Main Menu

Natural born citizen: clarified!

Understanding natural born citizen gets confusing when the definition of the term “natural born citizen” is conflated with the kinds of people who fit it (qualifications that change by country and over time). Some hugely long articles and comments have appeared, and they are long because they are wrestling with, or taking advantage of, the confusion. I must admit that I was confounded over this for quite a while myself (being self taught and not a trained lawyer). I finally got straightened out after reading some history books.

Perhaps the analogy with “naturalized citizen” will make things clear. One would never define naturalized citizen as someone who takes an oath after living in the United States for some number of years, or someone who marries, or someone…. Congress can make new naturalization qualifications any day it wants. A naturalized citizen is defined as someone who becomes a citizen through law after they are born. Once defined, then we can enumerate the various ways someone can become a naturalized citizen in the United States (or some other country). The definition of “naturalized citizen” hasn’t changed in 200 years, but the rules for becoming one certainly have.

The same error would be to define natural born citizen in terms of who qualifies to be one, someone who is born this and has parents that. That’s not a definition of what a natural born citizen is, but rather of  possible qualifications under a particular constitution or set of laws to be one.

So let’s get to the definition.

In the US Constitution, we find “natural born citizens” and “naturalization” implying the existence of  “natural-ized citizens”. That suffix “ized” means “made” and it’s rather obvious then that those born citizens are our natural born citizens and those made citizens later are our natural-ized citizens. This is consistent with the Immigration Act of 1790 that declared the children of citizens born overseas natural born citizens. It is consistent with the usage of British Common Law, as in the long comment citing Blackstone by Ken Dunbar. (If you aren’t convinced, ask yourself this question: did the framers of the Constitution have two different senses of the word “natural” as they wrote it in “natural born citizen” and “naturalization”? I think not.) This further explains why we have any number of court decisions that talk about citizenship at birth in one sentence and natural born citizen in the next, while making no distinction between them and why we never see separate qualifications stated for “natural born citizen.”1

Defining natural born citizen (as it always has been) as one who is born a citizen2, we can then ask who are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth. It would appear that anyone born under the jurisdiction of the United States and those born of U. S. Citizens overseas and those born in Puerto Rico and those born in other situations  qualify to be among those citizens at birth, such as Wong, Elg and Obama, who are our natural born citizens.

I hope the reader found this neither long nor confusing.


1The judge in Minor v Happersett was not expressing doubts about the definition of “natural born citizen” but most precisely about who were citizens at birth prior to the 14th Amendment. For cases that use the terms interchangeably see SCOTUS & “Natural Born Citizen” – A Compendium.

2From Rawle’s View of the Constitution (1825) which was quoted in the Congressional debate of the 14th Amendment as well as as by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in the case of the Town of New Hartford v. The Town of Canaan (1886):

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealths which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

See also my article Natural Born Citizen: Defined!

, , , ,

361 Responses to Natural born citizen: clarified!

  1. avatar
    John August 14, 2009 at 12:08 am #

    Given the powers and abilities endowed to the POTUS, he or she must possess the highest degree of citizenship that insures 100% allegiance. This degree of citizenship is one who is born on US Soil to 2 US citizens. Interestingly enough, the largest pool of the American Population are those born on US Soil to 2 US Citizens. It is this pool of people in which the the POTUS is chosen from. The persons who are our POTUSes are derived from the “Children” of our nation; those that are born on US Soil to 2 US Citizens.(2nd Generation Americans) Their allegiences to US are ABSOLUTE at birth which why we chose those persons. Allegience is NOT ABSOLUTE at birth for those born to aliens.

  2. avatar
    John August 14, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    There seems to be little or no case law regarding the “Natural Born” citizenship requirement for POTUS. But, I think we can use a greater precedent; The History of our American Presidency. Since President Van Buren, all presidental candidates and actual presidents have been Natural Born citizens (Born in US to 2 US citizens) (Except for Chester Arthur but that is argumentative.). I think it is reasonable to assume that the general consensus qualification to be President has always been Born on US Soil to 2 US citizens. If Natural Born Citizenship only entailed being born on US Soil, it is also logical to assume that through many of the elections, candidates of direct foreign orgins would have been on the ballot. Other countries would have certainly taken advantage of the only requirement (Being Born on US Soil) to try to influence our country with the “Children” of their country. This does not seem to be the case. Neverthless, it does appear that in recent times, we drifting towards that premise. “Children” of other countries do appear to be getting on our ballots and getting elected into the POTUS. This appears to be a fundamental drift from the general premise that has been followed through much of American Presidency.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    I respect your opinion, but I do not see what it has to do with the Constitution of the United States of the common law in which its terms are defined. Where in the Constitution is that word “ABSOLUTE” (or “parents” for that matter).

    You can certainly vote that way, and try to convince others, but you cannot expect the government to put aside the law in favor of your personal opinion.

  4. avatar
    John August 14, 2009 at 12:10 am #

    Arthur’s case is argumentative. One could make the argument that since Arthur’s father did become a US citizen, Arthur could be considered a “Natural Born” citizen. Obama’s was never US Citizen, never became one, and wasn’t even a permanent resident. Further, one could potentially argue that Obama’s father was a foreign diplomat which would really exempt Obama good. Obama Sr. was part an educational program sanctioned by the US President that exposed Africans to the Western Culture. One could argue that Obama SR. was acting as a sort ambassador or diplomat to his our country in the realm of education. This would really depend upon examining the legal terms and context of “diplomat” and “ambassador”.

  5. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 12:17 am #

    If Natural Born Citizenship only entailed being born on US Soil, it is also logical to assume that through many of the elections, candidates of direct foreign orgins would have been on the ballot. Other countries would have certainly taken advantage of the only requirement (Being Born on US Soil) to try to influence our country with the “Children” of their country. This does not seem to be the case.

    1. Propter hoc.

    2. Maybe, just maybe, a foreign country didn’t try to “take advantage” of this because the effort to find, recruit, and support such a candidate would not be worth the effort.

    If, for example, it was discovered that India was dumping huge sums of money into Bobby Jindal’s career, how do you think the average voter might perceive that? How do think Jindal’s opponents might react?

    This appears to be a fundamental drift from the general premise that has been followed through much of American Presidency.

    Surprise!: The United States has become much more multicultural since its inception.

  6. avatar
    John August 14, 2009 at 12:18 am #

    Could Barack Obama SR. have been a foreign diplomat or an ambassodor the US? If so, this would definitely would exempt Obama good since specific provisions exempt children of foreign diplomats and ambassadors from “Natural Born” citizenship:

    From Wiki:

    Obama Sr. received a scholarship in economics through a program organized by nationalist leader Tom Mboya. The program offered Western educational opportunities to outstanding Kenyan students. [14] President Obama said of his father’s scholarship, “The Kennedys decided: ‘We’re going to do an airlift. We’re going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is. This young man named Barack Obama [Sr.] got one of those tickets and came over to this country.’”

    In 1959 Mboya organized the Airlift Africa project, together with the African-American Students Foundation in the United States, through which 81 Kenyan students were flown to the U.S. to study at U.S. universities. One of them was Barack Obama’s father. In 1960 the Kennedy brothers joined this project, after Mboya visited them for that purpose, and Airlift Africa was extended to Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar (now Tanzania), Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), and Nyasaland (now Malawi). Some 230 African students received scholarships to study at Class I accredited colleges in the United States.

    Iit would all depend upon the meaning of the legal term and context of “Diplomat” and “Ambassador”.

    It is possible Obama SR. was foreign Diplomat representing Africa (Kenya) as part of an international cultural educational exchange that was sanctioned by the Government of Kenya and The Government of US.

    Again, this would all depend on examining the legal context and case law on who could be considered a foreign diplomat.

  7. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 12:22 am #

    One could make the argument that since Arthur’s father did become a US citizen, Arthur could be considered a “Natural Born” citizen.

    Except Arthur’s father wasn’t a citizen when Arthur was born. Allowing a post-birth naturalization transform a citizen into a natural-born citizen (under your hypothesis) is not particularly efficient (or even logical).

    Further, one could potentially argue that Obama’s father was a foreign diplomat which would really exempt Obama good.

    One could make that argument, if one wanted to ignore the legal definition of “ambassador” (i.e., accredited, official representative of a foreign government).

  8. avatar
    Ragout August 14, 2009 at 12:55 am #

    “Arthur’s case is argumentative.”

    It’s pretty clear that Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen at the time of his son’s birth. And it’s not at all clear that Arthur was even born in the America.

    I say let the courts decide. If the courts find that President Arthur was a usurper, that means that all the laws he signed are invalid. It means that all the Supreme Court decisions ruled on by his appointees are invalid. It may even mean that Greenwich Standard Time, which Arthur played an instrumental role in establishing, is invalid!

    For over 100 years, America has suffered under the unconstitutional laws promulgated by this usurper. Every patriotic American should have standing to petition the courts to address the constitutionality of the Arthur laws. It’s time they were overturned!

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 12:56 am #

    Contemporary Arthur opponent A. P. Hinman tried that approach and got this reply from his senator:

    Senate of the United States
    City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
    A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
    DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
    the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
    and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
    the U. S.
    The naturalization by law of a father before his child
    attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
    such minor.
    Yours respectfully,
    T. F. BAYARD.

    One notes that Senator Bayard says nothing about “parents” which is one more nail in the coffin of Donofriio’s fantasy that Arthur tried to cover up ineligibility. What ineligibility?

    How a British Subject became President of the United States, Page 82.

  10. avatar
    Expelliarmus August 14, 2009 at 12:58 am #

    Obama Sr. didn’t have diplomatic immunity — that is, foreign students who are part of an “intercultural exchange” do not get immunity. If they commit a crime they are subject to arrest and trial; hence they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, and their children, if born here, are natural born US citizens.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    The question is whether Obama Sr. had diplomatic immunity, i.e., exemption from the laws and the jurisdiction of the US. When put correctly, the obvious answer is “no”.

  12. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 14, 2009 at 1:16 am #

    John, it’s quite clear that you have absolutely no clue what Ambassador actually means, and what Diplomatic Immunity is. Barack Obama Sr. did not have Diplomatic Immunity, and therefore was subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. The only people who aren’t are the ones who are awarded Diplomatic Immunity from the State Department, being part of the official consulate.

    Barack Obama Sr. did not have diplomatic immunity.

  13. avatar
    richCares August 14, 2009 at 1:19 am #

    John, it’s quite clear that you have absolutely no clue what Ambassador actually means

    Actually no clue of anything, just hates Obama.

  14. avatar
    sponson August 14, 2009 at 2:38 am #

    John finds himself openly wishing for things to be other than what he knows the case to be (wishing Obama Sr. were a diplomat, when he knows the man was not). “If” the laughable fake birth certificate jpg that Orly Taitz were not a forgery, Obama would have a strange and controversial legal predicament, for example. But alas, it was a fake apparently created by an anti-birther to demonstrate the gullibility and willfulness of the birther movement. That same delusional willfulness now tries to transform a very young student into an Ambassador, nearly 50 years later.

  15. avatar
    Lupin August 14, 2009 at 4:11 am #

    Historian Richard Hofstadter addresses the role of paranoia and conspiracism throughout American history in The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964).

    Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967) also notes that a similar phenomenon could be found during the time preceding the American Revolution.

    I’m not sure why, but basically a portion of the American public, higher than in other comparable nations, has always been (as a friend of mine would say) batshit crazy.

  16. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 7:43 am #

    Cass Sunstein’s written a couple of articles recently about conspiracy theories and what the best way to combat them is:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

    His conclusion is that conspiracists are immune to logical reasoning and may find such reasoning as reinforcing their beliefs.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 7:51 am #

    Arthur was born in the United States as evidenced by his family Bible. There is no evidence to the contrary, and no modern historian takes this 19th-century political smear seriously.

    But even if Arthur were born in Canada, and not a citizen of the United States, whatever he did as President remains valid under the defacto officer doctrine.

    Specifically what “unconstitutional laws” do you think were passed under Arthur, the replacement of the of the spoils system by a uniform civil service, or his revitalization of the US Navy?

    Oh wait, you’re joking, right? That GMT thing should have been a dead giveaway. HAHAHA.

  18. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 7:59 am #

    You can’t be a sort of ambassador. You are either an ambassador or you are not. To be an ambassador you have to be recognized by the country you are representing and the country you are representing to.

  19. avatar
    kimba August 14, 2009 at 9:00 am #

    *Snort* John’s back with the latest birther straw grasp: Obama Sr fell under diplomat. John, he was a student. Here on a student visa. Nice try. Once again birtherdom fascinates with its capacity to “Keep Hope Alive”. Take that energy and spirit and use it to make America a better place instead of trying to tear it down.

  20. avatar
    kimba August 14, 2009 at 9:06 am #

    On the other hand, perhaps birthers are actually making progress in that instead of insisting the 14th amendment has nothing to do with natural born citizen, they are looking at who isn’t covered and trying desperately to make Barack fit. When it’s shown Obama Sr was not a diplomat or ambassador, their next step will to argue the students sent from Kenya were actually warriors of Kenya, at war with America, soldiers of a foreign nation on our soil during war.

  21. avatar
    Ragout August 14, 2009 at 9:26 am #

    As the plaintiffs showed in Kerchner v. Obama, “Because Obama is not a natural born Citizen as required by Article II, a usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

    Obviously this applies to Arthur’s laws, treaties, and executive orders too. It applies ESPECIALLY to his so-called “civil service reform” — which I call the Lifetime Tenure for Government Bureaucrats Act. They’re all invalid because they were promulgated by a usurper.

  22. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 9:30 am #

    Nice try, Doc. Here’s a refresher.

    http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2009/08/14/you-might-be-a-birther-if/

  23. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 9:32 am #

    …And just so we don’t forget what brings us all here together…

    http://www.christian-article-bank.com/Art/4101/215/Obama-The-Gods-Must-Be-Crazy.html

  24. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 9:34 am #

    Doc, again, you wield a toothpick as if it were a baseball bat!

  25. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    Actually, family bibles:

    1. Were one of the few ways of verifying someone’s birth information at the time.

    2. Are still accepted evidence of someone’s birth information. See Federal Rule of Evidence 803(13):

    Family records. Statements of fact concerning personal or family history contained in family Bibles, genealogies, charts, engravings on rings, inscriptions on family portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like.”

  26. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 10:49 am #

    Too bad this author didn’t read more closely. The issue in Nixon was executive privilege. The issue in Obama’s case is standing. They’re different things. One clue is that they use different words, containing different letters. Let me demonstrate:

    Executive Privilege

    Standing

    The first, the issue in Nixon, is much longer.

  27. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 10:50 am #

    If one is troubled by Obama’s not releasing his information, the remedy is to vote against him in 2012, and against his party in 2010.

    That’s the only remedy available to American citizens under the Constitution.

  28. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    Actually, there are several other “Remedies” that are being pursued. It’s just a matter of time before your messiah is exposed for the fraud he is. He, his minions and supporters will be dealt with accordingly.

  29. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 11:20 am #

    Your messiah at work again!

    http://www.billpressshow.com/2009/08/14/cnn-finally-fires-lou-dobbs/

  30. avatar
    Mary Brown August 14, 2009 at 11:30 am #

    I guess I am on your list then Heavy. You had better be prepared to put millions of folks away. Let’s see that’s what Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler did. You should be careful of the company you keep.

  31. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 11:34 am #

    Illegal remedies, unconstitutional remedies, frivolous remedies, violent remedies…those are all that are available other than remedies under the Constitution.

    Under the Constitution, you’ll have to vote him out, or impeach him. The latter ain’t going to happen, so you’re left with vote him out.

  32. avatar
    Lupin August 14, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    As I said: batshit crazy.

  33. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    Mary, you are paranoid or have a guilty conscience.

  34. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    If Lou Dobbs has really been fired—I couldn’t find any news stories confirming it—then I have to say that Obama has finally accomplished something I wholeheartedly agree with. The xenophobic little prick should have been off the air ages ago.

  35. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    Greg, please stop stating your OPINION as if it were fact. You are CLEARLY uninformed. Wait, your a liberal. OF COURSE you are uninformed.

  36. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 11:54 am #

    Loopie, you have been smoking batshit.

  37. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    How typical of the very dangerous liberal mindset. But hey, you still have Matthews and Overbite. Not for long, though. Even Soros does nt have enough money to save those networks.

  38. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    How typical of the very dangerous liberal mindset.

    Psst! I’m not a liberal.

  39. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    Mary, you are paranoid or have a guilty conscience.

    I hardly think it’s paranoia when you’ve previously claimed that anyone who supported Obama “will have hell to pay”.

  40. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    Pssst! YES YOU ARE!

  41. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:07 pm #

    That’s right, they will. Define hell, lib.

  42. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    More handiwork of your egomanical, usurper messiah.

    http://logisticsmonster.com/2009/08/14/glenn-beck-under-attack-melt-their-phone-lines/

  43. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    Why do weak willed liberals scare so easily?

  44. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    P.S. Out of curiosity, why is it a “dangerous” idea that news channels should report the news, hiring people who can be trusted to report the facts, rather than hiring latter-day Howard Beales with twice the crazy and none of the insight?

    Lou Dobbs’ “AIIIIEEEEEE! THE RECONQUISTA IS COMING!” paranoia should have been consigned to the Stormfront Newsletter where it belongs.

  45. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 12:11 pm #

    Pssst! YES YOU ARE!

    So I disagree with you, therefore I’m a liberal?

    Interesting.

    Could you tell me which political positions or candidates I support that indicate that I’m a liberal?

    P.S. I don’t have Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews because I’ve never seen a single episode of any of their programs. If you think hard, you might be able to figure out why (and the reason is not that I don’t have a TV set).

  46. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    You mean TRUSTED people like Matthews, Overbite, Maddow and the like?

    Face it, the MSM is STILL shilling for this piece of shit and any questioning of him will not be tolerated.

  47. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    No, you are a liberal because you support an ILLEGAL administration. Not to mention unAmerican. Clear?

  48. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    Greg:

    No doubt the guy is right about conspiracists being immune to logical reasoniong … but what you fail to realize is that this also applies to all you Enabling Conspiracists when you attempt to enable an ineligible holder of the Oval Office.

    You are certainly as much devoid of logical reasoning – or actually even more so since the laws of our land require the man be a “natural born citizen” yet neither you nor the man himself have ever been will to show him to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    That’s certainly being deviod of logical reasoning and you are apparently too dense to realize it. Look in the mirror!

  49. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    That’s right, they will. Define hell, lib.

    As I said, I am not a liberal, but in context there’s a clear threat of violence to anyone who is deemed to have “supported” Obama.

    Why do weak willed liberals scare so easily?

    As someone who is not a liberal, “weak willed” or otherwise, I couldn’t possibly speak for them, but I don’t think that liberals are actually scared of self-important poseurs like yourself. I think that liberals are well aware that people like you are too busy shooting off their mouths on the internet to actually rise from the Cheeto-dust stained computer desk in their mothers’ basements.

  50. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

    It’s my opinion based on years of study of the law. There are hundreds of cases rejecting standing for these sorts of undifferentiated amorphous claims (“I’m hurt because the President is illegitimate!”).

    As for uninformed, I’d point out that you’re taking your talking points from a woman whose last major motion in a case was stricken because:

    “Lacks proper notice; improper form and format; counsel failed to identify her Cal. State Bar No.; description of motion conflicts or differs from that which counsel entered on Court’s e-docket;”

    Is that really who you want to be getting your legal analysis from? Someone who cannot even remember to put her bar number on filings?

  51. avatar
    Mary Brown August 14, 2009 at 12:21 pm #

    Heavy how am I being paranoid when you openly threaten? I am just stating fact. Millions of folks are Obama supporters. You have this idea that somehow you are going to what? I have a clear concience. As one Englishman said before his death “I am at chairity with the world.” As I said, be careful of the company you keep.

  52. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    So, anyone who thinks you’re nuts to think that there’s something to this birther stuff is a liberal?

    Ann Coulter?

    Michael Steele – head of the RNC?

    Michael Savage?

    I think they’d be surprised to find themselves called liberal.

  53. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    No – not really interesting at all since it is based upon several false premises with the prime one being that those who wish to see Obama prove that he is legally eligible are not “not accepting” his presidency at all but merely wishing to have him demonstrate rigorously that he is legally eligible under our laws to hold the office he now occupies.

    If he can do that, he’s the President … if not, he’s something else entirely. The conspiracy of Enablers on this site do not alter that reality in any way.

  54. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    No, you are a liberal because you support an ILLEGAL administration. Not to mention unAmerican. Clear?

    Okay, let’s grant one extremely risible idea for the sake of argument: Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be president, and that makes his presidency unsanctioned by the constitution (or “illegal” if you prefer):

    How in the hell have I supported the Obama administration?!

    I didn’t vote for him in the primaries, and I didn’t vote for him in the general election. I’m not even a registered Democrat. How does this constitute “support” for Obama?!

  55. avatar
    Mary Brown August 14, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    I assume you are a capitalist Heavy. Advertisers have a right to make their own decisions. You might be surprised to know that even folks who are very conservative and would never vote for President Obama find Beck’s statements to be irresponsible and offensive. I know some of them.

  56. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:26 pm #

    Well said, lib. So, you too, are afraid of nothing. Violence? WHERE THE HELL do you read that into anything I have said? Please tell me.

    By the way, I am NOT just shooting off my mouth and you ARE weak willed if you support this imposter.

  57. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 12:28 pm #

    You mean TRUSTED people like Matthews, Overbite, Maddow and the like?

    There you go with your fixation again. I couldn’t say whether I’d trust Matthews, Olbermann, or Maddow, because I’ve never seen/heard a single episode of any of their shows.

    Face it, the MSM is STILL shilling for this piece of shit and any questioning of him will not be tolerated.

    I haven’t seen any greater degree of “shilling” for Obama than existed for Bush (see: Miller, Judith). The Democrats and the Republicans are barely distinct in their policies, and as long as their policies match the approved policies of the media’s corporate owners, they’re going to get a relatively free ride.

    If Obama actually were a socialist, as some have claimed, the media would be savaging him daily.

  58. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    Obama has nothing to do with the boycott of Glenn Beck.

    I love the guilt by association game the right plays (“Waaa, we’re victims!”) – someone who works in Obama’s White House founded a group years ago (2005) that is now boycotting Glenn Beck. Therefore, Obama is boycotting Glenn Beck.

  59. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    Heavy:

    Yes, perhaps the man really is N!xau. After all, there IS a certain physical – and “spiratual” – resemblance.

  60. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:32 pm #

    See, Greg, you make the assumption that Orly means something to me. She does not. I don’t even follow her actions except what I read here and that is HIGHLY biased. But, you are a liberal, so you cannot use logic.

    Have you studied any cases of this magnitude? I didn’t think so. So keep researching and disrespecting your country!

  61. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 12:32 pm #

    Greg:

    But even shorter in the instant issue (that of Obama’s eligibility) is an even shorter word:

    Law

    In case you don’t grasp the meaning of that, it’s the United States Constitution; Articvle II, Section 1, clause 5. And the man has never shown that he complies with that law.

  62. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

    Heavy:

    … and don’t forget Rachel Madcow …

  63. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 12:36 pm #

    Well said, lib.

    See above.

    So, you too, are afraid of nothing.

    No, I’m just not afraid of far-right internet bigmouths.

    Violence? WHERE THE HELL do you read that into anything I have said? Please tell me.

    I just explained where in my previous post. Maybe you should go over it again, running your finger under each line.

    By the way, I am NOT just shooting off my mouth

    That’s how it appears from where I sit.

    and you ARE weak willed if you support this imposter.

    Yes, I support Obama so much that I:

    1) didn’t vote for him in the primary election
    2) didn’t contribute to his campaign or the the DNC
    3) didn’t vote for him in the general election
    4) am not a registered Democrat

  64. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 12:36 pm #

    Nothing in that clause compels demonstration.

  65. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 12:39 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    I know some of them too and find just the opposite …

    But then again, most of those I know are troubled by the fact that Obama has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    I guess that does not bother you (but it should since it means that unless he can demonstrate he truly IS eligible then all he has done may be considered treasonous – and perhaps you Enablers would be right in that mix, too).

  66. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:39 pm #

    Really? You clearly did not read the article.
    I’m sure there is NO association.

  67. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:41 pm #

    Yes, I am a capitalist. That means NO government interference. Your point?

  68. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 12:41 pm #

    Greg:

    You’re surely not naive (or stupid) enough to believe that the Obama forces have nothing to do with any such “boycott”??

    Hmmm!! Maybe you are. After all you routinely support, defend, and enable the Oborter on this site.

  69. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:42 pm #

    No, the MSM never shilled for Bush. That is a fact!

  70. avatar
    Sally Hill August 14, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    This article would seem to be saying that US Citizen = Natural Born Citizen. Must you break it down to that in order to allow your dual-citizenship POTUS to be eligible in your mind?

    I say (my opinion – since there is NO legal definition of NBC) a US Citzien, such as an Anchor Baby, is NOT – in any way, shape, form, or fashion a NBC and eligible to be POTUS. I think that is a very dangerous road to go do (paranoid or not) and opens the door extremely wide for foreign unfluence upon our POTUS. I see US Citizen and NBC as separate with separate qualifications.

    The author of the article seems to believe there is a legal definition – presumably scrambled or hidden within his long and winding explaination of such. I saw no such definition within his text as I know one does not exist.

    I know this blog owner feels I’m a racist – however, in that he does not know my race (I surely do NOT use my real name but a nom de plume), I’m not sure how he makes that leap. Furthermore, I also believe Chester Arthur was ineligible – I suppose that makes me a racist too? Unfounded arguements such as ‘your a racist’ to make an argument are weak and are usually not based in truth.

    Here is what I believe – pure and simple.

    Obama said he was born in Hawaii – and I believe him.

    Obama said he was governed AT BIRTH by British Law – and I believe him.

    Obama stated in a speech while in Germany that he is a ‘Citizen of the World’ (one that pledges NO allegience to ANY one nation) – and I believe him.

    How can a Citizen of the World, who was governed by British Law AT BIRTH possibly be a Natural Born Citizn of the US?

    I believe him do you?

    Also – why won’t Obama release a list of foreign passports he has held, or still holds, or if he has ever had a foreign passport? In that he could still – to this day – be a British Citizen, is it possible he still holds a European Union Passport?

  71. avatar
    nbc August 14, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    Seems jtx, in his true inability to exemplify logical thought is now confusing Obama with Obama supporters or Obama ‘forces’.

    Sigh… No wonder he still believe in the fairy tale of a court hearing about a President’s eligibility.

    Will never happen

  72. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    No, he’s the President. He was elected by a majority of the voters. He was elected by a majority of the electoral college. His election was confirmed by Congress. He was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    There are no other requirements. Anybody who wanted to challenge his Presidency faces almost insurmountable hurdles:

    1. Standing – There needs to be a real injury, which no one can claim. By injury, I mean, “did Obama hit you?” NOT “It makes me anxious and prevents me from making friends having to deal with not knowing to a metaphysical certainty that Obama is a natural born citizen!” (That’s why Hugo Black was never kicked out of office.)

    2. Powerless Courts – The one time the Court passed on an issue like this, they said that while Congress cannot exclude a member who clearly is qualified, determining whether that member is qualified is a political question the courts are powerless to adjudicate. It is likely that the court would find the same powerlessness in reviewing the actions of the populace, electoral college, and Congress in passing on whether the President is eligible.

    3. Proof – Even if you could get past standing and political question issues, there is still the issue of proof. As the one seeking to upset the apple cart, YOU have to present proof. You have to plead a case that has sufficient proof to make it forward. In other words, if you went into court and said, “My case is: Obama should prove his citizenship.” You’d lose. You haven’t met your burden of persuasion.

    This is a long way of saying, “He’s President, and will be President until he’s either: defeated at the polls; retires in 2016 at the end of his second term; is impeached.” You won’t, ever, not ever, see him in court proving his eligibility. It won’t happen, because the law as it stands doesn’t allow it.

    Don’t like it? Amend the Constitution. Change it so that Article III Courts can give advisory opinions where there is no case and controversy.

  73. avatar
    nbc August 14, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    I say (my opinion – since there is NO legal definition of NBC) a US Citzien, such as an Anchor Baby, is NOT – in any way, shape, form, or fashion a NBC and eligible to be POTUS. I think that is a very dangerous road to go do (paranoid or not) and opens the door extremely wide for foreign unfluence upon our POTUS. I see US Citizen and NBC as separate with separate qualifications.

    Again you seem to ignore the facts that there is a very good and relevant definition of NBC found in this country’s foundation in English Common law which clearly defines the term natural born to mean anyone born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

    But yes, not all US citizens are natural born, some are naturalized.

    Why do you not familiarize yourself with the terminology, the history and the legal precedents?

    How can a Citizen of the World, who was governed by British Law AT BIRTH possibly be a Natural Born Citizn of the US?

    Simple, because he was also born a natural born citizen and when he became an adult he chose to maintain and continue his birthright citizenship.

    Your speculations about passports again show a lack of any evidence. Why would Obama release, or how would he release passports he has never held?

    We know that he has a US passport and that he returned to the US from Indonesia on such a passport.

    Such ignorance…. Welcome Sally, you, jtx, Sven and Heavy will surely get along.
    In the mean time the country moves on and the chances of this issue ever be heard in the courts is nil.

    such is life.

  74. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 12:54 pm #

    Sally, you support someone, who would be President, who says they have NO allegiance to the US?

    That is F*^$ED UP!

  75. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 12:56 pm #

    When did Herbert Hoover “show” he complied with the law? There was no question at the time that his 14 years living in the United States were not consecutive. There was, however, a question about whether the clause meant 14 years consecutively or 14 years total.

    In which court case did Chester Arthur prove he complied with the law? A Democrat of the time wrote a book saying Arthur was born in Canada. If there was a court case, I must have missed it.

    You can not like the proof that Obama has given, but your only recourse is the ballot box. There’s no other option because our courts as they operate under the law cannot judge the issue. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, requires a case or controversy to be able to act.

    Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.

  76. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    No, the MSM never shilled for Bush. That is a fact!

    You don’t seem to have a very good grasp on what actually constitutes a “fact”.

    When a newspaper that styles itself as the “newspaper of record” goes out of its way to print articles that uncritically adopt the Bush Administration’s line on Iraq in the run up to the Iraq War, by a journalist whose dereliction is so embarrassing that the NYT feels compelled years later to publish an article apologizing for it, that’s what I call shilling for the Bush Administration.

    Or when the corporate media universally reports on actuarial projections of the “bankruptcy of Social Security” that are forty years in the future as if they were a generally accepted, and imminent, reality.

    Or when the corporate media uncritically replicates the Bush Administration line on the Palestinian elections, treating the events in the Gaza Strip as a “Hamas coup”, when Hamas were the ones that won the election. Bush tried to buy the election with $2 million in USAID money funneled to Fatah a few weeks before the election, but word leaked out and turned the Palestinian electorate decisively against them.

  77. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    I see. Another Bush hater. I get it now.

  78. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    Nothing he has done would be considered treasonous, even if he were found to be ineligible. There are two problems with your nonsense:

    Problem 1. Treason is a defined term. It has meaning. It is defined in the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    Did Obama levy war against the US? No. Levying war requires actual force, with troops. US v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 2 (CCD.Va 1807)

    Did Obama adhere to the US’ enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort? Again, these are words that the court gives specific meaning.

    Enemies – someone in open hostility to the US, Stephan v United States, 133 F2d 87(6th Cir., 1943)

    Problem 2. Intent – You have to have not just the intent to commit the acts in question, but the intent to betray your country. Cramer v. US, 325 US 1 (1945)

    Who are we in open hostility with? The Taliban? Al Qaeda? How do you intend to prove that Obama committed whatever act you accuse him of with the specific intent to betray our country to the Taliban or Al Qaeda?

    Honestly, why bandy about legal terms that you don’t know the first thing what they mean? You undercut your credibility about other legal matters, for example, the meaning of “natural born citizen” when you make such stupid claims!

  79. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    By the way, “Citizen of the World” are just pretty words, and not legally binding.

  80. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    I see. Another Bush hater. I get it now.

    No, you still don’t get it because you keep on attempting to see everything in a reductive, simplistic liberal-conservative binary.

    I disagreed with Bush, and to be frank I thought he was a profound national embarrassment from even the first months of his presidency, when he was trying to reheat the Cold War by provoking diplomatic incidents with China. Nevertheless, I still do not hate him.

    However, I also disagree profoundly and fundamentally with Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the Democratic leadership and opinion-makers. I don’t hate them either.

    As an anarchist, my politics are so far outside the American mainstream that if I hated everyone I disagreed with, I’d be burning with an unquenchable fury all day long.

  81. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    Sally, why won’t you tell us all the times you’ve beat your husband?

    Kennedy said he was a Berliner (or maybe he said he was a danish)! How can someone who is a Berliner (or a danish) be a Natural Born Citizen?

    Obama also has said he’s a natural born citizen of the US. I guess you don’t believe him there.

    How can one be born under the laws of the UK and also be a natural born citizen? Because what other countries say about who is a citizen or not has ZERO impact on whether someone is a natural born citizen or not. Britain would have considered Obama a citizen of their nation even if his father had naturalized in the US.

    You know, if a foreign country wanted to exert influence on a President, they just would. They’d funnel money into his campaign. Instead of this nonsense about growing a Manchurean candidate from birth in the hopes that 35 years later their child would grow into a Presidential contender, raise sufficient funds to mount a credible campaign, beat all primary challengers and win the majority votes in enough states to constitute a majority of the electoral college.

    And, as the authors of the Federalist make clear, if they wanted to influence the President, they’d more likely choose a clearly natural born citizen with a corruptible soul, like Nixon, instead of someone who immediately invited suspicion.

  82. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 1:31 pm #

    Obama forces? You mean some of the 69 million people who voted for Obama?

    Yes, I believe some of the 69 million people for Obama are part of this boycott.

    Do I believe that Obama or members of his White House are directing this boycott? No.

  83. avatar
    John August 14, 2009 at 1:31 pm #

    The issue of Obama’s passport is critical. Recall, that last year Obama’s passport file was breached. One the lead persons involved in the breach was starting to cooporate with the FBI over the passport breach. Shortly after, this individual was shot dead. Could the Obama Admin been involved in a murder coverup to prevent any release of the contents of Obama’s passport?

  84. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    Heavy, standing doesn’t go away because we’re talking about the President. Why don’t you go buy yourself a copy of “Federal Courts for Dummies?” You are woefully uninformed when it comes to what our Constitution requires to bring a case.

    You keep disrespecting our Constitution, pretending it allows frivolous and nonsensical suits against the President.

  85. avatar
    richCares August 14, 2009 at 1:39 pm #

    Sure, very likely in madland!
    where do you come up with this crap of sheer birther speculation, do you have a brain?

  86. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 1:40 pm #

    You would recognize logic if it smacked you upside the head with a copy of Aristotle’s “Prior Analytics!”

  87. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

    Could the Obama Admin been involved in a murder coverup to prevent any release of the contents of Obama’s passport.

    Turn off the TV; Jack Bauer is a fictional character.

    Obama’s COLB says he was born in Hawaii. So his passport file is going to say the exact same thing.

  88. avatar
    SFJeff August 14, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    Wow- the levels of delusion today are even higher than normal.

  89. avatar
    John August 14, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    A probe into Obama’s passport will tell us if he has an Indonesian Passport or if they were altered. If Obama has an Indonesian passport, it call into his question his US Citizenship.

  90. avatar
    SFJeff August 14, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    MSN is news/entertainment, and indistinguishable as such from Fox News, just one is biased left and one is biased right. Calling MSN a schill for the Obama administration is really no different than calling Fox a schill for the Bush administration. Schill? Probably not in either case, but strongly biased in their favor? Yeah.

    Of course I agree with MSN’s bias, therefore I find their entertainment more enjoyable.

  91. avatar
    SFJeff August 14, 2009 at 2:00 pm #

    “Yes, I am a capitalist. That means NO government interference. Your point?”

    I have a vision of fire bearing down on Heavy’s house, and him waving off the Fire Department yelling out “No government interference!”*

    *Unlike Heavy’s threats, I do not in any way actually hope for anyone’s house to burn down.

  92. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    Jeff, you are one sick freak.

  93. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    As there’s no evidence Obama was ever an Indonesian citizen[1], his file won’t say he ever had an Indonesian passport.

    Idle speculation.

    [1] You are about to reference his elementary school registration in 5…4…3…

  94. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 14, 2009 at 2:10 pm #

    Actually, it doesn’t, John.

    If (and this is a big If) he did obtain Indonesian Citizenship, it would not affect his U.S. Citizenship one bit. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court in a case by the name of Perkins v. Elg.

    Basically, the following happened:

    Miss Elg was born on U.S. Soil, therefore obtaining U.S. Citizenship. She was removed in her minority (that means she was under 21) to Sweden, where she obtained citizenship there. She then, before reaching the age of majority, returned to the United States, and lived there ever since. The Supreme Court ruled that she never lost her citizenship.

    It actually takes a lot to lose your U.S. Citizenship. You have to convince a State Department Employee that you fully know what you are doing when you renounce your U.S. Citizenship, and you have to actually renounce your U.S. Citizenship. So, unless you find some way that a State Department Employee would find that a six-year-old to ten-year-old would know the full consequences of what they’re doing, they cannot renounce their citizenship.

    And Perkins v. Elg also made it quite clear that a parent cannot renounce the citizenship of a child.

  95. avatar
    richCares August 14, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    Right wingers tend to project their irrational beliefs on to others, that’s normal for ignorant people, They call people liberals when they have no clue who they really are, that’s ignorance. They tell us all about liberals and what they think, yet again they have no clue and probably don’t know any liberals. It is often said the right wingers are ignorant, jtx and heavy are complete confirmation of this. They are totally clueless as to how their comments highlight their ignorance. Besides making fools of themselves, all they can do is hurl hate and insults. Responding to them aids and abets their desire for showing their hate. We have way too many ignorant right wing comments here, so please stop feeding the trolls. No comment you make will change their ignorance. They won’t read it anyway.

  96. avatar
    SFJeff August 14, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    “I think it is reasonable to assume that the general consensus qualification to be President has always been Born on US Soil to 2 US citizens.”

    2 points:
    If this were the general consensus- why did 60 million people vote for President Obama when we all knew his father wasn’t a U.S. Citizen? If this was the general consensus why did the Electoral College elect him? If this were the general consensus why did Congress confirm him? Or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swear him in? All of this points to the General Consensus being exactly opposite- only a small fringe element has suddenly ‘discovered’ this requirement of 2 citizen parents being required.
    Second Point- In high school I was taught that natural born citizen meant born in the United States- period. That means everyone in my generation in California learned the same thing. And thanks to the power of Californian text book purchasing power, this is likely what the majority of students across the U.S. learned also. I have never talked with anyone who learned the natural born citzen requirements to be anything other than born in the U.S.

  97. avatar
    Gordon August 14, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    How are all of Heavy’s lawsuits coming?

  98. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    Gordo! Where have you been?

  99. avatar
    Heavy August 14, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    Another example of liberal vetting.

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=2952

  100. avatar
    Black Lion August 14, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    This is theory Orly and her followers have been pushing recently. Yes it makes no sense but to the birthers it is just one more thing that the President is guilty of.

  101. avatar
    kimba August 14, 2009 at 3:17 pm #

    “the general consensus qualification to be President has always been Born on US Soil to 2 US citizens.”

    The “twofer” theory was posited by LeoD a little over a year ago. I think the question you should be asking yourself is how you could be so easily manipulated to think “twofer” theory is a general consensus, “how it’s always been”. Because that is not the general consensus John and that’s not how it’s always been.

  102. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 3:18 pm #

    Oh for crying out loud!

    Van Jones was on the national board of an organization whose local New York office was run by Jeff Jones. And by that standard, they’re deemed to have “worked together”. Pure hysterical idiocy.

    This absurd McCarthyite tendency in the far-right has gone on quite long enough. Maybe we should put it in front of one of Obama’s ‘death panels’.

    (Of course I would say that, because I once had coffee with Mark Rudd. *Gasp!*)

  103. avatar
    Black Lion August 14, 2009 at 3:24 pm #

    The passport story is old news. First of all the story regarding the individuals that did breach the files of then Senator Obama also breached the files of Senator’s Clinton and McCain. So if we are expousing conspiracy theories then it could have been McCain or Clinton just as well as President Obama that had something to do with it. The story…

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4492773&page=1

    An interesting section from the article…

    “The passport files would provide basic information like birth dates and background on where candidates have traveled. But the files would also include sensitive information like Social Security numbers, which could be used to track down credit reports and other personal information”

    Now regarding the individual that was killed. Here is the actual article….

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/

    A key section of that article says the following…

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/

    Now it seems more likely that the person was involved in a credit card or identity theft ring and might have been killed because he was going to rat other people out. It has been over a year. If there was actually any sort of incrimination information in those files, they would have been released a long time ago. It must be tough to see conspiracies behind every door like the birthers do.

  104. avatar
    Black Lion August 14, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    Sorry, I meant to post the following part from the article…

    “One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.”

  105. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 14, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    After Barack was awarded Indonesian refugee status at 10-years-old, his father, BO Sr. traveled back to Hawaii to acknowledge paternity for the first time.

    Also, BO Sr. relinquished his parental rights to his American born grandmother, “Toot.” It was at this time Barack’s original birth record was sealed and a new COLB was issued.

    Yes, Barack is a citizen of the United States, but not a Natural Born Citizen.

  106. avatar
    richCares August 14, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    “This absurd McCarthyite tendency in the far-right has gone on quite long enough.”

    that’s what happens when you feed trolls.

  107. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 14, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    Oops.

    BO Sr. relinquished his parental rights to Barack’s American born grandmother.

  108. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    Refugee status? WTF?

    Also, read Perkins v. Elg, nothing except Barack Obama Jr. going to the American consulate and convincing them that, at the ripe old age of 10, he understood the consequences of forfeiting his American citizenship and he was, in fact, renouncing his American citizenship could disturb the fact that Obama was, and remains, a citizen of the United States.

    And a natural born citizen at that!

  109. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm #

    richCares:

    I’ll bet he’s just combating your Enabling Conspiracy on this site. You Oborters come up with plenty of crap on your own of sheer Enabler speculation.

    Turn about’s fair play I’d think.

  110. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    Bob:

    So you think Obama’s COLB (the real one of which has never surfaced) is the same as his passport (which also hasn’t surfaced)???

    Sounds like a lot of smoke I’d say.

  111. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 3:44 pm #

    You must be more informed than, because I had always been led to believe that red-baiting on the extremist right predated the internet.

  112. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    Black Lion:

    If the guy can’t prove he is legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies he’ll be guilty of a lot more than that – and so will many of his Oborter followers.

  113. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 3:48 pm #

    Black Lion:

    (or should it be Gray Pussycat?)

    THe so-called passport issue is merely another of the red herrings set up by the Enabling Conspiracy to try to deflect attention from the real issue which is:

    Whether or not Obama is legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies (period). No one has ever proved that.

  114. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    There surely IS evidence re the Indonesian citizenship – but that will all come out in court with verified data no doubt.

    Nut that’s not the real issue – which is:

    Is Obama legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies?? Neither you nor I know that but Obama has sworn under oath that he is … but he’s also done some things that show that to be a lie and he’s told everyone he was born a Brit, remember.

  115. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    US citizenship is not the issue at all. “Natural born citizenship” IS – and the guy has both sworn under oath he has that and also told us he was born a Brit … which should we believe?

    There are also undoubtedly some questionable things yet to see the light of day as well I’d say. And that’s desipte all of the efforts of you in the Enabling Conspiracy.

  116. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 14, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    It would have been at the ripe age of 6. 10 was when he actually returned to the United States.

  117. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    richCares:

    Now, now – let’s not talk about hurling hate and insults. That’s exactly the pot calling the kettle black.

    You seem to forget that it was the Oborter hizzself that proclaimed proudly that he was born a Brit. Of course he wouldn’t lie (do you think???).

  118. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 3:59 pm #

    Heavy:

    Probably with his nose in a place where he had to breathe through his mouth!!!

  119. avatar
    Black Lion August 14, 2009 at 3:59 pm #

    Greg, you have to realize that Sven has this so called Indonesian refugee status theory that he was pushing about 3 months ago. He didn’t realize that since President Obama was an American citizen, he could not be a refugee. Even better his theory could not explain how a 6 year Barack Obama was able to leave HI and go to Indonesia in the first place if he did not have a US passport. I was wondering when he was going to bring this ridiculous theory back. Next he will be bringing back his Diplomatic Consular passport theory that was debunked also.

  120. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 4:00 pm #

    If the guy can’t prove that he’s legally eligible to hold the office, then nothing will happen.

    There will be no court case forcing him to prove his eligibility. Just like there was no court case in which Herbert Hoover proved he lived here 14 years consecutively. Just like there was no court case in which Chester Arthur proved he was not born in Canada.

  121. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 14, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    And tell me where British Nationality Law has any bearing on the United States Nationality law?

    Please cite specific cases, from the Opinion of the court (not a concurring opinion, or an opposing opinion). Also cite cases that have discuss the difference between citizenship at birth and natural born citizenship at length.

  122. avatar
    Black Lion August 14, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    Not one President has ever released his passport. And never will. And since the state of HI has declared that President Obama was born in Honolulu, then the his “real” COLB will say the same thing that the one he scanned for everyone to see will say, born in Honolulu. And his US Passport will say the same thing.

  123. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    There will be no court case. You and the birthers are welcome to continue to waste your time and money filing stupid lawsuits. But, one of your number already had to show cause why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for wasting the court’s time. So, while I welcome you to waste your time, the courts may not be so accomodating.

  124. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    Nullifidian:

    Certainly two can play that game in that the National Socialistic Obamican (Nazi-O) party can like those in the 1930s in Nazi Germany proclaim that there won’t be any death camps; not ever; REALLY!!

    It is the absurd Hitleristic tendency of the Enablers on the far looney left to prattle on and on and on … much ado about nothing.

  125. avatar
    Black Lion August 14, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    JTX, I think the better statement is that if Orly and others can’t prove that the President is not legally eligible to hold the office of the Presidency, then nothing will happen. The pesky little issue of President Obama being born in HI is tough to get around…

  126. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 4:07 pm #

    richCares:

    You also seem to miss the fact that McCarthy was in the main right about the Communists in our government and there are more there now that in the ’50s I’d say.

    You seem pleased enough to try and help them gain power and influence and keep them in power while ceding everything to them.

    Great stuff, there, o observant one!!

  127. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 4:07 pm #

    We can believe both. At the country’s founding, Britain didn’t care if your parents naturalized in the United States, if your father (or grandfather) was born in Britain, you were a natural born subject. So, all the founders who were natural born citizens, but whose parents (or grandparents) were born British citizens (and later naturalized US) were both natural born citizens of the US and natural born subjects of Britain.

  128. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 4:07 pm #

    Why would he lie? Other countries’ citizenship laws have no bearing on the status of natural born citizen!

  129. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    Obama’s COLB and his passport are two different documents.

    I think they both say he was born in Hawaii.

  130. avatar
    Black Lion August 14, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    What evidence has been presented of Indonesian citizenship? And if there is some sort of evidence, how does that make the President ineligible? You would have to overturn the SCOTUS Perkins v Elg case. So please tell us….We are all waiting…

  131. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    Nullifidian:

    You’ve also been “led” to believe it’s “just fine” that a man who has never proved himself legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    So you see there are certainly many weak-minded morons on the extremist left who enable such treasonous activities.

  132. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    There surely IS evidence re the Indonesian citizenship – but that will all come out in court with verified data no doubt.

    Oh, there’s doubt. Your 100% inaccuracy rate really speaks for itself.

  133. avatar
    FTE August 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    A passport can be obtained with Naturalization papers.

  134. avatar
    Nullifidian August 14, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

    Dear jtx,

    I’m afraid that you’ve confused me for someone who cares about your incessantly regurgitated talking points.

  135. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 14, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    It’s well established BO II obtained the name Barry Soetoro after he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. After the adoption, Barry Soetoro received Indonesian citizenship and an Indonesian passport.

    Suharto sympathizers were killing Communists in Indonesia in 1967. I doubt Stanley Ann wanted Suharto to know she is from the Dunham family that attended the “the little red church” in Seattle.

  136. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    A passport can be obtained with Naturalization papers.

    Now just provide evidence that Obama was ever naturalized, and you’re in business.

  137. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    It’s well established BO II obtained the name Barry Soetoro after he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. After the adoption, Barry Soetoro received Indonesian citizenship and an Indonesian passport.

    If it is so “well established,” it should be no problem to provide evidence of (1) Obama “obtaining” the name “Barry Soetoro”; (2) Soetoro’s adoption of Obama; and (3) Obama’s Indonesian passport and citizenship papers.

  138. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm #

    Sven: “It’s well established BO II obtained the name Barry Soetoro after he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro.”

    What makes you say that? Sure the President went by the name Barry [nickname] Soetoro at least in an Indonesian school record, but what makes you think he was adopted?

  139. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    Wild guess: “Because [uncited] Indonesian law didn’t allow noncitizens to attend school.”

    Ergo, adoption.

  140. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

    The argument goes that IF President Obama had become a citizen of Indonesia, then the impossible act of his renouncing US Citizenship would have made him no citizen at all. Elg did not renounce her citizenship, but only a acquired dual citizenship, but Indonesia doesn’t have dual citizenship (which is how we know conclusively that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen).

  141. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    Same reason Chester A. Arthur “covered up his father’s naturalization”:

    NONE.

  142. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    Every time you use a legal term like “treason” incorrectly, you undercut your credibility in assessing the legal term “natural born citizen.”

    Even if Obama knew himself to be ineligible when he ran for President, that would not be treason, because treason is a legal term, with a legal definition, and specific legal elements!

  143. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    I’m trying to think of a situation where someone born in an American colony could be a natural born British Subject or a natural born citizen of the colony but not both. I can’t think of one yet. However, it was most often the rule that naturalization within a colony did NOT naturalize within all the realm of the King. There was a good bit of squabbling and legal brouhaha about that.

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    Yup. If you put food out for them, they keep coming around.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    I just hate it when the mainstream media does shoddy work like this.

    “The passport files would provide basic information like birth dates and background on where candidates have traveled.”

    Passport files DO NOT contain information on where anyone travels, nor does the US Department of State keep such information (it’s kept by the Department of Homeland Security). We know this from the DOS documents filed in the Strunk v US Department of State lawsuit.

  146. avatar
    Bob Weber August 14, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    “So, unless you find some way that a State Department Employee would find that a six-year-old to ten-year-old would know the full consequences of what they’re doing, they cannot renounce their citizenship.”

    *******************

    And if this remarkable event were to occur, there’d be a record of it, otherwise the whole exercise would be pointless! Why aren’t birfers demanding the record of the boy Obama’s citizenship renunciation?

    Crap. I shouldn’t have said that.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 4:44 pm #

    Conspiracy theorists can see things others don’t.

  148. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 4:44 pm #

    True, but they keep coming around regardless.

  149. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 14, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    Yep! I think today should be called ‘the day of the trolls’!

    Still it says a lot about this site that they allowed to post their drivel.

  150. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

    Seriously; Donofrio finds it unacceptable that Obama never affirmatively stated that he never had a British passport.

  151. avatar
    kimba August 14, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    After what these people have said about him, his wife, his chidren, his mother, his father, his grandmother and his grandfather, they expect Pres Obama to give them the time of day? Pres Obama is right to ignore them.

  152. avatar
    Bob Weber August 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    The strictest possible interpretation of the 14 year clause would be “14 continuous years immediately prior to election.” Under this interpretation, Eisenhower would not have qualified, since from 1942-1946 he was posted to Europe!

    Birfers who are always on guard against “foreign influence” may wish to note that Ike often dealt personally with Stalin, not going through State Dept. channels.

    Doubtless, Uncle Joe was filling Ike’s head with Commie propaganda, which is probably how he became a “Conscious, Dedicated Agent of the International Communist Conspiracy”, at least according to Robert Welch.

  153. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm #

    Hard to tell, since I don’t know Heavy’s real name.

  154. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm #

    That “general consensus” is an example of the “BIG LIE” that if told persistently and often enough gets some people to believe it.

    Find me a civics book that says parentage is a requirement to be president and I’ll apologize. Until then, they’re idiots.

  155. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Heavy should read some US history about when the first Bank of the United States charter was not renewed and banking in the United States was left to largely unregulated state banks. It was an unmitigated disaster and nearly cost us the war of 1812.

  156. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 5:33 pm #

    Ask yourself this question: Would the Framers of the Constitution (if they were here today) be worried that Barack Obama’s loyalty to Great Britain because of his former citizenship in that country would sway his judgment and make him more likely to entangle the United States in the affairs of Europe? I’d say “no”.

  157. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    I believe they are admissible in Gotcha Court and before American Super Duper Play Grand Juries.

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 5:39 pm #

    I would disagree at the point that “anyone born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents” is a “definition.” It is a qualification.

  159. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    Sally:

    But of course I am not saying “US Citizen = Natural Born Citizen”. I am saying that Born US Citizen = Natural Born Citizen. Naturalized citizens are exactly those who are NOT natural born citizens.

    The blog owner (me) has no idea whether you are a racist or not, nor frankly do I care. Just because someone is a racist doesn’t mean they are wrong. I don’t think that way.

    While it is not in the article above, I do have a legal definition of Natural Born Citizen from a 1904 reference work that I published in another article: Natural Born Citizen: Defined! The definition there is based on citations from court cases, and unfortunately they focus on qualifications rather than definition. The qualification they say is:

    Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity.

    Rawles View of the Constitution as cited by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in the case of the Town of New Hartford v. The Town of Canaan.

    [Note to self: mention that next time Apuzzo comes around.]

  160. avatar
    IngloriousBasturd August 14, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

    President Obama’s sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, at a gala celebration here for their mother’s collection of Indonesian batiks, praised the “global citizenship in this family and in this world.”

    Plausible Deniability

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    I only listen to news on public radio.

  162. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 6:06 pm #

    Because the nut cases have guns?

  163. avatar
    Gordon August 14, 2009 at 6:20 pm #

    W T F?

  164. avatar
    Gordon August 14, 2009 at 6:24 pm #

    Watching your peeps on TV making complete fools of themselves and the Republican Party. I love it, by 2012 intelligent people will be running from you clowns in droves. How are those lawsuits coming? Any traction to report?

  165. avatar
    Gordon August 14, 2009 at 6:25 pm #

    Wow that was as intelligent and insightful.

  166. avatar
    Gordon August 14, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    No he didn’t

  167. avatar
    richCares August 14, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    note that the trolls continually project in attempts to bait us for a response, that is the definition of a troll, no more responses from me, I’ll just read and laugh at their posts.

  168. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    Rawle’s View of the Constitution was written in 1829, so we have scholars from less than 50 years from the writing of the Constitution and more than 30 years from the writing of the 14th Amendment saying that natural born is determined regardless of parentage.

  169. avatar
    BlackLion August 14, 2009 at 6:43 pm #

    Sven, You said the following…

    “It’s well established BO II obtained the name Barry Soetoro after he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. After the adoption, Barry Soetoro received Indonesian citizenship and an Indonesian passport.”

    If it is so well established you won’t have a problem providing some documentation of President Obama having an Indonesian passport or showing some evidence of an adoption. So many have made this claim and could never provide any evidence. What about the proof that he went by Barry Soetero? Will it be that school record that states that he was born in Honolulu? Is that the proof? Let us know what is so “well established”.

  170. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 7:36 pm #

    That’s right, President Obama has family members in several countries.

  171. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:15 pm #

    Gordon:

    Really??? You have that on good authority huh???

  172. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:20 pm #

    Greg:

    You’ve missed the entire point of all this, haven’t you?? Your hero who you all keep trying to “protect” with your Enabling Conspiracy and the guy has already admitted he was born a Brit … of course he’s also lied about it but you don’t know that either, right?

  173. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    Black Lion:

    Yoiur assertions are mistaken and no better than those of your hero and his other Enablers.

    Are you saying that he will refuse to honor a court order???

  174. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    Bob:

    You think??? That’s ALMOST as good as a “trust me” from the Oborter I suppose, eh???

  175. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    Bob:

    Maybe yes, maybe no … but that’s not the issue.

    The issue is the legal eligibility of Obama to hold the office he now occupies – or did that fact somehow escape your notice?

  176. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    There’s no contrary evidence, and thre is supporting circumstantial evidence.

    It’s called logic; look into it.

  177. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    Don’t you even read your own guy’s admissions against interest?

    The Oborter told all that he was Born a Brit. That makes him anything but a natural born citizen.

  178. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 8:29 pm #

    Maybe yes, maybe no

    In other words: no evidence to support this crazy claim.

    The issue is the legal eligibility of Obama to hold the office he now occupies

    We’re still waiting for you to cite the law that requires Obama to demonstrate eligibility.

  179. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:30 pm #

    Greg:

    In this context subject and citizen are not synonomous. Sort of like housefly and horsefly which are different sorts of fly.

  180. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Obviously, Doc, you need further study on the matter.

    But your lack of knowledge notwistanding, the issue is that the Oborter has told everyone that he was born a Brit. Roll that around on your tongue as it has a nice taste don’t you think?

  181. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:35 pm #

    Bob Weber

    Because the man has already told all that he was born a Brit due to his daddy. That makes him anything but a natural born citizen.

    In fact, he hasn’t even shown that he’s not an illegal alien. Wouldn’t that be a hoot – a wetback president??? Doncha’ jes luvitt??

  182. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:37 pm #

    richCares:

    Speaking of ignorant, you’ve missed the fact that your heor has told everyone he was born a Brit. Can you not read??? Don’t you have the Bill Ayres-written book “Dreams from My Father”??

  183. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 8:38 pm #

    Gordon:

    How’s your nose, Gordo???

  184. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 14, 2009 at 8:40 pm #

    And show me the law that applies British Nationality Law to determining who is and is not a Natural-Born citizen.

    Please be specific. Cite the specific law. If there is no specific law, but are doing it based upon an interpretation of the constitution, please cite specific case law that supports your point. Only cite from the majority opinion (not a concurring opinion, or an opposing opinion).

    Furthermore, cite specific case law that discusses how someone can be born a citizen, without being a Natural-Born Citizen. Again, only cite from the Opinion of the Court.

  185. avatar
    Bob August 14, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    Wouldn’t that be a hoot – a wetback president???

    Now Mr. Groundhog Day is recycling his racism.

  186. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 9:29 pm #

    You’re missing the point, JTX. It doesn’t matter if Britain considers him a citizen or not. If it did, then Britain could control who became President by simply declaring that everyone other than the people they want are natural born subjects.

  187. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    There won’t be a court order.

    There also won’t be flying unicorns.

    You’d spend your time better wishing for the latter, though, since at least they’re pretty.

  188. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 9:34 pm #

    I’m not saying citizen and subject are synonymous. I’m saying that US Constitutional law doesn’t give a flying [****] what Britain says about their subjectship.

    I realize this is going to be tough, but here’s a thought experiment for you.

    I form a country and say that everyone in the whole world is a citizen of my new country. Does that mean no one in the world can be President?

  189. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    You know, when the government attempts to deport someone, they have to prove that someone is not a citizen, not the other way around.

  190. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 9:37 pm #

    Speaking of morons, did you miss the fact that this is the United States of America?

    You can search the United States Code day and night and not find a single suggestion that anything the British say about their citizenship means a thing to our citizenship.

  191. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    Greg:

    Are you now abandoning your Flying Monkey Sqradron in favor of mythical creatures??

    Better rethink …

  192. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

    Greg:

    I can see you need a good set of Cliffs Notes on Brit law, my man!!

    There’s an old saying “Once a Brit, always a Brit”.

  193. avatar
    Dave August 14, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    There was an interesting NYT article about McCain’s eligibility. The gist of which is that the Supreme Court has never been called on to interpret that sentence in the Constitution, the Constitution doesn’t define it, and the correspondence of the framers of the Constitution doesn’t clarify it. But everyone they consulted agreed that, all that aside, it seems extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court would reach any other conclusion than that it means a citizen at birth.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=1

  194. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    Nullifidian:

    Perhaps you’re right … I now see that you are a dufus and a dupe with a sadly lacking education.

    Feel better???

  195. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    I have updated this article by adding footnote 2.

  196. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Uh, Doc, do you mean to say that Enabling Conspiracists are pure and truthful and only see what everyone else sees???

    If so, why do none of you seem to realize that your hero may not be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies???

  197. avatar
    jtx August 14, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    Greg:

    You obviously do not understand what the word means … try again … and you’re the one saying it’s a “legal definition”.

  198. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 10:36 pm #

    You seem to be confused (or drunk).

    I know about British law.

    I’m saying that British law is irrelevant to the US Constitution.

    You know, in the Constitution, there’s a Supremacy clause.

    Basically, here’s the order:

    Constitution
    Federal Law/Treaties
    State Laws
    Municipal laws
    Parks and Rec
    British Law

    I know you really want British Law to trump the Constitution, but it doesn’t work that way.

  199. avatar
    Mary Brown August 14, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    Thank you Kimba.

  200. avatar
    Greg August 14, 2009 at 10:41 pm #

    It’s in the Constitution. It has an exact meaning. It has specific elements. You know, things you have to prove, like a general intent to do an act with the specific intent to harm the nation in favor of an enemy we are in active hostility with.

  201. avatar
    Mary Brown August 14, 2009 at 10:44 pm #

    Can you imagine the restraints they would place on free speech if they were in charge. I see all kinds of stuff about camps and nazis but the only folks talking about punishing opponents are the people painting swastikas. I don’t know much about psychology but are they in some way telling us what they would like to do?

  202. avatar
    Nullifidian August 15, 2009 at 2:46 am #

    Yeah, I’m just a poor, ignorant dupe who just doesn’t have the education to commit solecisms like “a sadly lacking education”. I guess that’s something that you only get, like Bush, with years of Ivy League education.

    Sadly, with my more modest background, I couldn’t aspire to be a legacy case at an Ivy League university. Instead, I was required to be able to pass the verbal and mathematical portion of my GREs in order to attend a R1 state university as a doctoral student. Alas!

  203. avatar
    nbc August 15, 2009 at 4:24 am #

    JTXIf so, why do none of you seem to realize that your hero may not be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies???

    That’s always a possibility but in case of President Obama, the fact that he was born on US soil, combined with the other requirements makes him eligible. And there is truly only one institution that can determine this, and they, the US congress, through the powers of the Constitution, has ruled Obama to have qualified.

    And that’s why any legal challenges will continue to fail.

  204. avatar
    nbc August 15, 2009 at 4:31 am #

    JTXSpeaking of ignorant, you’ve missed the fact that your heor has told everyone he was born a Brit. Can you not read??? Don’t you have the Bill Ayres-written book “Dreams from My Father”??

    So many unsupported claims. As to being born a British Citizen, Obama was also born a natural born US citizen. Such things can happen and Common Law and US jurisprudence shows that the child can chose when reaching the age of majority, which one to continue.

    Obama chose.

    The End

  205. avatar
    nbc August 15, 2009 at 4:44 am #

    In fact, he hasn’t even shown that he’s not an illegal alien. Wouldn’t that be a hoot – a wetback president??? Doncha’ jes luvitt??

    Nice slur again… But of course, even if he were, there is nothing YOU can do about it.
    And that must drive you crazy now doesn’t it?

    Or what else explains your ever desperate postings?

  206. avatar
    nbc August 15, 2009 at 4:48 am #

    Subject and citizen are similar concepts. I guess you may not be too familiar with the legal precedents on this?

  207. avatar
    nbc August 15, 2009 at 4:52 am #

    Still totally speculating and lacking any evidence eh Sven.

    Pathetic. You have no interest in the truth, you have only an interest in having a duly elected president removed.

  208. avatar
    nbc August 15, 2009 at 4:54 am #

    You are certainly as much devoid of logical reasoning – or actually even more so since the laws of our land require the man be a “natural born citizen” yet neither you nor the man himself have ever been will to show him to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    Congress qualified him to have been found eligible. Nothing more you can do about it.

    And by any legal standard Obama is in fact eligible.

    You lost, now grief.

  209. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 15, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    I can see the appeal of the idea: if a natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen, then perhaps a natural born citizen is not someone who is born two citizens. But the essential problem with that argument is that if you accept it, you must at the same time deny things like the sovereignty of the United States within its borders, which one can’t (see The Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 116 116 (1812)).

    Here is the test question: let’s suppose that Great Britain had a “birth tax” and everyone who was born a Citizen of the UK and Colonies was required to pay 20 pounds. Could Great Britain enforce this law on someone born and residing in the United States? No, they could not. I suppose the Brits could call such tax evasion a “felonie moste foule” and try to extradite the person, but such extradition would only be possible if the United States had agreed to a treaty allowing it. We have no treaty with Great Britain making our citizens ineligible to be President if GB claims them too.

  210. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 15, 2009 at 10:00 am #

    jtx: There’s an old saying “Once a Brit, always a Brit”.

    I believe that saying only has currency in Great Britain.

  211. avatar
    nbc August 15, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    Heavy is day dreaming again. There are no remedies other than election available under the Constitution.

    Heavy has been predicting the immediate demise of Obama and those who support him for months now.

    To noone’s surprise, his predictions have been as accurate as the rest of his postings.

    Sore loser…

  212. avatar
    nbc August 15, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    To noone’s surprise really, JTX has not responded to this excellent post.

  213. avatar
    nbc August 15, 2009 at 2:28 pm #

    That’s the problem with JTX’s argument. In fact, under the Constitution it is clear that Congress is the one who determines eligibility.

    And that my friend is the end of JTX’s ‘hopes and dreams’

    Poor JTX

  214. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 15, 2009 at 4:54 pm #

    Reminds me of:

    “Davis told [the policeman] that he did not have a license, and did not need one because he was ‘an ambassador of God and had immunity’…

    This is from a marvelous compendium of idiot legal arguments. [Link provided anonymously by Sterngard Friegen from Politijab.com used without attribution.]

  215. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 15, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

    Let me see if I have this straight. Others have contended Obama was a dual citizen at birth, but it doesn’t matter because he was a US citizen at birth and that’s all that is required.

    I say Barry Soetoro was identified as an Indonesian refugee at 10-years-old because the US State Dept was told his either his mother was dead or had abandoned him. And you automatically conclude I’m trying to get him removed from office.

    Your emotions have overcome you. I have no idea what status a NBC becomes if they renounce their citizenship. In other words, if an NBC renounces their citizenship, then does that disqualify a presidential candidate? They didn’t renounce their NBC status. And if they were a legal resident for 14 years and over 35, why couldn’t they be eligible for President?

  216. avatar
    misha August 15, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    “I say Barry Soetoro was identified as an Indonesian refugee at 10-years-old because the US State Dept was told his either his mother was dead or had abandoned him.”

    I say Orly Taitz is a pedophile. It’s been said that she has a film studio in her house where she produces child pornography using young girls, whom Taitz kidnaps from local malls. It is my hope Ms. Taitz can prove these rumors are not true.

  217. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 15, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    Sven, considering that your entire theory goes against established case law means that your theory, even if true, wouldn’t affect any of Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to be President.

    I keep on telling you to read the United States Supreme Court Opinion in a case by the name of Perkins v. Elg. That says that a child cannot lose his Citizenship through the actions of his parents. That means that if Barack Hussein Obama was a citizens at birth, it doesn’t matter if he was made a citizen of Soviet Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Belguim, Sweden, Belarus, Kenya, South Africa, Bukina Faso, or Krypton, he’d still be a citizen at birth of the United States.

    Your theory, while highly entertaining, holds absolutely no water. It doesn’t matter one bit. It would have absolutely no effect on his eligibility to be President.

  218. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 15, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    Your emotions have overcome you. I have no idea what status a NBC becomes if they renounce their citizenship. In other words, if an NBC renounces their citizenship, then does that disqualify a presidential candidate? They didn’t renounce their NBC status. And if they were a legal resident for 14 years and over 35, why couldn’t they be eligible for President?

    And of course, you have evidence that Barack Obama renounced his own citizenship? There would be a record on it at the United States State Department. Remember, a parent cannot renounce the citizenship of a child. That has to be done by the child himself, convincing the U.S. Consulate that he knows the full ramifications of renouncing his citizenship. Of course, first you have to find a consulate that would accept a renouncing from someone between the ages of 6 and 10. Once you get that, your theory may become plausible. But then you still have to prove that Obama actually renounced his citizenship.

    Remember, Perkins v. Elg actually prevents a parent from renouncing the citizenship of the child.

  219. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 15, 2009 at 11:11 pm #

    Sven,

    Explain to me again what made you conclude that someone told the US State Dept that Obama’s mother was dead or had abandoned him, and how that makes it easier for a 10-year old US Citizen to renounce his citizenship. It would appear to me that the last thing a responsible American consular official would do is to let a child such as this, with no parental guidance, renounce US Citizenship, especially if the next thing he was going to do was return to the United States.

    I must have missed something.

  220. avatar
    nbc August 16, 2009 at 5:49 am #

    Let me see if I have this straight. Others have contended Obama was a dual citizen at birth, but it doesn’t matter because he was a US citizen at birth and that’s all that is required.

    Unlike your fantasy, this is a factual description.

  221. avatar
    nbc August 16, 2009 at 5:51 am #

    We have seen Obama’s real COLB and it shows him born in Honolulu.

    Next question?

  222. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 16, 2009 at 9:02 am #

    Consequently, in theory, a child born a US Citizen could reach the age of majority and renounce their citizenship, then naturalize back in the US and still be eligible to be President.

    NBC status cannot be renounced because it only pertains to your citizenship at birth and not your acts as an adult.

    Also, an NBC could move to another country and renounce their US citizenship as an adult. Then that ex-US citizen with NBC status could move back to the US as a legal, permanent resident and be eligible to be President.

    No wonder SCOTUS won’t touch this issue.

  223. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 16, 2009 at 9:18 am #

    I would think that renunciation of citizenship makes someone a non-citizen in every respect, including NBC. I think that Emerich de Vattel as well as Lord Coke would both have said that renunciation of natural born citizenship is impossible, since it is a immutable character created at birth. However, US law does allow renunciation of citizenship and that controls.

    But you raise a pretty question, one which we don’t need to solve here. It is unlikely that the voters would ever consider someone who had ever renounced their citizenship, so the question will likely remain a theoretical one.

    See:
    http://0-edocket.access.gpo.gov.library.colby.edu/cfr_2009/janqtr/pdf/8cfr324.1.pdf
    http://0-edocket.access.gpo.gov.library.colby.edu/cfr_2009/janqtr/pdf/8cfr327.1.pdf

    In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), plaintiff was a United States citizen and resident of Puerto Rico, who executed an oath of renunciation before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because the plaintiff wanted to retain one of the primary benefits of U.S. citizenship while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. The Court described the plaintiff as a person, “claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, [while] Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, return and reside in the United States.” See also Jose Fufi Santori v. United States of America , 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16299 (1994) for a similar case.

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

  224. avatar
    Ian Gould August 16, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    “There surely IS evidence re the Indonesian citizenship – but that will all come out in court with verified data no doubt.”

    Any day now.

    Any day now.

  225. avatar
    Ian Gould August 16, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    “Wouldn’t that be a hoot – a wetback president??? Doncha’ jes luvitt??”

    It could be worse.

    he could be a filthy hook-nosed Kike. A stinking big-nosed money0gryubbing Christ-killing yid in the White House. Doncha’ jes luvitt??

  226. avatar
    Ian Gould August 16, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    “You’ve also been “led” to believe it’s “just fine” that a man who has never proved himself legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.”

    Please provide details as to how any of his predecessors proved themselves legally eligible to hold office.

  227. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 16, 2009 at 11:35 am #

    Let’s continue to discuss it.

    According to Obots, NBC status is determined by the location of birth. Once NBC status is obtained it cannot be renounced or taken away. Consequently, an NBC could renounce their US citizenship and then, years later, establish citizenship by naturalization or become a legal, permanent resident and maintain eligibility for the Presidency.

    But if you incorporate loyalty and jurisdiction into the definition NBC status, then a person loses NBC status when they renounce their citizenship.

  228. avatar
    Bob August 16, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    establish citizenship by naturalization or become a legal, permanent resident and maintain eligibility for the Presidency.

    Permanent residents are, by definition, not citizens. And Dr. Conspiracy answered your question: “US law does allow renunciation of citizenship and that controls.”

  229. avatar
    Bob'sNewFriend August 16, 2009 at 12:50 pm #

    Doc’s comment is in reference to section 351 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1483).

    Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

    An adoption of a child abandoned by his Kenyan father would, on its surface, an outstanding opportunity for a fresh start. Imagine a well connected Indonesian engineer that steps up and says I want this child, but my country doesn’t allow dual citizenship.

    A short time later, we have a school registration of BO as an Indonesian citizen who was born in Hawaii.

  230. avatar
    Bob August 16, 2009 at 12:59 pm #

    a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation

    And how old would have Obama been? Six? Eight?

    Try again.

    An adoption of a child abandoned by his Kenyan father

    Now all you need is actual proof of this alleged adoption, and you are in business.

  231. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 16, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    You seem to be overlooking Obama’s mother.

    Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

  232. avatar
    ballantine August 16, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    ” A naturalized citizen is defined as someone who becomes a citizen through law after they are born.”

    Interesting subject, but I think this is our definition of “naturalization” today. I think there are some interesting things that can be learned from looking at the use of this term in the early republic. “Naturalization” was a common law term of art (as was “natural born”) generally defined as “removing the disabilities of alienage” (see,e.g., United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)) or an “act by which an alien is made a citizen” (see, e.g., Bouvier Law Dictionary (1856)). Thus, naturalization, by definition at that time, applied only to aliens (who were defined by all early authorities as foreign born (unless children of ambassadors etc.)). Accordingly, the chief argument against the constitutonality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was that Congress had no authority to grant citizenship to persons born in the US. According to one senator who put forth this view:

    “I maintain that a negro can not be made a citizen by Congress; he can not be made a citizen by any naturalization laws, because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone. No man can shake the legal truth of that position. They apply to foreigners alone; and a negro, an Indian, or any other person born within the United States, not being a foreigner, can not be naturalized; therefore they can not be made citizens by the uniform rule established by Congress under the Constitution, and there is no other rule. Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they arc made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of their birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution.” Sen. Davis, quoted in History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, William Horatio Barnes, pg. 208, (1868)

    James Madison seems to have had the same opinion:

    “Mr. Madison did not think that Congress, by the constitution, had any authority to readmit American citizens at all. It was only granted to them to admit aliens.” Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856: From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from their Register of debates; and from the official reported debates, by John C. Rives, pg. 556 (1860)

    The limitaions of naturalization to foreign born or aliens underscores that the native born were obviously citizens at birth as, if that wasn’t the case, these authorities would conclude they could never become citizens. It would be absurd that immigrant children born before parents immigrated could be citizens but those born on US soil could not be.

    On expatriation, one could actually make a non-frivolous originalist argument that Congress has no power to expatriate a natural born citizen. The common law rule was that no one could lose natural born status absent the consent of Parliament. Although many in the founding generation maintained that expatriation was a natural right, the prevailing view, at least prior to the war of 1812, seemed to be that expatration was not permitted without the consent of Congress. According to the most influential legal treatise of the early republic:

    “From this historical review of the principal discussions in the federal courts on this interesting subject in American jurisprudence, the better opinion would seem to be, that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without the permission of government, to be declared by law; and that, as there is no existing legislative regulation on the case, the rule of the English common law remains unaltered.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, 1:397–98; 2:33–63, (1826)

    However, Congress has no express power under the Consitution to allow expatriation. This point was central in the early debates preventing enactment of expatiration statutes ( See, e.g., The History of the United States: From Their Colonization to the End of the Twenty-sixth Congress, in 1841, volume III, pg. 223 George Tucker (1858)).

    It was far after the founding generation that it was concluded that Congress had an inherent power under the naturalization clause, or its other powers, to permit expatriation. It is far from clear this was the understanding of the founding generation.

  233. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo August 16, 2009 at 5:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    We do not know whether Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama. But your group argues that even if that were so, it would not matter because of Elg. You and your supporters argue how Elg says that parents cannot take away a minor’s “natural born Citizen’s” birthright U.S. citizenship.

    What I do not understand is why no one addresses the real issue which the Elg Court stated as: “The question then is whether this well recognized right of election has been destroyed by treaty or statute.”

    The 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s, did provide that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. But here we are not dealing with only actions taken by parents of an American child but rather the legal consequences of an adoption of a child and what impact the adoption has on that child’s U.S. citizenship, if he has any.

    We know that Elg was not an adoption case. But the Court there did say that a treaty or statue could destroy the right of election.

    If Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, would not a treaty between the United States and Indonesia on adoption control Obama’s citizenship and nationality? Indonesia is not a party to the Hague Adoption Convention. But there must be some other treaty or Congressional Act which controls. I have not yet had time to look into this aspect but I raise it for your group to consider.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  234. avatar
    IngloriousBuzzard August 16, 2009 at 6:24 pm #

    BO had zero contact with his biological father prior to his 10th birthday. Lolo Soetoro was the only father he knew.

    Even a heartless bureaucrat at the US Consular affairs office in Indonesia would be hard pressed not grant BO renunciation of his citizenship in light of the fact Indonesia restricted public services to Indonesian citizens.

    It is likely BO successfully renounced his citizenship with a US Official to begin his new life with his new father in Indonesia. He even got a new name, Barry Soetoro.

  235. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 16, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    Mario,

    The Adoption doesn’t matter, and you, as a lawyer, know it. If you don’t, then you don’t know case law very well, and you don’t know U.S. law very well.

    Also from the Elg case: “It was deemed to be a necessary consequence of the constitutional provisions by which persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction become citizens of the United States. To cause a loss of that citizenship in the absence of treaty or statute having that effect, there must be voluntary action, and such action cannot be attributed to an infant whose removal to another country is beyond his control and who, during minority, is incapable of a binding choice.”

    That means that even if Obama was adopted by Soetoro, he would have still been a citizen of the United States, unless there is a voluntary action. That action cannot be attributed to an minor.

    The entire thing of Perkins v. Elg is a voluntary Residence, and voluntary act. I doubt any court in the land would say that an adoption of a 6-year-old constitutes a voluntary act on the part of the minor. And I don’t think you could find any court in the land to say that an 6-year-old is even capable of making the voluntary act that would be needed to remove citizenship.

  236. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 16, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    Again, IngloriousBuzzard, you’d be hard pressed to find any consular to say that a six-year-old knows enough to actually renounce anything. A six-year-old cannot be tried in adult court for murder, but you’re saying that he was able to convince a consulate that he legally knew what the extent of his renouncing of his citizenship and the consequences would be.

    Find me that consulate. I’d really like to hear it.

    You’re basing your opinion on nothing more than conjecture and no hard evidence. It’s about as likely as Barack Obama being born on Krypton.

  237. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 16, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    If you ever come up with evidence of this adoption, and/or you find your treaty, come back and I will be most interested in discussing it. But the fact of the matter is that imagination is not evidence.

    The key point for me out of Elg is that natural born citizenship is not erased by dual citizenship. I apply this case against the claims that his dual citizenship at birth prevented President Obama from being a natural born citizen. Since Indonesia doesn’t allow dual citizenship, I don’t think Elg applies. My read through Indonesian citizenship law did not turn up anything that would allow naturalization of Obama unless he had renounced his US citizenship. They seem to be rather emphatic on that point. Berg’s “citations” of Indonesian law in Hollister were (putting it kindly) inaccurate.

    I hope that you would likewise help put to rest the logical fallacy that Elg somehow defines natural born citizenship in terms of parentage.

    I personally think it unlikely that Obama was ever adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and that off-hand comment, written over a decade ago, by Obama in Dreams from My Father, strongly suggests he entered the US as an American Citizen when he returned from Indonesia. Further, it is not plausible for Stanley Ann, who fully intended for Barack to grow up in the US, to have facilitated the loss of his citizenship. The adoption doesn’t pass the smell test.

  238. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo August 16, 2009 at 8:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Some of your people on here are real trigger happy (not to mention their sarcasm and haughtiness). I only asked what I think is a legitimate question which no one has yet adequately address.

    Also, I do not agree with your comment: “The key point for me out of Elg is that natural born citizenship is not erased by dual citizenship.” Your comment is highly misleading to an unknowing reader. In Elg’s case, she was a “natural born Citizen” at the time of her birth. She became a dual national AFTER she was born, by her U.S. naturalized parents moving back to Sweden and taking up citizenship there.

    The citizenship issue under Article II is whether one is a “natural born Citizen” at the time of birth. That one can become a dual national after birth does not change the birth status which is what the Founders focused on. The Founders took a status snap shot at the moment of birth and that is the status that controls. The birth status is not changed by events occuring later in life, unless one legally renounces that status. It one is born with “natural born Citizen” status and satisfies the other eligibility requirements of Article II, one is eligible to be President. This view is consistent with the Founders’ position that a naturalized citizen cannot be President, since such person was not a citizen at the moment of his or her birth, let alone a “natural born Citizen” at that time. Stated differently, when it came to being eligible to be President, what the Founders gave to “natural born Citizens” (always a positive) they took away from “naturalized” citizens(always a negative).

    Also, both the Elg and Steinkauler children were born in the U.S. to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of birth. That made those children Article II “natural born Citizens” and eligible to be President. The Court simply said that those children do not lose their U.S. birthright citizenship simply because their parents in later years and when the children are minors cause them to acquire some other nationality. What was the central point is that those children were born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents and by election did not retain any foreign citizensip upon reaching their years of majority. The same result obtained for the other children commented on by the Court who were born in the U.S. to foreign parents, except these children were declared “native citizens” or just “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment with no comment that they were eligible to be President.

    If Elg would have been born on U.S. soil with multiple citizenships and allegiances, she would have been a 14th Amendment “citizen” under an expanded and incorrect interpretion of “subject to the jurisdiction,” but she would not have been an Article II “natural born Citizen.” She was not born in the latter state but rather born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents which made her an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  239. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 16, 2009 at 9:11 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    Unlike your blog, mine is an open forum where I permit opponents and those I agree with speak with equal freedom. The 15,901 comments I have published run the gamut from brilliant to inane, and from polite to sarcastic and haughty. If you want to participate here, you will have to take your lumps like everybody else.

    You said: “Your comment is highly misleading to an unknowing reader.” I would hope the folks who participate here do not qualify as “unknowing readers”. If they are, I commend them to the articles and not the comments!. You say (re: Elg) “The citizenship issue under Article II is whether one is a “natural born Citizen” at the time of birth. That one can become a dual national after birth does not change the birth status which is what the Founders focused on.”

    It may be what the Founders focused, but I expect you know that many members of your tribe are not really focused on the Constitution per se, but on notions of “undiluted allegiance” which they take to the extreme. I deal with all sorts of persuasions on this blog and Elg provides a conceptual argument against those purists of allegiance and that is the use I have for it.

    And while we are on the subject of misleading naive readers, you said: “[Elg] was … born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents which made her an Article II ‘natural born Citizen.'” That Elg’s parents were [naturalized] U.S. citizens is a comment in the recitation of facts of the case, and in no way specifically linked to the conclusion that Elg was a natural born citizen. There is nothing in Elg that says her parentage were part of what “made her” a natural born citizen.

    In regards to unanswered questions, I believe you have a few on your tab, one of which went something like:

    Did the framers have a different idea of the word “natural” when they wrote “natural born citizen” than when they wrote “naturalization”?

  240. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo August 17, 2009 at 1:10 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I guess your blog is different from mine. I do not allow people to be mistreated others on mine. I guess you run a different operation over here. And I thought you guys were supposed to be the good guys.

    I was shocked by your comment regarding Elg. You said that “[t]here is nothing in Elg that says her parentage were part of what ‘made her’ a natural born citizen.” I guess there was a lot in Wong Kim Ark that leads you to always remind us that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark declared Wong a “natural born Citizen.”

    On your question regarding the difference between “natural” and “naturalized,” of course there is a difference. When “natural” is used with “born Citizen,” it means being born in the country to citizen parents. “Naturalized” means being made a “citizen” by an Act of Congress after someone was already born, with the assumption that there is no fraud in the process.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  241. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 17, 2009 at 1:16 am #

    Mario…

    Naturalize means literally, “To make Natural”.

    It’s a much better analysis that all citizens are Natural Citizens. Then you have Born Citizens, and ones who are made Natural afterwords. I do not support your supposition, nor can I find any sort of law that states that there are non-Natural Citizens.

  242. avatar
    misha August 17, 2009 at 4:07 am #

    Mario:

    What is the status of Orly Taitz’ three children? She has dual US/Israel citizenship. Where do her loyalties lie? Will her children join the IDF at some time? He children have Israel citizenship, through her.

    We also do not know her maiden name. Why? She is trying to destroy Obama’s presidency. Why? Is she a double agent with the KGB and Mossad? It is in Russia’s and Israel’s interests to torpedo Obama. To what extent is she working with either of them?

    What do her medical records from the USSR contain? When she is in Israel without her husband, does she have liasons with younger men? All this bears investigating.

  243. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 17, 2009 at 8:17 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    I have no need to control the discussion on my blog in order to make a fringe viewpoint appear like a consensus view. Virtually all web sites that advocate for a parentage requirement for citizenship or natural born citizenship likewise censor comment. This is essential to maintain the false illusion of consensus and because the arguments really do not stand up to scrutiny. If I have to sacrifice control over making adults act the way I think they should in order to achieve honesty and integrity, so be it. As an attorney, you are an advocate for your client; I understand that, but don’t pretend that the censorship exercised on your blog is solely to prevent incivility.

    As for “I thought you guys were supposed to be the good guys”, those who participate here are from both sides. This just seems to be an advocacy site because the evidence is one sided.

    I take it you are saying that there is no commonality in way the Framers understood the word “natural” between the two ways phrases in the Constitution which include them. That, I would think, is a problem for the credibility of your interpretation.

  244. avatar
    Vince Treacy August 17, 2009 at 9:18 am #

    There is an interesting article today (8-17-09) at the History News Network, The “Birther” Controversy of 1891, by Thomas Brown, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Northeast Lakeview College.

    http://hnn.us/articles/114783.html

  245. avatar
    Heavy August 17, 2009 at 9:34 am #

    It is unlikely voters would ever consider someone who renounced their citizenship. Doc, I could not agree more. BUT, first they would have to KNOW that fact.

    We know less about this piece of shit than ANY other candidate EVER. Let alone his anti American activities while overseas.

    But we WILL find out. And there WILL be hell to pay for those who have hidden the truth and those who support this criminal.

    That is NOT a threat! It is just a statement of fact. I know how easily you libs scare.

  246. avatar
    Greg August 17, 2009 at 10:44 am #

    I give you Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective which traces the development of Indonesian Nationality law.

    1. Indonesia took a very dim view of dual citizenship.

    2. Alien women would take the nationality of their husbands after 1 year of marriage, UNLESS that would create dual citizenship. If so, no nationality change.

    3. Children adopted UNDER the age of five took the nationality of the adoptive father. (Upon the codification and recognition of the adoption by the district court.) Current adoption law forbids the adoption of non-citizen children over five.

    4. Current adoption law also requires the parents to have been married 5 years prior to the adoption.

    5. According to “The New Indonesian Marriage Law” in The American Journal of Comparative Law, 23 Am. J. Comp. L. 653 (1975), the Marriage Law of 1974 engendered much controversy among Muslims because it stated that adopting a child would sever that child’s relationship with his blood father and make the status of the adopted child the same as a non-adopted child. Muslims viewed adoption as an extra-legal relationship that affected no change in status for the child and considered it not to sever the ties to the blood relation. These provisions were stripped out of the law before it was passed.

    6. Other sources have suggested that “formal” adoptions, the type that would allow for the father’s citizenship to pass to a non-citizen child five or under, were rare, in large part because adoptions were seen, by Muslims as an extra-legal relationship.

    7. The only formal treaty on dual citizenship in Indonesia was with China.

    The conclusions I draw:

    A. Only a formal adoption could have bestowed Indonesian citizenship on Obama. And then only if Obama was adopted before turning six.

    B. Lolo was unlikely to have formally adopted Obama. It was disfavored by the region’s laws, it was disfavored by his religion and his customs.

    C. If Lolo did “adopt” Obama, it was a private, informal affair, which bestowed no citizenship on Obama.

    D. A “formal” adoption of Obama was likely forbidden by Indonesian law at the time, as Obama was older than five when it would have occurred. Local customary law as well as national citizenship laws suggest a strong disfavoring of such adoptions.

  247. avatar
    Greg August 17, 2009 at 10:57 am #

    He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10. He spent 3 weeks in Pakistan, 3 weeks in Europe and 5 weeks in Kenya.

    Bill Clinton spent more than a year in Great Britain, and holidayed in Moscow. In contrast to Bill Clinton’s well-publicized protests against the Vietnam war, there’s no evidence that Obama ever led any similar protests, here or abroad.

  248. avatar
    Heavy August 17, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    And you REALLY think that’s all there is to it?

  249. avatar
    Bob August 17, 2009 at 11:06 am #

    I do not allow people to be mistreated others on mine

    Part of the price of free speech.

    Unlike you, Dr. Conspiracy doesn’t stiffle dissent.

    And, yes, you do stiffle dissent. In response to your ill-formed “Is Obama British?”, Dr. Conspiracy reported you would not publish the comments of his that proved you wrong.

  250. avatar
    Greg August 17, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    His “anti American” activities overseas, if they occurred at all, which you have no evidence of, won’t impact whether he was born in Hawaii.

    If you don’t like his “anti American” activities, or the lack of evidence of it, vote against him. Just like you could have voted against Clinton because of his purported activities in Moscow.

  251. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 17, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    Very interesting article. I added it to the Media page.

  252. avatar
    Nullifidian August 17, 2009 at 1:59 pm #

    We know less about this piece of shit than ANY other candidate EVER.

    So where are Millard Fillmore’s grammar school records? Where is Woodrow Wilson’s doctoral dissertation? Where are Abraham Lincoln’s files dating from when he was admitted to the bar? Where are Gerald Ford’s adoption records?

    (That last is a trick question: Gerald Ford was never formally adopted, but there’s no evidence Barack Obama was either.)

    So, really, if you’re going to claim that we know less about Obama than any previous president, it would be helpful if you weren’t…well, lying. The sort of fishing expedition the birthers want to go on is unprecedented, which is why we don’t have any of the above things I listed, but they’re all based on equivalent demands made of Obama.

    Let alone his anti American activities while overseas.

    For which you have no evidence, and which also has no bearing on his presidential qualifications. If protesting against the U.S. government’s policy were a cause for disqualification, then we could probably eliminate third party candidates entirely (something the Republicrats would like very much).

    But we WILL find out.

    How? I mean you’ve already demonstrated a complete inability to find out something simple like the fact that he was born in Honolulu. Why should I trust you to be able to find out anything about Obama’s biography?

    And there WILL be hell to pay for those who have hidden the truth and those who support this criminal.

    If you imagine that Obama has committed a crime, why aren’t you pressing for impeachment and conviction instead? At least you’d be on firm constitutional footing.

  253. avatar
    Heavy August 17, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    Mr. non liberal,

    Lying? Hmmm…Prove it. The evidence is mounting as is the anti Obummer sentiment. Call it buyer’s remorse or just plain old awakening. Either way, it IS happening. I’m not suggesting that it will happen quickly, though I wish it would, but it WILL happen.

    His arrogance and that of his miniions and supporters is getting him in ALL kinds of trouble.

    Impeachment? Can you impeach someone who does not qualify for office? Presecution? Oh, that will happen. And what a great day that will be, INDEED!

  254. avatar
    Greg August 17, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    Yes, his popularity has dropped from 68% to 50%. Oh noes!

    I’d remind you that anti-Bush sentiment hit more than 70% and he was neither impeached, nor prosecuted (or even “presecuted”)!

    You sound more and more like the sufferers from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, who thought indictments were always just around the corner.

  255. avatar
    Nullifidian August 17, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    Mr. non liberal,

    Lying? Hmmm…Prove it.

    Already done. You claimed that we know less about Obama than any other president, but the things being demanded of Obama are things that no previous president has had to fork over. Hell, no previous president has publicly released any form of birth certificate, whether of the so-called “short form” variety or not.

    The evidence is mounting as is the anti Obummer sentiment.

    Evidence of what?!

    Call it buyer’s remorse or just plain old awakening.

    Can you have “buyer’s remorse” among those who never voted for Obama in the first place? I didn’t, and I don’t feel it.

    Either way, it IS happening. I’m not suggesting that it will happen quickly, though I wish it would, but it WILL happen.

    What is the referent of “it” in these sentences?

    His arrogance and that of his miniions and supporters is getting him in ALL kinds of trouble.

    I just about choked on the irony. As if there’s no arrogance about pretending that you have a better grasp on the legal issues than judges working from centuries of precedent and common law.

    Impeachment? Can you impeach someone who does not qualify for office? Presecution? Oh, that will happen. And what a great day that will be, INDEED!

    An impeachment is a prosecution. And if you read the U.S. Constitution really carefully, you’ll find that impeachment and conviction is the only way to remove a sitting president, whether qualified for the office or not.

    P.S. You referred again to Obama’s supporters, but you never answered my question as to whether I should be counted among them. I’ve never donated to Obama’s campaign or the DNC. I didn’t vote for him in the primaries or in the general election. So when Obama is removed from office (ha ha), will your list of “supporters who will have hell to pay” include “anyone who ever disagreed with me on the internet”?

  256. avatar
    Heavy August 17, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    I see that, in your non liberal fashion, you keep trying to make this about YOU. It is not. You did not vote for him? So you claim. It matters not to me. You defend him. THAT is what matters. If you cannot see the difference, well, that’s your problem.

    I like the fact that you have bitten on the worshipper’s bait about how NO President has been vetted as much as THE ONE. It shows your true colors…Yellow!

    The fact remains that NO President has been asked to show their BC because there has never been any doubt about others. You can scream about Arthur all you want. It’s a moot point.

    If you don’t know what “It” is, then there is nothing I can do to help you with that. Suffice it to say that “It” is gaining momentum by the second.

  257. avatar
    Greg August 17, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    You could help your readers by using standard English. Pick up a copy of Strunk and White’s Elements of Style, for example, and learn the rules. In the sentence you wrote, you have an unclear antecedent. It’s grammar, man.

  258. avatar
    Nullifidian August 17, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    I see that, in your non liberal fashion, you keep trying to make this about YOU.

    How clever of you to see past the body of my response to a post script appended as an afterthought. Yes, that clearly shows that I’m trying to make it all about me.

    You did not vote for him? So you claim. It matters not to me. You defend him. THAT is what matters.

    So everyone who tells you that you’re full of crap is doing so with the purpose of defending Obama?

    If you cannot see the difference, well, that’s your problem.

    But you’re not drawing distinctions, you’re collapsing them. Anyone capable of drawing distinctions would see that not everyone who thinks that the birther movement is a farce is necessarily a liberal, and everyone who tells you that it’s a farce is not necessarily defending Obama. You seem to have trouble with these obvious distinctions.

    I like the fact that you have bitten on the worshipper’s bait about how NO President has been vetted as much as THE ONE. It shows your true colors…Yellow!

    Yawn. Boring troll-bait.

    If you could read for comprehension, you’d see that I’d never said anything of the sort. My belief is that Obama has been vetted to the exact same degree as any other president: he was deemed to be at least 35, a natural born citizen, and resident for at least 14 years in the U.S. by all the competent authorities prior to the election.

    It is only the birthers who demand an unprecedented degree of “vetting” because they don’t like the outcome of the election. They have not succeeded because their legal arguments are unfounded.

    The fact remains that NO President has been asked to show their BC because there has never been any doubt about others. You can scream about Arthur all you want. It’s a moot point.

    Your ‘doubt’ is a moot point. Unless you can demonstrate some legal basis by which your doubts compel any action on the part of Obama, then you should just suck it up and move on.

    Furthermore, it doesn’t impress me to claim that there’s never been any doubt about the others, because that just highlights the fact that the only reason there’s ‘doubt’ about Obama is that he looks “foreign”—he’s not an Anglo.

    If you don’t know what “It” is, then there is nothing I can do to help you with that. Suffice it to say that “It” is gaining momentum by the second.

    Since you wrote the above paragraph, you should be able to explain what you meant by the pronoun “it”. If you can’t, then that implies that you write things without knowing what you’re saying, simply because you’re chattering out some talking points.

  259. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 17, 2009 at 6:44 pm #

    By the way, my copy of Strunk and White arrived a couple weeks ago. It is waiting behind some others.

  260. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny August 17, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    Actually, we probably know Orly’s maiden name. Sort of. There is an old guy living at her place called Averbukh. Still: she could have been Averbukh or Averbukha in the Soviet Union (which can make it difficult for researchers to find out what part of Orly’s educational career happened in the Soviet Union and what occurred in Israel). To further complicate research, on one official US document (birth certificate of her first son?) Orly wrote her maiden name as Auerbuch. Which is the original German version of the name and makes you wonder: Russian genealogical records suggest that some of the Averbukhs in Russia were not Jews but ethnic Germans.
    Alternatively, Orly may just be a bad speller. She is known to have spelled her own name as “Orley” a few times.

  261. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo August 17, 2009 at 11:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Your position is that there are only born citizens and naturalized citizens: Then answer me this question:

    Why did the Founders not say in Article II:

    No Person except a born Citizen, or a naturalized Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  262. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2009 at 12:04 am #

    They did this because “natural born citizen” was a well understood term of common law (in the form of “natural born subject”) that was in current use in the constitutions, charters and laws of the individual states and in the common law of Great Britain (all of which at the time afforded that status to anyone born in the state or colony).

    Given the fact that British common law naturalization made one a citizen from birth, the widespread usage of “natural born” may well have been done to distinguished those who were natural born as citizens (i.e. came out of the womb citizens) and those who were artifically made citizens from birth by act of Parliament or Congress.

    Rawle’s View of the Constitution (1825) keeps popping up in state and federal court opinions. Do you think he was wrong, and if so, why were the courts citing him anyway?

    Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity….

    Under the Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however that capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of the president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

    That quote was cited by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in The Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan. It was cited by Congressman Wilson during the debate on the 14th Amendment. It was cited by the Supreme Court of New York in Lynch v Clarke. Rawle’s work was cited by the Supreme Court of the US in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., as recently as June of 2008 and other Supreme Court cases. It looks like William Rawle was quite an authority. But do you say he was all wet, writing so soon after the nation’s start, about citizenship?

    Very unlikely.

  263. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo August 18, 2009 at 12:57 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    But once the Founders wrote “born” citizen and “naturalized” citizen in the same sentence, it was clear to the reader that the former was created from the time of birth and the latter was created after birth by law. By the two terms appearing together in the same sentence, there was no confusion as to what a “born” citizen meant. Hence, “born” citizen would have been sufficient to express the intent that it not include “naturalized” citizen, given that “born” citizen was juxtaposed with “naturalized” citizen right in the same sentence. I therefore do not accept your theory. There must be another reason why the Framers used the term “natural born Citizen” on the one hand and “citizen” on the other.

    As far as Rawle (1825), The Town of New Hartford (1886), and Lynch (1844) are concerned, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) trumps them all.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  264. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 18, 2009 at 2:34 am #

    Because some provisions applied to all citizens, while some provisions only applied to Natural Born Citizens.

    As far as Minor v. Happersett, the entire opinion that you like to quote was determining wither or not Minor was a citizen at all, not whether or not she was a Natural Born Citizen. The Supreme Court, in that very paragraph, said that since Minor fit both definitions, it was unnecessary to determine which definition was correct.

    However, the Supreme Court went back and determined in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which definition was correct. And there are even arguments brought into U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that the 14th Amendment was unnecessary to provide citizenship rights to everybody.

    Minor v. Happersett isn’t the binding precedent on Natural Born Citizen. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the binding precedent on all citizenship, including Natural Born.

    There is not a court decision that has held that there are Citizens who are born, but not Natural Born Citizens. And the courts often use Natural Born Citizenship, Citizenship at Birth, and Native Born Citizenship as synonymous terms.

  265. avatar
    Bob August 18, 2009 at 2:45 am #

    With respect to Rawle, as Dr. Conspiracy explained, given when he wrote (and the amount of times he has been cited), he would a superior source as to the Framers’ intent.

  266. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo August 18, 2009 at 3:18 am #

    You said:

    “As far as Minor v. Happersett, the entire opinion that you like to quote was determining wither [sic] or not Minor was a citizen at all, not whether or not she was a Natural Born Citizen. The Supreme Court, in that very paragraph, said that since Minor fit both definitions, it was unnecessary to determine which definition was correct.”

    I am sure you know that Minor was a native born citizen and not a naturalized citizen. But then you said that the Court found that she could be either a “citizen” or a “natural born Citizen.” You therefore concede that a “citizen” is not necessarily a “natural born Citizen.”

    On Wong Kim Ark, the Court only decided that Wong was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment. Wong was not running for President and there would not have been any need for the Court to rule he was a “natural born Citizen.” The latter status was totally unneccessary, for all Wong needed was to be a “citizen.”

    I guess that leaves us with “natural born Citizen” which as you concede is different from “citizen” as per Minor. By the way, the Minor court clearly defined what a “natural born Citizen” was, using Vattel’s definition, i.e. a child born in the country to citizen parents.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  267. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 18, 2009 at 5:19 am #

    Mario Apuzzo said:

    ‘ By the way, the Minor court clearly defined what a “natural born Citizen” was, using Vattel’s definition, i.e. a child born in the country to citizen parents.’

    Ehh No. The Minor court confirmed that a child born in the country to citizen parents is a natural born citizen not that a natural born citizen is a child born in the country to citizen parents.

  268. avatar
    Greg August 18, 2009 at 6:35 am #

    Why did the Founders not say in Article II:

    No Person except a citizen born to two citizen-parents, or a naturalized Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

    or:

    No Person except an Indigenes (“natural born citizen” as defined by Vattel), or a naturalized Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.

    “Natural born subject” was a term of art known to all who read it, sweeping in those who were born in the country and those who acquired their citizenship jus sanguinis to citizens overseas through the operation of law. It would have made sense to substitute citizen for subject in that term of art and have all the readers understand it. (As Tucker’s Blackstone Commentaries on the Constitution, 1803, makes clear.)

    If they’d said “born citizen,” a non-term of art, they would have had to explain it. (“Born citizen” shall mean the same as “natural born subject.”)

  269. avatar
    Greg August 18, 2009 at 6:44 am #

    To use LSAT tutoring language: “Born here to 2 citizen parents” is sufficient, but not necessary.

    The court said, basically, “If you study, you’ll get an A.”

    From that, you can say “If you didn’t get an A, then you didn’t study.”

    But, you cannot say:

    “If you got an A, then you studied!”

    Why? Because there are several other ways to get an A. Cheating, being naturally smart, repeating the class, sleeping with the teacher.

    On, NBC, the Court identified one of those methods – being born to aliens. And they specifically said they were not answering the question!

    Jane studied, so we don’t have to figure out if being naturally smart would have gotten her an A.

    It’s not binding, and it’s barely persuasive dicta.

  270. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2009 at 7:57 am #

    The fallacy of denying the antecedent is seen often in the faux legal analysis of court decisions on citizenship.

  271. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2009 at 8:09 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    I can hardly believe that would think the readers here to be so unsophisticated as not to immediately recognize the bald logical fallacy you are making in turning a sufficient condition for being president into a necessary one.

    Minor, in that section, was discussing who was born a citizen of the United States prior to the 14th amendment, saying that a sufficient qualification for being a citizen at birth was to be born in the country to two citizen parents (that would exclude foreign ambassadors, Indians, and invading armies) and that authorities (some) say that a sufficient condition was to be born in the United States without regards to parentage. Those who a BORN CITIZENS are our natural born citizens. Of course after the 14th amendment and Wong, that question has been resolved: all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States are born citizens (i.e. natural born citizens).

    Of course not all citizens a natural born citizens: some are naturalized. (Read the Constitution.)

    [Personally I’d be embarrassed to rely on a Supreme Court decision that said that Mrs. Minor was a citizen, but that because she was a women, it was OK to prevent her from registering to vote, further concluding that the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment somehow didn’t include the right to vote.]

  272. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2009 at 8:17 am #

    I cannot believe someone trained as a lawyer would make such a baldly erroneous statement as to say that Minor v. Happersett contradicts Rawle. If I thought you actually believed what you said, I would explain your error, but I don’t.

  273. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 18, 2009 at 9:04 am #

    Good example Greg – logic doesn’t seem to be Mario’s strong point.

  274. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    I think the point is persuasion, not logical argument. He’s playing to the holdout on the jury, not the judge.

  275. avatar
    Heavy August 18, 2009 at 10:46 am #

    And THAT is what the site has become all about. A bunch of liberals who fancy THEMSELVES as intellectuals. It’s an ego feeding frenzy. Only problem is, stupid is as stupid does.

  276. avatar
    nbc August 18, 2009 at 10:55 am #

    Seems that heavy exemplifies the concept of stupid is as stupid does. His hatred of those who hold different worldviews seems to overwhelm his ability of rational thought. We may appear to him as intellectuals but in the land of the blind one eye is king.

  277. avatar
    Heavy August 18, 2009 at 11:11 am #

    WOW! You got me on THAT one! Whoa! You ARE smart! Can I get your autograph?

  278. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 18, 2009 at 12:28 pm #

    Hate to tell you this, Mario, but Minor wasn’t running for President either. So, why would the Supreme Court provide the definition of Natural Born Citizen in Minor, and not in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark?

    Minor v. Happersett was about the following. Minor (a woman citizen) went down, and tried registering to vote. Happersett, who was registering people to vote, refused to register her because she was a woman. Minor sued him on that account.

    The paragraph was all about whether Minor was or was not a citizen. Not just a Natural Born Citizen, but a citizen. And Minor didn’t even decide who was one and who was not one. It summed it up with this line.

    “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Basically, they said, because Minor fits this discription, we do not need to decide whether the more broad definition is the one that is needed.

    And since you’re so fond of citing Minor. How about this line in the Minor decision.

    For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government.

    This seems that the court in Minor considered CITIZEN and SUBJECT to be terms of equal, the only difference between them is the form of government.

    So, again, I ask this questions. Why would a bunch of people who were immensly familiar with English Common Law, used the Language of English Common Law to frame the constitution, and knew that the people who were reading the constitution would be more failiar with English Common Law than with a Swiss Philosopher, use the definition of a Swiss Philosopher without specifically defining it that way? Wouldn’t they have known that the English Common Law definition would have been more common, since the vast majority of the People of the United States grew up under their definition of “Natural Born”?

  279. avatar
    jtx August 18, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    Dave”

    “Everyone they consulted …”?? Right – and who might those folk have been???

    There are plenty of Americans who hold an altogether different view and would think it likely that the Supreme Court would reach quite a different view, indeed. Let’s not get too carried away with the NYT lib view shall we???

  280. avatar
    jtx August 18, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Nullifidian:

    You seem to have quite missed the point that questions and uncertainties abound about Obama’s eligibility because the man has told everyone that he was a Brit at birth.

    That makes him anything BUT a natural born citizen and all that he is being asked to do (which he has, with lavish spending of our money, refused to do) is to prove definitively that he is eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    “Vetting” has nothing to do with it now. He’s in the office and now must prove he is eligible as required by the US Constitution. That’s not any sort of selective discrimination; it’s a Constitutional requiorement.

  281. avatar
    SFJeff August 18, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    But we WILL find out. And there WILL be hell to pay for those who have hidden the truth and those who support this criminal.

    I know you don’t like being burdened down by reason or facts Heavy, but maybe you could elaborate exactly what kind of hell will be paid by those of us who support the President? At a minimum that is currently 50% of the voters- so what can the 100 million of us expect when your pogrom begins?

    “That is NOT a threat! It is just a statement of fact.”

    Heavy- you haven’t stated a fact yet in all your posts. Vague threats of retribution yes, facts…not so much.

  282. avatar
    Greg August 18, 2009 at 6:10 pm #

    “Plenty of Americans” don’t define what the Founders thought when they wrote something and don’t confer standing on people without a concrete injury in fact.

  283. avatar
    SFJeff August 18, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    Oh JTX…..So you manage to find any authority yet that agrees with your novel new definition of what a Natural Born citizen is?

    “…all that he is being asked to do is to prove definitively that he is eligible to hold the office he now occupies.”

    “He’s in the office and now must prove he is eligible as required by the US Constitution.”

    I think you have this backwards- you prove you are eligible before the election, not after the election. If he failed to prove himself to be eligible prior to election then all the numerous parties that approved him including: Secretaries of State, The American Voters, The Electoral College, The Congress of the United States and of course ending with the swearing in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    He is in office- impeach him or vote him out.

  284. avatar
    jtx August 18, 2009 at 8:54 pm #

    Vince Treacy:

    You might find it interesting but in fact it is irrelevant. No one involved was required to be a natural born citizen nor were they running for President.

    Any port in a storm for you guys though, eh??

  285. avatar
    jtx August 18, 2009 at 9:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    An interesting question nonetheless but I suspect you’re rignt about voters rejecting someone who had done that.

    But, hey, Mr. O. has done something somewhat similar (that people are just now realizing) by being born a Brit … and he hasn’t been rejected (yet) but he’s working his way to that it looks like.

  286. avatar
    jtx August 18, 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    Greg:

    As Arthur Conan Doylke would have said “… the game’s [still] afoot …”.

    We shall see. The standard governmental excuses for “standing”, “jurisdiction”, etc. (which are all judicial fictions) are quite likely not applicable in this instance.

    After all this case is unique in the 233-year history of US jurisprudence.

  287. avatar
    Nullifidian August 18, 2009 at 9:14 pm #

    We shall see. The standard governmental excuses for “standing”, “jurisdiction”, etc. (which are all judicial fictions) are quite likely not applicable in this instance.

    Which instance is “this instance”? Have you found a birther case that actually demonstrates injury-in-fact and doesn’t implicate separation of powers concerns?

    If you have, please tell us the name of the suit. Such prodigies do not often appear in federal district court.

  288. avatar
    jtx August 18, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    Native born citizens are non-natural in the instance discussed and even differ from naturalized citizens which are something different yet from natural born citizens.

    I’m reminded by the converstation in Through the Looking Glass (Chapter-8) that went on between Alice and the White Knight … but that’s another story.

  289. avatar
    Nullifidian August 18, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    You seem to have quite missed the point….

    Blah blah British Nationality blah blah blah.

    jtx, I don’t think anyone who reads or posts here could have missed this ‘argument’. I do not feel obliged to respond to it in every post I make, including those directed at other people for this very simple reason: it’s bullshit. Total, flaming, grade-A bullshit.

    So next time, kindly do not assume that I have “missed” your argument when, in fact, I am disregarding it until such time as you demonstrate a legal competence that exceeds that of the dust bunnies I just cleaned off my lampshade.

    I’ll give you a chance right now:

    “Vetting” has nothing to do with it now. He’s in the office and now must prove he is eligible as required by the US Constitution.

    For those of us who never saved enough box tops to get the U.S. Constitution Secret Decoder Ring, can you tell us all which article and section of the Constitution obligates any holder of a federal office to prove him- or herself to a bunch of internet loudmouths and ideologues? And to do so after the election?

  290. avatar
    jtx August 18, 2009 at 9:31 pm #

    misha:

    There you go again with your Enabling Conspiracy crackpot far-left wing nutso-boffo comspiracy theories again. You guys can’t do anything but daydream, can you???

    Oh and BTW neither Orly Taitz (or her children) are running for President, but it’s easy to understand why she might very well have serious concerns about a man who has never shown himself legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

    And that is more than I can say for you – you apparently think it’s just Jim Dandy to have a Usurper-in-Chief. Why is that???

  291. avatar
    Nullifidian August 18, 2009 at 9:32 pm #

    I’m reminded by the converstation in Through the Looking Glass

    What a coincidence! The birthers also remind me of a character in Through the Looking Glass when they start defining “natural born citizen”. To be specific, they remind me of Humpty Dumpty.

    ‘And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

    ‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

    ‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.

    ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’

  292. avatar
    jtx August 18, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    Greg:

    Lots of speculation and “I think” (etc.)statements there, but what we do know is that basically the whole family was composed of serial scofflaws and that carries rignt on to the present it seems.

    Or perhaps your not aware of mamas perjury as well as that of her son???

  293. avatar
    misha August 18, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    Why are Orly Taitz and Joe Farah so close? An Israeli and an Arab, so good buddies. What is the nature of their relationship? Are they schtupping?

    Circumstantial evidence could show they are more involved than just friends. I think they owe an explanation of their relationship.

    You follow someone who has a questionable background. Why is that?

    And what about Farah and farm animals? Circumstantial evidence shows animals become skittish when Farah is around. Why?

  294. avatar
    Greg August 18, 2009 at 10:06 pm #

    You’re running out of cases, jtx. According to the Obamaconspiracy docket, you’ve only got 4 live cases.

  295. avatar
    misha August 18, 2009 at 10:09 pm #

    I have heard that when the Tarbut V’Torah school expelled her son for cheating, it was found that Orly Taitz helped her son cheat and had been doing so for some time.

    It is my hope Ms. Taitz can prove these rumors are not true.

  296. avatar
    Greg August 18, 2009 at 10:18 pm #

    First, when you put things in quotation marks, it suggests that someone said something. I didn’t say “I think” anywhere in my post.

    You apparently CAN use the internet. Why don’t you?

    What do YOU think were the Indonesian adoption laws when Obama lived there (ages 6-10)?

    And if you think my conclusions are incorrect, I’ve given citations that you could, you know, read and then you could, you know, argue them.

    As for “serial scofflaws,” you aren’t very familiar with the Bible, are you?

    “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.” Deut. 24:16.

    I don’t care what nonsense you think Obama’s mother perjured herself on (although you are most likely using this word, like all other legal terms you’ve tried to you, wrong), it doesn’t suggest that Obama lied about anything.

  297. avatar
    Gordon August 18, 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    Doc, I’m beginning to think you have the law degree and Apuzzo is the layman.

  298. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 18, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    And JTX, that has yet to be proven. Your theory is that “native born” citizens are not natural. However, the Supreme Court seems to be using the two terms interchangeably.

    The Supreme Court has never ruled that there are such things as non Natural Citizens.

  299. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2009 at 10:36 pm #

    I do not doubt that Apuzzo’s legal talent is wholly above and in an entirely different class from mine. His problem is that he has no facts and no law to work from. All I have to do is to a little reading and logical thinking.

  300. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    Oh my, we have a literary troll!

  301. avatar
    Nullifidian August 18, 2009 at 11:03 pm #

    Doc, I’m beginning to think you have the law degree and Apuzzo is the layman.

    But he is an excellent argument against drunk driving, at least in the state of New Jersey. I certainly wouldn’t risk driving down the New Jersey Turnpike with more than a .08% BAC if I knew that Mario Apuzzo might end up representing me.

  302. avatar
    jtx August 19, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    Welsh Dragon:

    You make a distinction with no difference it seems. Priceless!

  303. avatar
    jtx August 19, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    The NBC clause is far more than the “sufficient” apellation you hang on it.

    Read the pertinent part of the Constitution and you’ll find it uses the mandatory “shall” to require natural born citizen status which is far more than your “sufficient but not necessary” definition. A requirement is a requirement I’d say – and not merely a sufficiency.

  304. avatar
    SFJeff August 19, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

    This is slightly off tangent, but I know we have some good Constitutional folks here.

    As I recall, one of the big differences between a “Naturalized” citizen and a “Natural Born” Citizen was whether those citizenships could be stripped. Vaguely in my memory I remember that a Naturalized citizen can loose citizenship by law under certain circumstances, but that a “Natural Born” Citizen is almost impossible to strip citizenship of- I think it might take an a specific act of Congress.

    Any of this correct? And if so, there must have been court cases about some of these regarding loss of citizenship.

  305. avatar
    jtx August 19, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    Nullifidian:

    Your Humpty quote sounds more applicable to Obama than anyone else – he loves to misuse words and cram them down the throats of others with no rebuttal from the media syncophants (or the Enabling Conspiracy).

    The quote I had in mind was:

    “`You are sad,’ the Knight said in an anxious tone: `let me sing you a song to comfort you.’

    `Is it very long?’ Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.

    `It’s long,’ said the Knight, `but very, VERY beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it — either it brings the TEARS into their eyes, or else — ‘

    `Or else what?’ said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.

    `Or else it doesn’t, you know. The name of the song is called “HADDOCKS’ EYES.”‘

    `Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?’ Alice said, trying to feel interested.

    `No, you don’t understand,’ the Knight said, looking a little vexed. `That’s what the name is CALLED. The name really IS “THE AGED AGED MAN.”‘

    `Then I ought to have said “That’s what the SONG is called”?’ Alice corrected herself.

    `No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The SONG is called “WAYS AND MEANS”: but that’s only what it’s CALLED, you know!’

    `Well, what IS the song, then?’ said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

    `I was coming to that,’ the Knight said. `The song really IS “A-SITTING ON A GATE”: and the tune’s my own invention.’ :

  306. avatar
    jtx August 19, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Nonsense, Doc. You clearly control the content of this site by the very act(s) of posting selective information displaying the views you and the Flying Monkeys espouse.

    In addition, you collectively attempt to shout down and ridicule others who do not agree with your views. Proclaiming yourself and your blog as being somehow elevated to a superior status having integrity and honesty – thereby implying that all others not agreeing with you do not – is merely an implementation of the Alinsky rules that Obama himself uses extensively. It’s just BS.

  307. avatar
    jtx August 19, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    Sorry, no – that’s not what I’ve said at all.

    And Section II of the Constitution which is the defining document for the matter under discussion mentions “natural born citizen” only.

    As for SCOTUS rulings, there have never been any defining the NBC wording (yet). With that being the case, your comment is quite off base.

  308. avatar
    misha August 19, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    My sources tell me that Ms. Taitz was part of the original Teabagger movements of the late 80s and early 90s – although, the movent had noting to do with taxes. Can she prove that this is NOT true?

  309. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 19, 2009 at 3:38 pm #

    But, JTX, there have been rulings, granted not Supreme Court rulings, but rulings that have been quoted extensively by the Supreme Court, defining “Natural Born” in rulings defining citizenship. Try the ruling of Lynch v. Clarke (New York Supreme Court). Connecticut had one involving a case between two towns (can’t remember the name now).

    There have been extensive rulings in lower courts defining this. There has not been one in lower courts defining it the way that you say.

    So, basically, you’re saying, “Despite of State Supreme Courts defining this, their definition is wrong. The Supreme Court will overturn this, despite not doing it for the last 150+ years, and generally upholding the ruling in other ways.”

    Again, what your basic supposition is that there are non-Natural Citizens. This doesn’t fit with the entomology of the word “Naturalize” and it doesn’t fit with English Common Law (which the Constitution is written in the language of).

    It just doesn’t fit, jtx.

  310. avatar
    SFJeff August 19, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    “Nonsense, Doc. You clearly control the content of this site by the very act(s) of posting selective information displaying the views you and the Flying Monkeys espouse.”

    JTX- once again you have trouble with definitions of words- in this case ‘control’. If I put a flyer on a bulletin board in a laundry mat saying “JTX Sticks!”, and five people write on my flyer “he sure does” and one says “no he doesn’t”, I wouldn’t be controlling the bulletin board. However, if I tore down every flyer I disagreed with, leaving only those I did agree with, I would be controlling it. Doc lets everyone post- he just starts the topic. We get to read the same tired- and always unsubstantiated stuff from you every day because he lets you post.

    “In addition, you collectively attempt to shout down and ridicule others who do not agree with your views.”

    Thus is free speech. Notice the Town Hall meetings? Even the Right Wing Operatives and schills for the Insurance companies were allowed to shout out their objections, attempting to drown out civil discourse.

    “Proclaiming yourself and your blog as being somehow elevated to a superior status having integrity and honesty – thereby implying that all others not agreeing with you do not”

    I don’t believe I ever saw Doc say what you just said he said. But notice- he allows you to actually post what you want. We just happen to think its silly. Doc actually is pretty benevolent about it all.

    “– is merely an implementation of the Alinsky rules that Obama himself uses extensively. It’s just BS.”

    Prove it. Really- substantiate anything you just said.

    And while you are at it- JTX give me one authoritative source that agrees with you that a NBC needs to have had 2 citizens parents. I have asked 4 times now. You respond to everything else but always avoid proof.

  311. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 19, 2009 at 4:38 pm #

    JTX, again, are you an idiot?

    Basically, he was only saying that all Minor said was basically that because Minor fits both of these discriptions, it is not neccessary to determine which one it is. Mario took that statement, and said that the Supreme Court thought that it was the more strict standard. What the Supreme Court actually said was it was not neccessary for them to rule on which one it actually was, because Minor fit the more strict standard.

    That’s what the “sufficient but not necessary.” thing that Dr. Conspiracy was talking about.

    Maybe you should actually try an English Class before responding.

  312. avatar
    Greg August 19, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    JTX, you’re missing the point, again.

    NBC is a sufficient clause in Minor v. Happersett. They state, basically:

    If “Born here to 2 citizen parents” (BH2CP) THEN “NBC.”

    In that construction, NBC is the necessary condition. And BH2CP is the sufficient condition.

    It’s a non-reversible equation. You cannot simply say, based on Minor, as so many birthers have tried to do that:

    IF NBC THEN BH2CP.

    And, logically, you can’t simply negate it. You can’t say, based on the logic of Minor:

    If NOT BH2CP then NOT NBC.

    The only proper reversal of Minor’s logic, called the contrapositive, is:

    If NOT NBC, then NOT BH2CP.

    If you have someone who is definitely NOT a natural born citizen, then you know they were NOT born here to 2 citizen parents.

    Breaking the Constitution down into a sufficient-necessary relationship, we get:

    If President, then NBC.

    NBC is the necessary condition, but not all natural born citizens are president. President is the sufficient condition, but, since you don’t need to be President to be a natural born citizen, it is not a necessary condition.

  313. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 4:51 pm #

    I have claimed superiority of blogs that allow open discussion vs those that censor dissenting views.

    While I do start the topics, commenters often post unrelated things.

  314. avatar
    SFJeff August 19, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    “In addition, you collectively attempt to shout down and ridicule others who do not agree with your views.”

    I actually find most of the posters here relatively mild in how they post. It would be one thing if those who opposed President Obama came here calmly espousing their opposition. But most of you- including yourself JTX- call the President the ursurper, a liar, a perjurer and worse. You spew insults, refuse to provide any evidence for your novel theories and you wonder why you get ridiculed?

    If you were to go to the town square in my city and proclaim that the Earth is flat, and that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an idiot, you would get hooted and ridiculed too. Thats what you are doing here. Don’t act surprised.

    Here is a classic quote of yours:

    “what we do know is that basically the whole family was composed of serial scofflaws and that carries rignt on to the present it seems.”

    And you wonder why you get ridiculed….

  315. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 4:53 pm #

    New Hartford v. Canaan.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/town-v-town/

  316. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 5:02 pm #

    “Shout down” implies preventing someone else from being heard. Your posts are not being “interrupted”, and are obviously heard by anyone who wants to hear them.

    If you are interested in a forum where you can start your own topics, I recommend Politijab.com. Once you sign up, you can see the Obama eligibility area.

  317. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 5:07 pm #

    I would not agree here. A natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen are equal under law with the sole exception that only a natural born citizen is eligible to be president or vice president.

    For further information on loss of US citizenship, see:

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

  318. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 5:12 pm #

    Being a Natural Born Citizen is mandatory (Constitution).

    Being born in the country to two citizen parents is sufficient (comment in Minor v. Happersett).

  319. avatar
    Expelliarmus August 19, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    SFJeff is correct. There are circumstances in which a naturalized citizen can be deprived of citizenship which would not apply to a natural citizen. The situation that comes to mind for me is when there is a claim of fraud in the initial immigration or citizenship application — you see this happen in the prosecution and deportation of ex-Nazi’s. That is, from time to time a case will arise where some person is alleged to be an ex-SS officer or concentration camp guard, who hid their status…. as the case winds its way through the courts, the person is eventually stripped of citizenship and deported, assuming the government wins its case.

    It has been held by the US Supreme Court that a natural born citizen cannot be stripped of citizenship for conviction of a crime — that was the holding of the Trop v. Dulles case which held it unconstitutional to strip a native born citizen of his status for the crime of wartime desertion.

  320. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2009 at 9:12 pm #

    How about Birth Certificate Fraud? 🙄

  321. avatar
    jtx August 23, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Right, Doc, but Minor also says there are doubts about other definitions WRT the NBC issue. Obama – it may surprise you to discover – has never proved that he is a NBC … we’re waiting …

  322. avatar
    jtx August 23, 2009 at 5:29 pm #

    Expelliarmus:

    I wouldn’t jump the gun, there, since the Big O has not (yet) been found to be or not be a NBC … but you can be sure that will come about as the issue cannot remain unresolved forever.

    Perhaps he’ll be sent back to Kenya … is that what you think? Would that be before or after the appropriate jail time??

  323. avatar
    jtx August 23, 2009 at 5:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    You’re probably right that Obama is guilty of BC fraud … but he’s not the only one. Several of you Deathers and Enablers are right in that same neighborhood also.

    And that’s clearly not the only crime he’d be guilty of.

  324. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 23, 2009 at 5:31 pm #

    Minor didn’t resolve those doubts, jtx. It also said that there were doubts whether or not those people were even citizens. It then said that since Minor fits both definitions, it is not neccessary to resolve this question.

    Guess what, the question was resolved in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

  325. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 23, 2009 at 5:36 pm #

    JTX, you’re funny. I’m surprised you’re not trying to convince everybody that Obama was involved in the Iranian Hostage Crisis, or that Obama was involved in the suicide of Vince Foster.

    It’s just funny to hear you say things that you know aren’t true. The State of Hawaii has confirmed that he was born there. And yet, you still insist that he wasn’t, and the State of Hawaii must be either lying, or criminally incompentant.

  326. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 23, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    JTX, Obama has been found to be a Natural Born Citizen by the United States Congress, and the Electoral College. Those are the two bodies charged with determining the eligibility of Presidential Elects. Both of them have said that he’s eligible.

    Even your favorite person Bill Posey isn’t willing to say that Barack Obama is ineligible. Neither are any of the co-sponsors of his bill.

  327. avatar
    jtx August 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

    SFJeff:

    The very act of you posting love notes in the laundry bulletin board is an act of initiation and control as is selecting which laundry rooms to use.

    You also seem to have missed the fact that I have actually praised Docs action is not censoring posts – but then such lack of attention with you seems normal.

    It’s pointless to give you any “authoritative source” os anything as we both know since as a Deather you would never accept any such source – let alone what it might prove.

    I’m much more interested in seeing the issue adjudicated on its merits in a proper court of law than in this kangaroo court with the Flying Monkeys as jurists. And I’ve said before I think that when SCOTUS finally hears the case it will be a matter of first impression where they will be asked to define NBC – and I believe the Vattel definition (2 US citizen parents, born on US soil) will prevail.

    That will mean “bye, bye. Birdie”.

  328. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 23, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    Your belief that the Vattel Definition will prevail is amazing, considering that none of the Supreme Court Justices have even come out in favor of the Vattel Definition for over 100 years.

    If this ever does get to the Supreme Court (which I highly doubt), I expect a 9-0 decision confirming Blackstone. I’d expect that they’ll use early American Law sources, such as Kent to form the basis of the definition, and quote cases such as Lynch v. Clarke, and U.S. v. Kim Wong Ark. Those sources directly contradict your theory of Vattel, jtx.

    There isn’t one single Supreme Court case that has actually upheld your definition of Natural-Born Citizen. The only opinion that I’ve been able to find that upholds it is a concurring opinion (no force of law) written by Justice Daniel in Scott v. Sanford. Do you really want to hang your hat on the decision that denied citizenship rights to hundreds of thousands of Blacks?

    I’ll tell you what. I’ll give you a million dollars if Vattel prevails in the Supreme Court by 2017, if you’ll give me a million dollars if Barack Obama leaves office (in either 2013 or 2017) without it?

    Put your money where your mouth is, jtx.

  329. avatar
    creeksneakers2 August 23, 2009 at 6:28 pm #

    A deather is not the opposite of a birther. A deather is a person who believes Obama’s health care initiative includes the formation of “death panels.”

  330. avatar
    Gordon August 23, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    jtx, you live in the most amazing dream world. I’m amazed you’re able to function at all. You can bet the house and car that nothing is ever going to come of this nonsense. However the one thing that has come of it, especially since the MSM has gotten hold of the story, is just how idiotic and gullible the Birthers are. It’s embarrassing as a fellow American.

  331. avatar
    Gordon August 23, 2009 at 7:51 pm #

    jtx humor me, when has the SCOTUS ever cited Vattel? In any case involving anyone’s citizenship, NBC, or otherwise? I told you that you have a propensity to do that.

  332. avatar
    Gordon August 23, 2009 at 7:57 pm #

    Heavy is having a MELTDOWN. None of his around the bend lawsuits had the desired effect.

  333. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 23, 2009 at 8:12 pm #

    Oh yes, de Vattel has been cited by the Supreme Court on a question of citizenship.

    Scott v. Sanford: J. Daniel Separate Opinion.

    Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says:

    Nations or States are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their mutual strength. Such a society has her affairs and her interests, she deliberates and takes resolutions in common, thus becoming a moral person who possesses an understanding and a will peculiar to herself.

    Again, in the first chapter of the first book of the Treatise just quoted, the same writer, after repeating his definition of a State, proceeds to remark that,

    from the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a public authority to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the sovereignty.

    Again, this writer remarks: “The authority of all over each member essentially belongs to the body politic, or the State.”

    By this same writer it is also said:

    The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.

    Again:

    I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.

    Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.

    From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable, it must follow that, with the slave, with one devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political, there could be no pact that one thus situated could be no party to or actor in, the association of those possessing free will, power, discretion. He could form no part of the design, no constituent ingredient or portion of a society based upon common, that is, upon equal interests and powers. He could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave.

    But it has been insisted in argument that the emancipation of a slave, effected either by the direct act and assent of the master or by causes operating in contravention of his will, produces a change in the status or capacities of the slave such as will transform him from a mere subject of property into a being possessing a social, civil, and political equality with a citizen. In other words, will make him a citizen of the State within which he was, previously to his emancipation, a slave.

    It is difficult to conceive by what magic the mere surcease or renunciation of an interest in a subject of property, by an individual possessing that interest, can alter the essential character of that property with respect to persons or communities unconnected with such renunciation. Can it be pretended that an individual in any State, by his single act, though voluntarily or designedly performed, yet without the co-operation or warrant of the Government, perhaps in opposition to its policy or its guaranties, can create a citizen of that State? Much more emphatically may it be asked how such a result could be accomplished by means wholly extraneous and entirely foreign to the Government of the State? The argument thus urged must lead to these extraordinary conclusions. It is regarded at once as wholly untenable, and as unsustained by the direct authority or by the analogies of history.


    Dissenting opinion: Justice Mclean

    In 1816, the common law, by statute, was made a part of the law of Missouri, and that includes the great principles of international law. These principles cannot be abrogated by judicial decisions. It will require the same exercise of power to abolish the common law as to introduce it. International law is founded in the opinions generally received and acted on by civilized nations, and enforced by moral sanctions. It becomes a more authoritative system when it results from special compacts, founded on modified rules, adapted to the exigencies of human society; it is, in fact, an international morality, adapted to the best interests of nations. And in regard to the States of this Union, on the subject of slavery, it is eminently fitted for a rule of action subject to the Federal Constitution. “The laws of nations are but the natural rights of man applied to nations.” Vattel.

    [Emphasis added]

  334. avatar
    creeksneakers2 August 23, 2009 at 8:19 pm #

    Obama and the Democrats don’t use Alinsky for strategy or tactics. They use overpaid consultants. Also, Obama has the last word because his style shows through.

    There is no evidence at all that Obama uses Alinsky to call his plays. The belief in Alinsky as the architect of sinister plots is as much a crazy conspiracy theory as is birtherism.

  335. avatar
    Mary Brown August 23, 2009 at 8:40 pm #

    You keep coming up with these sayings that are meaningless, jtx. As more evidence is found it verifies Obama’s birth was in Hawaii. As far as the two parent claim is concerned, I find no evidence to support it. I have a question for you. Do you suppose that Senator Inhofe would have allowed the election to be certified if he thought for one second your theory is correct? I could name several other like minded Senator’s as well. As far as Obama’s brand of politics goes it is still legal to be liberal and President. And jtx, it always will be.

  336. avatar
    Greg August 23, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    There was a relatively recent case (1998) about whether an illegitimate child born of an American soldier and a Filipino woman should be considered an American citizen. It was styled as an equal protection case because according to the law at the time, if the parent with citizenship was a woman, American citizenship would have been automatic.

    The dissent cited Vattel, saying that citizenship should follow the father. But, like I said, it was an equal rights case, so the dissent was saying that the children of men should be treated the same as children of women.

    But, what’s interesting here, is that the majority had no problem with the exact opposite of Vattel, that citizenship could be transferred by one parent and that being only the mother and not the father. They said that there was a compelling interest in allowing citizenship to descend that way – since society could be more sure of the relationship between mothers and their children.

  337. avatar
    Greg August 23, 2009 at 9:41 pm #

    The case was Miller v. Albright

  338. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 23, 2009 at 10:01 pm #

    The only problem with Daniel’s opinion is two-fold.

    1. Not being the opinion of the court, it doesn’t set precedent. It holds just a little more weight than an opposing opinion.

    2. Scott v. Sanford was overturned in it’s entirity with both the 14th Amendment, and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

  339. avatar
    Greg August 23, 2009 at 10:57 pm #

    The third problem with Daniel’s opinion is that no one, not even Scalia or Thomas would touch Dred Scott with a 10-foot pole.

    They both explicitly endorsed Wong Kim Ark in Miller v. Albright.

    Which brings us to problem 4 for Vattel – counting noses. Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy all endorsed WKA in Albright. Ginsburg and Breyer endorsed Vattel, but only as added to WKA, not instead of WKA. (They also cited Blackstone.)

    The only people who we don’t know where they stand on citizenship are Sotomayor, Roberts and Alito.

    Basically, you’d need 3 judges (Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy) to switch their view of Wong Kim Ark and need to win Roberts and Alito. And we know that Thomas and Scalia love English Common Law – Thomas has cited a treatise that was, at the time, unpublished, that tracked the 4th Amendment back to, I think, 600 AD. And let’s not even talk about how all five of the votes birthers’ would need to win give at least lip service to stare decisis and how hundreds of cases flow from Wong Kim Ark. Let’s also not talk about how the Supreme Court is still feeling the delegitimizing effects of Bush v. Gore.

    There’s not a snowball’s chance in Arizona that this is getting to the Supreme Court, but if it did, it would be a 9-0 decision.

  340. avatar
    Greg August 24, 2009 at 9:03 am #

    Sotomayor cited Wong Kim Ark in dissent in a 2nd Circuit case, Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda, 229 F3d 187 (2000). It was an odd case in which the 2nd Circuit, alone among the Circuits, apparently, found that because England considered Burmudans to be “inhabitants,” not subjects or citizens that they did not have alienage jurisdiction. She wrote that allowing British law to trump our definitions of citizen and subject “would be to ‘allow foreign law to deny privileges afforded under the Constitution . . . [and perhaps] unintentionally promote discrimination against certain classes of people or entities.'”

    Her view was adopted by the Supreme Court in JP Morgan Chase v. Traffic Stream, 536 US 88 (2002).

  341. avatar
    SixToeMoe August 24, 2009 at 10:24 am #


    [A]ll infants, whenever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

    Tommy Jefferson, 1777

    Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

    The Federalist Blog: Defining Natural Born Citizen

    updated 07/28/09

  342. avatar
    Greg August 24, 2009 at 10:52 am #

    While the Founders did reject perpetual allegiance, there is evidence that they based their rejection on Locke, not Vattel. And there is no evidence that their objection to perpetual allegiance extended to the natural born part of the definition.

    And the quote above from Virginia is incomplete. Here’s the first half:

    That all white persons born within the territory of the Commonwealth, and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act ; and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same, other than alien enemies, and shall, before any Court of Record, give satisfactory proof, by their oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein ; and moreover, shall give assurance of fidelity to the Commonwealth…

    Regarding our war with England in 1812, Lynch v. Clarke points out that when the Chesapeake was taken in 1807, we objected strenuously that the British had taken 3 American sailors. As proof of their citizenship, we told the British they were born in the United States. No inquiry was made into their parents’ citizenship.

  343. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 24, 2009 at 11:21 am #

    Fascinating quote – it’s from ‘ A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of this Commonwealth (1779 not 1777)
    Section 1’

    Trouble is Moe the quote is dealing with special cases – the main case is dealt with earlier in the section ‘…all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth…’

    Now unless you want to argue that only Obama is not a NBC because he’s black then Jefferson’s agin’ you on this one.

  344. avatar
    SixToeMoe August 24, 2009 at 11:54 am #

    Non-white persons was a reference to natives in the area. When the Founding Fathers founded the country it was crawling with people that had previously set up elaborate communities, trade routes, governance, rules, laws and practices to foster growth and opportunity for those willing to put in the effort.

    Ol’ Tom wasn’t worried about blacks becoming citizens of the Commonwealth, he was scared to death Indians would become citizens and legally assert their property and land rights negotiated and settled in good faith with the conquerers.

  345. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 24, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

    I hope you’re right about Ol’ Tom not worrying about blacks becoming citizens, but that just strengthens my position that the section when properly quoted supports the ‘Obama is an NBC’ postion rather than contradicts it. Although I wouldn’t suggest for a moment it was conclusive.

  346. avatar
    SixToeMoe August 24, 2009 at 12:42 pm #

    Yes, all that is needed for NBC status is for a grandmother to register a birth at the local registrar and for the registrar to “file” the paperwork. It is not necessary for the sworn, governing official to “accept” the registration.

  347. avatar
    kimba August 24, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    Moe works his way around to bringing up the good old recycled birther meme: “Obama was born in Kenya, but his grandmother just mozied down to the Hawaiian registrars office, told them he was born at home, swore she witnessed his birth in Honolulu on Aug 4, and got him a Hawaiian birth certificate lickity split while Ann and little baby Barack were still in Mombasa. And those stupid Hawaiians never caught on to her lie. That’s why we need to see the “long form” BC, because it will show that a doctor didn’t sign as witness to his birth, and his grandma lied 48 years ago to set in motion the greatest conspiracy of modern times: to place an african, socialist, muslim, nazi in the white House and ruin America, ruin it.”

    What a load of crap.

  348. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 24, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    I’ve really picked up some negative energy lately and I felt it was necessary to do some research on a theory that keeps popping into my head.

    Apparently, Indonesian refugees don’t seek asylum with the US Embassy. It’s sought through the UN with the help of NGOs.


    Protection and assistance to Individual Refugees and Asylum Seekers; Promotion of Refugee Law; Emergency Management and Contingency Planning

    Objective: UNHCR provides each individual asylum seeker with an interview accompanied by a qualified interpreter. It offers a reasoned decision on whether refugee status is granted or not, and gives the individual an opportunity to appeal a decision if the claim is rejected. In addition, through NGO partners, UNHCR’s activities include a variety of assistance. UNHCR processes claims for refugee status in Indonesia since the country is not yet a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1967 Protocol, nor does it yet have a national refugee status determination system. Accordingly, in the meantime, UNHCR actively promotes the adoption of refugee legislation with key Indonesian law makers and conducts workshops on refugee law for immigration officials, lawyers, non-governmental organisations and university students in co-operation with relevant institutions.*The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol are presently listed in the Parliament of Indonesia’s agenda for adoption in its 2004 – 2009 plan. UNHCR initiated a series of capacity building activities and has increasingly focused on inter-country collaboration to help Indonesia and other countries in the ASEAN region institutionalize emergency preparedness. These efforts have helped the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM), a recently established Committee which evolved from the ASEAN Expert Group on Disaster Management of three decades’ standing, to strengthen the preparedness and emergency response capacities of ASEAN Member Countries. UNHCR is also a participating member of the United Nations Technical Group for Disaster Risk Reduction in Indonesia and contributes to the working groups aims of assisting Indonesia in its disaster management plans.

    The question is, “Did BO properly reassert his claim to US citizenship before he turned 18.5 years-old? If so, does that make him an NBC or a naturalized citizen?”

  349. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2009 at 2:25 pm #

    Your are mistaken (insofar as I understand correctly what you are saying).

    A birth is not “registered” (and you cannot get a certified copy of that registration) unless it meets the regulatory requirements of the jurisdiction. One cannot simply waltz in and “file anything” and be assured that it will be registered. You are making the absurd suggestion that no documentation whatever is required to become a US citizen through the state of Hawaii.

    § 57-40. Issuance; procedure. The secretary of the Territory may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Territory, cause to be issued to such a person a certificate showing such fact; provided that such person has attained the age of one year. The secretary, with the approval of the governor, may make such regulations respecting the form of application and certificates, the method of proof, kind of evidence, and time, place and manner of hearing, as to him may appear necessary, and such regulations, when so approved and made in accordance with sections 7-28 to 7/41, shall have the force of law. The secretary shall furnish the form of such applications and certificates. All applications shall be by sworn petition, in which the party shall set forth the facts upon which the application rests.

    The secretary of the Territory, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate and appoint from his office, may examine, under oath, any applicant or person cognizant of the facts regarding any application, and for that purpose he may administer oaths, subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers, punish for contempts, and generally, exercise the same authority with regard to his special jurisdiction as is, by law, conferred on district magistrates. [L. 1911, c. 96, s. 1; am. L. 1923, c. 246, s. 1; R.L. 1925, s. 196; am L. 1927, c. 202, s. 1; R. L. 1935, s. 7610; R. L. 1945, S. 12910; am. L. 1951, c. 132, s. 1.]

  350. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2009 at 2:36 pm #

    Sven: The question is, “Did BO properly reassert his claim to US citizenship before he turned 18.5 years-old?

    No, the question is whether or not Barack Obama ever lost his US citizenship. And the answer to that is no.

    Obama was not a “refugee”, so I don’t see the relevance.

  351. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2009 at 2:36 pm #

    If true, the congressman is an idiot.

  352. avatar
    Greg August 24, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    Before we get to your question, I think you need to back up and give the support for the premise to your question.

    What evidence do you have that Obama sought refugee status?

  353. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 24, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    Barack Obama never lost his Citizenship, Sven.

    If you’re talking about reasserting his citizenship to basically not lose it because of dual citizenship, then yes, he did. Living in the United States for 7 years before that, is enough to reassert his citizenship.

    Since he never lost his citizenship, the answer to your other question is Natural Born Citizen, since he never lost his U.S. Citizenship in the first place. See Perkins v. Elg.

    Dr. Conspiracy is right. Your supposition is based upon an idiotic theory which has no basis in fact. Obama was never an “Indonesian Refugee”.

  354. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 24, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    Barry Soetoro was registered in school as an Indonesian citizen born in Honolulu, HI.

    In the Obama birth registration instance, we have a situation where people assume everything “filed” was thoroughly investigated and would not have happened if it weren’t true.

    In Soetoro school registration instance, we have a situation where people assume the information “filed” was not worth the time or effort to investigate. So, Soetoro said his kid was Indonesian and the Suharto regime was cool with it.

  355. avatar
    Greg August 24, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    Soetoro could have said his kid was Martian, and it wouldn’t have mattered to the US State Department.

    Unless Barack Obama himself went to the US Embassy and convinced someone there that this six year-old was competent to renounce his US citizenship, that he understood the implications of his actions and was taking them with a full understanding of them, then he retained his US citizenship!

    You cannot lose your US citizenship because your parent writes “Indonesian” on a school registration form. You cannot lose your US citizenship because an Indonesian adopts you. (By the way, Indonesia did not allow citizenship to be conferred by adoption to any foreign born child over the age of 5. Obama was 6.)

  356. avatar
    kimba August 24, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    This one has come up over and over about how well Hawaii manages regulation of things. There is always the implication that what Hawaii does is sub-par to what other states do, or the Hawaiian officials are ignorant, gullible, lacksadaisic about rules. I think this is yet another bit of prejudice against non-white people: “Hawaiians are a bunch of un-educated natives/savages that don’t know what they’re doing.”

  357. avatar
    kimba August 24, 2009 at 3:54 pm #

    Sven, next time those voices pop into your head with a theory, you should take your meds or call your local mental health authority. It is bizarre and unhealthy for you to fantasize about little Barack wandering the streets of Jakarta scrounging his next meal.

  358. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 24, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Again, take a look at Perkins v. Elg, SvenMagnussen. There is absolutely no way a 6-year-old can lose his American Citizenship. No Embassy official would even accept a bribe to determine whether or not a six-year-old is legally compentant to understand that he’d be giving up his Citizenship.

    There is no evidence that Barack Obama ever had Indonesian Citizenship. Even if he did, that would have absolutely no effect on his U.S. Citizenship.

  359. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 25, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    There seems to be some misinformation floating around (in Berg’s lawsuit) about a citizenship requirement to attend school in Indonesia, and the requirement for a national identity card. The first turns out to be false, and the second only applies to older persons.

    There is no reason to think that the school registration was vetted by anyone except a school official who in that culture and at that time was likely to have been willing to accept a small bribe to bypass any regulations that might have existed. The real difficulties in Obama having become an Indonesian citizen being insurmountable, one must conclude that the school registration must be interpreted as false as to the “nationality” item.