Main Menu

Craig v US appeal denied by Circuit Court

Craig v US

Craig v US

The United States District Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed yesterday (August 5, 2009) the lower court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit Craig v. United States of America, although it returned the case to the lower to correct the dismissal to “without prejudice” which means the suit could be refiled.

As explained by the district court, Mr. Craig’s first complaint and his proposed amended complaint–”as well as his motion for declaratory judgment and
motion for class certification–”primarily addressed the alleged distinction between the rights of citizenship that attach to naturalized citizens and those that attach to natural-born citizens. Mr. Craig asserted that he, as a “Legacy,” or natural-born citizen, suffered from discrimination due to “exclusion of distinctions” and “omission of acknowledgement” due to Congress’s failure to enact laws recognizing this distinction, whereas it has enacted laws defining the requirements to become a naturalized citizen…. Mr. Craig thus sought redress in the form of a declaratory judgment defining “natural born Citizen,” as it appears in art. II, § 1, cl. 4 of the Constitution, and providing a means for citizens bearing that moniker to obtain certification of that fact from the federal government, as well as punitive damages….

Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.

The court then cited a previous Supreme Court decision (which, as is often the case, uses “native born” and “natural born” interchangeably):

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

Link to full decision.

Note that Craig had previously appealed to the Supreme Court while the appeal was pending and is scheduled to be discussed on September 29, 2009.

Print Friendly

,

78 Responses to Craig v US appeal denied by Circuit Court

  1. avatar
    misha August 6, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    Tangentially related: Here is Sarah Palin’s official Kenyan Birth Certificate!

    She wasn’t born in Canada – it was Mombasa.

  2. avatar
    misha August 6, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    One more note: I would like to direct our readers to Welcome To Birfistan.

  3. avatar
    Bob August 6, 2009 at 7:54 pm #

    This little gem from the order:

    “Mr. Craig argues that the definition is knowable, and he proffers a definition from a 1758 Swiss philosophical treatise.”

    de Vattel gets no love!

    The court remanded because the district court dismissed with prejudice when it should have dismissed without prejudice because it lacked jurisdiction.

    Which makes sense: Craig has to first establish that the district court even has jurisdiction to hear his case (before it can dismiss with prejudice). Undoubtably, birfers will take this as a sign of encouragement.

  4. avatar
    Necro August 6, 2009 at 9:49 pm #

    Boy are you leftists intimmidated by Palin. She’s not even part of this topic yet you drag her into it.

  5. avatar
    brygenon August 6, 2009 at 9:58 pm #

    Of the birther suits taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, Craig v. U.S. is the second that was filed with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“in the manner of a pauper”, without paying the usual costs). The first was Schneller v. Cortes, in which the Court denied leave to file in forma pauperis adding the note, “See Rule 39.8.” Rule 39.8 reads:

    “If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”

    Craig’s case is docketed for conference on 29 Sept 2009. ‘Twill be interesting to see if the second case to go before SCOTUS in forma pauperis also gets the “frivolous or malicious” disposal. My prediction is that it will.

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-10817.htm

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-9797.htm

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/2007rulesofthecourt.pdf

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 6, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    I’m waiting for my 2010 Sarah Palin Swimsuit Calendar.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 6, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    Berg/Hollister were supposed to have filed something in their appeal yesterday, but I haven’t seen anything on PACER.

  8. avatar
    ObotsREvil August 6, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    The Native Citizen and the Naturalized Citizen differences are distinguishable only by the US Constitution and not the Law.

    So, anyone who claims citizenship by statute is a Naturalized Citizen and anyone who claims to be a native born citizen is a Natural Born Citizen.

  9. avatar
    Jeff R August 6, 2009 at 10:48 pm #

    This seems to have become one of the more bizarre articles of faith among the Right: if a liberal even so much as mentions the name “Sarah Palin,” it’s because we are “intimidated” by her.

    I saw a comment elsewhere which pretty much sums things up: “Sarah Palin is the answer to a future Trivial Pursuit question.”

  10. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 6, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    I’m trying to find out your theory, ObotsREvil.

    You state that someone who claims citizenship by statute is a Naturalized Citizen, and someone who claims to be a citizen via the constitution, is a Natural-Born Citizen?

    Then you admit that Barack Obama is a Natural-Born Citizen, because his citizenship comes from the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, according to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Guess that means that, according to some people, you’re an O-Bot.

    However, the better way to do it is distinguish them via birth, and via naturalization. What you’re saying is that the child of a U.S. Ambassador, born while overseas, cannot grow up to be President. You’re also saying that the child of Military Personel over seas cannot grow up to be President (such as John McCain). While your view doesn’t have conclusive precedent, your view would be a minority view.

  11. avatar
    misha August 6, 2009 at 11:15 pm #

    I would clarify this: anyone who claims citizenship by birth, is NBC.

    Every day, women cross from Mexico to give birth in border city clinics. Some day, one of those babies will become president – like Obama.

    To those who are unhappy about this: them’s the law.

  12. avatar
    misha August 6, 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    And I’m waiting for my 2010 Mombasa Swimsuit Calendar. (port city, on the Indian Ocean)

  13. avatar
    misha August 6, 2009 at 11:35 pm #

    Saying “Sarah Palin” to a liberal, is like brandishing a cross to a vampire.

    (ba-dump)

  14. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 2:26 am #

    Meh.

    Schneller was a frequent filer. I think Craig will be given a few more passes before he gets hit with rule 39.8.

  15. avatar
    Lupin August 7, 2009 at 2:51 am #

    Hilarious!

  16. avatar
    Lupin August 7, 2009 at 2:53 am #

    True enough. No one would care about her if she was ugly.

    But she’s hot in a bitchy BDSM sort of way.

  17. avatar
    Lupin August 7, 2009 at 2:54 am #

    “Some day, one of those babies will become president – like Obama.”

    The US won’t last that long.

  18. avatar
    Shrieking wombat August 7, 2009 at 3:15 am #

    Polarik II?

    http://216.221.102.26/blogger/post/Forgers-attempt-to-discredit-Kenyan-birth-certificate-as-fake-by-using-high-end-graphics-tool-kit.aspx

    Reading this much crackpot makes my brain hurt.

  19. avatar
    sponson August 7, 2009 at 4:12 am #

    That attempt to debunk the anonymous hoaxer/purported author of the “Kenyan” forgery is a mess. If they keep this up, some birther is going to start attacking employees of software companies like “Lead Technologies” and Adobe Systems. For what it’s worth, check out the high-resolution images from the forger who apparently hoaxed Orly Taitz: The links to the jpg files are here. It appears to me that the photos were designed to systematically demonstrate, after the prank on Taitz succeeded, that the document is a homemade fake meant to discredit her. Of course someone could have generated these photos after the forgery photo was published on the internet by WND, but the high-resolution nature of these photos, combined with the identical background material in one photo, seems to knock that theory down.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2009 at 7:55 am #

    Sven, wearing an ObotsREvil suit, says: “anyone who claims citizenship by statute is a Naturalized Citizen”.

    It’s hard to be certain here, but I tend to disagree. There are statutes that make certain individuals “citizens from their birth” (these are persons born in places that became US territories, and the children of US citizens) and I would tend to consider these natural born citizens too. I don’t know anything in the Constitution of the case record that makes a constitutional/statute distinction on the quality of citizenship.

  21. avatar
    ObotsREvil August 7, 2009 at 8:00 am #

    I clicked Doc’s link in the article click and read the Judgment and Order.

    It looks as if they did define Natural Born Citizen, as it had been previously defined … Rusk, and I wrote what believe to be a correct interpretation of the Judgment.

    It seems the Court is doing backflips to stress there are no differences between a Natural Born Citizen and a Naturalized Citizen, except that only Natural Born Citizens are eligible to hold the office of Prez and VP and Naturalized Citizens are not.

    Fed Statute determines who is a Naturalized Citizen. If you’re not a Naturalized Citizen then you’re a Natural Born Citizen.

  22. avatar
    ObotsREvil August 7, 2009 at 8:11 am #

    Quoting the Judgment from the article you posted …

    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the
    “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

    While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by
    Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a
    native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this
    power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.” Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824)); see also Osborn, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 827-28 (“[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”).

    End Quote.

    Natural Born Citizen is derived from US Constitution, 14th Amendment.

    Naturalized Citizen is derived from Congress, Federal Statute.

    So, if BO’s citizenship is derived from 14th Amendment, then he’s in like Flynn.

  23. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 7, 2009 at 8:14 am #

    ‘some birther is going to start attacking employees of software companies like “Lead Technologies” and Adobe Systems’

    Well last weekend Orly was threatening Google with a RICO charge over the malware warning and at least one freeper was fuming about ‘leftist filtering of the internet’ so I suppose it’s the logical next step.

  24. avatar
    Expelliarmus August 7, 2009 at 8:48 am #

    Here’s where he got it way wrong:

    Because in the third image, you can’t mail something that’s been that crumpled and have it appear in good shape when Orly got the copy.

    Orly doesn’t have the paper, and never did. She said as much in the motion she filed — she had a photo (or a scanned image) — that is what she attached to the court, and wanted to “authenticate” through some sort of court-ordered discovery process.

    She expressly told the court:

    The undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs has acquired possession of a color copy of one certain document (attached as Exhibit A to this motion), regarding which there are no ready means of authentication except by recovery of the original document.

    So the whole underlying premise is wrong. You can do amazing things with graphics software, but you can’t go from lower resolution to higher resolution on an image. And the blogger posted a higher resolution version than the one that Orly posted on her site and filed with the court.

  25. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    But don’t forget: If Obama would just release his long-form birth certificate, all of this would stop.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2009 at 11:22 am #

    Not to gainsay anything Sven wrote, but there is some debate among legal scholars on this point. Also it is not quite correct to say that the Naturalized Citizen is ONLY derived from Congress and Federal Statute because that statue is authorized explicitly by the Constitution. It’s not like Congress on its own decided to create a class of citizens without the authority of the Constitution.

    There is another important case SINCE Schneider that changed the landscape:

    Until 1971, the US Supreme Court recognized two types of citizenship, and two types only: natural born and naturalized. In the 1971 case, Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the Court, in a 5-4 opinion, created a third type of “non-constitutional” citizenship, holding that a person who attains his/her US citizenship by virtue of being born abroad to a US citizen is not a “Fourteenth Amendment first sentence citizen” and, as such, is not entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment.

    What’s Your Evidence

    If “natural born citizen” means nothing more than “born a citizen”, and if the Congress has the power to declare someone “born a citizen” then it would appear to me that they might be natural born (even if one insists in calling them naturalized). Certainly the first congress did exactly that in 1790, declaring the children of citizens born “beyond the sea” to be “natural born citizens” (law repealed in 1795).

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2009 at 11:30 am #

    …and Obama’s approval rating would reach 99%.

    Yeah, when monkeys fly out of your….

  28. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 7, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    That’s not entirely true, due to the nature that most resolutions actually sample from 4 dots, or whatever, to make their photo. There are algorithms that will take a low-resolution photo, and approximate what the higher-resolution photo would have looked like. However, those algorithms are not used very much.

  29. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 7, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    Don’t give jtx any more nightmares about flying monkeys. He doesn’t need those…

  30. avatar
    kimba August 7, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    The closest we have today to that very scenario is Piyush Jindal. He was born here, he’s eligible. He was born not more than a year after his parents came to Louisiana from India, father on a student visa, not sure about the mother if she was a student or just allowed to come with Papa Jindal. Neither one was a citizen let alone in any more permanent situation than Barack Sr. Now, is someone going to do some granny finger counting and say he’s not eligible because he wasn’t conceived here by two citizens? Or like Stephen Colbert might say, on the night he was conceived, did we hear sitars or zydigo music? ( snark tag tightly afixed for the humorless)

  31. avatar
    ballantine August 7, 2009 at 12:57 pm #

    Interesting subject for which there is no definitive answer unless we travel back in time. The 18th century English naturalization statutes, such as 4 Geo. 2 c.21, declared foreign born children of subjects to themselves be natural born subjects and they were generally referred to as natural born subjects though they were not natural born by the common law. Accordingly, it seem quite plausible that the founders would have thought such persons to be natural born or that they would think that Congress, like Parliament, had to power to declare who was to be natural born. The 1790 Act supports this as the legislative history makes clear they meant to mimick Parliament with respect to such children.

    On the other hand, the early state naturlization statutes generally gave aliens the rights of the natural born without purporting to make them natural born and almost all other early American authority connected natural or native born with the common law rule and distinguished such from naturalized citizens.

  32. avatar
    misha August 7, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    Thank you. I excel at parody. Those Jesuits taught me well.

  33. avatar
    Nullifidian August 7, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    The thing that makes this most believable to me are the dates, no Father signature, and Ann being from “Witchita KS”. Only someone with some deep knowledge about the Obama debacle would know enough to make those adjustments.

    Oh gosh yes! It’s a complete mystery to me how someone could figure out that Obama was born on 4 August 1961 or that Ann Dunham was born in Wichita.

    Where could such accurate information have possibly come from if not the parents?

  34. avatar
    misha August 7, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    Oooo, tell me more.

  35. avatar
    misha August 7, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    The parents distinctly heard Clifton Chenier as he was conceived, so Piyush is NBC.

    The denialists have already started on Jindal. They’re claiming the 2-parent rule applies to him. They can’t stand a pres with brown skin.

  36. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 7, 2009 at 2:15 pm #

    For some time I’ve been thinking that the 1790 Act is quite significant in the argument against Vettal being used to define ‘Natural-born Citizen’.

    At the time that act was being passed 8 of the signers of the draft constitution were in the Senate, 7 were in the house, 1 was President and of course one more (Hamilton) was in the Cabinet.

    If it was as simple as the Constitution being driven by Vettal then it seems doubtful to me that none of these founding fathers would have questioned whether Congress had the authority to deviate and create ‘natural born citizens’.

    If however the english precidents guided the drafting then there would be be nothing untoward in their action.

  37. avatar
    Bob Weber August 7, 2009 at 6:24 pm #

    “Saying “Sarah Palin” to a liberal, is like brandishing a cross to a vampire.”

    More like silver bullets:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079489/quotes

    [Rosenberg approaches Dracula in a restaurant]

    Doctor Jeff Rosenberg: The second way to kill a vampire, Count; three silver bullets through the heart!

    Cindy Soundheim: Jeffrey!

    [Jeff shoots Dracula three times]

    Count Dracula: No, Rosenberg, that is a werewolf

    Doctor Jeff Rosenberg: A werewolf? Really? Are you sure?

    [Guards start to take him away]

    Doctor Jeff Rosenberg: [to the guards] No harm done! The man’s all right! This was for a werewolf! No problem! Calm down! Take it easy! I’m a doctor! I know where I’m going!

  38. avatar
    Shrieking wombat August 7, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    Yes. I propose that Google also be executed for treason.

  39. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida August 8, 2009 at 8:59 pm #

    There is no legal requirement for President Obama to release anything, let alone the COLB he released last year.

    If he were to give in, and release a long form, if he were even able to get it, as the State of HI no longer issues them, it would merely open the floodgates of demands for the release of other docs by the birthers.

  40. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida August 8, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    She is indirectly part of this argument, As I believe she was born in Canada, and has not provided any proof otherwise. THAT is probably why she stepped down as governor of Alaska, IMO.

  41. avatar
    ObotsREvil August 10, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    Thank you, Doctor. Your affirmation means a great deal to me.

    So, we have Natural Born citizens (citizenship derived from the US Constitution), a native citizen;

    Naturlized Citizens (citizenship derived from federal statute), a non-native citizen;

    and

    Non-constitutional Citizens (citizenship derived from something other than the US Constitution); where a Naturalized citizen is a subset of the non-constitutional citizen, a non-native citizen.

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824)); see also Osborn, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 827- 28 (“[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none”).

  42. avatar
    Bob August 10, 2009 at 12:07 pm #

    Nit: Craig v. United States was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

    So the headline should say it was denied by the “appellate court” or “appeals court” or “circuit court” or “10th Circuit.”

    The district court dismissed this case back in April.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 10, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    Fixed, thanks.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 10, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    But that changed in 1972 when the court changed the rules. One can break it down multiple ways, but one is:

    1) Citizens to whom the 14th amendment applies
    1a) Those born under the jurisdiction of the US
    1b) Those naturalized
    2) Citizens at birth to whom the 14th amend does not apply (e.g., children of citizens born outside the US).

    There is near universal agreement in the legal community that citizens 1a are natural born citizens (and 1b are not). There is some debate as to whether group 2 citizens are natural born citizens. Over the last 8 months, I have done a great deal of reading from Calvin’s case in 1609 to Rogers v. Bellei, and it is my opinion that the intent of the framers was that group 2 are also natural born citizens.

    Because the Constitution itself does not say who are citizens, I believe that this was left up to the states originally. It was not the framers’ intent to say what the qualifications are for being a natural born citizen, but rather to say that a president must be a citizen from birth, with the states saying who was a citizen from birth of their state. To that I add the observation that all the states whose laws I have read say that anyone born in the state is a citizen without regard for parentage, and that the 14th amendment made citizenship at birth for those born in the country part of the constitution.

  45. avatar
    ObotsREvil August 25, 2009 at 5:25 am #

    Leo Donofrio weighs in on Craig v. US, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The 10 Circuit Court of Appeals holding makes it clear that there is no right to be deemed a natural born citizen. Mr. Craig does not have that right and his law suit to protect that right was correctly dismissed. If Mr. Craig, a native born US citizen born of citizen parents has no right to be deemed a natural born citizen, then no other native born US citizen has that right, not even Obama.

  46. avatar
    Greg August 25, 2009 at 6:37 am #

    Well, no one has the right to be “declared” a natural born citizen because Obama is president. There’s no concrete injury to you.

    Now, imagine someone born in Puerto Rico. She wants to run for President and so applies to be on the ballot in all 50 states. 25 states put her on the ballot and 25 don’t, saying she’s not a natural born citizen. She would have standing to come before the courts and have them overturn the states’ decisions not to put her on the ballot because she’s not natural born. She’s got a concrete injury. It’s something the court can fix. She would have standing.

  47. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 25, 2009 at 9:32 am #

    For his next trick Leo will explain to us how his latest poker or chess loss was really a great victory.

  48. avatar
    Bob August 25, 2009 at 11:13 am #

    If having a federal appellate court call your lawsuit “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” constitutes the “greatest judicial victory thus far” (Donofrio’s words), then here’s to many more “victories” in the future.

    Donofrio, in his usual loves-to-hear-himself mode, spins this case as significant because he believes the court is saying there’s no “right” to be president. (Ummm…who was arguing there was?)

    But here’s Donofrio’s kicker: “SCOTUS in Minor and Wong Kim Ark – both decided years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment – tell us the definition of natural born citizen is not written into the Constitution. Any attempt to simplify the issue by stating that all 14th Amendment native born citizens are also POTUS eligible on that basis is a fraudulent statement.”

    Except Wong Kim Ark essentially did do just that with a relatively simple application of English common law.

    The 10th’s ruling is simple: the courts lack jurisdiction because Craig has no right to have himself declared a natural-born citizen (and, thus, have Obama implicitly declared to be something else). That’s all this case says.

    And the case is unpublished, which means it isn’t even binding in the 10th Circuit. It applies to Craig, and no one else.

  49. avatar
    ObotsREvil August 25, 2009 at 11:28 am #

    Donofrio says Minor v. Wong Kim Ark should be overturned because President Chester A. Arthur, a usurper, appointed the Supreme Court Judge instrumental in defining a Natural Born Citizen.

  50. avatar
    Bob August 25, 2009 at 11:42 am #

    Donofrio says Minor v. Wong Kim Ark should be overturned because President Chester A. Arthur, a usurper, appointed the Supreme Court Judge instrumental in defining a Natural Born Citizen.

    First of all, it is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Donofrio relies upon Minor v. Happersett, a different case.

    Secondly, Donofrio is an idiot. Wong Kim Ark garnered a clear majority; one vote would not have changed the result. And Arthur (who was not an “usurper”) had been dead for more than a decade when Wong Kim Ark was decided. Did the Ghost of Presidents Future also haunt Justice Gray until he reverted to the generous, kindhearted soul he was in his youth before the death of Fan?

    Donofrio’s house of cards is entirely built around the alleged illegitimacy of Wong Kim Ark. But it is the law.

  51. avatar
    Nullifidian August 25, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    Donofrio says Minor v. Wong Kim Ark should be overturned because President Chester A. Arthur, a usurper, appointed the Supreme Court Judge instrumental in defining a Natural Born Citizen.

    Bwahahahahah!

    By that standard, Bush v. Gore should have been overturned because Clarence Thomas was appointed by W’s daddy.

    Actually, Bush v. Gore was simply ludicrous jurisprudence, a politicized decision, and a judicial coup d’etat, and should have been struck down for these reasons, but I don’t think anyone’s going to listen to me either. I didn’t even vote for Gore and I still think it’s one of the worst SCotUS decisions I’ve seen in my life.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 25, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    Only Chester A. Arthur was not a usurper. His election by vote of the electoral college as vice president was approved by Congress, just like every other legitimate vice president of the United States and he became president by law upon the death of Garfield. And anyhow, Wong was decided 6-2. One vote wouldn’t have made a difference.

    And double anyhow, is there any doubt that Wong would be decided exactly the same today as it was back in 1898?

  53. avatar
    BlackLion August 25, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    Donofrio states the following on his blog regarding the Craig case…

    “As was stated in both SCOTUS cases, Minor v. Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark, the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” so we must look outside the Constitution for that definition. Obama supporters have a certain body of law and commentary they point to in support of their position that he is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be POTUS.

    On the other hand, people like myself have a body of law and various historical commentaries which make a very strong case that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS. I will be publishing some incredible research on this issue by a group who has been forwarding me some rather incredible historical finds on this issue.”

    I wonder what law and various historical commentaries he is talking about. We know that he cannot get past the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case so I am curious what so called “incredible research” he is talking about….

  54. avatar
    BlackLion August 25, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

    Dr, rational people would not. But the birthers and psuedo lawyers are a whole different type of animal. For instance Donofrio shares the following nugget of his legal expertiese…

    “…Please read carefully – the court said he wasn’t entitled to be deemed a natural born citizen because there is no “right” involved with that distinction. That helps the cause since all of those pundits screaming about the 14th amendment, wong kim ark etc… all of them are wrong. NBC is not a right and the definition has not been established – it is an open question. The court agreed that nbc is not a right and it is not protected by the Constitution in that regard. This means the issue is clearly unsettled and therefore when a genuine question as to the POTUS eligibility arises, as it does with Obama, we have no authority telling us what it is. Mr. Craig tried to force the court to define it but they didn’t have to do that since Craig could not show that he was actually harmed by not being deemed to be nbc which is what he was asking for.”

    His analysis makes no sense because he refuses to accept the decision in the Wong case. Also his mistake is that he claims that there are 4 types of citizens…

    There are various paths to citizenship:

    - naturalized citizen

    - 14th Amendment native born citizen

    - statutory citizen

    - natural born citizen

    And with that you can see how misguided he really is. I don’t know what a statutory citizen, a 14 amendment citizen, or a natural born citizen is. I have never seen those terms in the Constitution or in any US law. So since he is making up citizenship classes, it is no stretch for him to make up the law to fit his ridiculous theories.

  55. avatar
    Greg August 25, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    As Bob points out, Wong Kim Ark wasn’t close. It was a 6-2 decision. Also, the Senate confirmed Justice Horace Gray, just as they approved of Arthur’s election.

    At 26, Gray was made reporter of decisions for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and at 36 became its youngest justice ever. At 45, he became the SJC’s chief justice. He hired Louis Brandeis as his clerk. He was no intellectual slouch, and his appointment to the Supreme Court appears to have been made on merit. He was one of the few justices of the last part of the 1800s to not have been a politician. (In 1898, the year of WKA, only 2 justices had been non-elected judges before the Supreme Court, and only Gray had not held any political offices.)

    Chester Arthur is known for being the father of the civil service – someone who basically ended the patronage system. Ironic, then, that Donofrio would accuse him of putting this obviously skilled jurist on the bench as a political stooge!

    Donofrio also ignores the “de facto officer” doctrine, which says that when someone is clothed in the trappings of an office, it doesn’t matter how he got there, his actions aren’t overturned:

    “Where an office exists under the law, it matters not how the appointment of the incumbent is made, so far as the validity of his acts are concerned. It is enough that he is clothed with the insignia of the office, and exercises its powers and functions.” Norton v. Shelby County (1886)

    I suppose it would undercut my argument to point out that Norton, while written by Justice Field and a unanimous decision, was decided during Horace Gray’s tenure on the Supreme Court. Donofrio, I’m sure, will now argue that the De Facto Officer doctrine is also bogus.

  56. avatar
    Bob August 25, 2009 at 12:31 pm #

    Donofrio is now citing an American Law Review article from 1884, “Are Persons Born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens Thereof?”

    It cites de Vattel and argues Lynch v. Clarke was wrongly decided. It predates Wong Kim Ark, yet reads like the dissent from that case.

    Donofrio notes the article was published in 1884 (when Arthur was president) and concludes — from the article’s omission of any discussion of Arthur — that Arthur’s alleged British citizenship was not known. (At best, one may conclude the article’s author might not have known, because in the very same year, Hinman wrote his book on that very subject.)

  57. avatar
    Greg August 25, 2009 at 12:54 pm #

    There’s a reason why George Collins’ article reads like the dissent in Wong Kim Ark. He wrote the brief on behalf of the Appellant in that case.

    Let’s be clear, then, that the Supreme Court explicitly considered these arguments and rejected them!

    I’d also like to point out that Collins concedes: 1) Common law would find against Vattel; and, 2) the common understanding of natural born citizenship is that it descends regardless of parental citizenship!

  58. avatar
    ObotsREvil August 25, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

    Actually, Bush v. Gore was simply ludicrous jurisprudence, a politicized decision, and a judicial coup d’etat, and should have been struck down for these reasons, but I don’t think anyone’s going to listen to me either.

    SCOTUS is political and we may see a definition for Natural Born Citizen after the Sept. 29, 2009 hearing. Is that correct?

  59. avatar
    Bob August 25, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    SCOTUS is political and we may see a definition for Natural Born Citizen after the Sept. 29, 2009 hearing. Is that correct?

    Best case scenario for Craig on Sept. 29 would be a cert. grant. That’s it.

    Much, much more likely result for Craig: cert. denied.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 25, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    Sven, do you have any donuts?

  61. avatar
    Greg August 25, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    Since Collins’ arguments were fully briefed before the Supreme Court, they were also fully responded to by the other side. Here, then, is their argument.

    They seem to pretty devastatingly destroy the notion that there’s no common law and that we should look to international law to govern the definition of citizenship.

    “It would seem as if the right of citizenship was for each country to determine for itself, and that any nation would guard with jealous interest the right to decide who should be its members. That is to say, it is a matter of local and national law, as distinguished from international law, and the United States would be the last to surrender the privilege of determining, by its own law, who were or were not its citizens.

    [I]t seems somewhat remarkable that the Solicitor-General should take the position that the Government of the United States is to be administered, not in accordance with the laws of the United States, but in accordance with the law of nations, and that the vital question of who compose the great body of their citizens is to be determined, not by the law of the United States, but by the rules of international law.”

  62. avatar
    ObotsREvil August 25, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    The 10th Circuit reiterated previous rulings a Naturalized Citizen is not separate and distinct from a Native Citizen, but a derivative of the rights of a Native Citizen, i.e. “stands on the footing of the rights of the Native Citizen,” with the only difference being a Naturalized Citizen cannot be a Natural Born Citizen.

    Likewise, a Natural Born Citizen is a derivative of the Native Citizen. So, it can be reasonably construed a Native Citizen is not automatically a Natural Born Citizen, i.e. legislation that makes a citizen at birth a Native Citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen.

  63. avatar
    Bob August 25, 2009 at 2:12 pm #

    So, it can be reasonably construed a Native Citizen is not automatically a Natural Born Citizen, i.e. legislation that makes a citizen at birth a Native Citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Not only is that construction unreasonable, it does not appear anywhere in the 10th Circuit’s decision.

  64. avatar
    ObotsREvil August 25, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    Quoting the decision …

    While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from §
    1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized
    citizen
    derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by
    Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a
    member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen,
    and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a
    native
    . The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or
    abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is
    to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this
    power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.”

    Natural Born Citizen, Statutory Citizens and Naturalized Citizen are subsets derived from a Native Citizen in view of the Constitution.

  65. avatar
    ObotsREvil August 25, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    I am kick’n some massive Obot ass today!

  66. avatar
    Heavy August 25, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    ANYTHING to change the subject!

    http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=7585

  67. avatar
    Bob August 25, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

    Natural Born Citizen, Statutory Citizens and Naturalized Citizen are subsets derived from a Native Citizen in view of the Constitution.

    And this proves your above inference…how?

  68. avatar
    Rickey August 25, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    There is nothing morally complicated about torture. It’s wrong and illegal, plain and simple.

  69. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 25, 2009 at 5:01 pm #

    Blacklion, basically, statitory citizen is a citizen from birth (and therefore Natural-Born), but one who’s citizenship isn’t defined by the Constitution. It comes from a fairly recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not rule that they weren’t Natural Born Citizens. However, they ruled that their citizenship was defined by statitory law, and not the 14th Amendment.

    Basically, the 14th Amendment says “all persons born… in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States…”

    Any of the other rules that designates a citizen at birth, aren’t 14th Amendment citizens, but are still citizens. Only difference is that the other rules can be changed, where it takes a constitutional amendment to change the definition of a citizen.

    I’d even argue that the “statitory” citizens are Natural Born Citizens, the definition just isn’t protected by the Constitution.

  70. avatar
    SFJeff August 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    Pointing link to Michael Savage impresses me about as much I imagine as a Michael Moore film impresses you.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 25, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    And prior to the 14th amendment, all citizens of the United States were either citizen by statue or common law. Before then there was no explicit definition in the Constitution as to who were citizens and who were not. I daresay that but for the issue of slavery, we would have no “constitutional” citizens today.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 25, 2009 at 8:37 pm #

    Sorry, I can’t find “natural born citizen” in there anywhere. In fact, I don’t see statutory citizen either.

    The judge is saying that there are two kinds of citizens: native (natural born citizens) and naturalized (made citizens by statue)–not three.

  73. avatar
    Sunnstarr September 8, 2009 at 4:14 am #

    The timing of Obama’s latest school children indoctrination speech is no coincidence. September 8, 2009 is meaningful to Obama for a quite obvious reason. (See below.)

    Something of Interest, posted elsewhere on the Net:

    “Discovery hearing” re: Obama’s Kenyan BC, request for depositions of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates scheduled for September 8th, 8am.

    08/21/2009 44 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER SETTING SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 HEARING ON MOTIONS: (See document for details.) In summary, the Court sets for hearing at 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009, (1) the Discovery Motion, (2) the Service Notice, and (3) the Ex Parte Application. All parties are ordered to be present.

    The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CM/ECF Filer or PACER Login

    Notice:
    This is a Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged

    This entry was posted on Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed”

  74. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny September 8, 2009 at 4:29 am #

    Orly’s Discovery Motion was already squashed by another judge. This 8 September hearing ia about Orly’s motion to reinstate her Discovery Motion and also recuse judge Nakazuto from the case, since he proved himself to be an Obot. Orly did not file that counterclaim correctly, so you can expect it to be rejected. And she will probably suffer a second humiliation when the two clients she “dismissed” from the case will be reinstated under the expert guidance of Mr Kreep.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 8, 2009 at 7:54 am #

    I cannot see how the message to school children can possibly have anything to do with an insignificant procedural hearing in California.

  76. avatar
    Whatever4 September 21, 2009 at 6:34 pm #

    I see from The Docket page that Craig v. US is up for SCOTUS discussion September 29th. Would the Court take the case to rule on the meaning of Natural born citizen?

  77. avatar
    Bob September 21, 2009 at 7:15 pm #

    No, not really. Craig (sorta) requested that he be declared a natural born citizen, and the court said he lacked standing to make this demand. So it is really more about standing and failing to state a cause of action.

    The Craig cert. petition most likely will be denied without comment.

  78. avatar
    Rickey September 22, 2009 at 12:29 am #

    Whatever4: I see from The Docket page that Craig v. US is up for SCOTUS discussion September 29th. Would the Court take the case to rule on the meaning of Natural born citizen?

    As Bob suggests, the fact that Craig v. U.S. has been distributed for conference is essentially meaningless. Every case which is appealed to SCOTUS gets distributed for conference, providing that the petition for cert is filed properly. But the reality is that the overwhelming majority of such cases are denied cert without comment.

    If you look at the docket you will see that the United States waived its right to respond to the petition, which is a strong indicator that a denial of cert is a foregone conclusion.