plainly untrue. Naturalization laws have nothing to do with children born in the US nor has illegitimacy.
    Is this really your best ‘argument’?

    Sorry dude, but other than standing and judiciability your argument suffers from a logic and coherent claim and would be thrown out based on this alone.

  63. avatar
    NBC June 22, 2009 at 11:49 pm #

    Well said. Wow, I cannot believe how desperate the arguments are becoming.

  64. avatar
    brygenon June 22, 2009 at 11:57 pm #

    My favorite statement on the meaning of “natural born citizen” comes from an article at Slate by Akhil Reed Amar. Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, and currently a visiting professor of law at Harvard — those are generally considered the top two U.S. law schools and he’s a professor at both.

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

    http://slate.com/id/2183588/

    “Natural born citizen” is not a term of art. “Natural born” simply means by birth. The 1797 translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations does not define “natural born citizen” to mean something else; it states Vattel’s criteria for being a citizen by birth.

  65. avatar
    JeffM June 23, 2009 at 1:25 am #

    Sorry but you’re missing the key ingredient here. And that’s the fact that being born in the United States only satisfies ‘Citizen(s) of the United States’ based on Amendment XIV. Again, amendments always supersede prior amendments and the core articles of the Constitution. You must use newer amendments first.

    Based on your flawed logic (one which most pro Soetoro people display), anyone naturalized in the United States would be Natural Born Citizens because you would have to connect ‘citizen(s) of the United States’ with ‘Natural Born Citizen’. The “or naturalized” clause prevents this connection.

    In order for your “connection” to hold true, Amendment XIV should have been written as:

    All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are Natural Born Citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. All persons 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 it doesn’t say that, does it…

    All proof of birth does is guarantee being a Citizen of the United States. It can not and should not be used to satisfy “Natural Born Citizen” under its own merit because of Amendment XIV and the “or naturalized clause”. It is evident throughout the Constitution that they are distinct and different requirements.

    Please re-read my statements so that you get a clear understanding of this distinction.

  66. avatar
    JeffM June 23, 2009 at 1:35 am #

    It gives you a headache because you are attempting to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

    You can not use Amendment XIV to satisfy Article II due to the “or naturalized clause”. Soetoro will attempt this and fail once it reaches the Supreme Court.

    Birth certificates can not and should not be used to qualify presidential candidates. WND’s attempt at this along with countless others will fail. It’s not the correct Constitutional approach at solving this issue. That’s why any case involving proof of location of birth have been tossed. And it explains why no state or federal legislative body has attempted to require proof of birth as acceptible for satifying the Natural Born Citizenship requirement in Article II.

    What we are witnessing here is a case of non-vetting. Everyone just accepted that a birth certificate was acceptible. It is not. There are obvious reasons for this:

    1. Born Citizens can renounce their citizenship after birth.
    2. Born Citizens can be disqualified and lose citizenship upon treason and other high crimes against the United States after birth.

    In these 2 cases, you can have a valid birth certificate but are not a citizen of the United States. Do you want a President who falls into one of these categories? Do you think the framers would ever allow this? I didn’t think so. Waving around a birth certificate means absolutely nothing when it comes to qualifying presidents. Proof of birth means nothing to Article II aside from identifying your age and who your parents were.

  67. avatar
    JeffM June 23, 2009 at 1:40 am #

    This is incorrect. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” clause in Article II (note where the comma is).

    It’s simple logic. Citizen of the United States means being born in the United States based on Amendment XIV. Citizen of the United States is not the same as Natural Born Citizen based on the grandfather clause in Article II (see above). Therefore born in the U.S. is not the same as Natural Born Citizen.

  68. avatar
    JeffM June 23, 2009 at 1:49 am #

    This is not correct. Do not confuse Natural Born Citizen with Citizen of the United States. They are different. Article I confirms this. Article II confirms this. And Amendment XIV confirms this.

    Since being born in the U.S. is insufficient to providing Natural Born Citizenship status based on the “or naturalized” clause in Amendment XIV, there simply is no other citizenship requirement other than the citizenship of the parents at the time of birth. All other types of citizenship scenarios are covered under Amendment XIV.

    The citizenship of the parents is at the very heart of the matter. Otherwise, based on your arguments the czar of Russia could impregnate a Russian mistress who gives birth to an heir in Hawaii and that prince would be a Natural Born Citizen eligible to become President. That’s pure nonsense.

  69. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 1:50 am #

    Based on your flawed logic (one which most pro Soetoro people display), anyone naturalized in the United States would be Natural Born Citizens because you would have to connect citizen(s) of the United States’ with Natural Born Citizen’. The “or naturalized” clause prevents this connection.

    Yes, naturalized are not natural born. Your point?

  70. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 1:52 am #

    This is not correct. Do not confuse Natural Born Citizen with Citizen of the United States.

    True, not all citizens are natural born, naturalized people and children born to foreign dignitaries are not natural born.

    Still trying to understand your point.

    Your example includes an excluded class.
    Next…

  71. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 1:53 am #

    Proof of birth means nothing to Article II aside from identifying your age and who your parents were.

    And your natural born status. Lacking any evidence that Obama renounced his citizenship or committed treason you have nothing.

  72. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 1:56 am #

    Therefore born in the U.S. is not the same as Natural Born Citizen.

    Again the courts, history and logic disagree with you.

  73. avatar
    JeffM June 23, 2009 at 2:05 am #

    Finally we’re getting somewhere. Naturalized are not natural born and neither is anyone else who relies on Amendment XIV for citizenship. This includes anyone born in the United States. There is no such thing as a born citizen of the United States and a naturalized citizen of the United States. Amendment XIV is clear about this:

    born in U.S. = naturalized in U.S. = citizen of the United States

    Natural Born Citizenship is a different animal althogether, one that has a distinct set of requirements aside from merely being born in the U.S. So, I ask you this:

    What other things might define Natural Born Citizenship status aside from being born in the U.S.?

  74. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 2:06 am #

    Citizen of the United States means being born in the United States based on Amendment XIV

    Or naturalized

    Why do you have a problem with reading the XIV amendment correctly?

  75. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 2:09 am #

    Naturalized are not natural born and neither is anyone else who relies on Amendment XIV for citizenship.

    That’s at odds with the facts. In fact, anyone born in the US is natural born. I am not really understanding your argument.
    Again you have failed to provide any logic let alone evidence to support your somewhat esoteric interpretation of the 14th amendment.

  76. avatar
    JeffM June 23, 2009 at 2:10 am #

    You are exactly correct. We have absolutely nothing. All around. No proof of Natural Born Citizenship whatsoever.

    Birth certificates are not sufficient. Everyone’s been duped into thinking it is, including the birthers and the pro Soetoro people.

    Meanwhile no one even knows if he’s eligible. We do know this. We have no record of Soetoro ever renouncing his British citizenship and he has never provided any proof he renounced this citizenship(which he gained even as an illegitimate child), so as it stands right now we have absolutely zero evidence we don’t have a British citizen in the White House.

  77. avatar
    JeffM June 23, 2009 at 2:11 am #

    Would you mind citing the last court case and historical evidence you are claiming as it pertains to Article II?

  78. avatar
    JeffM June 23, 2009 at 2:17 am #

    I don’t. But it appears you do. Please read it again.

    naturalized in U.S. = citizen of the United States = born in U.S.

    or

    born in the U.S. = citizen of the United States = naturalized in U.S.

    or

    citizen of the United States = born in the U.S. = naturalized in the U.S.

    We could go on and on with 9 different combinations and the statements would all be true. It’s pretty obvious, don’t you think?

  79. avatar
    JeffM June 23, 2009 at 2:19 am #

    And yes, I’m referring to the citizenship part of the amendment, not the born or naturalized, which is what everyone here is tripping over.

  80. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 2:28 am #

    No proof of Natural Born Citizenship whatsoever.

    In fact, there is. I remind you of the court cases that argue that natural born means born in the US, except for some minor exceptions.

  81. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 2:29 am #

    naturalized in U.S. = citizen of the United States = born in U.S.

    But naturalized is not equivalent to born in the US.
    Why are you misreading the 14th?
    Strange…

  82. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 2:36 am #

    No, we’re connecting the BORN clause “As in Any Person Born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to the Natural-BORN Clause of Article 2.

    Amendment 14 states that there are two ways to become a citizen. Either you’re born into it, or you’re naturalized later. The BORN part of it is what we’re associating with the NATURAL BORN Clause. Nobody is suggesting that someone who is Naturalized is a Natural-Born Citizen.

    If you’re born a citizen, then you’re a natural-born citizen. That’s the most broad interpretation of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause.

    Are you truly stating that those who are born in the United States are not Natural-Born Citizens?

  83. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 2:39 am #

    You’re wrong. The fact is that there are other things that it proves, JeffM.

    Location of Birth – This is the most important, JeffM. Because this is solely the criteria that Barack Obama uses to determine whether or not he is Natural-Born. It’s also the criteria that the State Department uses to determine whether or not it actually proves citizenship. If it did not prove this, then the State Department would find it useless for determining citizenship.

  84. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 2:52 am #

    And JeffM, Read British Nationality and Kenyan Nationality Law. Usually, most foreign nationalities have clauses to where if you do not do things to renounce your other citizenships, and you are living in a different country, your nationality automatically expires when you reach the age of majority. He was living in the United States, which is enough to keep his United States Citizenship. Because he did not renounce his U.S. Citizenship, this is implicity a renouncing of all other citizenships.

    Nobody is suggesting, and nobody has proven, that he has dual citizenship now.

  85. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 2:55 am #

    Lynch v. Clarke, for one, JeffM.

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

    Perkins v. Elg

    Those are just off the top of my head.

  86. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 3:00 am #

    What basically the argument is is that if you’re Born a Citizen, then you’re a Natural-Born Citizen. The minor Exceptions fall under the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was stated to basically be subject to our laws. So, if someone is born subject to the laws of the United States, then they are born to be a Citizen which equals a Natural-Born Citizen.

    No court in the land has stated that you can be born a citizen without being a natural-born citizen. And the only court in the land that ruled the Jus Saguinis was the Dred Scott case, which was invalidated by the 14th Amendment to begin with.

  87. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 3:01 am #

    JeffM

    Can you name one case law that has upheld your theory that you can be born a citizen without being a natural-born citizen? I’d really like to hear the case.

  88. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 23, 2009 at 3:20 am #

    We have no record of Soetoro ever renouncing his British citizenship and he has never provided any proof he renounced this citizenship(which he gained even as an illegitimate child), so as it stands right now we have absolutely zero evidence we don’t have a British citizen in the White House.

    1) His name is Obama.

    2) There is no law that would preclude a dual citizen from being President, so long as the person was a US citizen from birth.

    3) Obama does not have British citizenship because of he lost that status when Kenya gained its independence. To be precise, Obama’s British citizenship was cut off by operation of law (Ch. 6, p. 87 of the Kenyan constititution) on December 12, 1963.

    Obama was a dual citizen throughout his childhood. He was a US citizen by virtue of place of birth under the 14th amendment, and a British citizen until age 2, thereafter a Kenyan citizen. However, Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship when he reached age 21, because the Kenyan constitution does not allow adults to retain dual citizenship. In order to retain Kenyan citizenship, Obama would have had to both renounce his US citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya prior to turning 21 – as he did not do so, his Kenyan citizenship lapsed on his 21st birthday. (Kenya Constitution, Chapter 6, p. 97)

    Sources: British Nationality Act
    Constitution of Kenya

  89. avatar
    misha June 23, 2009 at 3:20 am #

    I’m here for an argument.

    We are arguing.

    No we’re not.

    Yes we are.

    Birthers would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 23, 2009 at 7:21 am #

    There seems to be a break in the logic here.

    JeffM says: “Do not confuse Natural Born Citizen with Citizen of the United States.”

    I would hope no one confuses this. Naturalization is a process through which an alien becomes a citizen after birth. So one cannot be both born a citizen and naturalized.

    But then JeffM says something really odd:

    Since being born in the U.S. is insufficient to providing Natural Born Citizenship status based on the “or naturalized” clause in Amendment XIV, there simply is no other citizenship requirement other than the citizenship of the parents at the time of birth. All other types of citizenship scenarios are covered under Amendment XIV.

    The logic of that I cannot follow. There has never been a requirement of parenthood to be a natural born citizen for anyone born in the United States throughout our history. The Fourteenth Amendment certainly doesn’t create one. There are citizens who are “born citizens” outside the fourteenth amendment; they are those who are citizens at birth through legislation, but it is questionable whether they may be considered “natural born citizens”.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 23, 2009 at 7:25 am #

    Citizens of the United States are comprised of three classes, those born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, those naturalized, and those declared as citizens at birth by legislation. So your first premise, “Citizen of the United States means being born in the United States based on Amendment XIV ” is false. With a false premise, the argument is invalid.

  92. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 23, 2009 at 7:30 am #

    JeffM says:

    1. Born Citizens can renounce their citizenship after birth.
    2. Born Citizens can be disqualified and lose citizenship upon treason and other high crimes against the United States after birth.

    However, none of these applies to President Obama. If you allege either of these, then prove it. Or perhaps you will come up with the idea next that Obama is an alien from another planet, indistinguishable from a human and expect him to prove that’s false too.

  93. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 23, 2009 at 7:34 am #

    JeffM “amendments always supersede prior amendments and the core articles of the Constitution.”

    Actually that’s not true, unless the amendment specifically says that it does this. In the debate over the 14th amendment, proponents said that it was simply declarative of what came before as far as who was a citizen. The 14 Amendment declares that certain persons are citizens.

    What JeffM does wrong is to take that and make a logical disconnect to create some new requirement based on the 14th amendment that is simply not there.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 23, 2009 at 7:39 am #

    brygenon, that is certainly a viewpoint with merit; however, one cannot make as strong case for this view as one can make for a requirement to be a citizen by virtue of being born in the territory. That is, most of the citations one can find containing the clause “natural born citizen” attach it to place of birth (Lynch v Clarke, Wong, etc.). The 1732 Georgia Charter is about the only exception I know of.

  95. avatar
    CDR1174 June 23, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    Directly from the US State Deparments website:

    A child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

    The last line is the most important, Obama’s mom was 18 year 9 months when barrack was born, She had to be at least 19 at his birth for him to be considered a US “Natural Born” Citizen.

  96. avatar
    richCares June 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    your info is for someone who is not born in the USA, Obama was born in Hawaii, a state in the USA, so thanks for making an inane comment. What is the source of your ignorance.

  97. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm #

    This has nothing to do with Obama, CDR1174.

    Read the 14th Amendment that says…

    “All persons born in the United States and Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States, and the state in which they reside.”

    Last I checked, Obama was born. He was born in Hawaii, which at the time was a U.S. State. He didn’t have any sort of special status such as Diplomatic Immunity, and Hawaii wasn’t being invaded by a Foreign Army. Therefore, he falls under the “Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof”. Therefore, he is a U.S. Citizen from birth.

    There is nothing that you can say to get around that fact.

  98. avatar
    Heavy June 23, 2009 at 12:40 pm #

    Born in HI? Prove it!

  99. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    First of all, there is no requirement to prove it, it’s up to the plaintiffs to disprove it. And that’s where the problem arises as the COLB places Obama as born in Hawaii.

    That’s the simple truth.

  100. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    The regulations you point to are for children born outside the US.
    Geez….

  101. avatar
    Catbit June 23, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    Ya know, that was PRETTY SLIMEY there. A verbatim cut-and-paste job from the state department web site with ONE KEY WORD removed – “abroad”. A child born ABROAD to one U.S. citizen parent. YOU deliberately removed one word from the paragraph that changes the entire meaning.

    Why would you do that? Birthers are claiming truth, yet to try to pull something so obviously deceiving as this just makes you look like a liar. Did you HONESTLY think that people would not check for themselves? You see, we are not like the typical birfer – we look for and find the facts rather than run screaming and ranting at every far-fetched rumor we find.

    I have been watching this site and others a long time, and have witnessed a great deal of pure stupidity and outright fabrication (jtx), but this is such a blatent, stupid attempt at outright deceit, that I must ask even you to turn in your birfer card – you are not qualified.

  102. avatar
    NBC June 23, 2009 at 12:55 pm #

    The arguments are becoming more and more desperate and are not meant to inform but rather confuse.
    I hope it is mere stupidity.

  103. avatar
    richCares June 23, 2009 at 1:30 pm #

    heavy still hasn’t proved he is not retarded, give us proof, a signed statement from your analyst would help!

  104. avatar
    racosta June 23, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    Directly from the US State Deparments website:

    CDR1174 quotes from this site “A child born to one U.S. citizen parent and one”

    reality quotes from this site “A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one”

    CDR1174 appears to be attemping to deceive us, doesn’t he? This tells us a lot about CDR1174!

  105. avatar
    JeffSF June 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    What a convoluted argument JeffM makes.
    Two points: in regards to the odd argument about how we can’t trust BC because someone may have renounced their citizenship- how come this argument was never raised with prior presidents? How do we know that Reagan didn’t ‘renounce’ his citizenship? Because in the absence of proof otherwise, all previous presidents have been assumed not to have renounced their citizenship.

    Second- I remember well my junior high school civics class- and natural born citizen was clearly understood by my teacher and by my textbook as someone born in the United States. This came up during the Nixon years when Kissinger was debated as a presidential candidate- but couldn’t because he was not native borne. All of these years, all these text books, and suddenly we have a president who looks different, has a funny name…and now we have questions about what ‘native borne’ means.

    By the way NPR had a fun segment on conspiracy theories that touched on the birther fringe.

  106. avatar
    Heavy June 23, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    I’ll give you the funny name, Jeff, but looks different than whom?

  107. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 23, 2009 at 2:12 pm #

    Jeff’s flawed reasoning would apply to everyone: that is, every citizen (“born” or not) can renounce their citizenship or lose it under specified conditions.

    It is what in law is known as a “condition subsequent” and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on Obama’s or any other candidate’s eligibility to be President.

  108. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 23, 2009 at 3:03 pm #

    No, that only applies to folks born outside of the United States. A person born in the United States acquires citizenship under the 14th Amendment, without regard to who his parents were.

  109. avatar
    Bob Weber June 23, 2009 at 3:46 pm #

    Kissinger is ineligible because he is a naturalized citizen, not because he is foreign-born. There have been challenges to the eligibility of “serious” candidates Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain, who were born of American parents but not in one of the states of the Union. All the challenges died on the courthouse steps, so by actual practice, “citizen at birth” = “natural born”, and no court will ever address any such challenge, but declare it to be a “political issue” to be addressed by Congress, if it so desires.

  110. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    The challenge to Barry Goldwater wouldn’t have gone anywhere for one very simple reason: Charles Curtis. Barry Goldwater was born inside a U.S. Territory which was later admitted to the Union. So was Charles Curtis, the V.P. under Hoover. Just as D.C. Births are eligible for the Presidency (See Al Gore), so are babies who are born in a state who was later admitted into the Union.

  111. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    The birth certificate, Heavy. The exact same way that you’d prove your birth location to anybody who asks. There is no difference between proving your birth location to the Federal Government, Heavy, as there in proving your birth location to the Federal Government.

  112. avatar
    brygenon June 23, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    The citations simply use “natural born citizen” to mean a citizen by birth. It is associated with place of birth simply that’s how the individuals at issue had claim to being born as citizens.

    There was never any need for the court to define “natural born citizen” because it is not a legal term of art.

  113. avatar
    ballantine June 23, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    Well Jeff, you clearly need to do more research. The legistative history of the 14th amendment and the Supreme court’s interpretation make clear that it was not intended to supersede previous law but rather to be declaratory of existing law, and in the view of the Supreme Court, the common law. Under the common law, born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction meant you were “natural born.” This is common law 101. Thus, the 14th amendment is seen as merely stating that the term citizen includes both natural born and naturalized citizens.

    Also, the understanding of the grandfather clause from Article II was generally understood to apply to persons born outside of the US, in particular Hamilton and Wilson, not to distinguish between citizens and “natural born citizens.” There are many authorities for this, but in the words of Justice Story, perhaps the most important scholar of the early republic:

    “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 honours in their adopted country….” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73 (1833)

    The bottom line is every significant legal authority in the US prior the civil war defined “natural-born” by locality of birth and the Birthers have shown no authority whatsoever during such period, the only period relevant to the origal understanding, to support the duel citizenship argument. Nothing.

  114. avatar
    Bob Weber June 23, 2009 at 6:01 pm #

    The 14th Amendment was passed to override the Dred Scott decision. SCOTUS ruled, in Dred Scott, that Scott, although born in the U.S., was not a citizen, could never be a citizen, nor could any of his descendants ever be citizens – ergo, he had no standing in Federal courts. The 14th amendment overruled this by making explicit the English Common Law principle of Ius Soli.

  115. avatar
    Bob Weber June 23, 2009 at 6:53 pm #

    I’m going out on a limb here. I think I’m on pretty firm ground in stating that the authors of the Constitution were pretty smart guys. Plenty of lawyers among them. If it was their intent to restrict the presidency to native-born citizens, why not merely say “native-born citizen”? Likewise, why not merely say “native-born, of two U.S. citizens” if that was their intent? It seems to me that “natural-born” was intended to be fairly inclusive, definitely excluding only naturalized citizens.

    Now, here’s where I go out on a limb. The authors originally intended the Electoral College to have an active role in the selection of the President. They did not envision the creation of political parties, nor were they, in the broad sense, believers in democracy. There’s no indication that the electors were to be chosen democratically, legally bound to support a particular candidate. Initially, many electors were chosen by state legislatures. It seems to me that the understanding was that the electors themselves would resolve any ambiguities regarding the meaning of “natural-born” if it came up regarding a candidate.

    Subsequently, the U.S. political system became much more democratic than the authors envisioned, and the electoral college became a mere formality, a “Dunsell”. (See the Star Trek episode.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708481/quotes )

    So we are left hanging, to an extent, as to “natural-born”. But actual political practice has come to mean “citizen by birth”.

  116. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 23, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    It may be that the intent of the Constitution was to divide citizens into two classes, natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. That is supported by the 1732 Charter of Georgia that used “natural born subject” to refer both those born in the colony and those born of its subjects elsewhere. If this is true (and I think a good argument could be made for it), then defining natural born citizen is a matter of cataloging who is a citizen of the United States at birth, and I do not know of any ambiguity there. The 14th amendment takes care of those born in the United States and those naturalized. There is legislation defining some others as citizens at birth, such as the children of citizens born overseas and those born in specified US territories.

  117. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 8:38 pm #

    Well, theoretically, they actually could. They are born a citizen, goto a foreign country where they somehow renounce their citizenship. Then they come back to America, and are Naturalized. They’d technically be born a citizen, and Naturalized. It would be interesting to hear the court’s interpretation on whether they’d be a natural-born, or just a naturalized citizen.

  118. avatar
    racosta June 23, 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    “Can you name one case law that has upheld your theory that you can be born a citizen without being a natural-born citizen? I’d really like to hear the case.”

    this is where JeffM disappears.

  119. avatar
    jtx June 23, 2009 at 10:26 pm #

    richCares:

    There has never been a single bit of proof to any legal authority that the O-borter was even born let alone in a particular location (maybe he was found under a red sickle).

    No doubt you believe that your hero was born in HI (and perhaps he was – but maybe not) but no one will ever know until … guess what!!!

    Do you find something wrong with a formal legal determination based upon actual presentations under the rules of evidence?? Perhaps you think having a POTUS that is not or may not be eligible is a great thing???

  120. avatar
    jtx June 23, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    NBC:

    Sorry, but the controlling law (the US Constitution) REQUIRES that the Prez be a (how shall we say it) a “natural born citizen” and the O-borter has neved demonstrated that in any probative way in a court of law – yet. He’ll soon have the chance.

  121. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 23, 2009 at 11:15 pm #

    JTX, I know that it is futile to try to talk sense to you, but the Constitution does NOT require the President to continually prove his status throughout his presidency. Rather, the FINAL say as to the eligibility of the President lies with Congress, and is exercised at the time they convene in joint session to count the electoral college vote.

    There is NO legal or Constitutional obligation for Obama to affirmatively “prove” anything unless challenged in Congress – that didn’t happen. There is no court action coming, and no court with jurisdiction.

  122. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 23, 2009 at 11:16 pm #

    Congress determined Obama to be qualified to be President on January 8th, 2009. That is what our Constitution requires.

  123. avatar
    Bob June 23, 2009 at 11:23 pm #

    There’s no competent evidence to suggest that the COLB is a forgery.

  124. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 23, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    And he offered the exact same proof that you would if you were to prove your birth place ot the Federal Government, JTX. The exact same proof that John McCain that proved his place of birth.

    Again, you misstate things, jtx. You really have no clue what “Full Faith and Credit” actually means. He’s proven the exact same thing that you did to get your passport.

  125. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 12:28 am #

    No chance on that but of course the courts have ruled that a child born on US soil is a natural born citizen.

  126. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 12:30 am #

    Why do you want to remove a duly elected president from office using anti-constitutional means?

    The COLB shows him born in Hawaii

    Nuff said, nothing more needed.

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 24, 2009 at 7:40 am #

    I find something wrong with applying a standard to this president that was not applied to any former president. One has to ask oneself why that is. The answer is not that “questions have been raised” because the questions are all founded on lies and illogic. Perhaps the question really is why have the questions been raised against this particular president, and the answer there must be found in who his political opponents are.

  128. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 24, 2009 at 7:41 am #

    No president to date has ever proved his citizenship in a court of law. I fail to see why the number 44 is different from 1-43.

  129. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 24, 2009 at 7:44 am #

    Correction: John McCain never provided the public any evidence of his place of birth.

  130. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    Doc, your arguments are getting weaker by the moment. To claim that questions about “This” President are founded on lies and illogic is intellectually dishonest and you KNOW it.

    Must be thise damn RACISTS who want to make sure that the guy who claims to be President is actually qualified!

  131. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 9:49 am #

    Exactly! So, let’s see it.

  132. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 9:51 am #

    Because he has been QUESTIONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What is so hard to understand?

  133. avatar
    richCares June 24, 2009 at 10:14 am #

    “Because he has been QUESTIONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    not by any intelligent person or group or political authority. Only Birthers have questioned it and they have no validity. Sorry, but they like you have no value but you may persist in your endeavor if you wish, just keep on wasting your time. Blame it on “liberals”!

  134. avatar
    Joyce June 24, 2009 at 10:20 am #

    “Because he has been QUESTIONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    The question has been answered with an official copy of his CoLB published on the internet for all to see; vetted by Snopes, FackCheck, and WND.

  135. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 10:26 am #

    Really? We’ll see, hon.

  136. avatar
    richCares June 24, 2009 at 10:41 am #

    “Really? We’ll see, hon.”
    what, imitating jtx?

  137. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 10:49 am #

    POOF! He’s gone.

  138. avatar
    richCares June 24, 2009 at 10:55 am #

    It’s quite obvious that our birther friends like heavy & jtx are not intelligent enough to have developed their delusions on their own, so my question would be who is the deluder in chief? (who is their leader). The election is over, Obama has been president for 6 months, nothing the birthers have done has gone anywhere. Dealing with their delusions and lies is referred to as “Whack a Mole” and it’s no longer fun, these birthers are pathetic.

  139. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    If Doc’s arguments are getting worse then how come you are having an ever harder time responding to them in a mature and reasoned manner? Your own words betray you.
    And yes, most of the questions about Obama’s eligibility are born out of lies and lack of logic and facts.
    Which is why at all cost the fact that the COLB shows Obama born on US soils has to be denied and ignored.

  140. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 24, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    Actually “lies and illogic” is exactly how the “evidence” is accurately characterized. I have dozens of pages on this site documenting them. If I knew of any evidentiary basis for Obama denialism NOT based on a lie or a logical fallacy, then I would have said otherwise.

    The Indonesian school record is the only piece of “evidence” but the denialist conclusions from it are illogical.

  141. avatar
    jtx June 24, 2009 at 2:00 pm #

    richCares:

    “obvious”??? To you perhaps but not to a court of law.

    Perhaps you genuinely don’t understand the United States Constitution is, how it operates, and what it means. That’s very likely in view of the many off-base postings you’ve made on this and other blogs.

    Most reasonable people – and especially those who love this country – are quite willing to have presidential eligibility (or lack thereof) definitively decided in a court of law using rules of evidence. The fact that you seem quite willing to have an occupant of the Oval Office that holds that position in opposition to the laws of the country does not seem to trouble you at all.

    If anything, in fact, you seem to relish the idea since it furthers the destruction of our country that so many of you and your pals hope and work for.

    “obvious”, indeed my friend, it is YOU who is deluded unless you are for some reason trying to bring down the very society you live in. If so, most people understand that the rule of law means nothing to you.

  142. avatar
    nbc June 24, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    Perhaps you genuinely don’t understand the United States Constitution is, how it operates, and what it means. That’s very likely in view of the many off-base postings you’ve made on this and other blogs.

    Now that’s ironic from someone who seems to want to ignore the Constitution when it comes to removing a duly elected President.

    Fascinating

  143. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 24, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    JTX, obviously you do not understand the concept of separation of powers and the limits placed on the role and jurisdiction of the courts via Article III.

  144. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    Mr. Irony,

    It is the “Duly elected” part that is in question.

    You libs wield a toothpick as though it were a baseball bat. Talk about irony!

  145. avatar
    nbc June 24, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    The voters spoke, the electoral college spoke, Congress certified and qualified, the Supreme Court Justice swore him in.

    Too bad that he was duly elected and can only be legally removed through the process of impeachment.

    There is a reason why the courts refuse to hear the complaints… It’s called the Constitution

  146. avatar
    nbc June 24, 2009 at 2:38 pm #

    Exactly….

  147. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 2:40 pm #

    You cannot impeach one who holds office ILLEGALY.

    THis is what happens when “The people” have had enough.

    http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=6665

  148. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    In other words, we are going to have to do this ourselves. I agree.

    Oh the IRONY!

  149. avatar
    nbc June 24, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    No evidence exists that the President holds the office illegally. And yes, you can impeach a “de facto” President.
    By all Constitutional standards he is the President of the United States.

    Let me explain

    Under doctrine established in those circumstances, the validity of actions taken by a person who has been duly appointed to an office, acting under the authority of that office, is unaffected by the ineligibility of the officeholder to that office. A more common example of this doctrine would be the validity of votes cast by an elected or appointed official who is later found to have been ineligible to hold his or her office (including at the time the vote was cast). Those votes are still valid notwithstanding that ineligibility

    This shows that the actions of a duly appointed/elected officer remain valid. The implications are obvious

  150. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 2:53 pm #

    Duly: In a due manner; properly

    Oh the irony!

  151. avatar
    nbc June 24, 2009 at 3:06 pm #

    Again, you may want to argue that he was not duly elected, which are assertions in disagreement with the facts, however, the President, even if elected while ineligible, would be a “de facto” officer with all the implications.
    Arguing that the elections were flawed because of a possible ineligibility is not going to change these facts.
    It’s the law, it’s Constitutionally sound and it shows how ‘silly’ the arguments are that somehow the President if not duly elected.

  152. avatar
    nbc June 24, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    And the supporting references

    “An ‘officer de facto is one who executes the duties of an office under some color of right—some pretense of title—either by election or appointment.” “A person actually in office by some right or title—not a mere usurper or intruder—although not legally appointed or elected thereto, or qualified to hold the same, is still an ‘officer de facto,’

    Glad to help

  153. avatar
    nbc June 24, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    You can of course ‘do it yourself’ but that may turn out to be an act of treason itself. Especially when it involves a de jure but even a de factor officer.

  154. avatar
    richCares June 24, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    “and especially those who love this country”

    your BS jtx, many like myself have served and love this country, I served as a US Marine as did 4 of my brothers, how did you serve. You certainly show a great deal of ignorance.

  155. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 24, 2009 at 4:14 pm #

    Heavy, you don’t reveal a lot about yourself. I hope that you don’t feel that there is a looming once in a thousand year clash between the forces of good and evil looming and that you personally are the one to act to make good triumph. It would make me very sad indeed to read in the newspaper that someone had been gunned down by security guards, and then you never show up here again.

  156. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    Thanks for your concern, doc. That’s not my style and CERTAINLY NOT what I am advocating.

    If you recall your US history, and I’m sure you do, it’s only been a little more than 200 years since it happened last on a grand scale.

    One never knows what the “People” will tolerate. The “Good” WILL triumph. They ALWAYS do.

  157. avatar
    richCares June 24, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    I get a little angry when birthers claim only they love patriotism and love our country, that is as phony as their stupid birther ideas. I visit my brother in Punchbowl every year. Jtx probably doesn’t know what Punchbowl is or where it’s at. Their shameless attempts to claim “this is about the constitution” is crap, they won’t even give their real reasons.

    a note to heavy “the Good did prevail” though you may not like most us do.

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 24, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    The elections are really not that far away. If I survived Reagan, you can survive Obama.

  159. avatar
    Heavy June 24, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    It’s not a question of short term survival, doc. It’s a question of survivability of this republic long term. I know you don’t look at it that way. That is what divides us so.

  160. avatar
    racosta June 24, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    heavy says “…survivability of this republic long term. I know you don’t look at it that way.”
    yes he does, way more than you do!

  161. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 24, 2009 at 4:57 pm #

    It’s here, Heavy:

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg

  162. avatar
    Bob Weber June 24, 2009 at 7:20 pm #

    richCares:

    I don’t think there’s any puppet master pulling the strings of the birfers. It’s more a case of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds – like the “Proctor & Gamble logo is a satanic symbol” story or the day-care child abuse hysteria of a few years ago. (The latter shows that hysterias can cause real harm, especially when politicians pander to them.)

    If you think about it, the question “Who is pulling the strings of the birfers” leads to a conspiracy theory!

  163. avatar
    Bob Weber June 24, 2009 at 7:27 pm #

    JeffSF: We know Reagan never renounced his citizenship because there’s no legal record of his ever having done so! For the same reason, we know Obama has never renounced his citizenship.

  164. avatar
    nbc June 24, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    So the question becomes: How does one remove a duly elected president when eligibility or lack thereof has not been established?

  165. avatar
    June bug June 24, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    This is a good example of the difference between the philosophies of our two sides, Heavy:

    Deep down, I believe in the resilience of our republican form of government, despite the fact that “my side” may not prevail in the short run. Deep down, it seems that you don’t.

    I understand that my political philosophy will not always be in ascendance (even that it may not deserve to be in all circumstances). I may disagree with, I may even detest, the policies of those in power at the time but I maintain my faith that the way to change those is through a vigorous contest of ideas.

    You believe that your philosophy not only always deserves to be in ascendance but that it must always be or the republic’s very survival is in danger. Therefore, if it is not, whatever replaces it cannot be legitimate.

    After that, it’s just a question of finding something (anything) to focus on as the root of the illegitimacy. Once demonized, the “enemy” need not be faced on the battlefield of ideas but removed by any means.

  166. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 24, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    NBC, eligibility is and was ESTABLISHED by Congress in the joint session on January 8th.

    If there was a question as to eligibility, it had to be raised and aired THEN. By definition, the candidate who is certified as President-Elect at that point is deemed eligible.

    An interesting case might be presented if new facts about a President’s background, bearing on eligibility, came to light between the date of the joint session and the date of inauguration– but that isn’t THIS case. Whatever facts are known about Obama’s background were known to the same extent in January.

  167. avatar
    racosta June 24, 2009 at 10:48 pm #

    talk about irony, jtx whose comments clearly show he dosen’t understand the constitution is saying “…Perhaps you genuinely don’t understand the United States…”, that is irony in the supreme. I laughed so hard I spilled coffee on my keyboard. Good ‘ol jtx, always good for as laugh.

  168. avatar
    NBC June 24, 2009 at 11:26 pm #

    I agree and should have been more careful in my question which is about how Heavy or other ‘patriots’ determine when a duly elected President can be removed by the ‘people’

  169. avatar
    Kevin Bellas June 24, 2009 at 11:52 pm #

    Heavy,

    Since you are posting link from WND. How do you like this Aug 23, 2008 article.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

    Here’s my favorite paragraph.

    “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”

    Don’t it just give goosepimples?

  170. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 25, 2009 at 12:15 am #

    It’s simple. Vote in a new Congress committed to calling a constitutional convention. Change the Constitution to make Heavy dictator for life (da da) and there you have it.

  171. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 25, 2009 at 12:23 am #

    Well if anything, I see the current administration as a much-needed reversal from the previous trend of unbridled greed in control, and the sacrificing of liberty and morality on the expedient altar of convenience.

    If anything destabilizes a society it is an essential unfairness in the system, whether that is deprivation of civil and human rights, corruption, the gap between wealth and poverty or an untrusted electoral process.

    The election of someone like Obama relieves some of the tension of those who have been frustrated for decades that their vote didn’t matter.

  172. avatar
    Ian Gould June 25, 2009 at 9:29 am #

    Actually I think repealing all amendments passed after the Bill of Rights might do it.

  173. avatar
    aarrgghh June 25, 2009 at 9:51 am #

    this was in reply to june bug’s comment

  174. avatar
    aarrgghh June 25, 2009 at 9:53 am #

    hmm … “reply to” nesting just doesn’t seem to be working for me today …

  175. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 10:46 am #

    You folks are WAY out in left field. This is about your messiah and him alone. While it’s true that I am not a fan of liberalism (Now THAT’S an understatement!), It is necessary to have differing views.

    This issue has to do with THE ONE’S eligibilty. Nothing more. The “Enemy”, as you put it, is the one who has usurped the law of the land and ANYBODY who supports him.

  176. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 10:48 am #

    There are other ways to releive tension than usurping the Constitution.

  177. avatar
    racosta June 25, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    “your messiah”
    heavy, your continued use of this term says a lot about you (not good), most of the “your” people actually do have a Messiah, Jesus Christ. You should ask your right wing handlers to remove the nose ring they put in your nose, then maybe they can’t lead you around with these silly buzzwords. Remember, you have to be taught to hate and you have been a good student but maybe you should ask for a day off.

  178. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 11:18 am #

    Yes, MY messiah is Jesus Christ. No, I have NOT been taught to hate. I have been taught to love and defend and that is what I am doing.

    Don’t blame me for YOUR shortcomings. YOUR messiah is out to destroy this country. MINE will not let it happen.

    YOU have been taught to hate this country and what it stands for. It’s not your fault. That’s what drugs do to you.

  179. avatar
    thisoldhippie June 25, 2009 at 11:35 am #

    I propose that Heavy be considered persona non grata from this date forward. The continued personal attacks are beginning to get a bit old.

  180. avatar
    richCares June 25, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    Not necessary, his tirades do a good job of making himself look foolish. His ” I have not been taught to hate” was really quite funny. Like most right wingers, he is a joke and his “I love this country” is classic irony. A large group of people that love this country and many of them have served this country and voted for Obama resent this idiot saying “YOU have been taught to hate this country “. This clearly tells you what an idiot he is.

    Heavy is a caricature of right wing hate, yet he says “I love Jesus”, yet reading the bible clearly shows that Jesus was a liberal! http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/

    heavy claims Jesus is his Messiah yet commits blasphemy by calling Obama the messiah. Give that up heavy, it makes you look like a complete A___H___.

  181. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    Personal attacks? You need to pay closer attention before shooting your mouth off.

    I would consuder it a great personal favor for you to ignore me. That would be a victory!

  182. avatar
    richCares June 25, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    “I would consuder it a great personal favor for you to ignore me. That would be a victory!”

    I second that motion! Let’s all say it together “IGNORE HEAVY”

  183. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    Hey richie, PAY ATTENTION. I am not the one who calls THE ONE messiah…YOU ARE! Yes, Jesus may have beem considered a liberal, but if you know the bible, which you CLEARLY do not, then you would know that there are plenty of passages that talk about when NOT to turn the other cheek.

    Get a life, scumbag!

  184. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    Richie, you have been saying that for months. PLEASE DO!

  185. avatar
    richCares June 25, 2009 at 12:01 pm #

    Richie, you have been saying that for months. PLEASE DO!

    sure my dear hatefull idiot, but I certainly feel sorry for you and your hatefull life. and stop saying Obama is your Messiah, that right wing talking point is passe.

  186. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 25, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    Um, Heavy, the only people who call Obama a Messiah are the right trying to attack the liberals. Show me one instance where any of us have called Obama a Messiah, or even compared him to Jesus Christ.

  187. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    Get a life, scumbag!

    WWJD…

  188. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

    Yes, MY messiah is Jesus Christ. No, I have NOT been taught to hate. I have been taught to love and defend and that is what I am doing.

    Small correction defend seems to be better replaced by offend.

    We share our faith through our words and actions, Heavy. What impression would people get about your Faith based upon your presence on this board and your contributions?

    Is that your goal?

  189. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    We often accuse others of our own shortcomings.

  190. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 1:17 pm #

    Don’t get out much, do you? Pay attention. You just might learn something about yourself and the lost cause you support.

  191. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    Seems to me that Heavy is hiding his embarrassment over not being familiar with the “de facto officer” doctrine behind a frontal assault of insults.

    Perhaps when he has time and has recovered from his recent spell of mud slinging, he could address this concept and how he envisions removing a duly elected President through the ‘power of the people’ when the Constitution only provides for Congress to do so?

  192. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

    As I said, we often accuse others of our own shortcomings. I thought the facts would speak for themselves and had no idea how you were going to provide further supporting evidence. I thank you my dear dedicated friend.

  193. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

  194. avatar
    richCares June 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    this “scumbag” has a very good life, 2 daughters, one an award winning architect the other a doctor. each has 2 children, so it’s 4 grandkids. Just had breakfast with 2 grandkids this morning. A lot of smiles in our closely knit family. I wish all of you have a life as good as mine.

    “We often accuse others of our own shortcomings.”
    correction:
    “heavy often accuses others of his own shortcomings.” that’s better!
    Heavy should erase that hate with love and live his own life instead of being led by his nose ring, poor guy is drowning in his hate.

  195. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    Have you attempted to understand rather what the author was saying?

  196. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    I see, Heavy is now resorting to spamming. How sad.

  197. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=77539

  198. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    Seems to me that Heavy is hiding his embarrassment over not being familiar with the “de facto officer” doctrine behind a frontal assault of insults.

    Perhaps when he has time and has recovered from his recent spell of mud slinging, he could address this concept and how he envisions removing a duly elected President through the power of the people’ when the Constitution only provides for Congress to do so?

  199. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    That’s right. When confronted with facts, cal them SPAM! You cannot argue with truth. YOU can only run from it!

  200. avatar
    richCares June 25, 2009 at 1:31 pm #

    Dont respond to heavy, please honor his wish! Remember what heavy wrote, “I would consuder it a great personal favor for you to ignore me. That would be a victory!”

    Yes the misspelling of “consider” is his.

  201. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

    Speaking of running from the truth

    Seems to me that Heavy is hiding his embarrassment over not being familiar with the “de facto officer” doctrine behind a frontal assault of insults.

    Perhaps when he has time and has recovered from his recent spell of mud slinging, he could address this concept and how he envisions removing a duly elected President through the power of the people’ when the Constitution only provides for Congress to do so?

  202. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    Richy, you are the one who asked for the proof and now all you can do is plug your ears and make noises. You are a miserable excuse for a human being.

  203. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    The only fact you presented is that the url links to a blog page. There is no argument beyond this, no efforts to make an argument, no effort to present the facts versus conjecture.

    Yes, spam by any measure my dear friend. Thank you.

  204. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 1:34 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0drwfnGlF_E

  205. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    There we go again. And yet you could present your response to the de facto doctrine which is far more relevant an issue as it lies at the foundation of the issue. Can a duly elected President be removed by means other than the Constitutional principle of impeachment?
    You argued that the President was not duly elected but he was by any standard The argument is now eligibility but that does not make his election flawed and thus he is at least the de facto President which means that he cannot be removed other than through Constitutional procedures.

  206. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

    Seems that Heavy is intent on ignoring the much more relevant issues.

    Seems to me that Heavy is hiding his embarrassment over not being familiar with the “de facto officer” doctrine behind a frontal assault of insults.

    Perhaps when he has time and has recovered from his recent spell of mud slinging, he could address this concept and how he envisions removing a duly elected President through the power of the people’ when the Constitution only provides for Congress to do so?

  207. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    So let’s explore further

    The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, are, if done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, as valid and binding as if he were the officer legally elected and qualified for the office and in full possession of it.

    The question now becomes how to challenge an officer who holds such an office. The most straightforward one would be “quo warranto” however legal and legislative history suggests that Quo Warranto is not applicable to questioning a President’s qualifications once he has been qualified by Congress.

    There are some problems however

    The remedy by quo warranto, or upon an information in that nature, may not be available, any more than the mandamus, since the jurisdiction conferred by Rev. St. sec. 563, subsec. 14; Id. sec. 629, subsec. 14; and Id. sec. 1786,—is limited to a particular class of cases not embracing this; and since that limitation may exclude any broader jurisdiction that might be claimed under the general power of the courts to issue writs to enforce any jurisdiction granted to them, (Rev. St § 716,) if, indeed, any jurisdiction to directly try the title to federal offices by quo warranto or other like proceeding has been conferred upon any federal court,—they being destitute of all common-law jurisdiction in that regard, as every other.

    Source: The Federal Reporter

    § 468a. Writs of quo warranto in the District Courts. The better opinion is that the District Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction to grant the writ of quo warranto only when specifically authorized by statute; and that no writ of quo warranto can issue from them to try the title to the office of President of the United States.

    Roger Foster, Treatise on Federal Practice, Civil and Criminal, Including Practice in Bankruptcy, Admiralty, Patent Cases, Foreclosure of Railway Mortgages, Suits Upon Claims Against the United States: Proceedings Before the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, Callaghan & company, 1921

    and finally

    Was it intended that the title to the office of President of the United States should depend upon a contest in a court, which contest itself is wholly dependent upon the fluctuating opinions of Congress? One Congress might pass a law clothing the Supreme Court of the United States with power to entertain a quo warranto in such a contest, and just when that contest was at its height, and before any decision had been rendered upon it, the next Congress might repeal the law conferring the jurisdiction. Was any such thing as that ever intended by the framers of the Constitution? It seems to me not. It would be a very extraordinary constitution that would thus leave it to the fluctuating will of Congress whether or not if the first place there should be any judicial cognizance of the question at all, and if the next place that would allow Congress one day to provide for this judicial cognizance and the next day or the next week repeal the law that gave the court jurisdiction.

    Counting Electoral Votes: Proceedings and Debates of Congress Relating to Counting the Electoral Votes for President and Vice-president of the United States By United States. Congress, William McKendree Springer, George Willard, House Published by G.P.O., 1877

  208. avatar
    Bob June 25, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    Evan Thomas replies.

  209. avatar
    Kevin Bellas June 25, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    Since you brought up WND again. How about this one.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

    “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”

    What do you think of WND now?

  210. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    Shocking isn’t it. Thanks for posting the link. I was looking for it as I had run across it earlier.

  211. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    Hey Kev, pay attention. Little Richy asked for something and I provided it.

    You libs have the attention span of Bill Clinton at an orgy.

  212. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm #

    Are you paying attention AT ALL?

  213. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 2:40 pm #

    Some other famous liberal replies;

    “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

    “I misspoke”

    And my personal favorite;

    “This is the biggest hocus pocus dominocus to ever hit this town”

  214. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:40 pm #

    More name calling and insult slinging. Well done Heavy.

  215. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    Yes, I notice you fully ignored these issues.
    For that I thank you as you initially made a big deal out of ‘duly elected’ and now…

  216. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    Hey, I don’t make the rules. It’ not my fault if the TRUTH hurts.

  217. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    Seems that when faced with contradicting facts, Heavy has no response other than to throw up red herrings and strawmen.

    Well done Heavy. Your ‘arguments’ seem to unfold while we speak and all you can do is shout insults?

  218. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

    All I’ve done is supply the proof that duns asked for. Noone has addressed the information, but rather changed the subject.

    Liberals are truth averse.

  219. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

    Name calling does not really hurt but it shows a lack of arguments and reason.

    As I said, you are merely undermining your own ‘arguments’ when you respond to facts and reason with insults and name calling.

    WWJD?

  220. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 2:47 pm #

    The only contradiction here is YOU. Do you have ADD?

  221. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    Liberals are truth averse.

    Calling yourself a liberal again? The problem with your statement is that you have failed to present an argument other than some random links, that you ignore real arguments, that you failed to do proper research into these links leading you to misquote.
    In other words, why should we respond anymore when you are the best destructor of your own arguments?
    At the same time, I am also reminding you of an issue which you failed to respond to. I understand…

  222. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    Interesting ad hominem. I guess you truly have no idea how to conduct a mature, well reasoned, logical argument?

  223. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    WWJD? I think we are about to find out. Doesn’t he have another infomercial on ABC tonight?

  224. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    I am amazed at your blasphemy…Wow

  225. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    Really? Where is your rebuttal to what was presented?

  226. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    So let’s see if we can refocus Heavy to address the ‘duly elected’ part. As I have shown, the President follows the “de facto officer doctrine” if not the “de jure officer doctrine” and in both cases his actions cannot be argued to be invalid until a determinination of his eligibility has been made. In fact, since the position is a constitutional office, and since the Constitution prescribes that Congress is the final arbiter on the eligibility issue, and since the Constitution prescribes that a President can only be removed via impeachment, the conclusion seems to be simple and straightforward: Any legal challenge will fail, and there is no legal foundation for the claim that the President is ineligible. So how can the People then, constitutionally, remove a sitting President?
    I see no constitutional pathways here.

  227. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 25, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    Heavy, interesting quote. The article’s title might lead the hasty reader to think Farrakhan was calling Obama the Messiah, when actually, he was calling him the “herald of the Messiah”.

    “Brothers and sisters,” Farrakhan said, “Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way.”

    This is not really as radical as it might seem to people of faith who believe that God guides their lives and sometimes tells them what to say. We who trust that God works in the world, look for signs of hope and attribute them to the carrying out of the will of God. The principles Obama writes about in his book The Audacity of Hope are most often aligned with the principles of the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus.

    It’s really far too soon to judge Obama in any comprehensive way, but one can hope that Obama and his policies are ushering in a more humane and peaceful future than what has been our past.

    No, I’m not willing to call Obama John the Baptist reincarnated any more than I am willing to call Rush Limbaugh the Antichrist, no matter how close the parallels.

  228. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    Who was just recently accusing others of a short attention span? Wow… the irony seems to be dripping heavily (sic) today.

  229. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 2:59 pm #

    Wow that’s now 0 for 2 for Heavy’s quote mining.

  230. avatar
    richCares June 25, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    “Hey Kev, pay attention. Little Richy asked for something and I provided it.”
    no he did not ask for anything, that’s your delusion! Maube someone else asked you.

  231. avatar
    richCares June 25, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    he dosn’t know that WWJD means “What Would Jesus Do”.

  232. avatar
    NBC June 25, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    Oh he does…

  233. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    Sorry Richy. You’re right. It was duns.

  234. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    Is this what you are talking about?

    http://usatodayadforobamarecordsextendedpost.blogspot.com/2008/12/de-facto-officer-doctrine.html

  235. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 25, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    I’m not keeping score.

  236. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 25, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    It’s easy for comments to get missed in a format like this.

  237. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 25, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    Worth a careful read.

  238. avatar
    nbc June 25, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    It’s an example of the de facto officer doctrine.
    Looking forward to your pending response?

  239. avatar
    nbc June 25, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    § 45. Acquiescence and reputation. A mere intruder is not an officer de facto. His acts are void and are always open to attack. But long acquiescence and general reputation will render one, who was at first an intruder, an officer de facto even without color of title.

    From the case quoted on the link that Heavy so carelessly linked to we read

    n addition, even with regard to those cases in which a timely separation of
    powers challenge to the Commission’s composition has been raised and that
    remain pending either before the Commission or the courts, we conclude that
    under the “de facto officer” doctrine prior actions of the Commission cannot be set
    aside on the ground that the appointment of the commissioners who participated in
    the decision may be vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

    in another ruling the court shows the relevances of acquiescence

    A person will be deemed to be a de facto judge only if he is in possession of the office of judge and is discharging its duties,[35. …Assigned judge was, at the very least, a judge de facto of court to which he had been assigned on day before his designation authorized him to act. Leary v. U.S., C.A.Cal. 268 F.2d 623.] and there cannot be a de facto judge when there is a de jure judge in the actual performance of the duties of the office.[36. Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co. D.C.N.Y., 1 F.Supp. 809, reversed on other grounds, C.C.A. 61 F.2d 934, affirmed in part 53 S.Ct. 721, 289 U.S. 479, 77 L.Ed. 1331….] Mere possession of the office is not sufficient to make the incumbent a de facto judge;[37] to constitute him a de facto judge his incumbency of the office must be illegal in some respect,[38] and he must have color of title[39. Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, N.Y., 82 S.Ct 1459, 370 U.S. 530, 8 L.Ed.2d 671, rehearing denied 83 S.Ct. 14, 371 U.S. 854, 9 L.Ed.2d 93. … Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom, Inc. v. Ensher, 47 Cal.Rptr. 688, 238 C.A.2d 250…] or his possession must have been acquiesced in by the public generally.[40. Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom, Inc. v. Ensher, 47 Cal.Rptr. 688, 238 C.A.2d 250…]

    In other words either the ‘de facto’ officer must have ‘color of title’ or the public must have acquiesced generally.

  240. avatar
    Heavy June 25, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    Carelessly? In what way? All I wanted to know is if this is what you are referring to as I am not familiar with it.

    If that is careless, then I’m guilty as charged your honor!

  241. avatar
    nbc June 25, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    I was merely referring to you linking to the particular site. If the question was as to the meaning of ‘de facto office(r)’ better references exist.

  242. avatar
    nbc June 25, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    To continue:

    A “de facto officer” Is one who has a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. It must originate in some kind of election or appointment to the office claimed, or, being an intruder or usurper, It must arise from the fact that he has exercised official functions under such circumstances and for so long a time, without Interference, as to justify belief [that] he has been elected or appointed. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Quinn (Tex.) 100 S. W. 1030, 1038.

    To constitute an officer de facto, he must have a presumptive or apparent right to exercise the office, resulting from either full and peaceable possession of the powers of such office, or reasonable color of title, with actual use of the office. State v. Messervy, 08 S. E. 766, 768, 86 S. C. 503.

    A “de facto officer” Is one who actually performs the duties of the office with apparent right, under claim or color of appointment or election, and it is immaterial that the appointing power could not give him good title to the office, or that the statute under which he claims to hold the office Is unconstitutional. Gavin v. Board of Com’rs of Took County, 92 N. E. 291, 295, 245 111. 496.

  243. avatar
    nbc June 25, 2009 at 4:40 pm #

    Note that this may also present some problems in the latest attempts to get someone who is being court martialled to object to the Obama’s status as Commander in Chief. Such an action is likely not allowed as part of the proceedings as the actions of the de facto officer are viewed as legal and any action to challenge them will have to take place in a separate proceedings.

  244. avatar
    nbc June 25, 2009 at 10:49 pm #

    Some more information which explicitly denies Quo Warranto against a President

    The learned counsel who immediately preceded me,has contended that a Senator cannot be considered as an “officer,” because there could be no quo warranto to remove him from his place, if he held it improperly, nor mandamus to place him in it, if unjustly kept out. But surely this cannot be a well founded argument, for if it be, it applies as well to the President, the Judges, the Secretaries, and the Commander-in-Chief of the army, as to a Senator. Not one of them could be removed by quo warranto or replaced by mandamus. Did any one ever hear of a quo warranto to remove a Colonel of a regiment ? Was a quo warranto ever brought in England against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a Secretary of State, or a Lord of the Admiralty ? Certainly not, and yet that these are officers, will not be denied. The truth is, Mr. President, that the doctrine of quo warranto and mandamus, as far as it relates to officers, is confined exclusively to certain local municipal officers, of a subordinate nature, who are placed, by the common law of England, under the superintendence of the Supreme Court of Justice; to which, from the nature of their offices, recourse could most conveniently and effectually be had, for their punishment, their removal, or their reinstatement. But this reason did not extend to the great officers of the State, of the army, or the navy, or to any of their subordinates. They could best be punished, removed and replaced, in a different manner, and by a different authority. To them, therefore, nobody ever dreamt of extending the power of the Supreme Courts by quo warranto and mandamus: and yet nobody ever, on this account, thought of denying that they were ” officers,” which, however, would be just as reasonable, as to contend that a Senator of the United States is not an ” officer,” because he cannot be removed by quo warranto, w admitted by mandamus. I admit that it would be absurd to talk of an office from which a man could not,be removed, however flagitious his conduct; or into which, when entitled to it, and improperly kept ont, he had no means of obtaining admission. But a Senator may be removed by a vote of expulsion ; and if duly elected, but not returned, may obtain his seat by a petition to the Senate.

    Francis Wharton State Trials of the United States During the Administrations of Washington and Adams 1849

  245. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 26, 2009 at 1:22 am #

    good find!

  246. avatar
    Bob June 26, 2009 at 1:37 am #

    (Not that this is any surprise, but) Apuzzo disagrees with Dr. C.

  247. avatar
    NBC June 26, 2009 at 2:20 am #

    There are just so many resources and few if any seem to support those who want to have a duly elected President removed from office through means outside what the Constitution provides for.
    The ‘birthers’ complain that now 40+ lawsuits have failed and they blame the judiciary rather than realizing that this is Constitutional law.

  248. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Mario said: said (not to me): “On the English and colonial common law, I highly urge you to crack the books a little more. ”

    I’ve cracked all the books I could find. Mario’s thesis is not what it’s cracked up to be. In fact his case is based on crackpot theories and there are cracks in the argument you could drive an oil tanker through. He’d better get cracking if he expects to stay in the ring with Obama’s lawyers without getting a cracked skull.

    This stuff just cracks me up.

    What Mario’s comment translates to: “I’m right because I claim to know more than you.”

    I do have some sympathy for Mario, though, in having to put up with people who know a whole lot less than I do on some of these things (and I appreciate the patience of those with me who know a whole lot more).

  249. avatar
    Bob June 26, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    That, and the “don’t question me unless you can prove you’re an attorney” bit were pretty funny.

    Of course, as we know, there’s no point in debating Apuzzo on his site, as he’ll simply block any comment that he doesn’t like, especially the ones where you prove him wrong.

  250. avatar
    NBC July 1, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    So Heavy, can we ever expect your response to the De Facto Officer Doctrine and the findings on Quo Warranto which suggest that they cannot be used against a President?

    Or are you still ‘doing research’ 😉

  251. avatar
    Vince Treacy July 28, 2009 at 9:41 am #

    The quote by Bingham is plastered all over the net, but he was talking about a different law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act differed from the 14th Amendment by including the phrases “not subject to any foreign power” and “excluding Indians not taxed,” while the 14th Amendment omits both. His statement is not authority for interpreting the 14th Amendment, only for the Civil Rights Act.

    The Civil Rights Act, as codified in section 1992 of the Revised Statutes did say that all persons born in the U.S., and “not subject to any foreign power,” were citizens. But that phrase was omitted from the 14th Amendment.

    The 14th Amendment was first introduced in the Senate on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the resolution passed by the House. It read “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

    Senator Howard introduced the citizenship clause, and stated “every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

    Howard thus excluded persons born who were foreign and alien children of ambassadors. The courts have consistently held that subject to the jurisdiction” requirement narrowly excludes children of diplomatic representatives, as well as children of alien enemies in hostile occupation. Howard later offered an amendment to include “or naturalized.”

    This is the source for Sen. Howard’s statement introducing the citizenship clause:
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

    The debates were in conflict over the citizenship of children born of alien parents. Senator Cowan, who opposed the Amendment, objected to the inclusion of Chinese, but Senator Conness had no objection to guaranteeing the American-born children of Mongolian parents civil rights and equal protection. The Supreme Court resolved any question conclusively in Wong Kim Ark.

    John Bingham was a Representative at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted. The Citizenship clause was not a part of the House version of the proposed amendment when he made his statement on March 9. His remarks on March 9 concerned the Senate bill 61, “an Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindications,” which when enacted became the Civil Rights Act of 1866, codified as section 1992. He was not discussing the 14th Amendment, so his remarks are not part of its history and do not support its interpretation. Bingham’s statement had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. He was describing the Civil Rights Act.

    Bingham, talking about the law, not the amendment, middle column, second full paragraph. Go to previous page for start of statement:
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

    Just another persistent pernicious birther myth.