Main Menu

Donofrio v FactCheck.org (Updated again)

Leo. C. Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

[When I learned of Donofrio's article discussed here, I contacted FactCheck.org, and received a reply Sept. 3rd from director Brooks Jackson that FactCheck would be issuing a correction on one point discussed below in an article titled: Obama and Kenya Again. FactCheck suggests that they are tired of the whole Obama conspiracy mess, and have referred folks to another web site for more information.]

Leo C. Donofrio has challenged FactCheck.org and comes out swinging.

Anyone who has been following Obama conspiracy theories and the attendant novel legal theories on citizenship will be familiar with the article by FactCheck.org, Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship? from August 6, 2008. This article contains the famous quotation:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children

immortalized by its inclusion by the Obama Campaign in its Fight The Smears web site.

Donofrio, who has made denying Obama’s eligibility to be president his own personal crusade through a failed lawsuit (Donofrio v. Wells) taken all the way to the Supreme Court, and his Natural Born Citizen web site, has now taken issue with FactCheck.org  with a brand new article: CONFIRMED: Factcheck.org Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship. We covered much of the same ground on this blog in my article: Is President Obama a British Citizen? But let no one deride this blog for refusing to cover the same ground over and over.

Donofrio opens his attack by planting a vague, undefined doubt:

The relationship between President Obama and Factcheck.org has been on my mind recently….

But propaganda tactics aside [Obama has no relationship to FactCheck], what is the meat of Donofrio’s complaint?

First FactCheck.org states that Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship upon reaching the age of 21. Donofrio contends that the Constitution of Kenya gives its citizens a two-year window between ages 21 and 23 to make the declaration and renunciation required to prevent automatic loss of Kenyan citizenship. My reading of the Kenyan Constitution suggests that Donofrio is right [and this has been conceded by FactCheck], and that Obama actually lost his Kenyan citizenship on August 4, 1984 (rather than in 1982 as originally stated by FactCheck.org).

What difference does that make?

It makes quite a bit of difference if you buy the rest of Donofrio’s theory. That theory rests on the fact that the British Nationality Act of 1981 went into effect in January of 1983, while Barack Obama still held dual US – Kenyan citizenship. One might well ask what the British Nationality Act of 1981 has to do with the price of beans in Poughkeepsie,  given that Barack Obama lost his citizenship in the UK and colonies (CUKC) way back in 1963 when Kenya became independent. I particularly asked that question since we had had that discussion on this blog with Mario Apuzzo as counsel for the plaintiff.

Donofrio says:

Had Obama’s citizenship expired on August 4, 1982 -  as was incorrectly stated by Factcheck.org – then the British Nationality Act of 1981 (which didn’t go into effect until January 1, 1983) would not have governed Obama’s status.

If you were a British Subject before the BNA 1981, you are now (with very limited exceptions) a Commonwealth Citizen.

So, as you can see from all of the above, the date which Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship creates a whole set of complex international law issues which have yet to be resolved.

Donofrio derides FactCheck.org, claiming a lack of objectivity, and goes on to say:

Obama remained a British subject from his birth and after the Kenya Independence Act went into effect in 1963, all the way up until that status changed to Commonwealth Citizen in the BNA 1981.

That statement is pretty muddled. Let’s sort it out. Barack Obama was a Citizen of the UK and Colonies at his birth (not a “British Subject” which has a technically different meaning). What was his status after the Kenyan Independence Act?

First the Constitution of Kenya Chapter 6, Section 87:

  1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963:Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.
  2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

The corresponding legislation in the UK is the Kenya Independence Act of 1963 (KIA):

(2) Save as provided by section 3 [section dealing with certain women] of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day [the date of Kenyan independence] is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.

This is the crucial text from the KIA that Donofrio inexcusably omits (could it be from a lack of objectivity?), although he does cite other parts of the Act.

Next we look at another section from the Constitution of Kenya

95. (1) Every person who, under this Constitution or an Act of Parliament, is a citizen of Kenya… shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a Commonwealth citizen.”

And that’s pretty clear. Starting with Kenyan Independence, citizens of Kenya (the Obama’s included) gained the status of  “Commonwealth citizen”. Commonwealth citizen is indeed equivalent to British subject, but British Subject is not what you might expect: for example, it doesn’t include the right to vote or to hold office. Further, it makes it clear that this status is “by virtue of” citizenship in Kenya. That is, it is dependent on citizenship in Kenya.

And here folks, is where it gets deep. Since this is the crux of the argument, I’ll repeat exactly what Donofrio says:

The proof that Obama remained a British subject after 1963 exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):

2.-(1) On and after the appointed day, the British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-

(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words ” and Kenya ” ;

Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:

1.–”(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.

(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression “British subject” and the expression “Commonwealth citizen” shall have the same meaning.

(3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

According to the KIA, the words “and Kenya” are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon “the appointed day”, December 12, 1963.

Because KIA 1963 removed citizenship of the UK and Colonies to the new Kenyan citizens, 1.–”(1) above does not apply, and Barack Obama did not become a “British Subject” under this clause. However, adding Kenya to the list in (3) did granted him “Commonwealth citizenship“. (One may argue the equivalence of the two, but I prefer to us the correct and historically accurate term.)

If we accept that Obama did have Commonwealth Citizenship, that citizenship would be contingent on retaining Kenyan citizenship, and that ended on August 4, 1983. That was 26 years ago.

Donofrio perhaps will claim that the British Nationality Act of 1981 repealed the section of the KIA which stripped Obama of CUKC (which it does) and he might argue then that Obama regained CUKC–and this might be true except for the fact that the BNA 1981 also repealed all of Section 1 of the BNA 1948 (the section Donofrio cites) which created citizenship in the UK and Colonies in the first place. This is the same error that Mario Apuzzo made when he asserted continuing British citizenship to Obama. (See Schedule 9 of the BNA of 1981.) So rather than re-creating British citizenship, the BNA 1981 actually abolished the basis for it.

Donofrio is demanding Obama renounce a citizenship he doesn’t have.

I believe that is all I have to say except that it looks like FactCheck.org had the right conclusions (Barack Obama is not currently a British subject or a Kenyan citizen), although they may have arrived there by the wrong path. On September 3, FactCheck.org published a correction of the 1984, 1982 date error.

Mr. Donofrio promises a new and longer article examining:

My research has discovered multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that President Obama is now a full citizen of Kenya as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia. Unfortunately, information available in the public domain cannot answer these questions.

More uncertainty and doubt. Well, we’ll just have to wait to see what he says.

[I apologize for the frequent updates and rewrite of this article as I attempt to make everything exactly correct with the correct terms and citations. I thank the commenters here for their suggestions, research and criticism.]

Print Friendly

, , ,

622 Responses to Donofrio v FactCheck.org (Updated again)

  1. avatar
    Mary Brown September 2, 2009 at 12:40 am #

    It seems to me, reading between the lines with the birthers, that many of them are now ready to accept the fact that the President was born in Hawaii. My question is why would it make any difference if the President were born here? I had a student in preschool last year whose mother was Briish. The child was born here and as I understand it the child is a natural born citizen even though the parent retains British citizenship. What difference does it make in either case if the individual was raised here? Are we a colony of Great Britain or Kenya?

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 12:58 am #

    The birthers are trying to rewrite history and the Constitution so that the child is either not a US citizen, or not a natural born US citizen.

  3. avatar
    myson September 2, 2009 at 1:08 am #

    If only Don will stop pulling theories out of his butt & actually speak to Africans which were affected by colonial rule & subsequent independence. My father was born a British subject in ’38, he was in England as at Nigerian’s independence but as completely & totally lost any claim to such status once he arrived back to Nigeria without formalizing his UK status.
    Don is just blowing smoke because the real aim is present Obama as a person who has many doubts as to his citizenship status.
    Isnt it interesting that with all his analysis he hasnt once taken up Obama status as a US citizen & its effects ? Or his Mother’s citizenship as it affects him ? No !!! What he wants his to find a way to say Obama isnt one of us (one u Americans) !!!!
    It obviously hasnt worked

  4. avatar
    misha September 2, 2009 at 3:38 am #

    People here have to realize Orly is used to a parliament type government. She thinks if she makes enough noise, there will be a ‘no confidence’ vote, and new elections will be called. Remember, she is always calling for another election.

    She really ought to go back to Israel or Russia. I think she would be much happier there. When I got back from Israel, I saw a pay telephone in the airport, and the first thing I thought was “It’s going to work.”

    No joke: before mobile telephones, it took about six months to one year, to get a new telephone line installed. The telephone system was run by the post office, so you can imagine what that was like. There was a pay telephone in a hotel I passed everyday, and it was not fixed for six weeks.

    And the Brits who were sent by their employer, let you know they didn’t want to be there. The hotel I stayed at was just like Fawlty Towers: grudgingly genteel bad service. I went up to one fellow at the hotel desk, started to ask a question, and he said in a clipped accent “Sorry, I’m off duty,” and walked away.

    Or the hotel employees who said, John Cleese style, “Sorry, I don’t speak Hebrew.” The second time I came back with, “Francais, c’est possible?” I wish I had a video camera.

  5. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 2, 2009 at 6:13 am #

    Leo D is talking C@#p as usual but I think the refutation is simpler than you suggest.

    The status of British Subject or Commonwealth Citizen is a consquence of CUKC or being a citizen of of the subsection 1(3) countries not seperate from it. Lose the the underlaying citizenship and you lose the overarching status.

    Worst case scenario(there are others) is that Obama was a Kenyan and Commonwealth Citizen until aged 23 when he lost his Kenyan Citizenship and hence his Commonwealth Citizenship.

  6. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 2, 2009 at 6:39 am #

    “… shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.”

    Great Britain is a member of the UN. UN treaties and International Law dictate UN members shall not pass laws or rules that will leave a citizen or subject stateless. Read further into British law and International treaties with Great Britain. You’ll see that if a former British Subject of a colony loses their new citizenship without due process, then they automatically revert back to a British subject.

    Without going into details, Leo is stating that without an affirmative process by BO II to renounce his British Nationality or his Kenyan citizenship, BO II’s citizenship defaulted back to Great Britain after his Kenyan citizenship lapsed, reduced or was eliminated.

    If you’ll read Leo’s article, you’ll see Leo is calling for BO II to affirmatively renounce his Indonesian, British and Kenyan citizenships to assure the American citizenship of his loyalty. Instead of doing nothing and making up stories about how certain countries passed laws that eliminated his citizenship without his consent, BO II should take the plunge and state affirmatively, “I am a citizen of the United States of America and no other.”

    Instead, we get, “I am a citizen of the world.”

  7. avatar
    Greg September 2, 2009 at 6:47 am #

    “… shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.

    Great Britain is a member of the UN. UN treaties and International Law dictate UN members shall not pass laws or rules that will leave a citizen or subject stateless.

    The Kenyan Independence Act and the Kenyan Constitution wouldn’t have left anyone stateless, Sven. They made them citizens of Kenya.

    Also, the KIA and Kenyan Constitution constitute due process.

    Quit playing at this law stuff, you’re making yourself look silly!

  8. avatar
    kimba September 2, 2009 at 7:44 am #

    ” Does Leo have point, or is he trying to stick it to the reader. ”

    Isn’t that what birtherism is all about? Cherry-picking the law for what fits your argument? These are the folks that pick stuff out of a dissenting opinion and say it’s part of the decision. Utterly disingenuous. I read Donofrio is teaming up with Pidgeon to file a lawsuit on behalf of some car dealer who lost his dealership because of auto industry consolidation. It’s the new holy grail case, led by St Leo of the birthers. I think Leo Dono steps back into the birther realm now and then to get his ego stroked by these fools, then when he gets called out, he takes his ball and goes home, claiming he doesn’t have time for this sh!t.

  9. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 2, 2009 at 8:03 am #

    Quote from Leo:

    “The British government is doing away with the term, “British Subject”. From January 1, 1983 and onwards, persons who were previously British subjects and citizens of the UK (or of any Commonwealth nation) are now “Commonwealth Citizens” of the Commonwealth of Nations. “Commonwealth Citizen” has replaced “British Subject”.”

    Eh No, ‘Commonwealth Citizen’ was introduced
    by the 1948 Act as a synonym for “British Subject”

  10. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 2, 2009 at 8:12 am #

    Further under the 1981 Act:

    s 37 Commonwealth citizenship.

    “(1) Every person who–…”’

    (b) under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in Schedule 3 is a citizen of that country,

    shall have the status of a Commonwealth citizen.”

    and Kenya is in schedule 3 but again the Commonwealth citizenship is a consequence of and not independent of Kenyan Citizenship.

  11. avatar
    DCA September 2, 2009 at 8:14 am #

    Why don’t these birther legal wizards contact a UK lawyer with specific knowledge of UK nationality law and get a real legal opinion. They don’t seem to get that they are plaintiffs and have the burden of proof. Its no wonder they get their asses handed to them in court – where facts and proof are required. Why is it that nobody in the UK seems to notice any of this?

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 8:21 am #

    I must admit that to me UK citizenship is a little complicated, in that I have seen “Commonwealth Citizen”, “Citizen of the UK and Colonies” and “British Subject”. Donofrio asserts that “Citizen of the UK and Colonies” and “British Subject” were equivalent prior to 1981. But I would like to get to the true scenario, not the worst case one.

  13. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 2, 2009 at 8:30 am #

    Doc

    I’ll post chapter and verse on that later – have to dash to an appointment now.

  14. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 2, 2009 at 8:33 am #

    A lawyer who specializes International Treaties will be required. Otherwise, you’ll get a lawyer who says my country is sovereign and I don’t care what another country’s laws are because they don’t apply to my country.

    And then there is the occasional lawyer who says due process rights begin and end with the passing of a statute. Forget about Notice, Objection, Declaration, Intent, Confrontation and Appeal. If a sovereign nation says you’re citizenship has lapsed, then you’re stateless and there is nuthin’ you can do ’bout it.

  15. avatar
    Black Lion September 2, 2009 at 9:34 am #

    One of Leo’s commentors posted the following link to him. It seemed he was a bit offended by the article…

    “The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born citizen” and only uses the term once to describe the President. The Constitution does not even define what it means to be a citizen of the United States. But it is clear that the framers of the Constitution would never have intended for Barack Obama to be eligible to be President for one simple reason: they never intended for a person of African decent to hold the highest office. The founding fathers also never intended for a woman to be President (sorry Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton).”

    http://www.naturalborncitizen.com/

    Leo’s response…
    [Ed. It's racism baiting propaganda. Also, it's very good evidence that we are getting somewhere on this. If their final argument is that the founders were racist and therefore the Constitution is invalid - we should recognize how desperate a tactic that is and be encouraged.]

    Interesting response. The article is probably correct in the framers intent that they did not intend for people of African descent to be eligible for President (see the section of the Constitution in regards to representation that stated that a slave was 3/5 of a person) but Leo’s response that this means that he and the birthers are “getting somewhere” is hilarious. Especially after Dr. C and others on this blog have eviserated his so called new theory.

  16. avatar
    AXJ September 2, 2009 at 9:48 am #

    It has nothing to do with descent somce most of the founding fathers were British, it has to do with being born and raised in America and being proud of being American, a Patriot which clearly this man is not. Still no evidence of which hospital or which doctor delivered him…stange huh..

  17. avatar
    Greg September 2, 2009 at 10:20 am #

    He spent 4 years in Indonesia, from ages 6-10. Personally, I can’t describe with any particularity what was going on in my life when I was 6-10.

    64 million Americans thought he was American enough to vote for. Still more people approve of the job he’s doing in office than approved of Bush’s job performance in the last 2 or 3 years of his Presidency. Was he a better President because he didn’t spend 4 years of his life outside the United States?

    Which doctor delivered Bush?

  18. avatar
    Black Lion September 2, 2009 at 10:23 am #

    Can you give us examples of the President of the US, Barack Obama, not being proud of being an American or a Patriot? And what justifies being a Patriot? You throw these terms around without anyway to quantify them. And if you can show us where the hospital or the doctor that delivered the President is germane to being an US citizen or a NBC, we would all appreciate it.

  19. avatar
    Heavy September 2, 2009 at 10:24 am #

    None at all.

    I don’t care what they say, a biracial (I MUST be a racist!) named Barack Hussein Obama born in Hawaii in 1961 would have at least been topic of water cooler conversation.

    NOT ONE person has stepped forward with ANY recollection of this birth. NOT ONE!

  20. avatar
    Heavy September 2, 2009 at 10:25 am #

    You’re kidding, right? Give me ONE example of something he did that is!

  21. avatar
    Black Lion September 2, 2009 at 10:30 am #

    And 48 years later these so called “water cooler” people would be alive and remember this event is plausable? You must think that a biracial baby was an uncommon occurance in 1961. In a openminded state like HI, it was not. Now if it was Alabama then you would have a point. I am sure that no one that worked at the hospital would remember you being born or me being born. And while we are on that subject I don’t recall any doctors or nurses coming out stating that they remember President Bush or President Clinton being born.

  22. avatar
    Black Lion September 2, 2009 at 10:33 am #

    Heavy, the question was can you show us where the Presdent said that he was not proud to be an American or did something that showed that he was not proud to be an American or not a Patriot? AXJ made the claim so I am waiting for him to support his statement.

  23. avatar
    Black Lion September 2, 2009 at 10:39 am #

    Sven, what would be the specific international treaty that has to do with citizenship are you referencing? And what international treaty superceeds the US Constitition and US law in regards to citizenship? I must of missed that one in civics class so we would all appreciate it if you elighten us in regards to this issue. Because if not you are correct. You would get a lawyer that would inform you that a country’s citizenship laws are sovereign, which they are.

  24. avatar
    Greg September 2, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    Actually, there is someone who has stepped forward. A woman claims she was told by a doctor (who it has been confirmed worked at a hospital in Hawaii) that a young woman named Stanley had a baby that week, that he’d noted it because of the man’s name. And that she’d given her child a really interesting name – Barack Obama.

    Of course, when these people DO step forward with their recollections, they’re discounted by the birthers because it’s just hearsay.

  25. avatar
    Heavy September 2, 2009 at 11:07 am #

    As usual, you miss the point. Reread my post and please tell me WHAT would be memorable about the birth of Bush or Slick Willy. Taje off your “Colored” glasses and REALLY think.

    And no, biracial births were NOT common in HI in 1961. Let alone one named BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! And yes, I’m sure they are ALL dead or will soon be, if they even exist.

  26. avatar
    Heavy September 2, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    Hmmm…Do you have a name?

  27. avatar
    Heavy September 2, 2009 at 11:09 am #

    How about REFUSING to wear a flag lapel pin, going around the world and apologizing for “Evil” America. Should I go on? This could last all day.

  28. avatar
    Greg September 2, 2009 at 11:12 am #

    Barbara Nelson:

    http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html

  29. avatar
    myson September 2, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    I thot what made America great is that everyone can choose for themselves how they behaviour or what they do so long as no law is being violated. Is there a law that one must wear a lapel ? Isnt freedom of speech one of the cardinal principles on which USA was formed ? Must everyone say the same thing all the times ? So apologising is unAmerican ?? even if wrong ???
    It seems u are the one who believes in the wrong things about America

  30. avatar
    richCares September 2, 2009 at 11:32 am #

    “How about REFUSING to wear a flag lapel pin, going around the world and apologizing for “Evil” America. Should I go on? This could last all day.”

    sure dipsh__ go on, repeating lies is so heavy of you.

  31. avatar
    richCares September 2, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    the bigot racist says “Hmmm…Do you have a name?”, how heavy of him.

  32. avatar
    Bob September 2, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    Actually, Sven is not completely wrong.

    After the Kenyan Constitution was passed, there was a 2-year window for people to decide whether they wanted to become Kenyan citizens or retain CUKC status. Many Asians in Kenya retained their CUKC status, were kicked out of Kenya, and had problems entering the UK. They were effectively stateless.

    Entire books have been written about the subject of post-colonial citizenship. (Here’s an example.)

    Where Sven is so dreadfully wrong is that none of this applied to Obama. There’s absolutely no evidence that Obama (or his father) retained CUKC status (and, in fact, Obama’s father worked for the Kenyan government).

    By operation of the KIA of 1963 and the Kenyan Constitution, both Obama and his father lost their CUKC status and become Kenyan citizens. Without this vestige of a claim to some type of British citizenship, the argument of Donofrio (like Apuzzo before him) is premised on nothing.

  33. avatar
    richCares September 2, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    yes they were, in Hawaii almost 1/2 of births in the 1960′s were bi-racial. though not all were black they were all bi-racial including my daughter.

    there is a lot of proof Obama was born in Hawaii including verification by State Health Dept. and we heavy with his head up his rear saying “nobody remembers a black baby”, go ahead keep your head where it’s at and you too will turn brown.

  34. avatar
    Greg September 2, 2009 at 12:06 pm #

    In fact, that shows that Sven is wrong when he intimates that the KIA and Kenyan Constitution could not have stripped Obama of his citizenship because it would have left him stateless, or that it deprived him of due process. It was the later actions of Kenya in expelling the Asians and Britain in denying them passports that left Asians stateless.

    It was a separate, affirmative act that imposed statelessness, not the dual independence acts.

    This clearly doesn’t apply to Obama because his dad obviously did take Kenyan citizenship. Also, even if Barack were somehow expelled from Kenya, he was born in the United States and was, therefore, a US Citizen. Since nothing Kenya or Britain could do unilaterally could deprive Barack of his United States citizenship, he could not have become stateless.

  35. avatar
    Black Lion September 2, 2009 at 12:07 pm #

    Heavy, not true. Unless you lived in HI at the time, whatever you say is speculation. In a racially diverse state like HI, why would a biracial birth be a surprise? You make no sense. You had a state that had a lot of Asians, Polynesians, and native Hawaiians as well as white people. They all intermarried and produced so called biracial children. As a matter of fact one of the arguments against allowing HI to become a state was that it was too racial mixed for people from the South to accept. So you take off your race tinged glasses and look at the situation. I know that there are posters from HI that are on this blog that could tell you how diverse HI, and specifically Honolulu was at that time.

  36. avatar
    Heavy September 2, 2009 at 12:07 pm #

    Now THAT’S a reliable source!

  37. avatar
    milspec September 2, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    Greg

    AXJ is the only person that has ever been banned at Politijab, he’s a troll of the first magnitude.

  38. avatar
    Heavy September 2, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    Actually, we’ve gone through this issue already. Biracial births in HI in 1961 were not as common as your fantasies allow.

  39. avatar
    Black Lion September 2, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    Thanks Rich. I thought you lived in HI but wasn’t sure. Also Heavy is forgetting that Pearl Harbor Naval Base is near Honolulu and there would be sailors of all races mixing with the local people in Honolulu. Heavy has obviously never seen a biracial baby because you can’t immediately tell at that age what the race of the parents are by just looking. I know my biracial cousin looked Hispanic at birth.

  40. avatar
    Black Lion September 2, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    Your question was if he had a name…Now that you were provided with one you now challenge the source. Interesting.

  41. avatar
    richCares September 2, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    the bigot racist says “Now THAT’S a reliable source!”, how heavy of him.

  42. avatar
    NBC September 2, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    Heavy is not very consistent nor capable. Ignore him. He is still fuming that he will have to wait until 2012 or 2016 before Obama is ‘removed’ :-)

  43. avatar
    Black Lion September 2, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    YOu realize that the so called refusing to wear the flagpin was not true. And apologizing for the actions of America under President Bush, how was that not being American? The former President Bush made a lot of mistakes and alienated many countries with his actions. President Obama attempting to repair that damage is showing what a true American he is and how much he loves the US. But of course you will never accept or believe that.

  44. avatar
    Greg September 2, 2009 at 12:33 pm #

    See, told you. You want the OB, who died at the age of 98, to come back to life to tell you he delivered Obama. You want the nurses, who performed hundreds of deliveries a year, and must now be in their 70s-90s to remember a single birth from 47 years ago.

    When someone does remember something, and apparently wrote home about it, you dismiss it as hearsay.

    In the law, there’s a concept called the “statute of limitations.” All claims have to be brought within a certain time period. Most crimes have to be charged within a certain time period. Why? Because people die. Witnesses forget. Records get lost.

  45. avatar
    richCares September 2, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

    and don’t forget that heavy will become bi-racial, he will turn brown from having his head stuck up his rear.

  46. avatar
    Chris September 2, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    O.T. Posters may be interested in the discussion of birtherism at the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

    http://volokh.com/posts/1251868126.shtml

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 1:01 pm #

    Oh, THAT AXJ.

    I really hate banning people, and there aren’t any current bans here. On the other hand, I really don’t want to see the discussions deteriorate. It’s a vexing problem.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    Unfortunately, vital statistics from 1961 do not indicate the number of bi-racial births (insofar as “bi-racial” even makes sense).

  49. avatar
    misha September 2, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, and carrying a cross.” Sinclair Lewis.

  50. avatar
    SFJeff September 2, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    One example:
    “Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation – not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago.”

    Another from Sen. Barack Obama’s Berlin speech in which Obama referred to himself as “a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.”

    This is actually one of my favorites:

    “My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or blessed, believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich, because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential.”

    I think we should all be proud of an America where a foreign sounding name is no barrier to success, where you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential.

    Or is Heavy looking for examples like invading a country? I think actually for Heavy, anything that Obama does is by definition un-Patriotic. If he were to increase pay to our troops, Heavy would complain about the Government stealing money from Tax payers, if he reduced pay to our troops Heavy would complain that he didn’t care about our troops.

  51. avatar
    Heavy September 2, 2009 at 1:11 pm #

    …The great political philosopher.

    You people are a joke!

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    It is interesting to note that the account included the name of the restaurant where the conversation took place, and I was able to determine that Dr. West was indeed a member of that club. While one must always be skeptical of evidence like this, it looks extremely plausible at this point.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    No, there is one.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 1:20 pm #

    But not all African Americans were slaves, even in 1776.

  55. avatar
    Rickey September 2, 2009 at 1:33 pm #

    The only reason that I know the name of the hospital where I was born is from what my parents told me. The name of the hospital does not appear on my birth certificate, nor does the name of the doctor who delivered me. I have no idea who the doctor was.

    The birth certificate was good enough for me to obtain a Social Security Number, enlist in the Navy and register to vote, but I guess I should reconsider my plans to run for president.

  56. avatar
    Rickey September 2, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

    Nevertheless, Hawaii has always had a greater proportion of bi-racial or multi-racial residents than any other state. As of 2005, 21.4% of people living in Hawaii were bi-racial or multi-racial. The next highest state was Alaska, at 4.9%. It therefore is plausible to conclude that bi-racial births most likely were far more common in Hawaii in 1961 than in any other state.

    http://www.culturalmarketingcommunications.com/FactSheet_MixedRaceReporting.pdf

  57. avatar
    Heavy September 2, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    “Always”? More libspeak.

  58. avatar
    misha September 2, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    “How about REFUSING to wear a flag lapel pin, going around the world and apologizing for “Evil” America.”

    I don’t wear a flag pin. And we do owe the Vietnamese people an apology, especially after My Lai. And we owe them reparations for dioxin.

    Idi Amin was 100x worse than Saddam Hussein. Of course, Uganda doesn’t have any oil.

  59. avatar
    misha September 2, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    “You people are a joke!”

    As are you.

  60. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida September 2, 2009 at 2:38 pm #

    What a sordid bunch the Birthers have thrown their lot behind:
    Former lawyer, professional poker and chess player Leo C. Donofrio

    Correspondence School Lawyer, Dentist and Real Estate Agent Orly Taitz

    Internet Sensation, Andy Martin

    Geez, it’s a rogues gallery of oddballs.

  61. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida September 2, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    Rich, Heavy’s actions are just more illustration of why The President doesn’t/shouldn’t provide anything above and beyond what he has.

    No matter what he provides, they want more. He’s been vetted, his eligibilty has been proven, by publishing his Hawaiian Cert last year, he did more than any other candidate in recent memory.

    Case closed, birthers are loons.

  62. avatar
    I agree with AXJ September 2, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    I have been participating on the AXJ thread with over 30,000 posts and tend to agree with their documentation. None. The Obama Family Pics are all photoshopped and the DNA samples taken don’t corresponde to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro. Obama was acutally adopted in Africa. Guess the cat is out of the bag and ORLY knows it. Sorry Demos but your days in congress are history.

  63. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida September 2, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    Yes, heavy, ‘Always’. By it’s very nature, hawaii is a melting pot of Native Hawaiians, Americans from the mainland (Black, white, hispanic, asian), a large Japanese population and persons from other Pacific Islands that came to live there.

    All being in a relatively small land area, there is a great deal of biracial marriage and parenting.

  64. avatar
    Heavy September 2, 2009 at 2:52 pm #

    Ok. There ARE some trolls!

  65. avatar
    Greg September 2, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    In one of his last editorial comments to a poster on his site, Donofrio states that Wong Kim Ark is going to win it for him, if this ever came to trial.

    I read his argument right, didn’t I? This is based entirely on Gray’s quotation of Binney that the child of an alien is “as much a citizen as the natural born citizen,” correct?

    Binney’s quoted in section III of the decision and is one of 25 or so citations. Other than the fact that this is the only one that supports his case, is there any reason why Binney should get more weight than, say, US v. Rhodes?

  66. avatar
    SFJeff September 2, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    More Libspeak- ha! As the chief proponent of destroying the constitution, Heavy is quick to label any dissent as ‘liberal’.

    But this whole thread is a joke. Heavy is postulating that since ‘no one’ remembers this African-American baby born over 40 years ago, then we must doubt he was born there. Then when provided a quote of someone remembering it, he denies the validity of the quote.

    What he does do is stick with his own pre-conception- that a bi-racial child must have been notable in Hawaii in 1960, so therefore there must be someone who remembers, and since he doesn’t know anyone who remembers, the President must be lieing. What a bunch of ‘what-ifs’

    And then when someone makes the bold assertion that Hawaii has ‘always’ been the most ‘bi-racial’ state he dismisses that claim.

    As usual- Heavy will postulate anything to unconstitutionally remove this African American President from office. All this while being the unknowing schill of the far right who really just want to throw out garbage to impede the President for political reasons.

  67. avatar
    Epectitus September 2, 2009 at 4:08 pm #

    Since you put it in quotation marks, I’m assuming you can document exactly where Obama ever called America “evil?”

    i will not hold my breath, but I’d love to see it.

  68. avatar
    Epectitus September 2, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    Uhh…. by 1961 a huger percentage of Hawaiians were already bi-racial.

  69. avatar
    Epectitus September 2, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    We certainly are doing a lot of laughing!

  70. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    I believe Donofrio is misinterpreting the statement. However Aligineae is not online.

    The complete quote is

    e. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. “

    It is equating the status of a natural born child of a citizen which includes 1) children born on US soil 2) children born to citizens outside the US to the status of children born to aliens on US soil.

    In other words, both are natural born although natural born for aliens can only come from jus soli, while natural born for children of US citizens can come from jus soli and jus sanguini.

    Remember what preceeds it is

    It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute.

    By statute children born abroad to US citizens is a natural born citizen as well.

  71. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    This is supported by

    The opposing theory that persons born abroad of American parents are aliens unless there is a naturalizing statute in their aid is powerfully sustained by a distinguished jurist the late Horace Binney. His proposition may be briefly summed up thus: birth here confers citizenship birth, abroad causes alienage. On this view the citizenship of the parents is of no consequence. Citizenship assumes a territorial character. The sole inquiry is who had the sovereignty over the territory where the child was born at the time of its birth

  72. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    And

    Yet this law remained on the statute books with its limitations and defects apparently undiscovered until Mr Horace Binney published in the American Law Register vol 2 p 193 a vigorous article on the subject which induced the passage of act February 10 1855. ( Chap 71 1 10 Stat at L 604 US Сотр Stat 1901 p 1268) which reads as follows: All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United State whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof are declared to be citizens of the United States but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States This act took effect

  73. avatar
    Bob September 2, 2009 at 5:01 pm #

    Every person who…under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in Schedule 3 is a citizen of that country, shall have the status of a Commonwealth citizen.”

    I take it you interpret this portion of section 37 to mean a person must presently be a citizen of a Schedule 3 country to claim Commonwealth citizenship (which makes sense).

    It would seem Donofrio takes the view that if you were, say, a Kenyan citizen when the BNA of 1981 was enacted, you were automatically granted Commonwealth citizenship, independent of the current status of your Kenyan citizenship. So it would be, in Donofrio’s view, possible to lose your Kenyan citizenship (as Obama did) but retain Commonwealth citizenship.

    While Donofrio’s interpretation doesn’t really make sense, I’m trying to envision a scenario where a person has no other citizenship status other than that of a Commonwealth citizen. The loophole that Donofrio see exists only because of Obama’s dual Kenyan-U.S. citizenship that existed when the BNA of 1981 was eneacted; if Obama wasn’t also a U.S. citizen, he would have automatically become a Kenyan (and Commonwealth) citizen.

    Mind you, Commonwealth citizenship by itself grants little; its primary advantages are tied to concurrent residency/right to abode (which Obama does not have) — something Wikipedia omits.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    From all I have read about the history of English and American citizenship, one principle seems universal and that is the principle that naturalization (making someone not a citizen into a citizen) requires consent. If the BNA 81 were to magically confer citizenship upon someone who did not have it before without their consent, that would seem very odd.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 5:28 pm #

    While one person has come forward with a contemporary anecdote of Obama’s birth, no one has come forward from Kenya doing the same.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 5:34 pm #

    Well you keep plugging away about that DNA stuff and Photoshopped school photos, and let everyone know that conservatives fully support these ideas, and be sure to get it in the Republican platform in 2012. GO FOR IT!

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 5:34 pm #

    Wow, this is a fun place! ;)

  78. avatar
    Chris September 2, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    O.T. Volokh Conspiracy is now covering Chester Arthur.

    http://volokh.com/posts/1251923886.shtml

  79. avatar
    Greg September 2, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    Apparently, Donofrio is quoting the Binney quote on page 693. And his ellipses make all the difference. Here’s his quote:

    The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

    And here’s the original with the ellipses removed:

    The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides

    Those are some pretty critical ellipses. The reference to Lord Coke especially.

  80. avatar
    Greg September 2, 2009 at 5:56 pm #

    If you look closely enough at DNA, you’ll find that we’re all adopted out of Africa.

  81. avatar
    misha September 2, 2009 at 5:57 pm #

    When is this psycho going to be committed?

    I love the conservative movement. The Three Stooges of law, and a bunch of rabble rousers on radio and TV.

    I challenge any conservative to cite a case, where an ultra-liberal walked into a room filled with conservatives, and opened fire like Knoxville. I challenge one conservative to cite the liberal equivalent of Dr.Slepian, Dr.Tiller or the Holocaust Museum.

    And your conservative counterparts in Israel are committing pogroms against Arabs, egged on by evangelicals. Google it.

    Anyone Jewish who gets mixed up with these reptiles, is a fool.

  82. avatar
    misha September 2, 2009 at 5:59 pm #

    You forgot Mario Apuzzo. The Three Stooges of law.

    Talk about a motley crew.

  83. avatar
    misha September 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm #

    We came from Olduvai Gorge, the Cradle of Mankind. Completely correct.

  84. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 6:11 pm #

    Wow, now that is what I would call ‘creative editing’

  85. avatar
    SFJeff September 2, 2009 at 6:53 pm #

    AXJ, I don’t have the patience to read 30,000 posts from the heart of darkness. But I would love to hear the rational of the motivation of the adoption and subsequent cover-up. Really.

    I am guessing it has to do with some really good stuff about his so-called grandparents being communists or moles. But enlighten the 20 people who haven’t contributed to the 30,000 posts.

  86. avatar
    jtx September 2, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    AdrianInFlorida:

    To my mind that’s much preferable to throwing your hat in the ring with a bunch of communists who hate this country and are trying to tear it down from within as are most of the posters on this blog.

    Leo has some very good points and none of you have refuted him as he carefully points out.

    I have yet to see a single America-hater on this blog state that if Obama is found to be legally ineligible that he should then have the full treatment coming to him under the law – whatever that might be. Most of you seem complicit in his actions.

  87. avatar
    Bob September 2, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

    The only thing of note from Donofrio’s posting is correcting factcheck.org’s assertion that Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship in 1982. It would appear Obama did not lose it until 1984.

    From there, Donofrio ominously explains this made Obama subject to the BNA of 1981. (So what?; he was already subject to the BNA of 1948 and the KIA of 1963.)

    There’s nothing in the BNA of 1981 of note that affected Obama. To the extent Obama even retained his status as a British subject, he became a Commonwealth citizen. So what? Being a British subject/Commonwealth subject does convey some rights, but most of the important rights also require residency/right to abode, which Obama did not (and could not) obtain. (For example, Commonwealth citizens can visit other Commonwealth countries without first applying for a visa — is that a threat to very existence of our republic?)

    More importantly, Donofrio fails to explain how Obama’s status as Commonwealth citizen survived the expiration of his Kenyan citizenship. Donofrio fails to explain the relevance of insignificant ties that were cut a quarter century ago.

  88. avatar
    jtx September 2, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    nbc:

    I’d say that Leo’s right and you are wrong since your don’t understand the comment and try to spin it to a faulty interpretation.

    Having said that, though, it really doesn’t matter since the man has already told us he was a Brit at birth. That means he’s not a NBC (period).

  89. avatar
    jtx September 2, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    Greg:

    Your removal of the elipses does not alter the meaning of the passage at all and you’re too dense to realize it.

    Leo’s quite correct on the passage and you’re just throwing up somke to tty to help give the Oborter time to “work his communistic magic” in destroying our country.

    Maybe you’d lilke to state that if the man is found guilty of being ineligible that you believe he should be subject to the full weight of the law for any crimes he has committed – right???

  90. avatar
    misha September 2, 2009 at 7:53 pm #

    In Arabic, Barack means blessed. In Hebrew, Barack means lightning. And in Birtherspeak, Barack means octaroon.

  91. avatar
    jtx September 2, 2009 at 7:58 pm #

    nbc:

    You could better call it no nothing re-quoting of the original to try obfuscation. The edited version is still correct and means the same thing.

  92. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 8:10 pm #

    Wrong on all counts… Again.

    First of all, in order to understand Donofrio’s ‘creative edit’ of Gray’s ruling and the reference to Binney, one needs to understand Binney’s argument which, as I have shown accepts anyone on US soil to be natural born per Common Law but also accepts that Common Law does not describe the citizenship status of those children born abroad to US citizens. Binney argues, that such status can be granted via statute, and that is exactly what happened soon thereafter.

    As to ‘being a Brit’, again the US Constitution, the Courts and the legislatures have been quite consistent in accepting that dual citizenship is in some cases an unavoidable outcome of conflicting citizenship laws (so much for the idea that there exists a Law of Nations interpretation for who is and is not a citizen…).
    As such, the courts have ruled that such a condition is neither disabling to the child nor can it be taken away by the parents and that, once reaching the age of majority, the child can chose.
    And in this case, Obama has clearly chosen.

    As I said, you should really do your homework before making such foolish comments

  93. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    Your removal of the elipses does not alter the meaning of the passage at all and you’re too dense to realize it.

    Now that is hilarious, it surely does so, and I find it fascinating that you are allowing yourself to become entangled in such practices.

  94. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 8:13 pm #

    You could better call it no nothing re-quoting of the original to try obfuscation. The edited version is still correct and means the same thing.

    On the contrary, one may be led to the conclusion by Leo’s creative editing, that Gray and Binney were arguing against the fact that anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen, with minor exceptions.
    And that would be unfortunate. A good thing that we have caught the error before it could embarrass our dear friend any further.
    Of course, since no court is going to hear these matters, the embarrassment may be minimal but still substantial.

  95. avatar
    richCares September 2, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    I had a favorite science site that I often visited, then it got infected with creationist trolls, thoughtful people attempted to answer these trolls, that didn’t work. Many regular fans stopped visiting the site, too difficult weeding through all the garbage. Don’t let that happen here, do not answer the trolls, that merely wastes your time, please do not contribute to ruining this site. They will bait you, just ignore them. The trolls that visit here are way to hatefull to change, so please no replies, OK?

  96. avatar
    BlackLion September 2, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    Very true…I had forgotten about that…If you recall the 3/5 issue was just for the South in regards to counting population for the House of Representatives….A compromise because the North did not want to count slaves in the population number while the South wanted them to count in order to get more Reps in the House….

  97. avatar
    misha September 2, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    I had thought the same. Besides not feeding trolls, do not stick your fingers in the cage.

  98. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 9:12 pm #

    Opinion of Attorney Bates with some excellent references to citizenship.

    We have natural-born citizens, (Constitution, article 2, sec. 5,) not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority; In fact, the mass of our citizens; for all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they became citizens in the natural way, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation.

    and

    As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the ” accident of birth”—the fact that we happened to be born In the United States. And our Constitution, In speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

    If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it. It allows that every person born in tho country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the ” natural born ” right as recognized by tho Constitution In terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.

    That nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right as between tho individual and the government, is a historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted that it is needless to prove it by authority. Nevertheless, for the satisfaction of those who may have doubts upon the subject, I note a few books, which, I think, cannot foil to remove all such doubts—Kent’s Com., vol. 2, part 4, sec. 25; Bl. Com., book l, ch.10,p. 366; 7 Co. Rep., Calvin’s case; 4 Term Rep., p. 800, Doe vs. Jones; 3 Pet. Rep., p. 246, Shanks vs. Dupont; and see a very learned treatise, attributed to Mr. Binney, in 2 Am. Law Reporter, 193.

    In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection ; and these are correlative obligations, the one, the price of tho other, and they constitute teo all-sufficient bond of union between the individual and his country; and the country he is born in is, prima facie, his country. In most countries the old law was broadly laid down that this natural connection between the individual and his native country was perpetual; at least, that the tie was indissoluble by the acts of the subject alone.—(See Bl. Com. supra; 3 Pet. Rep. supra.)

    But that law of the perpetuity of allegiance is now changed, both in Europe and America. In some countries by silent acquiescence, in others by affirmative legislation. In England, while asserting the perpetuity of natural allegiance, the King, for centuries past, has exercised tho power to grant letters of denization to foreigners, making them English subjects, and the Parliament has exercised at pleasure the power of naturalization.

  99. avatar
    nbc September 2, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    and

    And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal tact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1852, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that to persons,” (not white persons) “persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose lathers were or shall be, at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered, and are hereby declared to be, citizens of the United States: Provided, however=, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.

  100. avatar
    milspec September 2, 2009 at 9:14 pm #

    No that’s what I would call misrepresentation, typical of the committee that make up the body of his posts.

  101. avatar
    Greg September 2, 2009 at 9:15 pm #

    Maybe you’d lilke to state that if the man is found guilty of being ineligible that you believe he should be subject to the full weight of the law for any crimes he has committed

    With the exception of some strict liability crimes, a crime requires both a bad act (actus reus) and a bad thought (mens rea). I’m just curious, what crime do you think Obama committed and what mens rea does it require. Here are your choices:

    Intentional
    Knowing
    Reckless
    Negligent

  102. avatar
    Tibor September 2, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

    Well, I guess that’s how he travelled to Pakistan then. Birther question solved; let’s go git ‘im!

  103. avatar
    Mary Brown September 2, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    You better be careful. Some people will not be happy to hear the truth.

  104. avatar
    AXJ September 2, 2009 at 11:28 pm #

    Hi Jeff. Very simply what do we really know about this person? Only that he says he was born in Hawaii. No evidence. Newspaper info which anyone could have posted. DNA from Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro doesn’t match. Divorce certificates that don’t mention him. The number of his supposed BC doesn’t fit numerically. More than 20 SS#s in use in the USA. Escrow documents don’t reflect his real info. Hidden (Sealed) documents. Passports and visas tampered with? What more do you need? All we at AXJ want is the name of the hospital and the doctor.

  105. avatar
    Jason September 2, 2009 at 11:39 pm #

    When a person was a citizen of another country, in this case, Britain and Kenya, the person is a naturalized citizen of the US just like CA governor Arnold Schwazenegger, is not eligible to become the president of the United States.

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 2, 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    AXJ, there are a few problems with your comment:

    1. Barack Obama, in addition to public information, wrote an autobiography. We actually know much more about Barack Obama than we do most folks in public life. I have frankly never seen the level of candor in any other autobiography than I found in Dreams from My Father. If you haven’t read it, let me suggest you give it a look see.
    2. I find it difficult to understand where you’re coming from when you say there is no evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The director of the state health department personally looked up the President’s original birth registration and posted a statement on the state web site that said, and I quote: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii”. I find that statement, coupled with the birth certificate and newspaper notice hard to reconcile with the notion of “no evidence”. Perhaps you could explain.
    3. While you say that anyone could have posted the newspaper notice, you don’t tell us why you think that. Given that the Hawaii newspapers reported that these notices came from the health department and not individuals, you would really need to provide a strong reason to support the “anyone could have…” theory. “According to the Honolulu Advertiser, it was practice to get birth announcements from the Health Department via a news service, not from private submissions, ” The Honolulu Advertiser.
    4. You said that DNA from Stanley Ann Dunham (and I presume Barack Obama) don’t match, however, since you provide no source for this remarkable claim, I can’t take it seriously.
    5. Which divorce certificate are you talking about, the Obama or the Soetoro divorce? Could you provide a link to where your claim was reported?
    6. You say that Barack Obama has more than 20 Social Security numbers. However, you don’t suggest why that is a bad thing or what relevance it has and you don’t say where you get this rather remarkable claim. I guess you got it from Orly Taitz, but her information has not been check by anybody, and one of the people Orly claims is Obama would be nearly 100 years old.
    7. Escrow documents don’t reflect… What documents and where is this reported?
    8. Hidden (Sealed) documents. “Sealed” has a special meaning and I don’t personally know of any Obama document that is “sealed”. There are some documents which are not available for anybody (health records and school records- HIPAA and FERPA) by law. Those laws include President Obama, but nothing is especially sealed. The state of Hawaii’s Governor publicly stated that nothing was sealed. If you think documents are sealed, please tell us which document and when and by whom it was sealed.
    9. Passports and visas tampered with? While it is true that a couple of contractors peeked at the passport records of Obama, McCain and Clinton (proving all three have US passports, by the way), there is no published reports of tampering. Why do you think there was tampering? Please inform.

    AXJ, you say “What more do you need?” The answer to that questions is some rationale behind your claims and some supporting evidence. You’re new here and perhaps don’t understand the culture. But on this blog we expect reasoned, evidence-based argument just like in the featured articles you see on this blog. Assertions simply don’t cut it around here. While the burden I have tasked you with is (in my opinion) an impossible one due to lack of evidence, nevertheless I expect you to try in order to earn the respect of further replies.

  107. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    Obama was born in Hawaii, and thus a U.S. citizen.

  108. avatar
    Sunnstarr September 3, 2009 at 12:10 am #

    Something of Interest, posted elsewhere on the Net:

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

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

    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CM/ECF Filer or PACER Login

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

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

  109. avatar
    AXJ September 3, 2009 at 12:11 am #

    Jason, we all know this but when the Judges in your country don;t uphold and execute the Law then what me done? To date only the Federal Judge in Santa Ana is going to take this bull by the horns. See you in Court next Sept. 8, 2009 at 08:00am

  110. avatar
    AXJ September 3, 2009 at 12:13 am #

    Yup, Orly posted it on AXJ and it was immediately spread around the internet….to those with interest in finally seeing the truth. All others can sit back and watch the US be torn into pieces…the consitution is all we have left at this point…

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 12:14 am #

    It is clear from the introduction to the 14th amendment that there is a distinction made between two types of citizens, “born” and “naturalized” (this is declaratory of what is implied by the Constitution before the 14th amendment). Since Obama was a US Citizen at birth, he cannot be naturalized.

    The best evidence that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, is the simple fact that he IS President of the United States–elected by the people, certified by Congress and sworn by the Supreme Court. What other authority is there! [I don't see anything in the Constitution about the blogosphere.]

  112. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 12:15 am #

    I really hope you will drop by on September 9 and comment on what happened in court.

  113. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 12:18 am #

    It was already reported HERE on this blog August 22.

  114. avatar
    AXJ September 3, 2009 at 12:22 am #

    25000 posts here…

    http://axj.puntoforo.com/viewtopic.php?t=774

    but who is counting right…what really matters is that after it is all said and done OBAMA has not proven he is an American citizen with a worthless fake Certificate of Live Birth given to anyone and not witeness that he was actually born anywhere in the USA, no hospital no doctor…in 1961 these things existed you know…all the others trying to justify the unjustifiable are the trolls…wake up…

  115. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 12:36 am #

    And yet, the document has been certified as correct by Hawaiian officials, showing Obama born in Honolulu and thus a natural born citizen.

    Where have you been?

  116. avatar
    AXJ September 3, 2009 at 12:40 am #

    The document only certifies that he was born alive, not what hospital nor what doctor delivered him…and check the number of the document…does not correspond to the one that comes before or after it…where have you been? Read the 25,000 posts and then decide..

  117. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 12:44 am #

    The document only certifies that he was born alive, not what hospital nor what doctor delivered him…and check the number of the document…does not correspond to the one that comes before or after it…where have you been? Read the 25,000 posts and then decide..

    I do not have to read any of the postings as nothing you have said sofar disproves that he was born in Hawaii. Adding the doctor information or the hospital is irrelevant. As to the numbering issue, there are quite reasonable explanations for it. What really matters is that his form is extremely close to others filed in the same period.

    Seems you have no intention in the truth, just empty speculation. While you and your friends are posting 25000 postings, Obama has moved on to greater things…

  118. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 12:46 am #

    But I do understand that it is not the eligibility issue as much as your belief that Obama’s policies are unwise for this country. Fine with me, the voters decided otherwise and there is something called elections to ‘rectify’ this. If only the opposition party could get their act together…

  119. avatar
    AXJ September 3, 2009 at 12:47 am #

    I do not have to read any of the postings as nothing you have said sofar disproves that he was born in Hawaii. Adding the doctor information or the hospital is irrelevant. As to the numbering issue, there are quite reasonable explanations for it. What really matters is that his form is extremely close to others filed in the same period.

    You liberals will believe anything, even the fact Bill never had sex with Monica…you guys are a joke…

  120. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 12:50 am #

    AXJ: You liberals will believe anything, even the fact Bill never had sex with Monica…you guys are a joke…

    Well at least he hasn’t trotted out Hitler yet.

  121. avatar
    richCares September 3, 2009 at 1:11 am #

    please report your failed delusions on Sept 8
    it will be fun to read your responce!

    Carter will not be your hero!

  122. avatar
    richCares September 3, 2009 at 1:16 am #

    what Names will AJX call Judge Carter after Sept 8, delusions are so hard to swallow. Poor guy!

  123. avatar
    NBC September 3, 2009 at 1:35 am #

    I surely hope Bill had sex with Monica. Was it worth it?… I am not sure. I really do not care too much about what our politicians do in their spare time, unless they pretend to be moralizing standards.

  124. avatar
    richCares September 3, 2009 at 2:00 am #

    keep up with your delusions, but please report back to us after Sept. 8, will you promise that?

  125. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 2:13 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I see that you are of the opinion that Leo did not learn from what you call “Mario’s mistake.” First, you surely did not explain in your post what my mistake is. Second, I made no mistake.

    I want to make it clear that under Article II, the circumstances surrounding Obama’s birth is what controls, for a would-be President must be a “natural born Citizen.” That is a status that is established at birth and not later in life. Obama has conceded that at his birth, his father was not a U.S. citizen but rather a British subject/citizen. He has also conceded that he was born a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. It is inconceivable that the Framers would have constitutionally allowed after 1789 (when the Constitution was adopted) for a child to be born a British citizen and subject to the power of the British Crown to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation. Hence, the argument can end there. Nevertheless, I believe that it is important to show that Obama also continues being a British citizen. Such a showing is important because it reveals why the Framers required that the President be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and not just a “Citizen.” It also shows why an Article II “natural born Citizen” is one that is born on U.S. soil to parents who are also U.S. citizens, for only under such birth circumstances can a future President possess the Constitutional assurance that he or she will not be subject to any foreign power and will not be conflicted with any other nation’s allegiances and loyalties.

    Now on the question of Obama’s current British citizenship status, you will recall that we debated and posted our positions on the question of whether Obama is still a British citizen today. In April 2009 (updated in July), I posted an article arguing that today Obama continues being a British citizen. You disagreed and posted your position on this blog. At that time, you did concede that at his birth in 1961, Obama became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). You also conceded that at no time in his life did Obama ever renounce his British citizenship. You also conceded that Obama automatically acquired Kenyan citizenship under Article 87, Section 1 of the 1963 Constitution of Kenya on December 12, 1963, the day that Kenya became independent from Great Britain. You stated that he kept that Kenyan citizenship until age 21 (which the Birthers.org web site over a week ago showed it should be 23.) You then said that since he automatically acquired Kenyan citizenship, he lost his CUKC by way of Sections 2 and 3 of the Kenya Independence Act 1963 (KIA 1963). You did recognize that the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981) repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. You also recognized that by such repeal, the question is presented whether Obama regained his CUKC. To further correct you, under the BNA 1981, his citizenship status would no longer be called CUKC, but rather British Overseas Citizen (BOC).

    To prove that Obama did not regain his British citizenship, you cited Section 35 of the BNA 1981 and argued as follows:
    “35. Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status.
    A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of section 31 shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever. [Section 31 deals with citizens if Ireland.] You then concluded that Obama is not a citizen of Kenya nor of Britain.”

    Again to correct you, your reliance on Sec. 35 is mistaken, for on close analysis we can see that Section 35 of BNA 1981 does not apply to Obama. Section 35 makes reference to Section 31 which provides:

    “Section 31 Continuance as British subjects of certain former citizens of Eire.
    (1) A person is within this subsection if immediately before 1st January 1949 he was both a citizen of Eire and a British subject.
    (2) A person within subsection (1) who immediately before commencement was a British subject by virtue of section 2 of the 1948 Act (continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects) shall as from commencement be a British subject by virtue of this subsection.
    (3) If at any time after commencement a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is within subsection (1) but is not a British subject by virtue of subsection (2) gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State claiming to remain a British subject on either or both of the following grounds, namely—
    (a) that he is or has been in Crown Service under the government of the United Kingdom; and
    (b) that he has associations by way of descent, residence or otherwise with the United Kingdom or with any [F90 British overseas territory] , he shall as from that time be a British subject by virtue of this subsection.
    (4) A person who is a British subject by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) shall be deemed to have remained a British subject from 1st January 1949 to the time when (whether already a British subject by virtue of the said section 2 or not) he became a British subject by virtue of that subsection.”

    Section 35 does not apply to Obama, who was not “under this Act . . . a British subject.” Obama was a CUKC under the BNA 1948 and under Section 26 of the BNA 1981 would become a British Overseas Citizen (BOC) and not a British subject. Not being a British subject in any way under BNA 1981 let alone otherwise than under Section 31, Section 35 simply does not apply to Obama. With Section 35 failing to remove any CUKC (and BOC) status from Obama, there is no other provision in the BNA 1981 that does so.

    Hence, the point that you failed to properly addresses is that Obama regained his CUKC and therefore his BOC under the BNA 1981 when Section 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. You do not cite to any law or section of the BNA 1981 that is in effect that supports your statement that “the BNA 1981 revoked the original grant of CUKC status to Obama.” There being no such law in existence unless you can show me that one so exists, logically, if the BNA 1981 repealed the law that took CUKC away from Obama then he regains that which was taken away, otherwise what would be the purpose of British Parliament in 1981 repealing Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963? If he regained his CUKC through the BNA 1981, it would be at the moment the Act went into effect. At that moment, Obama would have been a citizen with CUKC immediately before commencement. Hence, Obama would then have BOC under BNA 1981. All he has to do is apply to the British Home Secretary and he will have his British Overseas Citizen status officially confirmed.

    Both the United Kingdom and the United States permit dual citizenship. Hence, assuming that he was born in the U.S., Obama today is a “citizen” of the United States (which is different from an Article II “natural born Citizen” of United States) and a citizen of Great Britain. He is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. At his birth, Obama inherited from his British father an allegiance and loyalty to the British Crown. Just like a naturalized citizen who cannot be President because he or she is born with a foreign allegiance and is therefore born subject to a foreign power, Obama was also born subject to a foreign power and cannot be President.

    Needless to say, dual allegiance in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military presents a host of allegiance and national security problems. We cannot ignore these problems by simply arguing that an ordinary citizen can live comfortably with dual nationality problems, for an ordinary citizen is not faced with the myriad national and international problems with which a President and Commander in Chief is confronted. How can we allow Obama to have access to top secret national security information being the citizen of a foreign nation? How can we expect him to lead us in foreign affairs, lead our nation in the military theater, and negotiate and sign treaties with foreign powers when he was born with natural allegiance to and is a citizen of Great Britain, which is a member of the European Union? Are we supposed to put our faith in our chief military leader in time of war if he has allegiance to a foreign power that could be our enemy in the war? Do you not see the conflict of interest? Another problem is that should Obama be physically present or otherwise within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, the United States could not give him diplomatic help otherwise than he would be entitled to as a head of state. The Founders simply would not have Constitutionally allowed an individual such as Obama, who has divided political and military allegiances and loyalties (both to Great Britain and Kenya) which create in him a conflict of interest and potential for international intrigues and military and diplomatic problems, all which puts into jeopardy American national security, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    P.S. Misha, Cheers!

  126. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 2:16 am #

    Yeah, like Mark Foley.

  127. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 3, 2009 at 2:32 am #

    The document only certifies that he was born alive, not what hospital nor what doctor delivered him…and check the number of the document…does not correspond to the one that comes before or after it…where have you been? Read the 25,000 posts and then decide.

    It does a little more than that, AXJ, and you know it. It certifies where he was born (Honolulu, Hawaii), it certifies the date & time he was born (August 4, 1948), it certifies who his parents are (Stanley Ann Durham and Barack Hussein Obama).

    Now, getting onto your citizenship analysis. Unless you’re posting that there’s some part of Honolulu, Hawaii that is outside the United States, then it doesn’t matter what hospital he was born in. And what matter does which doctor delivered him have on anything relating to eligibility? Are you trying to argue that if it was Doctor Smith, he’s a Natural Born Citizen, but if it was Doctor Jones, he wasn’t?

    The fact is that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, obtaining Natural Born Citizenship, by virtue of being “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The fact that you think that the document is fake is amusing, when the Hawaii Department of Health has already authenticated the document, declaring it a “valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”

    I’ll take the word of the State Department of Health over the word of a couple of thirteen-year-old idiots who post absolutely nothing coherent 35000 times over under different screen names, so that they can think that they have friends.

  128. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 2:35 am #

    Hey Mario, better stick to DWI. BTW, what is your win/loss on DWI? Do you plea bargain most of them down to DUI? How many have you completely lost? Do you now specialize in constitutional issues? If you now practice as a constitutional attorney, it has escaped my purview.

    Please read my treatise on the birther movement.

    I’m sure you will find it most elucidating.

  129. avatar
    AXJ September 3, 2009 at 2:41 am #

    Don’t mind them Mario, if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is into this how deep must the corruption be? We all know the truth and hopefully the other 50mm Americans will wake up soon to. Orly is posting on AXJ and perhaps you should to. Looks like no one can stop September 8, 2009 now. Maybe you should be there too?

  130. avatar
    AXJ September 3, 2009 at 2:42 am #

    Don’t mind them Mario, if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is into this how deep must the corruption be? We all know the truth and hopefully the other 50mm Americans will wake up soon to. Orly is posting on AXJ and perhaps you should too. Looks like no one can stop September 8, 2009 now. Maybe you should be there too?

  131. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 3, 2009 at 3:00 am #

    Mario Apuzzo, the fact is the following:

    U.S. Citizenship law operates independently from any other country’s citizenship law. What you’re stating is very dangerous. What you’re basically saying is that every nation has a veto power over who Americans can elect as President and Vice President. That scares me to no end, and in fact, you’d be giving more credence to international laws and foreign influence into our process, than what you sought to avoid.

    Let’s take 2 children.

    1. A child born to 2 Citizen Parents on American Soil. When he is less than a year, his parents move to a foreign land, and the parents naturalize in that land. The land allows dual citizenship, so the child maintains his American Citizenship, however, is raised in the foreign land.

    2. A child who was born 1 day before his parents Naturalized in this country, therefore granting him dual citizenship. His parents always raised him in this country, and he was always raised an American.

    Which child has more foreign influences?

    Yet, you’re ultimately stating that the former can be President, while the later cannot, despite the fact that the later has always been in this country, and raised in this country.

    And please, don’t quote to me that 1 wouldn’t be eligible either. This exact situation was covered under Perkins v. Elg, and the dual citizen was directly declared to be a “Natural Born Citizen” by the Supreme Court.

  132. avatar
    AXJ September 3, 2009 at 3:16 am #

    Simply speaking a natural born citizen in general is an individual that is born in the country. I have my doubts about the parents having to be citizens of that country as well. McCain is considered to be a natural born citizen born on foreign soil (Panama)? The Sentate simply didn’t deal with the Obama issue because nobody really thought he would win.

  133. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 3, 2009 at 3:22 am #

    AXJ, the fact is that Obama was born in this country, or are you claiming that Hawaii (admitted as a state in 1959) is not part of this country in 1961? Are you claiming that there are portions of Honolulu, Hawaii that are and are not part of this country?

    I don’t understand how you can say that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, when it’s been proven that he’s was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, which last I checked is part of the United States.

    Are you claiming that Honolulu, Hawaii isn’t part of the United States? Let’s see how Daniel Inouye, Neil Ambercrombie, and Daniel Akaka feel about that sentiment.

    As far as the definition, I’d actually propose that anybody who was born a citizen is a Natural Born Citizen. McCain would qualify, because he was granted citizenship because of his birth.

  134. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 3:51 am #

    You did recognize that the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981) repealed Sections 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963. You also recognized that by such repeal, the question is presented whether Obama regained his CUKC

    The question is “presented,” but your “answer” is incorrect.

    The BNA of 1981, while repealing portions of KIA of 1963, also repealed the section of the BNA of 1948 that originally granted CUKC status to Obama. Ergo, Obama never regained his CUKC status, and so it could not have transformed into BOC status.

    As such, Obama has not been a dual citizen for a quarter century, so all these fears of allegiance are unfounded.

  135. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 4:18 am #

    You do not cite to any law or section of the BNA 1981 that is in effect that supports your statement that “the BNA 1981 revoked the original grant of CUKC status to Obama.”

    Schedule 9 of the BNA of 1981.

  136. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 3, 2009 at 4:21 am #

    Mario

    “…logically, if the BNA 1981 repealed the law that took CUKC away from Obama then he regains that which was taken away, otherwise what would be the purpose of British Parliament in 1981 repealing Section 2 and 3 of the KIA 1963″

    Thar’s your problem!

    I’m not a lawyer I’m an accountant but I have spent over 30 years in jobs working with complex UK statutes. To anyone used to how UK law works this argument is flabbergasting. It simply ain’t so. Except for taxation it’s extremely rare for UK statutes to change the law retrospectively but quite common for redundant provisions to be cleared off the statute books and that’s what’s happened here.The sections had done their job, Kenya can’t become independent a second time therefore they were redundant.

    I’ve a less intimate knowledge of US statutes but I suspect the same applies here for instance: when the Naturalization Act 1790 was repealed by the 1795 Act did those who had been naturalized under it cease to be citizens?

  137. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 4:29 am #

    Among the purposes of the BNA of 1981 was to abolish CUKC status. And how did British government do that? By repealing every statute referencing CUKC status, including the applicable provisions of the KIA of 1963.

    Read Schedule 9; the list of repealed statutes is rather impressive.

  138. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 3, 2009 at 4:41 am #

    Yes Bob. I saw your previous post just after I posted mine. My view still stands as a general priciple but congrats on your much simpler,direct and effective rebuttal of Mario’s nonsense.

  139. avatar
    Lupin September 3, 2009 at 6:08 am #

    Am I missing a point or is super-mario-guy completely stupid?

    As a dual citizen/naturalized, I know from experience that the other country’s law (UK, France, Germany etc) has no effect whatsoever in the US.

    Obama, like millions of children of immigrants (legal or not) born in the US = citizen.

  140. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 6:31 am #

    Don’t spoil their fun. What would they do all day, if they didn’t have this to play with?

    They’d have to do something constructive and productive. I don’t think they even have a hobby.

  141. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 6:50 am #

    It is inconceivable that the Framers would have constitutionally allowed after 1789 (when the Constitution was adopted) for a child to be born a British citizen and subject to the power of the British Crown to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation.

    First: The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. There is no evidence that the Founders intended to let Britain decide who would be eligible to be a citizen of the United States. In fact, since they did not recognize the ability of British subjects to lose their British subjectship, and did not recognize US naturalization, they would have considered many people to be natural-born British subjects despite having two US citizen (by naturalization) parents.

    Second: Isn’t it just as inconceivable that the Founders would give Britain a veto over who could be our President? All they would have to do is to institute jure sanguinis (look it up) and then everyone who could trace their ancestry to England would be ineligible for the Presidency. Italy has jure sanguinis – does that make Rudy Giuliani ineligible for the Presidency.

    Third: The Supreme Court has spoken with one voice that our citizenship laws do not take into account anything other nations do. For example, check out JPMorgan Chase v. Traffic Stream, a case in which 6 of the sitting justice cited Wong approvingly:

    But the argument’s more significant weakness is its failure to recognize that jurisdictional analysis under the law of the United States is not ultimately governed by the law of the United Kingdom, whatever that may be. While it is perfectly true that “every independent nation [has the inherent right] to determine for itself … what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship,” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 668 (1898), our jurisdictional concern here is with the meaning of “citizen” and “subject” as those terms are used in § 1332(a)(2).

  142. avatar
    Lupin September 3, 2009 at 6:56 am #

    Isn’t what they’re doing telling millions of children born in the US of immigrants (legal or otherwise) that they’re in effect second-class citizens?

    I’d pay good money to see Super-mario or Nonofrio explain their rubbishy theories to a class of Latinos in LA.

    Racist bastichs.

  143. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 7:36 am #

    Of course. They’re trying to overturn Ark, and with a perfectly straight face Mario has said he doesn’t want to overturn that decision.

    Ark is established case law, for over 100 years. You have to remember, the only lawyers doing this are the Three Stooges. Anyone with a reputation to protect, will have nothing to do with it.

    Of course what they are doing would establish a sub-class of citizen, which is vile. If they were living in Idaho, I’d understand. I too would like to see them say this to the children of immigrants. I don’t think they would even make it to their car.

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 7:42 am #

    “Am I missing a point or is super-mario-guy completely stupid?”

    Mario is representing his client. Who here could make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear?

  145. avatar
    kimba September 3, 2009 at 8:01 am #

    Simply speaking then, you agree with us. Great! Pres Obama was born in Hawaii, part of the United States, so there’s nothing for anyone to “deal with” at all. Glad you’re on board with us AXJ!

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 8:02 am #

    I think it far more certain that the Senate didn’t deal with the issue (remember Obama was a sponsor of SR 511) because they understood that Obama was unquestionably a natural born citizen. If you doubt this, just write your Senator. Here is what mine (Senator Lindsey Graham D-SC, a close friend and adviser to McCain) wrote:

    Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.

    December 11, 2008 letter to constituent

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 8:04 am #

    Assuming that both persons returned to the US and resided there for 14 years.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 8:06 am #

    I was on a DUI jury once. That’s a really tough case to win. The jury is predisposed against drunk drivers in the first place. Police around here do a good job of documenting their cases. The defense lawyer tried all sorts of ploys, but lacked one important ingredient–facts.

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 8:11 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    You are quite correct that I did not explain your mistake in my article (now updated).

    Your mistake is that while the BNA 1981 did indeed repeal the sections of KIA 1963 that stripped Obama of citizenship in the UK and Colonies, it also at the same time repealed the section of BNA 1948 under which he originally gained that citizenship. This came out in the comments on the thread where we discussed your theory last time around, but you well may not have seen it.

  150. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 3, 2009 at 8:13 am #

    Doc

    As you know the term ‘British Subject’ has a long history in statute and common law. The Nationality Act 1948 created a new term ‘Commonwealth Citizens’ as a SYNONYM for ‘British Subject’.

    1(2)”the expression “British subject” and the expression “Commonwealth citizen” shall have the same meaning.”

    By sub section 1(1) A person would be a British subject/Commonwealth Citizen if s/he was a CUKC or if s/he was a citizen of one of the countries listed in 1(3).

    The countries in 1(3) were members of the “British Commonweatlh” (later renamed just “Commonwealth”) that were so independent of the UK as to have their own citizenship laws. Indeed at the time all except Southern Rhodesia were ‘Dominions’ i.e. independent countries that had the british monarch as their constitutional head of state.The Irish Free State (Eire) was also a dominion at the time but it had already decided to leave the commonwealth and become a republic the following year.

    As at 1948 those who were British Subjects/Commonwealth Citizens because they were a citizen of one of the countries in 1(3) had obligations to the British Crown. But this was not in the form of any obligation to the UK, a difficult concept for people not used to constitutional monarchy to grasp, but just keep Canada or Australia in mind and it becomes easier.

    In 1949 a subtle change occured in that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers accepted that a country could become a republic and still remain within the Commonwealth. The immediate catalyst for this was the desire of India to become a republic which it did 1950.

    As time went on more and more of the British Empire was granted independence and in turn more and more of these independent states became republics. Republican status effectively severed the previous oligations to the crown making the term ‘British Subject’ somewhat of an anachronism and even patriotic brits increasingly objected to ‘subject’. Although not its main purpose the 1981 Act tried to sort out this mess.

    There is an added complication in that currently at least the British Monarch is ‘Head of the Commonwealth’ but that is purely symbolic.

    I’ll do a seperate post on my worse case scenario – I need caffine!

  151. avatar
    SixToeMoe September 3, 2009 at 9:06 am #

    Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization.

    Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Common law dictates a citizen only need be born within the territorial limits of the United States.

    The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as
    “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,” i.e. Native Born Citizen and not Natural Born Citizen.

  152. avatar
    SixToeMoe September 3, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    Oops … not owing allegiance to anyone else is Natural Born Citizen per reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment and born in territorial limits is Native Born Citizen.

  153. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 3, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    In my earlier posting what I meant by ‘worse case’ was the one most favourable to Leo D’s hypothesis i.e.

    1)At birth, Obama is a CUKC – if he’s not then Leo’s hypothesis is moot.

    2)As a consequence at birth he is a British Subject/Commonwealth Citizen. – follows from the 1948 Act.

    3)In December 1963 ceases to be a CUKC and becomes a citizen of the ‘Dominion of Kenya’ – follows from the KIA 1963

    4)He remains a British Subject/Commonwealth Citizen as a consequence the KIA adding ‘Kenya’ to subsection 1(3) of the 1948 Act

    5)In December 1964 Kenya became a republic and Obama thus became a citizen of the Republic of Kenya – straightforward enough.

    6)At that time I was not sure if the switch to the republic affected his status as British subject/commonwealth citizen.Kenyan law might have outlawed it. I assumed it didn’t and although there are a few loose ends that assumption seems to be correct although the ‘British Subject’ term becomes achronistic because his obligations to the British Crown are extinguished.

  154. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 3, 2009 at 9:29 am #

    Pressed the submit button by accident – more coming.

  155. avatar
    Black Lion September 3, 2009 at 9:33 am #

    And what is the difference between Natural Born and Native Born? According to Blacks Law Dictonary, nothing….

    Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:
    Native. A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.

    And you keep forgetting that the US Constitution and the SCOTUS only recognize 2 types of citizens, those born within the territory of the US and those born somewhere else, or naturalized. So if someone was born in another country under alliegance to that country, then they are naturalized. If they are born in the US, as President Obama was, then they are native, natural born, US citizens. There is no third class or subclass of citizens.

  156. avatar
    Sally Hill September 3, 2009 at 9:55 am #

    And we all know and respect just how smart Congresspeople are – right?

    On what authority does Graham speak?

    SR511 was a nice try, although it is non-binding.

    McCain was ineligible as well.

  157. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 3, 2009 at 9:58 am #

    To continue:

    7) I was aware of a UK statute the ‘Kenyan Republic Act 1965′ but hadn’t yet read it so made the assumption that it had no effect on on British Subject/Commonwealth Citizen – this assumption subsequently proved correct, it just provided a quick method for replacing Dominion with Republic in any relevent UK legislation.

    8 ) I assumed that Obama had not renounced his Kenyan Citizenship before the 1981 Act came into force – there’s no evidence he did but I’m always concious that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’

    9)I assumed Leo’s assertion that Obama had until age 23 to renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship was correct – I haven’t personally checked this.

    10)I also assumed that Obama didn’t renounce his Kenyan citizenship between the commencement of the 1981 Act and his 23rd birthday. – A minor point if I’m wrong it just brings the final resolution forward aa bit.

    In this scenario Obama was still a Kenyan Citizen at the commencement of the 1981 Act. As a consequence at that point he was a Commonwealth citizen (No ‘British Subject’ involved now). At age 23 he loses his Kenyan citizenship and as a consequence loses his Commonwealth citizenship status.

  158. avatar
    Sally Hill September 3, 2009 at 9:58 am #

    Yeah = Citizen, but does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen. Your comment appears that you do not understand there is a difference.

    No effect whosoever in the US – and we all know that Presidents never travel outside of the US – where as if they travel to a country where they are considered to be a citizen – then those laws would not apply to them, because ….oh wait, they aren’t in the US anymore.

  159. avatar
    Lupin September 3, 2009 at 10:13 am #

    I couldn’t have said it better.

    The subtext really IS vile.

  160. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 10:23 am #

    My comment was response to a suggestion that Obama was not included in SR 511 because no one thought he would be elected. The quote from Graham (and there are many others) provides evidence that Obama was not included in SR 511 because the Senate didn’t think there was a question (since Obama was born in the US).

    On what authority does Graham speak? Try the Constitution, a string of court cases, legal scholars and opinions of prior US Attorney Generals.

  161. avatar
    Lupin September 3, 2009 at 10:24 am #

    There are only categories of citizens: by birth (ie born in the US) or naturalized. There are no third categories.

    “Natural-born” is just a way of saying “by birth”. It has nothing to do with ancestry. Dr. Conspiracy here wrote a rather masterful analysis to prove what is rather obvious to anyone who has grappled with getting other citizenships.

    If you’re born in the US, even from two illegal parents, you’re a citizen, and someday you may be President. The objection to the recognition of this simple fact comes from racists and white supremacists.

    Two, as a dual citizen myself, I can tell that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Plenty of US citizens could become Irish citizens (because of their ancestry) if they so applied. It used to be pretty simple in fact. But if they didn’t do so, and they traveled to Ireland, the Irish Government couldn’t treat them as Irish citizens.

  162. avatar
    richCares September 3, 2009 at 10:25 am #

    “Looks like no one can stop September 8, 2009 now. Maybe you should be there too?”

    looks like that will be fun, but not for the delusional AJX.

  163. avatar
    SixToeMoe September 3, 2009 at 10:31 am #

    SCOTUS will be convening early this session, Sept. 9, 2009, to discuss who is and is not a “natural citizen.”

    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

    Even the Supreme Court itself, via its SCOTUS Wiki, admits that the case “has broader implications, potentially leading to a major alteration of constitutional law in this field.”

  164. avatar
    Lupin September 3, 2009 at 10:37 am #

    Reading some of the exchanges here, it’s occurred to me that few (any?) people here seem to have any experience with applying for other countries’ citizenships…

    Americans are notoriously… well, let’s say unsophisticated or inexperienced, when it comes to dealing with foreign legal matters. (Apologies for the over-generalization; American expats are amongst the best and most sophisticated in the world, but still a minority.)

    Anyway, I have neither the desire nor the competence to give a lecture on jus sanguinis and jus soli. But anyone who has jumped through the hoops necessary to acquire another country’s citizenship (it is useful to have several different passports when you travel a lot) would read some of those discussions I see here about “Natural-born” and laugh at their irrelevance.

    It looks to me that, if Obama had wanted to, he could indeed have acquired other citizenships, but he didn’t. He’s an American, and just that, Period. And since he isn’t naturalized, jus soli applies, end of story.

  165. avatar
    racosta September 3, 2009 at 10:50 am #

    the primary reason for Sept 8 hearing is to review Judge Nakazato’s orders and a motion to recuse Nakazato. Review is unlikely to favor Orly so why are so many Birthers so excited about Sept 8, so what got put in their coffee. What do they think is going to happen on Sept 8. Do you think they will learn from it?

  166. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 3, 2009 at 11:03 am #

    SixToeMoe, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark defined the “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of that. Read that decision, and you’ll realize that the U.S. Supreme Court directly ruled against your argument.

    “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that they’re subject to our laws. The two common exceptions that the court has theoretically said is children of diplomats (those with Diplomatic immunity), and children born of foreign armies, in occupied territory.

    Your little definition is directly discounted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Read the decision.

  167. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 11:03 am #

    “has broader implications, potentially leading to a major alteration of constitutional law in this field.”

    …the field of election-finance laws.

  168. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 3, 2009 at 11:09 am #

    SixToeMoe, are you really that stupid to cite a case that has nothing to do with “Natural Citizen”.

    The facts of Citizens United v. FEC is basically, they tried to show a documentary hit piece on Hillary Clinton before the primaries of the 2008 Primary Elections, and the FEC said that it was basically a long campaign commercial, and therefore subject to the limits of the FEC. The case is more about 1st Amendment issues, rather than citizenship, and I do not believe that citizenship even comes into the case.

    However, since I can’t see anybody being that stupid to indicate that this case has anything to do with citizenship, I’m now classifying you as just another troll.

  169. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 3, 2009 at 11:13 am #

    Citizen != Natural Born Citizen.

    There are two types of citizens: Natural Born Citizen, and Naturalized Citizens. Nobody here is claiming that every citizen in a Natural Born Citizen. We’d never put Naturalized citizens as “Natural Born”. However, we’re just saying that every citizen who is born a citizen, is a Natural Born Citizen.

  170. avatar
    ballantine September 3, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    “It is inconceivable that the Framers would have constitutionally allowed after 1789 (when the Constitution was adopted) for a child to be born a British citizen and subject to the power of the British Crown to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation.”

    No court is going to care what you find conceivable. Your work is full of assertions about the founders with no authority to back them up. You never will win a constitutional case like that. If you read the actual debates from the convention, there is little to back your assertion as some delegates feared foreign influence while others, like Madison, did not. The ones who feared foreign influence only proposed longer residency periods or a native birth requirement. No one suggested any requirement regarding parentage or duel allegiances, so it is pretty silly to make any definitive statement that such was on their minds. Your claims are, at best, unsupported conjecture.

    Of course, the founders themselves were born British subjects. And no, that is not the purposes of the grandfather clause. Rather, the general view is that such clause was for the non-natives amongst them like Hamilton and Wilson. See, for example:

    “It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be entrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1842 ed.)

    I know it is hard for some to understand that the founders defined allegiance by place of birth, but it is easy to see what Madison, Story, Kent etc. say on the subject. Thus, it is easy to understand that in the height of the alien panic that produced the alien and sedition act, leading federalists in Congress proposed correcting the “mistake of admitting foreigners to citizenship,” providing that “none but persons born in this country should be permitted to take part in government.” No one was taking of parantage for that was not the test of allegiance in that world.

  171. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 11:17 am #

    So, what, no Italian-Americans can be President because Italy has a jure sanguinis citizenship which potentially makes all people of Italian descent Italian citizens regardless of whether their parents (or grandparents, or great-grandparents) naturalized in another country?

  172. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 11:18 am #

    Can you show me in the briefs where any of the parties or amici address “natural born citizen?”

  173. avatar
    ballantine September 3, 2009 at 11:21 am #

    Anyone who thinks there is a difference between native-born citizen and natural born citizen in the early republic simply has not bothered to do any research on the issue. You can see for yourself by searching in Google books the terms “native” and “president” and will see that there are probably more legal authorities in the early republic stating the president must be native-born than say he must be natural born. These authorities include the leading legal treatises and law dictionaries of the time. I have not seen any authority that says there is a difference, and no, Wong Kim Ark does not say there is.

  174. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 11:40 am #

    I have reservations about this because the Kenyan Constitution does not permit dual citizenship for adults which would seem a contradiction for someone like Barack Obama Sr.

    This is the crux of the argument: Why would Kenya, which doesn’t allow dual citizenship, join the Commonwealth of Nations if Commonwealth citizenship was a type of citizenship on par of its own citizenship?

    The answer, of course, is that Commonwealth citizenship isn’t. A commenter on Donofrio’s cite quoted an article on the subject that called British Overseas Citizenship (BOC) and British Overseas Territorial Citizenship (BOTC) “practically valueless.” (All BOCs and BOTCs are also Commonwealth citizens.) If BOCs and BOTCs are “practically valueless,” standalone Commonwealth citizenship (all citizens of all Commonwealth nations are Commonwealh citzens) is even less valuable.

    Commonwealth citizenship does provide some minor benefits (can travel to another Commonwealth without a visa, limited right to work in another Commonwealth country, etc.). But Commonwealth citizenship alone does not provide access to the right to vote, hold office, or naturalization. For that in the UK, not only must you be BOC or BOTC (or British citizen, of course), but you must also have the right to abode, which most BOCs or BOTCs don’t have. (Which is why it is important to note that Apuzzo is wrong when he claims the BNA of 1981 revived Obama’s CUKC status that was then tranformed into BOC status.)

    Donofrio is essentially correct in stating that the KIA of 1963 granted British subject status to Obama (and under his theory that was transformed into Commonwealth citizen status). But there is nothing new or revelatory about this. Nor is it particularly meaningful. And whatever such status he had, he lost it when he lost his Kenyan citizenship.

    It is just fearmongering. BRITISH SUBJECT!!! COMMONWEALTH CITIZEN!!! Sounds scary to the xenophobic, but those terms have little legal weight and haven’t applied to Obama in a quarter century.

  175. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 11:42 am #

    If you want a clue about how the current court will interpret the 14th Amendment’s definition of “subject to the jurisdiction of,” look at Plyler v. Doe. It was a 5-4 decision that said that the states could not deny education to illegal alien children.

    While the court split on the question of education, they were unanimous that “subject to” included everyone in the state, regardless of whether they were here as domiciliaries, permanent residents, students on a visa, or even illegally. The majority in that case wrote, citing Wong:

    “[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” … [N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.

    The four dissenting justices pointedly expressed that they had “no quarrel” with Brennan’s threshold determination that “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a state.”

  176. avatar
    Mike September 3, 2009 at 11:45 am #

    Mario, on the other hand, has accomplished the less-than-impressive feat of turning a sow’s ear into a more rearward portion of its anatomy…

  177. avatar
    ballantine September 3, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    “The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as
    “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,” i.e. Native Born Citizen and not Natural Born Citizen.”

    You should try actually reading the legislative history on this. “Subject to the jurisdiction” was added by Senator Howard who said it was meant to conform to existing law. A few days earlier he said existing law defined a citizen as “a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws….. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2765-66 (1866). Sen. Wade then proposed defining citizen as “persons born in the United States or naturalized by the laws thereof.” Wade said the only exception were children of ministers, but didn’t think it necessary to provide for that. Id. at 2768. Nevertheles, Sen. Howard later suggested adding the “subject to jurisdiction language.

    “Not owing allegiance to anybody else” was stated by Sen. Trumbull when he and Sen. Howard were trying to convince other senators that the language would exclude indians. They were not very successful, as the other senators seemed to think it meant what any lawyer would think it meant, namely “subject to our laws.” Other than with respect to indians, the comments during the 14th amend. and civil rights act debates generally reflected the common law rules with a few exceptions and Trumbull himself agreed that children of aliens were citizens. Trumbull a few years later would state that the 14th amendment was declaratory of the common law and therefor unnecessary and cited an authority paraphrasing Blackstone that limited the exceptions under the common law to children of ambassadors and slaves. Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

  178. avatar
    Black Lion September 3, 2009 at 12:04 pm #

    Bob, to follow up on your point about it is all fearmongering, look at the latest conservative right/birther issue that has them all up in arms. President Obama is planning on addressing school children on the value of staying in school. Of course that is a great and necessary topic, especially in the cities of this country. However in looking at the responses, you would have thought that he was going to eliminate schools in America.

    From our friends at WND…

    “Parents across the country are rebelling against plans by President Barack Obama to speak directly to their children through the classrooms of the nation’s public schools without their presence, participation and approval.

    The plans announced by Obama also have been cited as raising the specter of the Civilian National Security Force, to which he’s referred several times since his election campaign began, but never fully explained.”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108653

    Really? How ridiculous is that? Of course we all know there is no so called civillian national security force but in order to fear monger and scare people lets write that…

    Or from newsbusters…

    “As many parents are focused on back to school clothes and supplies, the royal Czar Czar prepares to circumvent parental authority and speak directly to our children in one week. What will he command?”

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2009/09/02/what-does-obama-want-our-children

    Or below…

    “He’s recruiting his civilian army. His ‘Hitler’ youth brigade,” wrote one participant in a forum at Free Republic.

    So President Obama addressing the school kids in America is a bad thing. However it was OK for President George H.W. Bush to issue a similar address in 1991, or for President George W. Bush to post a “teacher’s guide” on the White House website. I wonder what the difference is?

    With that kind of rhetoric and craziness out there against the current President of the United States it is no stretch of the imagination that the so called “Long Form” or a release of all of the so called documents from kindergarten will not satisfy these individuals…

  179. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    Mr. Apuzzo writes:

    Both the United Kingdom and the United States permit dual citizenship. Hence, assuming that he was born in the U.S., Obama today is a “citizen” of the United States (which is different from an Article II “natural born Citizen” of United States) and a citizen of Great Britain.

    I have some concern about the use of the phrase: “Article II ‘natural born Citizen’”. Usually that construction implies either that Article II defines “natural born Citizen” or that Article II uses “natural born citizen” in some special way distinct or more restricted from common usage. Clearly Article II doesn’t define the term and I don’t see how a claim of distinct usage could be made, given the lack of definition or qualification in the Constitution. The courts frequently use the term “natural born citizen” in contexts that don’t mention Article II (e.g. Perkins v Elg).

  180. avatar
    SixToeMoe September 3, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

    Do you think SCOTUS will convene its session early on election campaign finance law and promote it as a significant impact on Constitutional Law if it didn’t address the “Natural Citizen” issue ?

    This case is docketed as a RE-Arugument. How often does that happen?

    If the MSM had any credibility left, then this story would be Headline News.

  181. avatar
    SixToeMoe September 3, 2009 at 12:28 pm #

    Watch Sotomayor stab Obama in the back. I’m not throwing out a dismissive response to your comment.

    My prediction: Sotomayor throws BO under the bus.

  182. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

    Do you think that a case would be scheduled for re-argument on the issue of “natural born citizen” and none of the parties, nor any of the 41 amicus briefs would mention it?!?

    How on earth are the parties going to argue the issue of “natural born citizen” if none of them briefed it? How are they even going to know that they’re supposed to argue it if the Court didn’t ask them to brief it?!?

    WTF?

  183. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    Do you think SCOTUS will convene its session early on election campaign finance law and promote it as a significant impact on Constitutional Law if it didn’t address the “Natural Citizen” issue?

    Yes, as “natural citizen” is not the issue being argued.

    This case is docketed as a RE-Arugument. How often does that happen?

    It is unusual, which is why the media did cover SCOTUS punting on this case until now.

  184. avatar
    Black Lion September 3, 2009 at 12:41 pm #

    So you predict that Judge Sotomayor will go against the Constitution and previous SCOTUS rulings? Interesting…You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong. So when the case, which has nothing to do with the definition of natural born, is decided, you will probably be disappointed and claim that President Obama had something to do with it…

  185. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 12:42 pm #

    6Toe Do you think SCOTUS will convene its session early on election campaign finance law and promote it as a significant impact on Constitutional Law if it didn’t address the “Natural Citizen” issue ?

    Yes, anything else would be merely dicta. Geez, don’t you guys understand law? And freedom of speech is an important part of our Constitutional protections.

  186. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    Man, you guys are getting pretty desperate in your wishful thinking. Hilarious….

  187. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    Watch Sotomayor stab Obama in the back.

    In regards to what? Will she, at some point, rule against the Obama administration? Surely.

  188. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    Sotomayor is already on record with a decision citing Wong Kim Ark in her dissent to the denial of en banc rehearing in Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda.

  189. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    Well said. Neither in history nor in presence do these arguments hold true. Which is why now the argument is slowly moving to dual allegiance, an even worse argument.

  190. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 3, 2009 at 12:47 pm #

    Moe – what are you on? Have taken something or forgetten to take something?

    The hearing is to hear oral arguments simply on:

    “For the proper disposition of this case, should the
    Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan
    Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), and the
    part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540
    U.S. 93 (2003), which addresses the facial validity of
    Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
    of 2002, 2 U.S.C. § 441b?”

    You can read all about it at:

    http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Rehearing_Ordered

  191. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 12:48 pm #

    The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as
    “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,” i.e. Native Born Citizen and not Natural Born Citizen.

    Nope, allegiance was understood to be related to location.

  192. avatar
    ballantine September 3, 2009 at 12:48 pm #

    Yes, but Orly is apparently flying in witnesses and plaintiffs for what should be a 15 minute motion hearing. You can’t make this stuff up.

    From her site:

    “Important
    September 2nd, 2009

    Some of the plaintiffs or witnesses arrive in San Diego and Los Angeles.

    I wanted to know, if there are volunteers who can drive them to Orange County and back to the airport.

    We are trying to help people from out of town with accommodations with families. If you have foldable beds, mattresses, bedding and so on-let me know.”

  193. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 12:57 pm #

    Donofrio promises to explain how it possible that Obama (1) didn’t lose his Kenyan citizenship; and (2) became a British citizen. Alas, the evidence required to substantiate his claims aren’t in the public domain.

    Birfer speculation: It’s what’s for dinner.

  194. avatar
    Chris September 3, 2009 at 1:04 pm #

    Mario says:

    It is inconceivable that the Framers would have constitutionally allowed after 1789 (when the Constitution was adopted) for a child to be born a British citizen and subject to the power of the British Crown to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation.

    This ignores the fact of the “grandfather” provision in Art. II, section 1 of the Constitution allowing current U.S. citizens (as of the ratification) to become President. Many of these would have had what Mario calls “dual allegiance” because their parents had been British (e.g. born in the U.K.) and they themselves would count as British citizens under U.K. law.

    If the Founders were so dead set against such “dual allegiance” why didn’t they spell this out in the Constitution? Why did they allow persons with what Mario calls “dual allegiance” to become President under the “grandfather” provision?

    The answer to that is not that it was of necessity, because otherwise no-one would be qualified to be President. There was a large number of persons both of whose parents had been born in the Colonies that became the United States. For example, Washington, Adams and Madison all had both parents who were born in the Colonies. If the Founders had been so strong on avoiding “dual allegiance”, the grandfater clause should have been limited to U.S. citizens whose parents were born in the Colonies. But it was not, a fact that Mario does not and cannot explain.

  195. avatar
    Chris September 3, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    The reargument relates solely to the issue of whether, under the First Amendment, corporations can be banned from directly contributing to election campaigns. As pointed out by other posters, it has nothing to do with the “natural born citizen” provision of Art. II, sec. 1 of the Constitution.

  196. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    The panel in Matimak began its analysis with the unremarkable proposition that “a foreign state is entitled to define who are its citizens or subjects.” Matimak, 118 F.3d at 85 (citing, inter alia, United States v. Wong Kin (sic) Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))

    So much for the concept that natural born citizen is lost when having or acquiring dual/double nationality.

  197. avatar
    SFJeff September 3, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    Well Doc refuted your points well. But I am curious as to what you think the motivation of this vast conspiracy would be? Who started it? And what was their aim?

    Because if their intention was to eventually put in place a “puppet” president, why on earth would they think in the 1960′s that an African American man with a Muslim name from Hawaii is what would be electable?

    If I were to try to install a puppet, I would go for a white man, with a name related to a famous family, and have him grow up in one of the big cities in the U.S.

    I would ensure he rarely if ever went to a foreign country, rarely ever took a controversial position and was incredibly bland.

    Oh my god- I just described George Bush Jr.

  198. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    I wish I were there to offer to drive someone. I’ve had many an enlightening experience driving folks to airports. The most notable was Capt. [later Admiral] Grace Murray Hopper.

  199. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm #

    Doc:

    “… lacked one important ingredient–facts …”

    Sort of like so many of your cohort on this blog isn’t it??? You drunk drivers apparently stick together.

    Perhaps you should stick to drunk driving as you (and your buds) are clearly out of your league.

    I’ve yet to hear any of you Flying Monkeys say that should Obamabe proven to not be eligible to hold the office he occupies that the legal penalties should be applied to him. Do you think he should be forgiven like a drunk driver promising to reform?

  200. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 1:30 pm #

    Orly is always like this. Either she doesn’t understand what’s going on around here (seems increasingly likely) or she is just trying to rally the faithful by creating drama and crisis.

  201. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    misha:

    Your so-called “treatise” is hardly that but it clearly accentuates your lack of understanding and knowledge of the eligibility issue.

    Like most of the Enablers on this blog you haven’t a clue!! One would think you’d be embarrassed to proudly proclaim your own stupidity … but it hasn’t ever stopped you in the past so it’s doubtful you’ve learned anything since your last post. Keep trying, though!

  202. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 1:39 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Driving Miss Daisy comes to mind when you say Grace Murray Hopper.

    I suppose by the way you Deathers reason things, that makes you fluent in COBOL??? Perhaps you could publish some of the programs you’ve written so we can check them out???

  203. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    What Mr. Apuzzo is referring to (not “reciting”) is called the law … it’s the United States Constitution, specifically (since it’s clear you don’t know) Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

    Try it – you’ll like it!!!

  204. avatar
    kimba September 3, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    Of course. They seek to create a *special* class of super-citizens they refer to as Article II natural born citizens. Just you wait, they’ll eventually define it as someone who can trace their white lineage back to the Revolution. The whole point, beyond trying to cast doubt on Pres Obama, is to “get their country back”. You know, that country run by white men, while the non-whites go to the other drinking fountain, the back of the bus, the non-white school, and the women just do as they’re told.

  205. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    How many times have you repeated that Minor and Wong both said that the definition of natural born citizen is not to be found in the Constitution?

  206. avatar
    SFJeff September 3, 2009 at 1:49 pm #

    “if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is into this how deep must the corruption be?”

    Oh the corruption is deep- just think about it- the 60 million or so who voted for Obama, the entire Electoral College, the entire Congress- and the Chief Justice of the United States- but wait theres more!

    The Republican Governor of Hawaii and the Hawaii Secretary of State. Every Governor- Republican and Democrat alike. Every judge that the case has been presented to.

    Matter of fact, I think it includes pretty much every American except the 20,000 who posted on your blog. Now that is some conspiracy!

    Considering the magnitude of the conspiracy, how exactly is the ‘truth’ going to come out? Come on AXJ- spill your fantasy of how President Obama is going to be removed from office.

    Are there going to be proscutions of the entire Congress for being part of this conspiracy? Are you going to have massive re-education camps for all of us who conspired to vote for him? And what to do about that vile Liberal Chief Justice?

    Come on- I really want to know how you see this playing out?

  207. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    The tax cheats and racists try this in court all the time. They say they are non-14th Amendment citizens that trace their citizenship to the preamble. It’s really only a short hop to the claim that since African-Americans got their citizenship through the 14th, they can’t really be natural born citizens.

  208. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    So which AXJ are you?

    Acronym Definition
    AXJ Agility Excellent Jumpers (American Kennel Club Dog Agility Title)
    AXJ Accion por la Justicia (Spanish)
    AXJ Asia Excluding Japan

    http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AXJ

  209. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    He was on a jury. Or are you saying that drunk-driving jurors should stick together?

    What crime do you think Obama committed if the Supreme Court changes what almost all Americans believe is the definition of natural born citizen? Remember, to prove a crime, you have to prove both the act, as well as the requisite mental state.

  210. avatar
    Epectitus September 3, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    “It is inconceivable that the Framers would have constitutionally allowed after 1789 (when the Constitution was adopted) for a child to be born a British citizen and subject to the power of the British Crown to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation.”

    Ignoring your hyperbolic exaggeration of “the power of the British Crown,” I myself have no problem concieving it. It is therefore by definition not inconceivable at all. Assuming that you are not formally declaring the ability to read the minds of people dead for two centuries, perhaps some rational qualification might be allowed to slip into your rhetoric? Ya think?

    After all, the framers were quite clear on what was positively required for eligibility. They never lifted a pen to list any disqualifications.

    So… until you are able to establish that dual citizenship and natural born American citizenship are mutually exclusive, this is just so much fumo soffiaggio. Since I (and probably you as well) am both, your task is daunting. To this point, you have not proven up to it.

    Just one paesano to another.

  211. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida September 3, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    He’ll also promise to cover the meaning of life, plans for the water powered car and how to win at online poker.

  212. avatar
    jvn September 3, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    You should try understanding the way our system of government works…

    Without regard to what some of the members of Congress who voted on the amendment might have said they thought it meant, it is the USSC that DECIDES what the Constitution means.

    The SCOTUS decided that “within the jurisdiction of” meant “domiciled in and subject to the laws of” and that is that!

  213. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    Domiciled is not required. If you are present in the jurisdiction and not an ambassador, then you are subject to the jurisdiction.

  214. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 2:28 pm #

    Greg:

    So your flaring lunacy now makes you think you speak for “almost all Americans”???

    Talk about bullshit!! You don’t even speak for more than the 22% or so of Americans who voted for the guy … and many of those now realiZe what a big mistake that was. You may “speak for” – say – 10% but that even may be an exaggeration as we go along here.

  215. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    JTX Sort of like so many of your cohort on this blog isn’t it??? You drunk drivers apparently stick together.

    I do not want to doubt your understanding of self, however I would like to point out that many of the posters on this forum are quite able to support their arguments with actual facts, without having to resort to dissenting opinions and out of context quotes. Of course, most of us do not have a client to please.

  216. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    Don’t mind them Mario, if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is into this how deep must the corruption be? We all know the truth and hopefully the other 50mm Americans will wake up soon to. Orly is posting on AXJ and perhaps you should to. Looks like no one can stop September 8, 2009 now. Maybe you should be there too?

    I predict that September 8 is going to be yet another cold awakening when the judge denies the case on lack of standing. It’s inevitable, but given the legal mistakes made in the case so far, September 8 may be a non-event.

  217. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 2:36 pm #

    “Donofrio is demanding Obama renounce a citizenship he doesn’t have.”

    I demand Donofrio quit playing poker and act like a lawyer.

  218. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 2:36 pm #

    Greg:

    Try reading Mr. Apuzzo’s above essay and, if you pay attention this time, you’ll note that he says nothing that contradicts that.

    It’s merely you Deathers that are trying to rely on WOng Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment to help out your communist muslim pal.

  219. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 2:38 pm #

    JTX Talk about bullshit!! You don’t even speak for more than the 22% or so of Americans who voted for the guy … and many of those now realiZe what a big mistake that was. You may “speak for” – say – 10% but that even may be an exaggeration as we go along here.

    These people will have their chance in 2012 to elect a better alternative, if any.

    However, at the moment, the fact is that the majority of US voters elected Obama to be our President and unless impeached, he will end his first term in 2012.

    Those are the simple facts, and per Constitutional requirements and restrictions, no courts are going to involve themselves.
    After all, unless one insists on ignoring the Constitution, these are the only possible outcomes.

  220. avatar
    ballantine September 3, 2009 at 2:43 pm #

    As is pretty common, the court limited the holding to the facts before it which involved domiciled residents. It does not speak to children of temporary residents, but it also doesn’t say they are not born citizens. So technically this is still an open question unless some later court addressed it, which I don’t think.

    However, Wong’s entire holding was based upon the 14th amendment being declaratory of the rule of Calvin’s Case from the common law and the overwelming view in both the UK and American is that there was no exception under for temporary residents under such rule. So it would undermine the entire reasoning of the case to limit the amendment to domiciled residents. However, there is some american authority and some legislative history to support such a view which is probably why the court limited its holding.

    This, btw, is what I have always thought to be the birthers best argument as there is actually some real, but limited, authority to support it. However, I don’t think it an easy argument to say the 14th amend. changed the Art. II NBC clause.

  221. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    Wow, the irony here seems to be dripping off my screen…You’re funny my dear friend, although somewhat unable to understand that you are in over your head. There is even a well researched explanation for this.

  222. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    Thank you. I’m always happy my columns have an audience. Thanks for the feedback.

    Jewish, male, New Yorker: I’m another Woody Allen.

    In case you missed it, here is another from the archives, illustrating my rapier wit:

    http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i58815

  223. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    Bob:

    Are you now posting to yourself because it’s easier to show the errors of your ways to yourself???

    So – let’s see – you now claim that the BNA81 was retrospective and could remove and revert all citizenship actions of 33 years earlier? Did that apply to everyone or just Mr. O.??? What is your supposition on that issue???

  224. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    JTX It’s merely you Deathers that are trying to rely on WOng Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment to help out your communist muslim pal.

    So the issue is really Obama’s perceived religion or his political beliefs. That explains a lot.

    And Wong Kim Ark and the 14th amendment remain the relevant precedents that allow anyone born on US soil, with minor exceptions, to be natural born citizens.

    It’s that simple really. That we rely on well established case law, history and facts, just helps strengthening our case.

    Relying on dissenting opinions or calling the 20th amendment not a constitutional amendment is not going to impress too many people, let alone judges…
    Of course, given that the courts will continue to abide by the Constitution and reject standing, is an ever worse complication.

  225. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 2:56 pm #

    “I suppose by the way you Deathers reason things, that makes you fluent in COBOL???”

    How about Yiddish?

    Speaking of Admiral Hopper, this is my maternal uncle (my mother’s brother):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3342979/Cyborg-found-in-outer-space.html

  226. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    Welsh Dragon:

    Speaking of something being “flabbergasting”, I’d suggest you inspect the lint in your own navel since – as you admitted – you’re no lawyer.

    It shows. But why are you arguing with Bob who is one of your own Flying Monkeys?? That’s QUITE unseemly!

  227. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 2:59 pm #

    So, jtx, you think you can prove that more than 22% of Americans think that if you’re born here there’s any question that you’re a citizen? Please. Go ahead and prove it.

    While you’re at it, what crime do you think Obama committed, what are the elements, and what is the requisite mens rea?

  228. avatar
    Heavy September 3, 2009 at 3:01 pm #

    How about this, Blackie?

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pat-boone/2009/09/03/essay-president-without-country

  229. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    I’m waiting for the birthers to claim Justice Taney proved that Corey Booker is only 3/5 of a man. Or that Justice Taney proved Obama Sr. could never be a full citizen, so neither could his son.

  230. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    Greg:

    How incredible inane you post is.

    Your “first” argument is itself a logical fallacy and is meaningless since that is not what was said. Reread the essay and TRY to understand what is said (no matter how much it hurts).

    Your “second” prattle is also a nullity as no such “veto” was ever given or even inferred. It is solely as stated in the US Constitution and those living at the time of founding met the requirement.

    Your “third” blast of nonsense is yet a third logical fallacy. Only US laws determing US citizenship and none have said otherwise. You clearly do not grasp what was said. WKA is truly “bad law” and many – including some on SCOTUS – realize that. There are many nomographs on the web discussing this very topic. You might read those also.

  231. avatar
    kimba September 3, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    “it’s occurred to me that few (any?) people here seem to have any experience with applying for other countries’ citizenships…”

    The birthers would tell you that’s illegal! That you forfeit your US citizenship! ( And what kind of traitor would do that anyway!)

    In fact, I believe that few birthers possess a US Passport, or have traveled outside the US.

  232. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 3:21 pm #

    Lupin:

    Yup – you’re right … you’ve completely missed the point!! It’s not about whether anyone is or is not a US citizen (though there’s some doubt as to Obama) but about the legal eligibility of the man to hold the office he now occupies.

  233. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    “Which is why now the argument is slowly moving to dual allegiance, an even worse argument.”

    That charge has been thrown at us for centuries. My wife once applied for a security clearance. I was asked “Do you have any relatives in Israel? If you came across intelligence that threatened Israel’s existance, would you notify their government?” Who would I call? Maybe some yenta in Tel Aviv, that I picked at random.

    Yeah, and I have a vial of blood in my refrigerator too.

    She did not get the clearance.

  234. avatar
    SixToeMoe September 3, 2009 at 3:35 pm #

    BO Sr. made it clear to Abercrombie, Stanley Ann, etc. he intended to return to his home country after his education studies were complete. Consequently, he was not domiciled in America.

    Madelyn Dunham was so worried BO Sr. would exert his parental rights, she flew BO Sr. to Hawaii from Kenya to attend a family court hearing. Most likely, he was asked to give up his parental rights to alleviate Madelyn’s fear BO Sr. would take Barry back to Africa with him OR Barry would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic on Kenya through BO Sr.’s parentage and ordered to return home.

    If you’ll recall, Lolo Soetoro had been ordered to return to Indonesia after there had been a government coup there.

  235. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    Are you now posting to yourself because it’s easier to show the errors of your ways to yourself???

    To add a citation. Duh.

    So – let’s see – you now claim that the BNA81 was retrospective and could remove and revert all citizenship actions of 33 years earlier?

    I don’t claim; that’s what the BNA of 1981 did. That’s the perils of citizenship created by statute — what the legislature gives, the legislature can take away.

    And nothing was “reverted”; Kenyans remained Kenyans and CUKCs became BOCs. The BNA of 1981, however, did not magically transform Kenyans into BOCs.

    Did that apply to everyone or just Mr. O.???

    Everyone, of course. But the BNA of 1981 didn’t care about people like Obama, as Obama had Kenyan citizen (and U.S. citizenship, of course, but no claim to British citizenship), and the British were quite happy to let Kenyans remain Kenyans.

    The intent of the BNA of 1981 was get rid of CUKC status. Those CUKCs who were not granted (or did not want) Kenyan citizenship now became BOCs.

  236. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    True story: When I was planning a trip to the Iditarod, I called my HMO. I asked the telephone rep, what is the procedure if I had an asthma attack in Alaska.

    The woman, at their call center in DC, literally said “Foreign countries do not accept our insurance.”

    A co-worker said: “You’ll need your passport.”

    And you wonder why Japan is pulling ahead of us in patents filed. Meanwhile, Christians here are trying to stop teaching evolution. Evangelicals prove Darwin.

    In Anchorage, a minister in Palin’s church literally said to me “Auschwitz was divine retribution because you people have refused to accept God’s only son.” Another minister: “The old covenant ended forever in AD 70.” Assistant manager at work in Anchorage: “I haven’t met many Jewish people before.”

  237. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 4:04 pm #

    “if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is into this how deep must the corruption be?”

    Orly has already gone on Israel radio and TV, telling their audience that the US Constitution requires both parents be citizens, in order to be president. Then she goes on how Obama paid everyone off to overlook that requirement.

    She’s a malcontent trying to do harm. I wouldn’t even have her clean my teeth. She’s a dentist from Marathon Man.

  238. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 4:04 pm #

    It is clear that the concept of Commonwealth Citizen, is a meaningless concept as it does not grant British Citizenship, and although it does grant Commonwealth Citizens to run for office and vote in the UK, it has no relevance to citizenship status.

    For instance in early years of the republic, we find examples that the right to vote was extended to residents, even those who may not be citizens

    1. The constitution of Massachusetts, adopted In 1779-’80, in article 4 of section 3, chapter 1, provides as follows: Every male person (being twenty-one years of age, and resident of a particular town in this Commonwealth for the space of one year next preceding) having a freehold estate within the same town of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pound, shall have the right to vote in the choice of representative or representatives for said town.”

    The idea that citizenship and the right to vote or the right to run for office is equivalent to citizenship has been rejected by the legal authorities of the US.

    So what do we have? Obama lost his CUKC status when he became per Kenyan Constitution, a citizen of Kenya. In 1981, the UK removed the CUKC status and extended, as did Kenya, to Obama the concept of “Commonwealth Citizen”, which however has no relevance to the concept of ‘Citizenship’. In other words, unless Obama goes to the UK and applies for UK citizenship, he is not now, a US citizen with dual nationality.

  239. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    “So which AXJ are you?”

    AXJ: asshole extra juicy.

  240. avatar
    SFJeff September 3, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    This the best you can do Heavy? You accuse the President of hating America and not being a “Patriot” and this is your best evidence? Really?

    Lets take each one of Pat Boone’s quotes at a time- because it should embaress him and yourself- but it won’t either.
    Pat Boone’s quote:
    “We’re no longer a Christian nation.”

    Not sure how that statement would be un-Patriotic- but Pat- to his shame- leaves out the rest of his quote- my god even WMD has it complete
    “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers,”
    I agree with that statement.

    “America has been arrogant.”

    If I were to call my father ‘arrogant’ would that mean I hate my father?

    Once again I searched for the actual quote- difficult because Pat didn’t cite his source but I did come up with this

    “there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

    “But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.”

    “On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth.”

    Hmmm is it unpatriotic to recognize any faults? Especially when you are reaching out to allies and pointing their faults? I don’t disagree with the President.

    Next:
    “After 9/11, America didn’t always live up to her ideals.”

    I am not even going to bother to research this one- is it un-Patriotic to mention failing to live up to our ideals? When someone mentions the shame of Japanese Internment Camps is that Unpatriotic? Is it that our country cannot make mistakes or that its unpatriotic to talk about them? Oh apparently Walter Cronkite agreed with Obama’s statement- but then again who would ever trust Walter Cronkite?

    Last- the best one I think:
    “You might say that America is a Muslim nation.”-

    Is it unpatriotic to say this? Somehow I think the full quote might shed more light- except I can’t find a full quote. All I find is website after website copying the same claim. I can’t find anything to show the President actually said this.

    So Heavy- is this really the best you can do? Really? Very Pathetic, even for you.

  241. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 3, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    Do not feed the troll.

    SixToeMoe by trying to state a 1st Amendment case has anything to do with “Natural Born Citizen” in my opinion has devolved into the troll category. Nobody can be that stupid, not even Orly Taitz.

    Please, do not feed the troll.

  242. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    You mean like this:

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/3765120149_c563060f6e.jpg

  243. avatar
    SFJeff September 3, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    “You clearly do not grasp what was said. WKA is truly “bad law” ”

    Regardless of what you or others think about WKA, it is the interpretation of the law until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

    “There are many nomographs on the web discussing this very topic. You might read those also.”

    The only Nomograph I could find deaing with citizenship was a blogger using that name and dismissing birther claims as insane- is that what you were referring to?

  244. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

    “since that is not what was said.”

    First – I quoted what was said. If you hit Ctrl-F on this page you can find where Mario said that.

    Second – If Obama is ineligible because British law says he’s a British subject, then Britain has a veto over our Presidential candidates. If they changed their laws, they could make Obama eligible (eliminating jus sanguinis) or they could make all people of British heritage ineligible (instituting jure sanguinis).

    Third – I quoted what Mario said:

    It is inconceivable that the Framers would have constitutionally allowed after 1789 (when the Constitution was adopted) for a child to be born a British citizen and subject to the power of the British Crown to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation.

    A child is only “born a British citizen and subject to the power of the British Crown” by what Britain says. What their laws say.

    WKA is truly “bad law” and many – including some on SCOTUS – realize that.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire. I’ve asked you before to name a single member of SCOTUS who thinks so. You cannot because it is not true. In fact, 7 of the 9 sitting justices have quoted it as good law. Neither Roberts, nor Alito have suggested in any way that it is “bad law.”

  245. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 4:31 pm #

    Sally, you ignorant slut.

  246. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 4:34 pm #

    I’m not sure I see a fact in your post, 6toe. Groundless speculation, yes. Facts, not so much.

  247. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    And Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China. What’s your point?

  248. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    jtx to greg:

    Your “first” argument is itself a logical fallacy and is meaningless since that is not what was said. Reread the essay and TRY to understand what is said (no matter how much it hurts).

    To be comprehensible and persuasive you have to say what the fallacy is and then explain it why the particular example is a fallacy.

    jtx: WKA is truly “bad law” and many – including some on SCOTUS – realize that.

    Exactly which Supreme Court justice has realized that US v Wong Kim Ark’s decision is “bad law”. If it is true, then the justice must have a name. And if there is a name, there should be some evidence to go with it?

    An inane [mindless] comment is one that asserts without reason or evidence. Would you like to correct your comment to include some?

  249. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    Grace Murray Hopper is a lady. Must be a different Admiral Hopper.

  250. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 5:05 pm #

    Black Lion:

    The difference??? You can’t tell??? That’s probably true considering your inept spin attempts.

    Obama plans far more than just telling the kiddies that it’s :important to stay in school”. He’s handing out full-blown lesson plans and instructions for teachers at to what the kiddies should be led to believe and about how “his” (barf) healthcare plan is so important.

    It wouldn’t be too surprising to also see him tell the “kiddies” to turn their parents in the the new halthcare “czar” if they don’t enthusiastically help the young’un do his prepared lessons and turn them in for grading – or if they’re so poor that the “student” fails the grade completely.

    Sure, sure … just “talk to the kiddies”. Hell, Hitler did the same thing in Nazi Germany and even then it was known to be propaganda. Nothing different with you muslim communist pal today.

  251. avatar
    ballantine September 3, 2009 at 5:07 pm #

    “Exactly which Supreme Court justice has realized that US v Wong Kim Ark’s decision is “bad law”.”

    He is probably referring to the excitement by some in the “we hate illegal alien” crowd that were excited that Scalia called Hamdi a “presumed citizen” in his Hamdi v. Rumsfeld dissent, thus arguably indicating that he was not willing to concede his citizenship. This is a bit of a reach for an issue that apparently was not at issue in the case. It is hard to image Scalia taking such a position, as being primarily a textualist, it is difficult to imagine him taking a position against the obvious plain meaning of the words.

    Anyway, Wong has stood for 110 years, has been reaffirmed multiple times and has never been seriously questioned. The ruling comports with the majority of the legislative history and the plain meaning of the text. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to be overturned.

  252. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    nbc:

    Your MA context is completely irrelevant. At that time most states used English Common Law for many things and began to adapt to the ACL with the advent of the Constitutional Republic since “subject” (ECL) and “citizen” (ACL) were totally different in concept.

    Sure enuf … looks like out communist pal is still a Brit (just like he told us all in his own words – didn’t you “get it”??).

  253. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 3, 2009 at 5:15 pm #

    That’s not the issue before the court (“standing”) so therefore there is going to be no ruling.

    There are 3 items on calendar Monday:
    1) Should Gary Kreep be allowed to appear on behalf of his 2 clients, and should they be reinstated. (Prediction: yes to both questions; whatever the merits of the case, the plaintiffs are entitled to the attorney of their choosing)

    2) Has Orly served Obama and the other clients by 8 am Sept. 8th, as ordered. (Prediction: yes – the service is defective but appears to comply with the requirements that the US Attorney laid out as a condition of voluntary acceptance; if the US Attorney represents in court that he has accepted service, I expect that the court is likely to set a specific date for which a response is due).

    3) Should the magistrate be recused from further rulings on discovery matters, and if so, will Judge Carter hear Orly’s motion for expedited discovery? (Prediction: no, and no – the Judge will deny the motion to recuse the magistrate because Orly has not presented proper grounds for disqualification, and the Judge will decline to review the magistrate’s previous order striking her motion because the order was correct as to the deficiencies in Orly’s application.)

  254. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 5:16 pm #

    Have you no shame… Oops…

  255. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    Oh god! The horrors of a lesson plan about the importance of staying in school! Of working hard! Of doing their homework!

    Hitler encouraged kids to do their homework!

    And here are the evil lesson (K-6) plans (7-12)!

    That is so EVIL! Making goals!

  256. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    Your MA context is completely irrelevant. At that time most states used English Common Law for many things and began to adapt to the ACL with the advent of the Constitutional Republic since “subject” (ECL) and “citizen” (ACL) were totally different in concept.

    You are missing the point, citizenship and the right to vote or hold office are independent constructs, just as the US courts accepted.
    So we agree that the Constitution was based not of ACL, which did not exist at the time, but rather English Common Law, which did exist. And under common logic, since the states adopted ECL, the ACL was based on ECL and thus the definition of natural born is, just as the courts have shown, to be based on ECL. In fact, the distinction between subject and citizen is minor.

    Another example

    In my opinion it is a great error, and the fruitful parent of errors, to suppose that citizens belong exclusively to republican forms of government. English subjects are at truly citizens as we are, and we are as truly subjects as they are.

    Source: Edward Bates Attorney General, 1862

    Just the facts…

    Sure enuf … looks like out communist pal is still a Brit (just like he told us all in his own words – didn’t you “get it”??).

    In fact, the President stated quite the opposite, namely that he is not a Brit, just as the facts show. Why are you lying?

  257. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 5:27 pm #

    From Wong Kim Ark (on non-permanent aliens):

    Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

    “British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.

    Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.

    The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides

    In considering that last, “[the child of a temporary resident alien is] as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen” one must refer back to the definition of “natural born”, meaning born a subject. That is (and substituting the American term citizen) the child of an alien born in the United States is as much a citizen as the child of a citizen who is born a citizen. From which I would infer that both could become president. This says that there is no difference in the quality of the citizenship of those who are citizens from their birth. The naturalized citizen has the disadvantage of not being eligible to be president.

  258. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 5:27 pm #

    And, yet, there wasn’t a single clue that ACL (anterior cruciate ligament?) changed a whit from the English Common Law. Lynch v. Clarke couldn’t find a single case where the child of an alien was anything other than a natural-born citizen, neither could Wong. To the contrary, both cited extensive precedent that showed the opposite, that the Common Law in America was exactly the same as in England.

    And, you do realize that no matter how many times you repeat that “subject” and “citizen” are different concepts (despite the many Supreme Court rulings that say they’re functionally the same) that doesn’t do jack all to show that natural born is a different concept from natural born?

  259. avatar
    Expelliarmus September 3, 2009 at 5:29 pm #

    “Even the Supreme Court itself, via its SCOTUS Wiki,

    SCOTUS Wiki is NOT maintained by the Supreme Court “itself” — it is a private wiki that is an offshoot of Scotusblog, which is maintained by a private law firm.

  260. avatar
    SFJeff September 3, 2009 at 5:29 pm #

    “Hell, Hitler did the same thing in Nazi Germany and even then it was known to be propaganda. Nothing different with you muslim communist pal today.”

    So he is a nazi, muslim communist? Do you know anything about any of those terms? Each is pretty much mutually exclusive and through most of history nazi’s were bitter enemies of communists, muslims bitter enemies of communists. Heck a good communist is supposed to deny god, so his he a ‘fallen’ muslim communist or a muslim ‘fallen’ communist?

    JTX, when he isn’t flat out lieing spews forth alarmist buzzwords to smear the President. No he has no shame, nor any integrity.

  261. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 5:31 pm #

    He’ll also promise to publish plans for a perpetual motion machine, and it’s going to work this time, dammit.

  262. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 5:32 pm #

    nbc:

    Which, of course, is a different thing from “natural born citizen” … surprised you don’t know that as it’s been explained to you enough times.

    Perhaps you’re merely continuing on your Enabling efforts …

  263. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    Reminds me of the model of the universe where everything rides on the back of a giant turtle. When the lecturer was asked “what holds the turtle up” the reply was: “it’s turtles all the way down”. In the birther view of conspiracy and corruption, the failure of anyone with a grain of sense to accept their views forces them to believe that the conspiracy is ever widening. “It’s conspiracy all the way down.”

  264. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 5:39 pm #

    I have never been drunk.

  265. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    “Moe – what are you on?”

    He’s counting his toes.

  266. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    The fact that you repeat your tired and incorrect arguments over and over doesn’t make them true.

  267. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    Yes, but if you read the decision, you know that “domiciled” meant “living here”. And that is that. If you scan back up a few comments, see my citations on temporary residents.

  268. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 5:44 pm #

    I believe it is

    AXJ Accion por la Justicia (Spanish)

    hit the web site axjus.com

  269. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 5:47 pm #

    Oh I wrote a lot of COBOL back in the day (all of it that’s still around is proprietary and I can’t share it with you). But Admiral Hopper was no Miss Daisy. She was sharp as a tack and had some valuable lessons for a young fellow like me.

  270. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 5:48 pm #

    Duck, weave. Nope, still no facts.

  271. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 5:48 pm #

    Communism and fascism are mutually exclusive.

    Communism: dictatorship of the proletariat.
    Fascism: dictatorship of the elite.
    Socialism: workers own the means of production.
    Marxism: all social and business transactions are equitable.
    Leninism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

  272. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 6:03 pm #

    “It’s conspiracy all the way down.”

    Wait, it’s not?

  273. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 6:16 pm #

    If you repeat a lie often enough…

  274. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 6:22 pm #

    Wow, just read this

    During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

    There apparently are some who are afraid that the success of children in schools will upset the status quo…
    I understand that with an educated public, who can read write and comprehend, this may very well be the end of the birther movement,

  275. avatar
    transsexual September 3, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    another white person thats mad that we have a black man in the white house. get over it . nothing you can do about it.lol

  276. avatar
    Nullifidian September 3, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    Yes, but Orly is apparently flying in witnesses and plaintiffs for what should be a 15 minute motion hearing. You can’t make this stuff up.

    To say this is to credit Orly with a degree of manipulative intelligence I don’t believe she has, but….

    This may all be a ploy to rally the birthers to her side. Sort of an Inherit the Wind trick. You may remember the scene where all of Henry Drummond’s expert witnesses were barred from speaking by the judge, on the principle that Tennessee’s anti-evolution law was not on trial.

    In Orly’s case, assuming that she knows she’s going to lose this hearing, she can try to get her witnesses to testify. When that gets shot down, she can go back to her blog and scream about WHY ARE THEY SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH?!?!

    Nobody with a reasonable amount of legal expertise would buy such a crude trick, but if the birthers had such expertise they wouldn’t be birthers anymore.

  277. avatar
    milspec September 3, 2009 at 7:51 pm #

    Don’t you jtx would get tired of having the floor moped with he/she/its arguments and just go out and play.

  278. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 8:01 pm #

    what should be a 15 minute motion hearing.

    Should be. Will be? The Orly Roadshow needs at least an hour to perform.

  279. avatar
    Jim Scott September 3, 2009 at 8:28 pm #

    Has anyone checked-out the OBAMA TIMELINE at
    http://www.colony14.net/id41.html
    This guy goes into great detail about Obama’s birth certificate controversy.

  280. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 8:40 pm #

    It’s more an anti-biography than a “time line”.

    ” he was born with dual citizenship and split loyalties, and thus was arguably not a natural born citizen of the United States.”

  281. avatar
    Also AXJ September 3, 2009 at 8:40 pm #

    AXJ has opened a new Chapter in the USA and I am part of it, so what.

    They are just getting to the truth you liberals don’t want to hear…the smartest communist was Gorbochev…that says it all.

  282. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    I believe you mean Gorbachev?

  283. avatar
    Also AXJ September 3, 2009 at 8:43 pm #

    AXJ is just saying show us the name of the hospital, the doctor, and his records…that is all…The communist left in Rusia and China have it all hidden too…time for another revolution is it? Ya just like Castros…since 1959 going strong…thanks Liberals for all your help to humanity…

  284. avatar
    Also AXJ September 3, 2009 at 8:44 pm #

    It is not about Black or White, actually if you read the posts they already asked O’Reilly for a clarification…still waiting…

  285. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    “Barack Obama, Sr.’s Hawaiian education was sponsored partly by the Laubach Literacy Institute (LLI), which has links to the Nation of Islam”

    The Laubach Literacy Institute? The one founded by Frank Laubach who was a Christian Evangelical missionary?

    I mean, really, is there anyone who doesn’t have “links” to the Nation of Islam by this standard? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? Jesus Christ?

  286. avatar
    nbc September 3, 2009 at 8:47 pm #

    $10 for membership and low interest loans WTF…

  287. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 8:49 pm #

    The communist left in “Rusia” and China also drink water.

    You drink water, right? Commie!

  288. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 8:50 pm #

    I demand that Donofrio quit playing lawyer and act like a poker player!

  289. avatar
    kimba September 3, 2009 at 8:50 pm #

    HA! Misha. Bringin’ the funny to OCT since 2008.

  290. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 9:05 pm #

    I am not saying that any foreign nation has any veto power over who can be President. Rather, what I am saying is that we have laws which control who may be President. That law is Article II and, among other things, its “natural born Citizen” clause. When applying that clause, we must not only look to our laws but also to the laws of other nations, for we are concerned with the citizenship status of a person.

    For example, under our law, a naturalized citizen cannot be President. How do we know that a person is naturalized? First, we know that at birth the person was a citizen of a foreign nation under the laws of that nation. Then we know that the person subsequently naturalized under U.S. laws. Hence, in applying the naturalization disqualification, I am sure you would not say that we should not let some nation’s law on who can be its citizen have some veto power over our law on the subject. The same concept applies when determining who is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President.

    Finally, “natural born Citizen,” like naturalization, is a bright line test, either you make it or you do not. It is all irrelevant to the test to come up with all sorts of factual hypotheticals. The silliness of your approach can be seen by my telling you that a one-day-old foreign baby is brought to America, naturalizes, grows up to be a stellar U.S. citizen, and wants to be President but cannot. Unfortunately for that well-deserving fellow, the only focus under our current law is what was his status at birth which we know disqualifies him from the Presidency. In Obama’s case, we do not need to inject into the question all your hypotheticals. His situation is well defined and can and should be easily ruled upon by the Court.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    P.S. When is Misha going to make any legal arguments.

  291. avatar
    Bruce September 3, 2009 at 9:47 pm #

    You make me laugh. I’ve been following Leo’s blogs(some have been hacked) since before the election.You start out by saying you had your facts wrong but then jump to the conclusion that Leo is a propagandist. I’ve never read a more grounded person in my life. You miss the whole point of Leo’s research.That is, there are many questions about the constitutionality of the person who resides in the White House.That person if he were a man would help to answer those questions instead of obfuscate the process. No one in govt. will deal with any of those questions. All 3 branches of govt. are derelict in their duties. The press and organizations like yours appear to have an agenda.Leo is a patriot.The wave that started as a pebble thrown into the water is growing,you can race bait,disparage,or simply try to ignore, but the wave will eventually become a tsunami, and them’s the facts.

  292. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 9:48 pm #

    Apuzzo: I am not saying that any foreign nation has any veto power over who can be President. Rather, what I am saying is that we have laws which control who may be President. That law is Article II and, among other things, its “natural born Citizen” clause. When applying that clause, we must not only look to our laws but also to the laws of other nations, for we are concerned with the citizenship status of a person.

    Correct me if I am wrong here, but I think that when the Constitution used the phrase “natural born citizen”, they were talking about a natural born citizen of the United States.

    Sarcasm aside, I have read quite a bit on this subject from early sources and I have never seen such a notion expressed as Mr. Apuzzo opines here.

  293. avatar
    Bob September 3, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    I’ve never read a more grounded person in my life.

    Grounded? RFID chips in the passport, black helicopters, undercover agents trying to thwart filings?

    That is, there are many questions about the constitutionality of the person who resides in the White House

    Many questions, yes. No good ones so far.

  294. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 10:06 pm #

    When applying that clause, we must not only look to our laws but also to the laws of other nations

    It is at this point that your argument breaks down. You are giving other nations a veto power on who, born on our shores, qualifies to be a natural born citizen.

    You are, I am sure, familiar with the term jure sanguinis, right? It means that a nation considers all those who descend from their nation to be citizens, regardless of whether they naturalize in another country or not, regardless of how many generations separate a new child from the old nation.

    If a nation decided to operate under a jure sanguinis system, then everyone who descended from that nation would be considered, at their birth, a citizen of that nation (by that nation).

    If we determined natural born citizenship on the basis of who is born entirely free of any other nation’s claims (and the losing side in Wong said we should determine even citizenship on these grounds) then we are giving other nations a veto power over our Presidential eligibility.

    Nations have operated under jure sanguinis in the past. Italy currently has a form of it. It is not a silly hypothetical.

    And then in the converse, what about the nations that only recognize jus soli? So, the children of British citizens are not “NBC” but the children of Brazilian nationals not in the service of the government are not?

    Then there are the nations that give a child of their nationals born abroad the option to be considered citizens at birth (Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala).

    But, you’re wrong to suppose that naturalization looks to the law of other nations. How do we know if a person is a person in need of naturalization? Is he a citizen of our nation? If not, then he needs naturalization. We can determine it without every questioning the operation of another nation’s laws. This is simple logic, Mario. In order to prove that you aren’t in Massachusetts, I just have to look in Massachusetts. Are you there? No? Then you’re not there. I don’t have to prove you’re in Kansas.

    (This is the stuff I taught LSAT students on a daily basis. The logical opposite of X is Not X. That’s all you have to prove, you don’t have to prove Y!)

    You’re a lawyer, go look at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1. You often have to bring in an expert to prove the operation of foreign law. Can you imagine how cumbersome, and inoperable it would be if our INS had to figure out the laws of the various countries in the world in order to determine if someone is a citizen of OUR nation?

    Under the current system, the law is easy to apply and can be done without inquiring into the laws of other nations. By contrast, your rule would be almost impossible to apply. (What were the other nation’s citizenship laws at the time of this person’s birth?)

    It’s also pretty ironic for someone who puts himself into the minds of our founders and imagines their fear of foreign influence to decry the use of hypotheticals!

  295. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    Finally, “natural born Citizen,” like naturalization, is a bright line test, either you make it or you do not.

    Here’s another font of problems with your argument. Until at least 1900 there were two bright line tests:

    1. Citizen or not citizen

    And if a citizen:

    2. Natural born or naturalized

    There was no category of person that fit into the “citizen” category that did not fit into one or the other of “natural born” or “naturalized.”

    There were no thinkers, no founders, who imagined someone born here who would not be eligible for President. Or, if they did, they didn’t write it down, which is just as bad!

    So, either we accept that the children of foreigners are natural born citizens, or they are not citizens at all!

  296. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 10:23 pm #

    Greg: “So, either we accept that the children of foreigners are natural born citizens, or they are not citizens at all!”

    Which is why I keep telling Apuzzo that he has to overturn Wong.

  297. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 10:26 pm #

    Greg: Under the current system, the law is easy to apply and can be done without inquiring into the laws of other nations. By contrast, your rule would be almost impossible to apply. (What were the other nation’s citizenship laws at the time of this person’s birth?)

    And we need look no further than President Obama to see what a royal [no pun intended] mess that would be.

  298. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 3, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    Is this the same grounded person who posted a photograph of the justices of the Supreme Court overprinted with the word “WUSSY”?

  299. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 11:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    And you will not find that on Leo’s blog since it has (long since) been removed and he apologized to SCOTUS as well …

    … all of which is more intellectually honest that those of you on this blog who persist in the purposeful denigration of others.

    And none of you Flying Monkeys have ever had sufficient intestinal fortitude to say that if Obama is found to be ineligible to hold the office he now occupies that you believe the full force of the law should be brought to bear upon him.

    Or would you, perhaps, now like to change your story???

  300. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    “First: The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. There is no evidence that the Founders intended to let Britain decide who would be eligible to be a citizen of the United States. In fact, since they did not recognize the ability of British subjects to lose their British subjectship, and did not recognize US naturalization, they would have considered many people to be natural-born British subjects despite having two US citizen (by naturalization) parents.”

    Thank you. That is why the Founders rejected English Common law and adopted the law of nations to decide national citizenship issues for the new nation.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  301. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 11:08 pm #

    misha:

    Just so long as he doesn’t promise to educate your Deathers as it is grossly apparent that is not possible.

    You’d rather go down with the ship — err; country.

  302. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    “Third: The Supreme Court has spoken with one voice that our citizenship laws do not take into account anything other nations do.”

    First, I do not understand why you are not able to grasp the idea that it is not what another nation is doing but what the U.S. is doing based on a definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is.

    Second, you are simply wrong. If you were correct, how do you explain dual citizenship?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  303. avatar
    David Hart September 3, 2009 at 11:16 pm #

    I stopped posting Birther related blogs to our site. Aside from the fact that they are a bit off topic (although not entirely) they are simply not worth the cycles and bandwidth consumed by crazy people who utterly impervious to either fact or logic.

    Obama’s real crime is PWB; Presiding While Black. In all of my years I have never been so profoundly embarrassed by – and ashamed of – our citizenry.

    The smartest thing that Obama did was in NOT trying to provide more documentation which would have only further advanced this folly down the tracks of lunacy.

  304. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 11:16 pm #

    Doc,

    We are talking about eligibility to be President. Where else are you going to find “natural born Citizen” as it applies to the President but in Article II?” It the article’s use of that term not the central issue? Where else do you want to look for your imaginary “natural born Citizen” as it pertains to Presidential eligibility?

    Also, I sense a vulnerablity on your part by your attempt to excise “natural born Citizen” out of Article II and implant it in some imaginary world that of course suits your purpose just well.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  305. avatar
    jtx September 3, 2009 at 11:20 pm #

    nbc:

    You’re wrong again – which is a bad avit you have. I’m sure it’ll come as news to you but the majority of voters did not vote for your guy. Enough of the people voting in the particular election gave an EC majority to the man but they were not a majority of voters – far from it.

    The nasty little secres it that “your boy” has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies. And the Constitution has the NBC requirement as an absolute requirement. If he doesn’t meet that, he’s not the President – and since he’s not, all of his official actions will be suspect and since not a legal office holder he cannot be impeached. You should realize that, but don’t – so why keep supporting this guy???

  306. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 11:23 pm #

    I said born after 1789.

    As for the grandfather clause class, who else did the Founders have to be President? They had to make an exception to start things. Also, remember that to be an original “citizen,” the person had to have adhered to the revolution. This, along with habitation, was enough for the Founders to take a chance with that would-be President. Finally, it would have been a real slap in the face for the Founders to disqualify the people who fought in the revolution from being President, which included themselves.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  307. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    What crime do you think he’s committed and what mens rea does it require?

  308. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 11:30 pm #

    How do I explain dual citizenship? The same way the Supreme Court does, by pointing out that what another nation does has no impact on what the US does wrt citizenship.

    Let’s go to the tape:

    In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case — that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States — the Court adverted to the “inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality.

    Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, 329

  309. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 11:33 pm #

    Talk about an argument senza sugo. I would appreciate a legal argument.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  310. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 11:39 pm #

    It used to be ‘where’d you get that car, boy?’ Now, it’s ‘where’d you get that house, boy?’

    Is Barack Obama a runaway slave? Until he shows all of his papers, that concern will linger.

    He should not show one more document. He should let those SOBs squirm. Giving in one micron, will give them ligitimacy. No matter what he shows, they will pick it apart, and denounce it. I’m just wondering what this crowd will do when Booker announces. I predict he will announce, and be elected, in ’16.

    I also predict in ’12, the GOP will run Mittens and Cantor. Cantor will go running around, telling Jews if Obama is re-elected, it will be the end of Israel, and he makes nice to terrorists. They’ll get no more than 40% of the popular vote.

  311. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 11:39 pm #

    Of course you are going to say McCain qualifies, just like Obama and his supporters said. Can you imagine you [Obama & Co] saying that he does not. After all, when we stack McCain against Obama in the citizenship contest, we have the former with two U.S. citizen parents and the later with just one. You guys are just so kind giving McCain a break.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  312. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 11:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Can you explain to me why Obama and his enablers would be so accomodating to McCain, their political rival?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  313. avatar
    misha September 3, 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    Yeah, that one.

  314. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 11:47 pm #

    Misha,

    I asked that you make a legal argument. I guess you are not capable of doing that. Hence, what is your purpose here but to just get in the way of intelligent discussion.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  315. avatar
    Greg September 3, 2009 at 11:47 pm #

    If it’s based on the law, why would it change based on who was being subjected to the inquiry?

  316. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 11:49 pm #

    Just the right place for your nose.

  317. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 3, 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    You forgot about the third class found in Article II, i.e., “natural born Citizen.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  318. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 12:01 am #

    You missed my whole point. You present me with the obvious but you do not address my point which is if we do not consider foreign citizenship law, then why do we recognize dual citizenship?

  319. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 12:02 am #

    Natural born citizen is just native born with minor exceptions.

    We have aliens and citizens, the class of citizens includes natural and naturalized.

  320. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 12:03 am #

    And you can find Founder saying that there was a citizen who was born here who did not become a natural born citizen?

  321. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 12:04 am #

    Misha,

    Stick to talking about something of which you have at least a little knowledge. There is no plea bargaining in DWI.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  322. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 12:08 am #

    McCain is an interesting issue. Binney would argue that foreign born children of US citizens do not get their citizenship through common law and that statute is needed. Others would argue that since English law accepted children born on foreign soil to English father to be English, by statute, that this is what was meant by natural born.

    Either case, the issue is irrelevant to Obama’s status which is clearly natural born, despite your objections.

  323. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 12:08 am #

    Why do we recognize dual citizenship? Comity. Their claim to citizenship doesn’t extinguish ours, so we don’t care.

    But, we don’t make a citizenship rule based on what that other country does.

  324. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 12:09 am #

    Some may say the same about your ‘legal filings’ in Kerchner.

  325. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 12:10 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I guess you have not read all the available case law on the subject.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  326. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 12:13 am #

    Cite please?

  327. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 12:19 am #

    Please read my column on New Jersey.

  328. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 12:19 am #

    A remarkably uninformative and evasive comment.

  329. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 12:25 am #

    The Constitution only mentions two: natural born and natural ized.

  330. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 12:30 am #

    You have gone at length here including the LSATs and Rules of Civil Procedure and missed the point. If a child is born in the U.S. to a mother and father who are citizens, he or she is a “natural born Citizen.” End of story. It does not matter what other country’s laws are, for it is our sovereign right to make that decision. Once we, as a nation, make that decision, that person is constitutionally eligible to be President under Article II.

    Also, on your position that there is no need for us to be concerned with foreign citizenship law in the naturalization context, can you tell me what the oath of allegiance is about?

    You argue that applying jus soli is so easy, just like the Lynch court, and that is why we should use it. First of all, I am not talking about plain citizenship under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act. I am concerned with whether someone running for President is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. What is so difficult about taking the time to find out whether the guy or gal running for President was born in the U.S. to citizen parents? That is real difficult to do?

    Finally, I do no decry the use of hypotheticals per se. I do decry their use when they are utilized to reach the absurdity for the purpose of attempting to win an argument.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  331. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 12:37 am #

    Justice Gray made Wong a “citizen” by stretching things a bit but only under the unique facts of that case. Obama does not even meet the Wong facts. His father was neither domiciled nor a legal resident in the U.S. Obama’s parents had no hardship such as Wong’s parents, who were attached to America but could not naturalize because of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

    There is no need to overturn Wong. You say I need to do that just to put up more obstacles in my way. Wong makes “citizens” not “natural born Citizens.”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  332. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    Apuzzo: Can you explain to me why Obama and his enablers would be so accommodating to McCain, their political rival?

    I note that both Obama and Clinton were co-sponsors of SR-511. I can only speculate, but I would assume that it was the Senate “old boy network” at work. The very fact that SR-511 was unanimous backs that up. Certainly SR-511 would not have been introduced unless there was some question involved. And again, Lindsey Graham (D-SC), a member of the inner circle of McCain’s campaign, has written quite plainly that Obama is eligible. Why would he do that for HIS political rival?

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”

    Of course this isn’t the first Senator to make a remark like that. Back in the time of Chester A. Arthur, Senator T. F. Bayard wrote:

    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.

  333. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 12:41 am #

    “the smartest communist was Gorbochev…that says it all.”

    Yeah, he ended the Cold War. Nothing of any consequence. As opposed to Bush, who started a war with fabricated evidence, and who cannot put a coherent paragraph together.

    Oh, if you’re going to tell me Reagan ended the Cold War: Reagan left office in ’88. The Cold War ended in ’89. So don’t bother.

    The first thing the Polish parliament did after independence, was outlaw abortion and make it almost impossible to obtain birth control in Poland. The Church influences all legislation in Poland. So they traded tyranny of Russia for tyranny of the Church. Personally, I’d take Russia.

  334. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 12:50 am #

    The issue is not the domicile of Sr, but rather of Jr, who by virtue of being born in the US was born under allegiance and subject to the jurisdiction.

    It is clear from US jurisprudence that all children born on US soil are born citizens, regardless of the status of their parents.

  335. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 12:53 am #

    Before Wong there was no distinction between native-born and natural-born. You can not cite a pre-Wong authority that suggests that someone could become a “native-born citizen” and not become a “natural born citizen.” It was not conceived of. You were one of: a natural born citizen, an alien, or a naturalized citizen. There was no denization in the American system.

    You’re inventing categories, Mario, that the founders did not imagine. Or, if they imagined them, failed so utterly to convey their intention that by 1803, the entire legal system had reverted back to the British conception that birth here made you a natural born citizen regardless of your parents’ citizenship.

    (And since domicile depends on a fact-based inquiry into the present intentions of the party to stay indefinitely in the locale, I doubt you can prove that Obama’s father hadn’t formed such an intention at the moment of Obama’s birth. A couple of the things that the courts look at in determining domicile are marriage and children. You do realize, don’t you, that domicile is distinct from alien status, right?)

  336. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    AXJ has not published anything that is not true. On their 30,000 plus thread about OBAMA’S history they have stated the simple facts. A certificate of live birth is simply not a birth certificate nor does any other evidence exist that Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro was his biological mother. No witnesses have come forth. No hospital has recognized he was born there. No doctor has delivered him. No documentation whatsoever. Have you bothered to read the divorce documents? Nowhere does it say who the child’s father really is. Strange huh? Read them.

  337. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 1:07 am #

    If a child is born here to parents who are not ambassadors or heads of state or invading armies, they are natural born citizens, end of story! It is our sovereign right to make that determination, and we did! That’s the rule in the United States. It always has been. Don’t like it? Change the Constitution!

    There are naturalized citizens and there are natural born citizens. The two groups combined are citizens. There is no such thing as a citizen who is born here but is not a natural born citizen.

    The concept never existed before Wong Kim Ark.

    At the time of the founding, there was near universal understanding that born here = NBC. In 1803, it was in the major legal texts of the day. It wasn’t until around the time of Lynch that a minority view arose. From that time to Wong, there was a debate between the established view (Lynch) and a minority view.

    The majority said that natural born citizens were those born here, regardless of parents’ citizenship. Children of aliens were natural born citizens.

    The minority said that natural born citizens were those who were born here to a citizen father. Children of aliens were not citizens.

    There was no group that argued that the children of aliens were native-born-but-not-natural-born-citizens.

    That is a creation, a fiction, grafted onto the Constitution long after Wong.

    Go ahead, Mario. Find me a single authority that says the children of aliens become native born but not natural born citizens!

    Go take a look at the two sides in Wong Kim Ark. Read their briefs. George Collins saved his best argument for last. If we allow the children of the Chinese to become citizens, then they can run for President! He didn’t argue that they’d attain some lesser category of citizenship depriving them of only the right to be President.

    (And the oath of allegiance is about declaring one’s allegiance to our country!)

  338. avatar
    Mary Brown September 4, 2009 at 1:09 am #

    He has been wise to ignore these people. And should continue to do so. I am over 60 Misha and I do not know who Mittens is. I think I may be embarrased.

  339. avatar
    Mary Brown September 4, 2009 at 1:11 am #

    Then why is my transcript of birth from NY, which contains less info than Obama’s COLB be sufficient for me to get Social Security, a passport and submit it if I decide to run for President?

  340. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 1:12 am #

    Yup funny how the second 1 indicating a child over 18 was added later and does not appear on the original document. Also no mention is made of the actual child.

  341. avatar
    Mary Brown September 4, 2009 at 1:12 am #

    Citizen Wells, you are joking. Yes, I’ve been there.

  342. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 1:14 am #

    My Kansas birth certificate is a “Certificate of Live Birth.” It has the hospital I was born in in Wichita, Kansas. It has the signature of the doctor, and the registrar. Interestingly, it was received by the registrar 10 days after I was born.

    Obama’s Certification of Live Birth is a state document which certifies that he was born in Honolulu to Stanley Ann Dunham. It is signed by a person in the Department of Health. It bears the seal. That signature attests that all the facts are as they are in the file on record.

    Therefore, there is evidence that he was born in Hawaii. There is evidence that he was born to Stanley Ann Dunham. There is evidence that his father is Barack Hussein Obama.

    In fact, it is competent evidence, which is self-authenticating, overcomes any hearsay objection, and meets the burden of going forward.

  343. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 1:18 am #

    Is missing page 11 from Dunham Divorce Decree the Kenyan Birth Certificate?

    It follows spot-on with the divorce decree time-line … February, 1964. Stanley A. Dunham filed for Divorce Monday, Jan. 20th, 1964. Her Divorce was granted exactly 3 months later, after no cooperation from Obama Sr., causing the “default” items in the Decree to be enforced by the Judge.

    I personally believe the Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate is the real-deal according to my research here.

    The parallels between the dates on the birth certificate and from what has been disclosed about the divorce, only serves to reinforce my initial conclusion.
    Understanding the Dunham family and CIA connections

    Since this certificate is a copy of the original, it appears as if Obama Sr. did not sign the original certificate (no signature present), yet, he listed as the Father. It would either mean he was not present at Obama’s birth, or is not the Father, something Stanley Ann would be trying to promote otherwise.

    Many of you may not believe this, but extensive research indicates (various sources) that Stanley A. Dunham was recruited by the CIA early in her career. She went from Anthropologist to working at a known “CIA Spook” company called the Ford Foundation. From there, she created the “Micro-finance” scheme for lending poor people loans (sound familiar, like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?). It started with her Father, Stanley Dunham, who worked for David Rockefeller at David’s “Standard Oil Company”. David Rockefeller started the Council on Foreign Relations and his first choice to lead the Council was none-other-than Marxist enthusiast Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message856578/pg1

  344. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 1:20 am #

    It must be late, I’m not following. There’s nothing in that document that suggests Obama was adopted by Lolo.

    And it asks for the name of the minor child. Obama was not a minor.

    WTF?

  345. avatar
    NBC September 4, 2009 at 1:23 am #

    A pleasure to read, Greg, as usual you show a depth of maturity and a well researched and argued position.
    Glad to have you on board.

  346. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 1:24 am #

    “When is Misha going to make any legal arguments.”

    I’m a satirist. I have a paralegal certificate from Old Dominion University, in Norfolk, but I never used it. I rely on Senator Lindsey Graham, who is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

    To paraphrase him, ‘born on US soil means natural born.’ And WKA stated parents’ status is immaterial. To me, that seals the deal. I am not going to engage in mental gymnastics.

    To claim that a president, and president only, must have US citizen parentage, is repugnant. To seek a court ruling establishing a third class of citizen – native born, but not natural born, is vile. That is literally disenfranchising a substantial portion of the population. And it will never happen.

    For Orly to go around Israel shouting “brownshirt,” is reptilian. For Orly to go around Israel flatly stating our Constitution requires both parents be citizens, and Obama got in by paying off everyone, is beyond the pale.

    Of course Orly, like Lieberman and Sharansky, are refuseniks. One thing I’ve found about refuseniks, is that they go in for crackpot politics. That’s one reason I don’t live in Israel. They’ve forgotten the principles of Ben Gurion, and now are guided by Likud. I’ve seen Arabs treated like black people used to be treated here. There have been pogroms against Arabs. And the settlers have instituted apartheid, egged on by evangelicals.

    Fie on the right wing.

  347. avatar
    Mary Brown September 4, 2009 at 1:26 am #

    WE should not be replying to this person. He has nothing logical to say, and no evidence to support it. I will not reply again.

  348. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 1:34 am #

    I contribute levity.

  349. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 1:41 am #

    Why, thank you. Glad you saw the Charles Addams cartoon.

    He was always my favorite. Addams was from New Jersey.

  350. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 1:42 am #

    Your argument contains an assumption regarding what is a “native” citizen. You incorrectly assume just born on U.S. soil makes one a “native” citizen. What did Justice Story mean when he used the word “native?” He did not state that just being born on U.S. soil makes one a “native” citizen. Rather, under the law of nations (and not English common law) which our U.S Supreme Court adopted as U.S. common law it means born on U.S. soil to parents who are citizens.” As Chief Justice Marshall 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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’” The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814). See also Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) (same). Hence, when Justice Story talks about those who were not “native” during the time period prior to the adoption of the Constitution, he included people who were born abroad and those born on American soil, for those born abroad would have been naturalized and those born on American soil would have been born to U.S. citizen parents.

  351. avatar
    racosta September 4, 2009 at 1:48 am #

    I second that, only thing I would to see is his reply after the Sept 8 court concludes. Other than that he is a complete ________!

  352. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 1:52 am #

    nbc,

    At times you make sense. But when you have no answer, your true self takes over and you have to retrograde to childish comments. What does that say about your personality?

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  353. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 1:56 am #

    * NOTE: Apparently Dr. Orly Taitz has obtain a true full certified copy of the 1964 divorce decree and corresponding documentation that proves Mr. OBAMA was in fact not born in the USA and will be presented to the Court on that day while all parties are legally served as well.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18130289/Obama-1964-Divorce-Papers-13-Pages-Missing-Pg-11

  354. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 1:58 am #

    Mittens is my snarky name for Mitt Romney.

  355. avatar
    Lupin September 4, 2009 at 2:01 am #

    I couldn’t put it better! Bravo!

  356. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 2:02 am #

    Lupin,

    I am really so proud that our country has heroes such as you to look out for the poor and downtrodden. Maybe you would consider making a donation to a worthy charity in support of such children. I’m sure you have made so many such donations in your days and even donated so much of your precious time for those little Latino babies. When you get a chance, please send me proof of the medals that have been bestowed upon you by the Latino community.

    As far as me being a racist, blame the Founders for requiring a person to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible for the Presidency.

    But then I know, the Constitution does not matter when our heart bleeds for someone we adore.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  357. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 2:03 am #

    Ya sounds like something a Liberal would say…until he becomes a “Socialist” and then a Communist and eliminates the right to Free Speech…just watch Hugo Chavez as he learned from Fidel Castro…don’t like Freedom? Go live there…

  358. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 2:06 am #

    Kimba,

    I guess were done for the night. Your team lost. You pulled out the race card so you have nothing left to offer in defense of your positions. Good night.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  359. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 4, 2009 at 2:06 am #

    Mario,

    Let me ask you one question. Italy recognizes dual citizenship, and transmits that dual citizenship through generations, no matter how many generations removed they are.

    So, fact situation here.

    Two Itilian Citizens moved from Italy to the United States. They had a child, who was born in the United States, before Naturalizing. It’s clear that you would not consider this man an Natural Born Citizen, under your rule. Now, this man has dual citizenship. Neither the U.S. nor Italy requires renouncing any sort of citizenship when they reach the age of majority, so they can stay dual citizens for life, and transmit the dual citizenship to their children.

    They have children, with a Itilian-Born U.S. Citizen. This child has both U.S. and Itilian Citizenship, and therefore is a dual citizen. Is this child eligible for the Presidency? He was born on U.S. Soil, to 2 U.S. Parents. However, he’s a dual citizen, and was at the time of his birth, subject to the citizenship laws of Italy. My question is whether or not you would consider this man a Natural Born Citizen.

    If you would, then you spent a whole lot of time arguing the British Naturalization Act, and whether or not that would apply to Obama, because it’s obvious that it’s immaterial whether or not other countries grant citizenship, or not. So, my question is why are you even arguing the British Naturalization Act, if it has no bearing on the case?

    If you wouldn’t, then you’re ultimately giving another country veto power over who we can and cannot elect President, because they have the right, as any independant nation does, whoever they want to be citizens of their country. And my question to you is why are you giving a foreign country this sort of power? Don’t you understand that you’re argument is doing this? If your definition stands up (I see no chance of it coming), you’re basically telling every foreign power that they can declare whoever they want to be a citizen of their country, and limit who they get into the Presidency. Imagine if Iran decided to declare all Americans citizens of Iran. They would effectively mean that we could no longer elect a President, because people who were born in America would also be citizens of Iran. Seems like a good way for an enemy to get rid of the Presidency in 35 years.

  360. avatar
    Lupin September 4, 2009 at 2:07 am #

    Plain and simple, everything you say is rubbish.

    I feel like a car mechanic listening to a guy with no understanding of engines telling him how to fix his car. Admittedly, you use the technical vocabulary well, but what you say is basically rubbish.

    No wonder you haven’t had any single success in court so far.

  361. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 2:07 am #

    misha,

    Now I can live with that comment.

    Mario

  362. avatar
    Lupin September 4, 2009 at 2:10 am #

    That’s rubbish. There’s no “third category” of citizenship to determine eligibility (or anything else for that matter). None. Nada.

    No wonder you guys keep losing all your court battles. You don’t make any sense.

  363. avatar
    SFJeff September 4, 2009 at 2:12 am #

    JTX- you are a liar.

  364. avatar
    Lupin September 4, 2009 at 2:12 am #

    Pure unadulterated rubbish. Totally fictional construct. Hasn’t the SCOTUS refused to hear this twice already?

  365. avatar
    racosta September 4, 2009 at 2:15 am #

    Maybe you should read the pages you linked to, they do not prove “…not born in the USA” at all. Are you really that dumb, to give a link to something that does not say what you say it does? Were you taken in or just really stupid!

  366. avatar
    Lupin September 4, 2009 at 2:15 am #

    THIS is a scaaaaaary story, Misha.

    But you’re right. This can’t end well for our Republic.

  367. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 2:17 am #

    Jesus Christ, when is this psycho going to be committed? I thought the John Birch Society had faded away.

    Every time I think I heard everything, something new comes along.

    Hey everyone, I have proof positive McCain is a space alien.

  368. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 2:28 am #

    I have in my possession – really – two authentic Kenyan birth certificates: here and here.

  369. avatar
    Lupin September 4, 2009 at 2:28 am #

    It’s funny, the crazy wife of a friend of mine (she was a rightwing nut) used to say the same thing.

    I’ve attended several swearing in/ naturalization ceremonies in Los Angeles, and one of the things the INS does at the end, before the new citizens stand in line to get their Certificate of Naturalization, is tell the immigrants to NOT surrender their other passports (Mexican, Indonesian, etc) and that they DO NOT want them.

  370. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 2:40 am #

    AXJ is not on board with anyone. AXJ simply defends free speech. All this discussion is futile except for the fact that a document written over 200 years ago and made Law by Congress in 1787 holds that one of the requirements to be President of the Federal Government be a “natural born citizen” which that same document did not define. As a child born and growing up in the USA I remember being told that by simply being born in the USA (jus solis) I was considered a “natural born citizen” and could be President. Since that time I moved to Europe and holds nationalities from different countries which have given me citizenship without ever having denied my US citizenship.
    But the OBAMA case is totally different.

  371. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 2:45 am #

    “Can you explain to me why Obama and his enablers would be so accomodating to McCain, their political rival?”

    Because we believe in the ballot box, not removing a rival by legislating him out of existence.

    Liberalism is sooo disgusting.

  372. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 2:45 am #

    OBAMA is the supposed son of a foreigner but neither this nor the supposed nationality of his supposed mother have any bearing whatsoever on his “natural born status”. Those are silly arguments. If he can really prove he was born in Hawaii in 1961 then he is considered a “natural born citizen”, end of story. Problem is the document he has used to try to establish this fact is fraudulent and is not a birth certificate. He has yet to convince us no matter what anybody may say. Sealing and hiding documents from the American People is only making things worse.

  373. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 2:51 am #

    Lupin, you have no right to insult anyone.

    What do you do for a living? It is certainly not writing.

    How many languages do you know? Mario probably knows Latin and Italian, or am I mistaken.

    Rome was an empire same as Spain at one time and Spain even helped the 13 colonies get their independence from the Brits.

    Rome created the basis for the Law we use today, and the system of Law in the USA today is envied by the rest of the world.

  374. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 2:57 am #

    Exactly. My wife carries two passports. When we go through Customs, there is a sign “Overseas Chinese.” She has two passports, and it gets her through customs faster.

    I took an extra step. I went to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, and asked there, “If I serve in the IDF, will it affect my US citizenship?”

    “Were you born in the States?” was the reply. I said “yes, in New York.” I was told “no, it will not affect your US citizenship.” One of my cousins was drafted into the IDF, and it did not affect her natural born (NYC) status.

    There is not a third class of US citizenship.

  375. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 4, 2009 at 2:59 am #

    Plyler v. Doe is a 14th Amendment equal protection case, not a 14th Amendment citizenship case. Hence, you are confusing “within its jurisdiction,” which applies to equal protection, with “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” with applies to citizenship. They are two different concepts. The former goes to simply being present in a territory so that one may enjoy that territory’s protection while the latter goes to being completely subject to its legal and political power so one may be a citizen of the country.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  376. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 3:15 am #

    What happened to my foreskin?

    Did you hear about the wallet made of foreskins that sells for $10,000? When you rub it, it turns into a suitcase.

  377. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 3:30 am #

    OBAMA is the one that is going to have to prove he is a natural born citizen of the USA, not your cat. Just wait till the Judge orders discovery and the long form of the BC is presented to the Court…we are all waiting…September 8, 2009…

  378. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 4, 2009 at 3:45 am #

    “I take it you interpret this portion of section 37 to mean a person must presently be a citizen of a Schedule 3 country to claim Commonwealth citizenship (which makes sense).”

    Strictly speaking I’m saying that that’s how it would apply to someone in Obama’s situation. Someone else might be become a citizen via section 37(1)(a) which makes no reference to Schedule 3 but that’s not applicable to Obama.

    Technically it is possible to be a commonwealth citizen without any other citizenship but you’d have to be one the few who are “British Subjects” under Part IV of the 1981 Act and have no other citizenship. In this day and age I doubt if such an animal exists.

    Oh No! – jtx will think we’re arguning again

  379. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 3:53 am #

    Britain has nothing to say or do with this case. OBAMA same as his supposed dad hates the Brits. Understandable. Americans in the late 1700s hated them too. They had better alies in the Spanish. Anyone remember who stood next to the USA going into Iraq?

    The 13 colonies used Spain’s coin and infrastructure to be able to kick the Brits out.

    Once you are born on USA soil (ius solis) makes you a USA citizen and you can care less what any other country in the world says.

  380. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 3:59 am #

    My cat is smarter than you, that’s for sure.

    When he turned 13 in human years, I gave him a bar mitzvah. He’s also bi-lingual. I taught him commands in Yiddish.

  381. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 4:10 am #

    Obviously you resort to insults when your brain stops working. Learn some languages and travel, it will open your mind. Vete a España y disfruta de la vida amigo mio. Ciao.

  382. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 4:34 am #

    I’ve lived in Israel, Taipei and Kaohsiung. I’ve also been to Korea and Japan. I live in Chinatown. I drove from Philly to Alaska for the Iditarod, and worked there for several months. I have a private pilot license, and in 1989 I drove a tractor-trailer long haul for one year. I’ve been in every state of the Union, except Hawaii.

    I know the Hebrew alphabet, and knew enough Mandarin to get around Taiwan on my own, on a motorscooter.

    The Jesuits got hold of me when I was 17, and it stuck for life. I was active in the Catholic peace movement in college, and believe in social justice. I was active in SVdeP in college. I am a lifelong Democrat.

    Before I had a stroke, my bread and butter was as a licensed optician; I have two degrees.

    This a pdf of my book: http://www.sofobomo.org/2009/books/misha-marinsky/the-holga-bus-company/

    Do I meet your requirements?

    Hasta luego!

  383. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 5:14 am #

    “Anyone remember who stood next to the USA going into Iraq?”

    Primarily, Australia: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45794-2004Sep23.html

    “The 13 colonies used Spain’s coin and infrastructure to be able to kick the Brits out.”

    The Colonies’ primary ally was France. Most mercenaries were Hessian, from Germany.

    “Once you are born on USA soil (ius solis) makes you a USA citizen and you can care less what any other country in the world says.”

    So you agree Obama can be president? Thank you.

  384. avatar
    DCBikerJohn September 4, 2009 at 6:42 am #

    We relied on FactCheck.org to vet this candidate, and they got it wrong. We relied on FactCheck.org to define natural born citizen as anyone born in the US. Could they be wrong again?

  385. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 4, 2009 at 6:45 am #

    “Anyone remember who stood next to the USA going into Iraq? ”

    Yes I do. Britain amongst others – 179 dead. another 210 and rising in Afghanistan.

  386. avatar
    Goebells September 4, 2009 at 7:32 am #

    Still waiting on the NBC proof. Even SCOTUS in WKA agreed that birth on American soil does not make you a Natural Born Citizen.

  387. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 4, 2009 at 7:48 am #

    Yes!

    Craig v. US, a Native Born Citizen has no right to be classified as a Natural Born Citizen and only the Federal Court or a Constitution Amendment can determine who is or is not an NBC.

    Steven Craig is a modern day hero.

  388. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 8:31 am #

    “Yes I do. Britain amongst others – 179 dead. another 210 and rising in Afghanistan.”

    No disrespect intended, but Afghanistan is a lost cause.

  389. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 9:02 am #

    Good name. But, since everyone involved in the case thought that if Wong was made a “citizen” he would be a “natural born citizen,” don’t you think the court would have been more explicit in their statement that he was not a natural born citizen?

    Two of the briefs even discussed the possibility of Wong running for President. If you’re the court and both parties think that if you make Wong a citizen he can run for President, and you don’t want that, don’t you think you’d toss in a footnote or something saying, “Wong can’t run for President?” Instead, the court said this:

    Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    I read that to say pretty clearly that if someone has kids here, unless they’re an ambassador the child is a natural-born citizen.

  390. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 9:08 am #

    The document isn’t fraudulent. And it’s a state certification of the facts contained. It’s signed under the pains and penalties of perjury that the facts contained are the same as those on record with the state. It has the state seal on it.

  391. avatar
    kimba September 4, 2009 at 9:15 am #

    No. They’ve got it right. Did you sleep through 6th grade civics class?

  392. avatar
    kimba September 4, 2009 at 9:17 am #

    Gosh Doc, you better get the new servers on line. With that referral from Factcheck, your little site might be getting really busy soon. Excellent news! Congrats!

  393. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 9:19 am #

    Depends on the state. In my state, first-time DUI’s are commonly pled out. The offender will agree to take a class, do community service, perhaps lose their license for a few months, in order to avoid a guilty verdict and up to a year in jail. Even second offenses can be pled to a 2 year probation and a few weeks in an in-hospital treatment program and an interlock device with the right attorney.

  394. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 4, 2009 at 9:24 am #

    No argument from me Misha.I’ve been saying that from the start.

  395. avatar
    Mike September 4, 2009 at 9:26 am #

    To quote a famous film: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”.

    The document prepared by a hospital listing the parents’ names, birth weight, tiny footprints and so on is not and never has been a birth certificate. Rather, it is a birth record, also known as part of vital records.

    A birth certificate is a document issued by a government attesting to the fact that someone was born in a particular jurisdiction. It commonly lists the parents’ names and the date and location of birth, and may contain other information, depending upon area.

    While certain jurisdictions may have issued simple duplications of original birth records as birth certificates in the past, they are not birth certificates because they were copied from birth records but because they were issued by the governing jurisdiction. As long as they (within this context) remain within the bounds of Federal law and guidelines regarding which information should be on them, they are by definition birth certificates, whether called certifications of live birth or anything else.

    In other words, you have no leg to stand on.

  396. avatar
    Mike September 4, 2009 at 9:31 am #

    Maybe he means Leo is grounded in the sense of being on the no-fly list.

  397. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 9:32 am #

    What did Justice Story mean when he used the word “native?” He did not state that just being born on U.S. soil makes one a “native” citizen.

    Wong quotes Justice Story:

    Again, in [Lessee of Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 102 102 (1832)], which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, …this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke … and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”

    In his treatise on the Conflict of Laws, Justice Story wrote:

    that certain principles (relative to national domicil) have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law or the law of nations, as of unquestionable authority. First. Persons who are born in a country, are generally deemed to be citizens and subjects of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be, that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health, or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert, that in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.

    So, Story says there are unquestionable principles of citizenship. Born here = citizenship. Parents who are citizens = nice, but not universal.

    First, there is no evidence that the US adopted the “law of nations.”

    Second, there is no evidence that this “law of nations” existed outside the mind of Vattel. His view was not shared by other philosophers of the “law of nations.” Pufendorf appears to be silent on the issue, while other prominent writers on the law of nations, Schmier, Domat, Burlamaqui, subscribe to some modified form of jus soli.

    Third, there is no evidence that this “law of nations” was adopted by any country in the world when the Constitution was drafted, nor, indeed, by the time the 14th Amendment was adopted!

    At the time of the founding, England granted citizenship to all those born within its borders, without regard to their citizenship. France granted citizenship to all those born within its borders, without regard to citizenship. Robert Joseph Pothier wrote in his treatise on French Citizenship, that “Les citoyens, les vrais et naturels Fran§ais, suivant la definition de Bacquat, sont ceux qui sont nes dans l’etendue de la domination francaise…” In other words, the true and natural citizens of France are those born within its borders. It was, in fact, the law of almost all European nations that citizenship was jus soli.

    Even by the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment, it was not a universal understanding of nations that “natural born citizenship” required birth in the nation to two citizen parents. Only Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway imposed Vattel’s rule. Holland, Denmark and Portugal applied jus soli and France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece and Russia allowed the children of aliens to get the full rights of the natural-born if certain conditions were met. For example, France, Denmark, Portugal and Holland considered the child of aliens to be a citizen unless that child declined French citizenship before coming of age.

    To summarize the evidence about the law of nations vis citizenship:

    1. No evidence the Founders preferred the “law of nations.”
    2. Writers about the “law of nations” were not agreed on what it meant.
    3. There was no universal practice among nations that could be used to define the “law of nations.”

  398. avatar
    AdrianInFlorida September 4, 2009 at 9:32 am #

    Misha, you’ve accomplished more than most people dream of, you have my respect and envy.

    I love how, repsonding to you, “AXJ” simply says that you’ve only been to third world countries, Japanese and Korean will disappear as languages, etc. Sad.

  399. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 9:39 am #

    That’s a great argument that has been considered and rejected. That was the argument that the losing side made in Wong and the losing side made in Plyler.

    (Why do you think the majority quoted Wong if it’s so completely different?)

    Do you think if you keep making the argument that one day the Court will buy it?

  400. avatar
    Black Lion September 4, 2009 at 9:51 am #

    Phil over at tROSL has posted Donofrio’s article and his conclusions based on incomplete information.

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7165#comment-21659

    Of course this is being treated like the holy grail over there. I guess to the birthers Leo and Mario are their so called heros that will come and rescue the movement from the hands of the incompetent Orly.

  401. avatar
    SvenMagnussen September 4, 2009 at 9:56 am #

    You can’t see the forest because there are many trees blocking your view.

    Recently (Aug 5, 2009), the 10th Circuit quoted Rusk and not Wong on the issue of Natural-born citizens. Now, I want to be diplomatic about this, so let me say …

    YOU’RE WRONG ON WONG!

  402. avatar
    Kevin Bellas September 4, 2009 at 9:57 am #

    Why is anyone posting to AXJ? He’s not even a U.S. citizen. He’s just some guy with a forum in spain. I get the feeling he’s fishing for hits to his website. Notice he sure dones like to make constant reference to his forum.

  403. avatar
    Black Lion September 4, 2009 at 10:02 am #

    You do realize that whatever so called documentation that Orly has will not be allowed to be presented as evidence. If I recall this is not an evidentary hearing but a hearing regarding proper service. So she could have whatever she wants and it won’t make a difference. Her submittal is already rife with errors and incorrect information such as the Pakistan travel ban, so why would anyone with any kind of common sense believe that she has anything close to legitimate information. But go ahead and believe her. You believe in those ridiculous CIA rumors so I am sure you would believe in Orly, which is akin to believing in the tooth fairy and aliens from outer space….

  404. avatar
    wsa98 September 4, 2009 at 10:05 am #

    Interestingly enough by admitting Obama had dual citizenship at any point in time you are in fact proving he is not a natural born citizen, as our founding fathers understood the term. Under the Laws of Nations, a “natural born citizen”, as opposed to a citizen, must have 2 parents who hold no allegiances’ to any other sovereign. thus the children of 2 naturalized citizens would be natural born, but if 1 was not a US citizen like Chester Arthur’s father then you are not natural born and are ineligible to be POTUS.

  405. avatar
    John September 4, 2009 at 10:20 am #

    Orly finally tracked down Lucas Smith. Congratualations Orly! You can now see the scanned copy of Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate.

  406. avatar
    richCares September 4, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    responding to trolls is not a good idea, however responding to a severely mentally ill troll is a very sad thing to do, STOP IT.

  407. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 10:43 am #

    The so-called “Law of Nations” is a political philosophy book written by a Swiss guy. His ideas on citizenship were not the consensus views of the nations in Europe at the time.

    Last time I looked, Chester A. Arthur WAS president of the United States. I think your theory does not hold water.

  408. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 10:44 am #

    Sven: YOU’RE WRONG ON WONG!

    Tell it to the judge.

  409. avatar
    Eric September 4, 2009 at 10:47 am #

    If you are born in the US, you are natural born citizen (hence the word “born” in “natural born”). It doesn’t matter what your parents were, who they had citizenship with, etc. That’s all irrelevent.

  410. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    This is interesting, and perhaps the comments of justice Story are the genesis of the “doubts” expressed in Minor v Happersett when the court examined the matter of citizenship before the 14th Amendment. Such doubts were cleared up by the 14th amendment.

  411. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 10:59 am #

    Exactly how and where did WKA say this?

  412. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    Unlike most of the birthers, when FactCheck DOES make a mistake, they say so and correct it.

  413. avatar
    ballantine September 4, 2009 at 11:23 am #

    “Rather, under the law of nations (and not English common law) which our U.S Supreme Court adopted as U.S. common law it means born on U.S. soil to parents who are citizens.”

    You are just making stuff up. The quote from Marshall is a concurring opinion that cites Vattel trying to determine whether someone was domiciled in an enemy county in time of war which obviously involves notions of international law. I would think a 1L law student would know a quotation in a case is only authority to the extent that it addresses the issues being discussed. How can anyone who went to law school claim this case establishes that the US adopted the law of nations as the common law is beyond me. Marshall by the way did define citizenship in a case dealing with citzenship;

    “Whether a person born in the United States or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.” Chief Justice Marshall, MURRAY V. THE CHARMING BETSEY, 6 U. S. 64 (1804)

    Minor didn’t limit the common law definition to Vattel. It declined to examine the doubts that some had about whether citizenship can be determined without reference “to the citizenship of their parents.” There were always exceptions to the common law and much debate in this county with respect to the applicability to chinese, free slaves and indicans. It is dishonest to say this meant they defined the common law when they expressly declined to address the issue. Of course, Wong did. Did you miss the authority after authority in Wong defining the common law in this county by the english rule of Calvin’s case?

    Story was calling the founders natives. How could that be Vattel’s definition when all their parents were British. Interestingly, “native” was defined as “place of birth” by delegate Baldwin in the convention. Story called a native born with alien parents a native born citizen in McCreery v. Somerville and he made clear in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor that the english common law rule continued in this country after the declaration.

    Please find me anyone in the early republic defining “native” according to Vattel or stating that the common law of citizenship of defined by the law of nations. There is no such authority.

    I’ll help you. Here is what the most influential legal treatise of the early republic:

    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States… Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

  414. avatar
    Bob September 4, 2009 at 11:27 am #

    You mean the 10th Circuit case that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that the court called frivolous?

  415. avatar
    Black Lion September 4, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    JTX, the more you spew your garbage the more you sound like a loon. For you and some ignorant others, no matter what the President does, you will go against him. You want to overthrow the will of the people through the election by trying to remove the President through un-Constitutional means. The President is going to speak to kids the importance of staying in school and you find some nefarious meaning in that. So preaching to kids to stay in school and do well is some sort of socialist plot? Wow. When Reagan used to preach about staying in school you probably thought it was the greatest thing ever. The same with Bush. But President Obama does it and it is some sort of a plot to extend his Muslim-Communist-Nazi-Socialist beliefs. You guys are really pathetic.

  416. avatar
    Bob September 4, 2009 at 11:33 am #

    Craig was dismissed because he failed to allege why the court needed to declare him a natural born citizen.

    If an eligibility suit got to that point, the necessity for declaring Obama a natural born citizen would exist, and the court would have no problem in doing so.

  417. avatar
    Black Lion September 4, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    And see how much of a fake it is….I am not surprised that Orly would accept it…WND and all other birthers would touch Smith with a 10 foot pole. This was the same guy that tried to sell it on EBay. We know about his criminal past. Orly is proving how stupid she is by aligning herself with Smith. She just shows every day how incompetent she is.

  418. avatar
    Bob September 4, 2009 at 11:38 am #

    Obamaconspiracy.org: “an amateur drive-by shooting”

    But according to Taitz, all publicity is good publicity. ;)

  419. avatar
    Bob September 4, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    Donofrio, however, is not so kind to the good doctor.

  420. avatar
    John September 4, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    I think the good chance the Lucas Smith’s BC is real. WND has been trying to refute it. I beginning to think WND might have their own agenda. WND certainly does not want to BC inssue to die because the profits to WND would die. If WND stated the BC was real, that might just end this whole contraversy. WND wants to keep the issue going but they will never affirm Obama was born in Kenya but will continue to raise doubt he was born in Hawaii. This position will insure WND continues to get profits to push this movement forward.

  421. avatar
    Black Lion September 4, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    Some funny stuff over at Orly house of horrors…She is really misreading this 9/8/09 hearing. But I found this kind of amusing…

    “Additional pledge- please boycott movies made by Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher, Oprah and other morons, who try to indoctrinate our children, teach them to be brainless servants of Dictator Obama”

    Good stuff…I guess she is an issue with Demi, Ashton, and Oprah. Also she has established a pledge list….

    1. I pledge to remove this arrogant fraud Barack Hussein Obama out of the White House

    2. I pledge to give voice to voiceless 85%of the population of this country who want Obama’s vital record seen

    3. I pledge that no Americans will be sent to FEMA camps

    4. I pledge to make sure Americans are not getting forced vaccinations

    5. I pledge to stop massive looting an pillaging of American treasury

    6. I pledge to end insanity of free trade and go back to sanity of balanced trade

    7. I pledge to stop bleeding of American Jobs

    8. I pledge to stop brainwashing of American children

    9. I pledge to replace our corrupt, obedient to the regime media with responsible honest journalism with integrity

    You can add your pledges here

    Orly

    I still haven’t figured out if she is really that crazy batsh*t insane or is she just stupid. Or both. I mean after reading that list, looking at her website, and listening to her is there anyone out there that would not call the guys in the white coats from Bellvue to come and pick her up?

    Additionally she is submitting the affidavit from good old Lucas Smith. Wow. His sworn statement is enough to put everything over the top. Especially with his “interesting” background. And that so called Kenyan BC is worse than the one Orly was pushing last month. The funniest line in the affidavit is where Smith claims that he had to “pay a cash consideration to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way”. I guess Smith has been watching an old episode of “Mission Impossible”. You cannot make this stuff up….

  422. avatar
    Black Lion September 4, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    Really? So your reasoning is because WND has refuted Smith’s obvious forgery, then it is probably authentic. Wow. Good Theory. Until you realize that WND has already authenticated President Obama’s COLB. So because they have already authenticated that President Obama was born in HI, then they know that he could not have been born in Kenya. So they know it is a forgery. Also they know the criminal history of Lucas Smith. And he had offered WND a chance at the so called BC but when they requried more proof, the magically disappeared. Orly doesn’t care about proof so of course she would treat it like it is the real thing, even though there is NO supporting evidence. Orly doesn’t understand the rules of evidence and is just after the publicity, so that explains it more.

    She even announces that FOX might be there…

    “(NOTE: A Fox News producer has stated that they feel that this hearing is important and newsworthy, and that they will be in the courtroom. Please attend if you can.)”

  423. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 12:11 pm #

    John, if you can find that Kenya was using shillings and pence (instead of shillings and cents) at any time since 1961, then you might continue to believe that it’s real without sacrificing any contact with reality.

  424. avatar
    Black Lion September 4, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    Another inconsistency if you examine this so called document. Look at the dates of birth for President Obama’s Mother and Father. Now for his Mother it is listed in the American format of 11/29/1942. And for his father it just states 1936, no month or date. So we are to believe that BH Obama Sr. could not remember his date of birth? Or that they would get the mother’s exact DOB but not the father, especially in Kenya? And that they would put it in the American format? My parents were from Jamaica and it took my Mom awhile to get acustomed to the US way of writing the date because in Europe and the UK they did used the date/month/year format and Jamaica was a British colony for years until getting their independence in 1962. Small inconsistencies but these small mistakes show that the document is a forgery. Not to mention that there is not one indiviudal that has claimed that it is real. Unlike the state of HI that declared that President Obama was born there. It is tough for the birthers to get past that issue.

  425. avatar
    kimba September 4, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    I think Leo’s just a bit too defensive about being called a former lawyer. I think if others thought he was as good of a lawyer as he seems to think he is, he’d be making a good living lawyering.

  426. avatar
    NeilBJ September 4, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    The Constitution does make a distinction between citizen and natural born citizen, reserving natural born citizenship as a requirement for the office of President (and VP) only. A candidate for Congress need “only” be a citizen.

    To frame the issue in more prosaic terms,
    what documentation would you require from a Congressional candidate to prove that he is a citizen, and what documentation would you require from a Presidential candidate to prove that he is a natural born citizen?

    If mere birth on U.S. soil bestows natural born citizenship on someone, then any tourists who come here could birth a future President of the United States, even though they return home and raise their child in their own country. (Yes, that child would have to return here 14 years before his 35th birthday to meet the other eligibility requirements.)

    I don’t think this is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they placed the natural born citizenship requirement on the office of President.

  427. avatar
    kimba September 4, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    Don’t stop believin’ John. Come on. Use your noodle. Ask yourself how a birth certificate for the President of the United States ended up in the hands of a small-time con-artist in Iowa. Dude tried to sell his kidney to a man in dire straits. Incredible, astonishing coinky-dink, don’t you think? PT Barnum would have loved you folks.

  428. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    If mere birth on U.S. soil bestows natural born citizenship on someone, then any tourists who come here could birth a future President of the United States, even though they return home and raise their child in their own country. (Yes, that child would have to return here 14 years before his 35th birthday to meet the other eligibility requirements.)

    I don’t think this is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they placed the natural born citizenship requirement on the office of President.

    Are you sure? The requirement of having been a member of this country for more than 14 years,certainly may suggest otherwise.

    Yes, the question of temporary residence in the US is a tricky one, certainly one can argue that there exists a sliding scale from zero residence, which means alien born, to full residence, meaning natural born and wonder where the division may lie. Since it is clear that the Founders were worried about foreign born people to be naturalized and become President of the United States, one can only be sure that they had in mind zero residence as a rejection for natural born status.
    So once again, anyone born on US soil is by birth a citizen, regardless of the status of the parents. You argue, without much evidence, that there exists some mythical division between native born, yet not natural born and natural born.
    Per guiding common law, it is clear that anyone born on US soil was to be considered a natural born.
    Do you have anything to support your beliefs as to what the framers of the Constitution had in mind?

  429. avatar
    richCares September 4, 2009 at 12:55 pm #

    The Birther world is so looking forward to the Sept 8 court date. Looking at their joy in anticipation of what they think will be a great victory I can only conclude it’s either the mushrooms or bad pot that is their real inspiration. It’s certainly not reality!

  430. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 12:57 pm #

    Well, to be honest, Orly’s track record has hardly been clean in this aspect.

  431. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 4, 2009 at 1:00 pm #

    NellBJ, Natural-Born Citizenship is citizenship by birth, plain and simple. And your presuppositions on what the framers intended is interesting, but irrelevant.

    Alexander Hamilton, who largely wrote the Natural Born clause proposed language originally that said citizenship by birth. The constitution eventually settled on the words, “Natural Born”, which (despite birthers’ claims) were well defined at the time in English Common Law.

    In order for you to believe the two-parent rule, you have to disregard 220 years of American Juris Prudence that states that the Constitution was written in the Language of English Common Law, and going back to English Common Law for the definition of terms and such in the Constitution.

    You also have to believe that the framers of the constitution either were not aware of English Common Law, or took the words “Natural Born”, which were already defined in English Common Law, from another source, and then were stupid enough to not define them, when they would have known that the English Common Law definition is more reasonable.

    And yes, I do believe that anybody born in America can grow up to be President of the United States. The fact that you do not is scary to me. I apparently trust the voters to determine who can and cannot be President, as long as they were born a citizen. You apparently do not trust them. I have no doubt that the voters would determine whether someone who was born with U.S. Citizenship, but raised overseas, is qualified to be President.

  432. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    At least his Judge is listening…more than Roberts would do…wonder why? Roberts doesn’t look like disciplined Military material to me…even botched swearing OBAMA in…what a clown…

  433. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    The Constitution does make a distinction between citizen and natural born citizen, reserving natural born citizenship as a requirement for the office of President (and VP) only.

    Yes.

    Citizen = Natural Born Citizen AND Naturalized Citizen

    Those were the only two categories that the founders saw in the word “citizen.” There was no amorphous third category of person who could be born here and become a citizen and not be a natural born citizen.

    Look at the debates over citizenship. Those proposing something other than full citizenship never proposed anything other than no citizenship!

    African American – Not citizens because they weren’t part of the original community of folks who consented to form this government (Dred Scott)

    Native Americans – Not citizens when born on tribal lands because Indian Tribes are quasi-sovereign nations

    Children of Aliens – Not citizens because their parents didn’t owe enough allegiance to the US

    No one involved in these debates conceived of the possibility that someone could be born here, become a citizen and not be eligible to be President. No one said, let’s make African Americans citizens, but not natural born citizens. No one said, foreigners can be citizens, but just not natural born citizens (George D. Collins even used the fear of the child of a Chinaman becoming President as his strongest arguments in his brief against Wong Kim Ark!).

    So, when, exactly, did this third category of lesser citizen come into existence?

  434. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 1:11 pm #

    NeilBJ: The Constitution does make a distinction between citizen and natural born citizen, reserving natural born citizenship as a requirement for the office of President (and VP) only. A candidate for Congress need “only” be a citizen.

    And the Constitution also gives the Congress the power to establish a uniform system of naturalization. This trivially implies that there are naturalized citizens. So the Constitution creates two types of citizen, natural born and naturalized. Only the former can be president.

  435. avatar
    richCares September 4, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    “At least his Judge is listening”
    OK Mr Delusion, tell us this on Sept 9th!

  436. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    So what you are telling me is that Orly is going to what into a Court Room with a hostile judge which isn’t going to listen?

    Is he at least going to let her talk? Remember he knows FOX and AXJ will be there.

    I don’t think it would look very good to the rest of the world to think the Judicial Branch is controlled by the Executive Branch.

  437. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    Let’s see what happens on the 8th… I predict a smack-down based on the merits of the case due to lack of standing.
    Of course, due to the various errors by the plaintiffs, the dismissal may have to wait until issues such as service and other details have been resolved.

    What a mess…

    AXJ: At least his Judge is listening…more than Roberts would do…wonder why? Roberts doesn’t look like disciplined Military material to me…even botched swearing OBAMA in…what a clown…

  438. avatar
    richCares September 4, 2009 at 1:58 pm #

    Where do you get this carp, really deluded, aren’t you?
    Have you any idea as to what this hearing is for. I doubt it, but do come back on the 9th and tell us.

    read this from the judge:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/03118632973.pdf

    you apparently have no idea what that means.

  439. avatar
    richCares September 4, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    As for Sept 8 hearing:
    Orly’s paragraph 14 states:
    “Despite news reports to the contrary, no Hawaiian official has ever stated that he or she has seen Obama’s actual Hawaiian birth certificate or that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961.” and she swore this is true.

    Then what is this:
    I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

    See official original State release at:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

  440. avatar
    SFJeff September 4, 2009 at 2:28 pm #

    “The funniest line in the affidavit is where Smith claims that he had to “pay a cash consideration to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way”. ”

    No lawyer am I, but I am fairly certain that Smith just admitted in an affadavit to violating the Foreign Corupt Practices act- bribing a foreign official in order to made money.

  441. avatar
    NeilBJ September 4, 2009 at 4:07 pm #

    Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875) had no doubt about who was a natural born citizen.

    Quote:
    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
    End quote.

    There is no doubt that a person who is born on U.S. soil to parents who are both citizens is a natural born citizen.

    There is doubt about a person being a natural born citizen without reference to the citizenship status of their parents.

    This doubt remains since the definition of natural born citizen has not been adjudicated in any court of law.

    I would submit that there is even doubt that Obama would be a citizen under a correct interpretation of the 14th amendment.

    The question turns on the interpretation of being born in the U.S. “subject to the jurisdicton thereof”. The historical record shows that this phrase means being born subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. and not owing allegiance to anyone else.

    Obama was born with allegiance to Britain, plain and simple. This cannot be construed to mean being born with complete allegiance to the U.S.

    See Dr. John Eastman’s commentary at

    http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm

    He is Professor of Law at Chapman University

  442. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875) had no doubt about who was a natural born citizen.

    Read it carefully.

    At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Wong resolved the doubts.

    The child of an alien becomes a citizen. He is not an alien or a foreigner. That means he is a native, or natural-born citizen!

    The historical record shows that this phrase means being born subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. and not owing allegiance to anyone else.

    The historical record doesn’t show anything of the sort. Here’s a very good explanation of the historical record.

  443. avatar
    Bruce September 4, 2009 at 5:07 pm #

    Yes, there’s some truth for you. More than I’ll ever see here. So Leo’s human, but at least he’s honest.

  444. avatar
    Bruce September 4, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    Once again, on what do you base these personal attacks? So you don’t like the guy or what he stands for. And the truth hall set you free.

  445. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm #

    AXJ:

    Actually, these Deathers on this site would love that … make all 3 branches their own instead of just 2.

    A bit hard to square with (oh, let’s see what’s the name of that document … oh, yeah) the United States Constitution but hey, that document in only the law of the country and who gives a [expletive deleted, Doc C.] about that???

    Not the Deathers – that’s what they’re trying to kill (along with a few million fetii … assumed to be plural of fetus). [fetuses, Doc C.]

  446. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 5:34 pm #

    Are you positive the Constitution is the law of the land, jtx? You don’t act like it. You really seem to want the British Immigration Act of 1941 to be the Supreme Law of the land!

  447. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 5:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Why proffer such lies??? Vattel was widely known and his philosophies were widely used including by our own founders. This is just part of your Deather nonsense. Anything to try to kill off the Constitution.

    As for Arthur, yes he WAS president for part of one term (when one of his supporters killed Garfield) but he concealed his ineligibility and it was never questioned beyond the fact that some believed he was not born in the US (and he was). No one, however thought to check the citizenshipo naturalization of his father (he wasn’t naturalized until Arthur was 14).

  448. avatar
    DCBikerJohn September 4, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Since when is 6th grade civics class any more an authority than FactCheck.org?

  449. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Assuming what you say is true (and it isn’t) the Oborter is not eligible.

    Why don’t you blokes (note the Brit usage there so Barry can understant it) just adimit it and stop wasting everyone’s time?

  450. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 5:56 pm #

    Black Lion:

    Actually, it’s not up to the attorney to “accept” it. It is an affadavit pursuant, perhaps, to being a basis for the court to allow an inquiry into the facts of ANY BC K or HI or ???

    Barry and momma were serial scofflaws all their life and now he’s the biggest scofflaw of all.

  451. avatar
    DCBikerJohn September 4, 2009 at 5:56 pm #

    FactCheck.org holds itself out to the world as a reporter of FACT. We know now that they are not.

    Those who claim that BHO is not a natural born citizen express it as a belief, and are asking it as a QUESTION. This question cannot be answered by you or by me or by FactCheck.org or by the Electoral College or by the State of Hawaii. It can only be answered by the Supreme Court or by a constitutional amendment defining the term natural born citizen. There is much evidence that natural born citizen requires TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS. There is little (if any) evidence to the contrary.

    It’s a QUESTION: What is intended by the natural born citizen requirement of the Constitution, and does BHO satisfy it.

    It has NOTHING to do with where he was born. Keep your birth certificates, thanks.

  452. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 5:57 pm #

    richCares:

    So you’re saying that Doc is going to stop responding to you??? Shame!!

  453. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:02 pm #

    kimba:

    He is currently a lawyer licensed correctly and has been since near the end of last year. Pointing out that fact is hardly “defensive”. You looney left Odiots like try to put all others in the worst light possible, don’t you?

  454. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:06 pm #

    Black Lion:

    Correction there you racist devil. WND merely attempted to refute the Lucas KBC. It would be up to the court to make such a determination should it get before them.

    It’ll be interesting to see won’t it??? It surely looks a lot more “real” than the FactCheck/FightTheSmears/DailyKos/etal COLB.

  455. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy & Black Lion:

    Actually those sorts of determinations are up to the finders of fact (the court) not to some looney lefty blog.

  456. avatar
    BlackLion September 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm #

    There are no personal attacks…Leo’s so called argument was eviserated by Dr C., Greg, NBC, and others. If you had decided to read their comments you would see that for yourself. Leo intentionally left out language in the articles he cited to make his argument seem like it made sense. You are just upset that on this site you have back up and support what you post or you will be called on it. You are not moderated like with Leo, Mario, Phil, Orly, and others….

  457. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    kimba:

    Don’t stew about it so. Let the Federal District Court unwind it. They’ll more nearly do an unbiased job that you will.

  458. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    “So you don’t like the guy or what he stands for. And the truth hall set you free.”

    First, learn to spell. I don’t like him, nor dislike him. It’s just that he, Apuzzo and Orly are poseurs.

    It really is that simple.

  459. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    SFJeff:

    You don’t think the court is capable of figuring that out or are you merely to bias their decision hoping the judge is reading this minor blog (highly doubtful).???

  460. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    AXJ:

    Actually, it takes more that that to be a NBC. See the blogs by Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio (just Google them up).

  461. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:17 pm #

    misha:

    And we suppose that you got the “tips” from his bar mitzvah??

  462. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Your comedy routines get funnier all the time – it only took FactCheck 18 months to “correct” their error after leaving it up all that time to help mislead voters into voting for the Oborter. And even then only after being called to account by someone with some legal knowledge (sorry, Doc. but after all the shoe fits …).

    I didn’t note any of you Flying Monkeys from this site noting that with FactCheck. Did I miss it, O ominpotent ones??

  463. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    DCBikerJohn:

    Good post – and quite correct. We DO live in “interesting times”, eh???

    See if you can get any of the Flying Monkeys (aka Deathers as in “… of the Constitution”) to say that if the man is found to be legally not eligible that they believe the full force of the laws should be applied to him!!! So far, none have!

  464. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Actually, the case is called “Wrong Kim Ark” by any sentient being.

  465. avatar
    BlackLion September 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    Unfortunately it will never get there…Keep dreaming…No evidence has been submitted that will suffciently contradict the Hawaiian COLB and the statement by Dr. Fukino…This obvious forgery will never even be seen by the court…

  466. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:35 pm #

    Greg:

    Mens rea would only apply in the criminal court proceedings … I admit that’s surely likely but aren’t you getting a bit ahead of yourself.

    In fact, if some one reports you to Boss Oborter (aka Fuhrerbama) aren’t you likely to be in (shall we say) “disfavor”. He may not care for your clearly admitted criticism of his acts.

  467. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:42 pm #

    David Hart:

    You’ve apparentlyu not read too much on this blog. The only ones insisting that race has anything to do with the eligibility matter is the Flying Monkey crowd that can think of no reason why Barry is eligible and use race as what they think is a showstopper. It ain’t!

    The only points made by those opposing the Obama lovefest on this blog are those insisting that the man show himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies … (must be an echo in here). Nothing more; but no one has yet done that – especially not the Big Dog!!

    So just swallow your snotty little off-topic comments that Doc said he was not allowing :-)

  468. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:44 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    Your NYBC is from HI too??? Good Grief – will wonders never cease!!

  469. avatar
    jtx September 4, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    Greg:

    Interesting??? What’s interesting about YOUR BC?? Maybe the fact that you don’t have a Certification of Live Birth like your bud. Try HI – they hand them out all the time; just for the asking apparently as Sun Yat Sen has one also.

  470. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 7:12 pm #

    No, Sun Yat Sen had a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. A bit different my dear confused friend.

    Sigh… Why the disregard for facts…

  471. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    And it seems time to move jtx under moderation as well as his contributions are now nothing more than insults and non relevant comments.

    What a troll.

  472. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    There is little (if any) evidence to the contrary.

    LOL! LOL!

    That’s hilarious!

  473. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 7:15 pm #

    Which laws would he have broken? Did he do it intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently?

  474. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 7:17 pm #

    It’s been quoted by 7 of the sitting justices.

  475. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    “And we suppose that you got the “tips” from his bar mitzvah??”

    Yes, exactly. My cat is actually tri-lingual. He knows commands in English, Yiddish, and he speaks Catese. (bada-bing)

  476. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    And Rusk quotes Wong!

  477. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    Maybe the fact that you don’t have a Certification of Live Birth like your bud.

    Maybe you should read more closely. Your friend up there was whining that “Certificate of Live Birth” doesn’t count as a birth certificate.

    You’ve shown that someone has lied in order to get a birth certificate. Does that mean that you lied to get your birth certificate?

  478. avatar
    Russej September 4, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    Got a “birth certificate” for George W Bush? Dick Cheney? John McCain? Sarah Palin? Glen Beck? I doubt it.

  479. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    You think that people wouldn’t have voted for Obama if they knew his citizenship expired when he was 23?

    You must have a pretty low opinion of the electorate.

  480. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    Vattel was widely used. So was Newton! Neither was used by the founders on citizenship!

    You can scour every time the Founders mentioned Vattel’s name and not find a single mention of the word citizenship.

    You know who they quoted? Lord Coke. Blackstone.

    Go for it, jtx. Use google and find us a single mention of Vattel and citizenship by one of the founders.

    No one, however thought to check the citizenshipo naturalization of his father

    Because it didn’t matter to them!

  481. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 7:35 pm #

    It is an affadavit

    An unsigned affidavit has how much weight in court?

  482. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 7:35 pm #

    “And it seems time to move jtx under moderation as well as his contributions are now nothing more than insults and non relevant comments.”

    If you’ve read one of his comments, you’ve read them all.

  483. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    “I think the good chance the Lucas Smith’s BC is real.”

    Yeah, and I saw Elvis in the frozen food isle.

  484. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 7:41 pm #

    If he doesn’t meet that, he’s not the President

    He holds the office, so he’s at least the de facto president.

    – and since he’s not, all of his official actions will be suspect

    There’s a legal doctrine that covers this, it’s called the de facto officer doctrine. His official acts will not be suspect.

    and since not a legal office holder he cannot be impeached.

    This is just BS.

    You should realize that, but don’t – so why keep supporting this guy

    You answered your own question. We don’t believe you. Duh. Why would we believe a guy who has so little grasp of basic legal concepts?

  485. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    “Vattel was widely used. So was Newton!”

    And so was Shakespeare.

    Hey, what if Obama was from his mother’s womb, untimely ripped? You know what that means? Obama was not of woman born!! He’s either a space alien, or am immaculate conception.

    Has anyone ever thought to investigate this possiblity? What if Obama’s father was Zeus, like Hercules? I’ll tell you: That means Obama is NOT NBC!!

    Good heavens. Run for the exits. Obama’s father was Zeus, and his coming into the world was by C-section.

    Aieeee!!

  486. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    “An unsigned affidavit has how much weight in court?”

    Zero. Which is Orly’s legal skill level.

  487. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 8:02 pm #

    At least one of the law review articles has made this point with respect to one of the Presidents who was born via caesarian section.

  488. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 8:03 pm #

    “Got a “birth certificate” for George W Bush? Dick Cheney? John McCain? Sarah Palin? Glen Beck?”

    To paraphrase Bill Maher, I want to see Sarah Palin’ high school diploma. She went to six colleges, before she got a degree from Idaho State, a world class school. It’s like Orly Taitz’ law “degree” from an unaccredited diploma mill.

    Beck is a recovered alcoholic, like Bush.

  489. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    I guess for Apuzzo, if Jesus had been born in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, he wouldn’t be eligible to be president.

  490. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 8:38 pm #

    To be fair, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth is a birth certificate, and in particular a delayed birth certificate. Sun Yat-Sen got it through his own false sworn statement and the false sworn statements of two other people. It’s an interesting case of historical vital records fraud. Most registration fraud occurs with delayed certificates.

  491. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    As soon as I learned of the error I contacted FactCheck (I presume I was the first to do so) and within a day they had posted a correction. Now tell me how long WorldNetDaily has had their fake Travel Ban to Pakistan article uncorrected.

    This is the fundamental difference between this blog or Factcheck and the Nobot web sites. When we make a mistake, we fix it. Orly photocopies it and files it in another lawsuit.

  492. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 8:51 pm #

    Being correctly is now moot. They will be present. Then all Orly has to say is that she invokes the US Constitution and requests Judicial Review. That is all. At that point the Judge must decide if he has competent jurisdiction to decide the recusal and any other 6 arguments to try to eliminate him getting into the subject matter. Lack of Standing, Competent Jurisdiction, Res Iudicata, etc. etc…the Romans invented the legal procedures we now use, and this was 2,000 years ago…when a Ceaser was presented with the same case of having to follow the Law, he wisely said although I must follow this Law which limits my freedoms, in the long run this action will actually set me free…love history…Pax Vobis

  493. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 8:59 pm #

    Read this carefully. Leo Donofrio wrote it:

    [Ed. I don't practice law, but my license is active and my record before the NJ Bar association is totally clear and purely unblemished. I have the potential to make way more money playing poker than I could as an attorney. Plus I don't have to shave, can make my own hours, dont [sic] have to deal with clients and travel wherever I like to find action. Word up, Holmes.]

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-guilty-on-at-least-two-counts-of-false-swearing/

    I think it reasonable to say that someone who no longer practices law is a “former lawyer”. I don’t just make stuff up.

  494. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 9:01 pm #

    DCBikerJohn: There is much evidence that natural born citizen requires TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS. There is little (if any) evidence to the contrary.

    I believe you have that backwards. Go here, for example:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/

  495. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 9:03 pm #

    jtx: Why don’t you … stop wasting everyone’s time?

    Uhh, nobody is forcing you (or anybody else) to hang out here. I may be wasting my time, but you are wasting your own time.

  496. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 9:11 pm #

    If Orly does in fact present the 194 Divorce Papers with a copy of the OBAMA child birth certificate in Kenya the Judge will have to admit it no matter what anyone says. Once it is admitted the case will continue. Orly is being smart on doing this because all parties are now legally served. Let’s see how they get out of this one? Standing? Don’t think so. Military vs. Commander in Chief. Competent Jurisdiction? If the Judge admitted it he has to resolve it. Pressure tactics? Doubt the Executive would even dare to try. Roberts is a different story. He already choked inauguration day so I can’t see him fighting in Iraq. You guys are forgetting who this Judge really is…

  497. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 9:12 pm #

    I see that you don’t offer any more evidence for your historical fancies, than you do for your present-day fancies.

    Arthur could not have “concealed his ineligibility” unless he was indeed ineligible, and the Supreme Court of his own state had made it very plain (in Lynch v Clarke) that he was eligible. In fact, there is strong evidence that Arthur opponent and lawyer A. P. Hinman was well aware of his father’s naturalization since Hinman (claiming Arthur was born in Canada) wrote to his senator, asking him if the naturalization of a father would make his children natural born citizens. The Senator’s reply was published in Hinman’s 1884 book: How a British Subject Became President of the United States.

    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.

  498. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    Cases addressing Naturalized versus Native Born who are eligible to run for presidency. These clearly establish that the native born or those who acquired ‘citizenship by birth’ are eligible to run for president.

    Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913

    Under the Constitution of the United States, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.

    Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

    While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.” 22 U. S. 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 231 U. S. 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U. S. 605, 283 U. S. 624; Knauer v. United States,@ 328 U. S. 654, 328 U. S. 658.

    Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946)

    That strict test is necessary for several reasons. Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 231 U. S. 22. There are other exceptions of a limited character. [Footnote 3] But it is plain that citizenship obtained through naturalization carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society, including the right to speak freely, to criticize officials and administrators, and to promote changes in our laws, including the very Charter of our Government. Great tolerance and caution are necessary lest good faith exercise of the rights of citizenship be turned against the naturalized citizen and be used to deprive him of the cherished status. Ill-tempered expressions, extreme views, even the promotion of ideas which run counter to our American ideals, are not to be given disloyal connotations in absence of solid, convincing evidence that that is their significance. Any other course would run counter to our traditions, and make denaturalization proceedings the ready instrument for political persecutions.

  499. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 9:15 pm #

    All this and more can be found at ObamaFringe Wiki thanks to Dr Conspiracy’s efforts to set up this wiki.

    JTX and others could learn a lot from this invaluable resource.

  500. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 9:18 pm #

    Orly can file what she pleases (assuming she can remember to sign it and put her license number on it). That doesn’t mane the “case continue”.

  501. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    We would love to if Dr. C doesn’t censor us.

  502. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    Greg: At least one of the law review articles has made this point with respect to one of the Presidents who was born via caesarian section.

    My satire was closer to real than I imagined. Truth is stranger than fiction.

  503. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    I hate whiners.

  504. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

    I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

    Ya right, we believe that guy as much as we believe in Hawaiian record keeping, especially in 1961. Have you read the bogus divorce decree in 1964. Supposedly Obama’s father was never served nor was he present. Stanly Ann and her dad pulled that one off nicely. then they took care of Obama Senior when he was in Kenya. Obama’s cousin the Prime Minister knows exactly what is going on. Who do you think we are? Our chapter in Kenya keeps us up to date. Just goodle them if you don’t believe me. Strange how we are #1 isn’t it?

  505. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 9:28 pm #

    The Wiki has a long way to go.

  506. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 9:32 pm #

    DrC: “I think it reasonable to say that someone who no longer practices law is a “former lawyer”. I don’t just make stuff up.”

    I think he counts his specious suits as currently practicing law. (snicker)

    As I said, the triumvirate are poseurs.

  507. avatar
    richCares September 4, 2009 at 9:52 pm #

    “I hate whiners.”
    one way whiners can save a lot of money is mix 5 gal of water with a small can of sterno, it makes a fairly potent wine, most of the whiners on skid row do this. it’s either Thunderbird or Sterno for most whiners.

  508. avatar
    nbc September 4, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    Yes, however Greg and I have started the hard work on filling in some relevant sections. Given the recent focus on Leo and Mario, the initial effort seems to have centered on rebutting some of their claims.

    Wong Kim Ark is the focal point, with minor excursions into issues re: allegiance and jurisdiction, natural and native, dual allegiance and so on. Give us some time, and I hope some additional volunteers will contribute as well.

    I am also not sure why AXJ believes that learning can be censored? Is he under the impression that his access to this resource will be limited via an IP ban? That seems somewhat silly.
    The resource, provided through the hard work of various volunteers, is there for all to read and enjoy.

  509. avatar
    misha September 4, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    @AXJ: in the middle of this page you posted a comment, and then answered it as someone else. Then you posted a rambling comment, “the Romans invented the legal procedures we now use, and this was 2,000 years ago…when a Ceaser”

    Are you schizophrenic, or a manic depressive? Because you sure come across as that. Orly is another one who needs lithium, Prozac, or Seroquel.

    Birds of a feather…

  510. avatar
    Greg September 4, 2009 at 10:05 pm #

    It made it in the sense of saying that obviously you couldn’t give the phrase an overly strict interpretation.

  511. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 4, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    I had an IP ban at Godlike Productions web site. Never figured out why, but I couldn’t access their site (even though they linked to mine). That finally went away.

  512. avatar
    SixToeMoe September 4, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    “In view of the Constitution” is very important and a different view from what you or I have.

    In view of the Constitution:

    A Native-born Citizen is the footing to build upon.

    A Naturalized Citizen stands upon the this footing and is equal to a Native-born Citizen, except a Naturalized Citizen is not a Natural-born Citizen.

    A specific definition has never been established for a Natural-born Citizen and we know from Craig v US, only a Federal Court or a Constitutional Amendment can formulate that specific definition.

  513. avatar
    Bob September 4, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    we know from Craig v US, only a Federal Court or a Constitutional Amendment can formulate that specific definition.

    That’s not what Craig said at all.

    The court dismissed Craig’s (“frivolous”) suit for lack of standing because there was no reason for the court to declare him a natural born citizen.

  514. avatar
    Bruce September 4, 2009 at 10:34 pm #

    OK, I’ve wasted my breath enough. As for reading others posts I read more than you’ll ever know. So far the only one I see apologizing for a publishing incorrect facts are the very people who pride themselves on checking all facts.As for my typo above that was taken as an indication of my lack of education,I gues u kud blaam it on my pour pubic edukashun.

  515. avatar
    Bob September 4, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    So far the only one I see apologizing for a publishing incorrect facts are the very people who pride themselves on checking all facts

    That’s because most birthers are unapologetic about posting false information.

  516. avatar
    richCares September 4, 2009 at 10:47 pm #

    hey AXJ you Idiot, it’s not a he it’s a she, the Republican head of the Dept of Health is a woman appointed by the Republican Governor (also a woman) and you are an idiot, don’t forget to report back to us on Sept 9th.

  517. avatar
    Bruce September 4, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    Bob, I’m going to make you feel better. In my previous post I said I’d wasted enough breath. I apologize for not telling all the facts. As a dualer or dualist, (we don’t use the term birther anymore)I wanted you to know that I am truly sorry about the false info I gave about not wasting any more breath. One more misconception debunked!

  518. avatar
    richCares September 4, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    it’s a hearing to accept or reject proposed motions, there will be no presenting of any evidence, I typed slowly so could understand this. why are Birthers so numb? you can easily find the court calendar and what it says, though we know you won’t.

  519. avatar
    nbc September 5, 2009 at 12:07 am #

    That’s an imaginative way of reading the decision, which suggests that you have not read it.

  520. avatar
    Sally Hill September 5, 2009 at 12:21 am #

    “That was 26 years ago.”
    How long and when it expired is of no consequence – all that matters is what was in effect AT BIRTH. Natural Born Citizen refers to the status AT BIRTH – not 27 years later.

    “Donofrio is demanding Obama renounce a citizenship he doesn’t have.”
    How do you know he doesn’t have it? How do you know he didn’t confirm his Kenyan or British citizenship? How do you know he ever lost it? You don’t because Obama will NOT speak up – he is too arrogant and doesn’t feel the people for whom he works needs to know anything.

    Since you have stated the doesn’t have any citizenship he needs to renounce, please show me where Obama has stated that he ONLY holds US Citizenship.

  521. avatar
    nbc September 5, 2009 at 12:24 am #

    How do you know he doesn’t have it? How do you know he didn’t confirm his Kenyan or British citizenship? How do you know he ever lost it? You don’t because Obama will NOT speak up – he is too arrogant and doesn’t feel the people for whom he works needs to know anything.

    Because that is what he told us. Lacking evidence, we should consider someone innocent unless we can prove otherwise.

    Who is truly arrogant here?… Pot kettle black my friend.

  522. avatar
    Sally Hill September 5, 2009 at 12:29 am #

    And we all know we can trust a politician, right?

    Politicians don’t normally withhold information or lie to their constituents, right?

    You know, like saying he wasn’t in Kenya campaigning for a paternal relative, even though there is filmed footage of him doing just that.

    Pot kettle naive my friend.

  523. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 12:36 am #

    though there is filmed footage of him doing just that.

    link please

  524. avatar
    AXJ-CANADA September 5, 2009 at 12:38 am #

    In Canada we laugh at how some people will believe anything. Yes there is a you tube of OBAMA in Kenya a few years ago. So what does that mean?

  525. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 12:43 am #

    So what does that mean?

    tell me!

  526. avatar
    AXJ-CANADA September 5, 2009 at 12:52 am #

    We like OBAMA because he seems down to earth and people around the world seem to like him too. We in Canada same as in Europe have Socialized Medicine and don’t know what the big deal is. So Obama what if OBAMA was born in Indonesia or Kenya? Who cares?

  527. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 12:53 am #

    there are quite a few utube videos of Obama’s vist to Kenya, none of them depict campaigning for Odinga.

  528. avatar
    nbc September 5, 2009 at 12:55 am #

    That Obama visited Kenya, the country of his ancestors?

  529. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 12:59 am #

    As for Canada, I bought my drugs from Canada, US 349.00 for 3 mos supply, from Canada was 149.00. Though Bush made it illegal, I continue get my meds from Canada. Hope I don’t go to jail. Why is it illegal for me to save $150.00?

  530. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 5, 2009 at 1:17 am #

    “And yes, I do believe that anybody born in America can grow up to be President of the United States. The fact that you do not is scary to me. I apparently trust the voters to determine who can and cannot be President, as long as they were born a citizen. You apparently do not trust them. I have no doubt that the voters would determine whether someone who was born with U.S. Citizenship, but raised overseas, is qualified to be President.”

    The Founders do not agree with you. The proof is that they included the Electoral College in the Constitution.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  531. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 5, 2009 at 1:25 am #

    What I have noticed for some time now on this blog is how all the Obama supporters here (and they work together as a team), without adequate evidence supporting their position, argue that they know what the Founders meant by “natural born Citizen” but when we who challenge Obama’s eligibility argue for a different meaning, they say that we do not have any evidence for our position when in fact our evidence is much stronger than theirs.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  532. avatar
    misha September 5, 2009 at 1:29 am #

    “How do you know he doesn’t have it?”

    How do I know Orly Taitz wasn’t a streetwalker in Moldova? When Orly declared she wanted to emigrate to Israel, she was dismissed from her job. That’s a fact, not conjecture.

    What else could she do for money?

    How do we know Orly is not a Mossad agent, trying to wreck Obama? The Israelis don’t like him. What kind of grades did Orly get in dental school? Refuseniks are not held to the same standards as sabras. Sort of affirmative action.

    We don’t know anything about Orly’s past. It deserves investigating.

  533. avatar
    AXJ-CANADA September 5, 2009 at 1:39 am #

    You asked for the video?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7kDDvVc-PA

  534. avatar
    misha September 5, 2009 at 1:40 am #

    Mario:

    Here is one likely scenario: Mercedes Rodriguez,16, is pregnant by her 18-year-old boyfriend, a nogoodnik with some drug dealer. She crosses from Juarez to El Paso, when the contractions start, to go to a midwife clinic, of which there are several to choose from.

    As soon as she gives birth, someone from El Paso’s Bureau of Vital Statistics visits her, and records the birth of Hector Rodriguez. For “Father,” the BC states “unknown.” Mercedes forgets to go back to Mexico, and finds a job in a hair salon. Meanwhile, a bi-lingual social worker visits, to make sure the baby gets proper care. Hector goes to school, and because his grades are so good, he gets a full scholarship to Harvard, like Al Franken.

    He returns to El Paso, and after several years, is elected mayor. Finally, he announces for president, and with the Hispanic vote in Texas, is elected our first president of Spanish-Indian descent.

    The face of America is changing. Better get used to it. Because what I just described is going to happen.

  535. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 5, 2009 at 1:41 am #

    The three classes exist right in Article II. “Citizens” (which included those born in the colonies and states (1 class) and those naturalized there (2nd class) were grandfathered. Presidents in the future would be “natural born Citizens (3rd class).”

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  536. avatar
    aarrgghh September 5, 2009 at 1:47 am #

    Mario Apuzzo: … in fact our evidence is much stronger than theirs.

    the court record would seem to prove otherwise.

    the birthers have won how many cases? out of over fifty?

    now that’s evidence that cannot be refuted.

  537. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 1:47 am #

    does not show him campaigning for Odinaga!

  538. avatar
    AXJ-CANADA September 5, 2009 at 1:54 am #

    I read this and saw the document and the affidavit is what matters. The court will get a true certified copy from Kenya.

  539. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 2:03 am #

    sure, are you aware that the fake cert is not real and the afadavit is phony and that the Sept 8 hearing is not what you think it is, there will be no evidence subitted. you people are so easy to mislead, please come back on Sept 9th and report!

  540. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 5, 2009 at 2:08 am #

    In Wong, did Justice Gray say anywhere in the opinion that Wong could run for President like that state court in Lynch said about Lynch?

  541. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 5, 2009 at 2:10 am #

    Give it up.

  542. avatar
    racosta September 5, 2009 at 2:16 am #

    “The court will get a true certified copy from Kenya.”

    very difficult to get a copy for a non existing document. The Sept 8 hearing will be very disapponting to Birthers. What do you think the hearing is about, you can check the court schedule and explanation, it don’t match what Birthers are claiming. Are you aware that the Republican head of Hawaii’s Health Dept has verified Obama being born in Hawaii. (no court will dispute Dr. Fukino’s statement)
    see it here: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

  543. avatar
    NBC September 5, 2009 at 2:30 am #

    Still not understanding

    Class one: Naturalized
    Class two: Natural Born

    Since people who became a citizen per statute were not natural born, they were explicitly added. It’s like stating that they were natural born.

    I do understand your efforts to please your client

    Mario Apuzzo: The three classes exist right in Article II. “Citizens” (which included those born in the colonies and states (1 class) and those naturalized there (2nd class) were grandfathered. Presidents in the future would be “natural born Citizens (3rd class).”

  544. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 2:30 am #

    here is link to court schedule and purpose, if you don’t understand it, ask a lawyer.
    http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/MasterCal.nsf/41b09daf56fd6454882570540053b739/916c990058ae108d88257625007575c9/$FILE/0908DOC.pdf

    if you are a Birther, be prepared for a big disappointment.

  545. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 5, 2009 at 2:53 am #

    Mario, did anywhere in the opinion did Justice Gray hold that there was a special type of citizen, who was a born citizen, but couldn’t run for President?

  546. avatar
    Greg September 5, 2009 at 3:01 am #

    Read the briefs of the parties, Mario. George D. Collins saved the horror of Wong running for president for his last, best argument. Wong’s side, by contrast, argued that it wouldn’t be nearly so horrible if the child of a Chinese person were elected President – if they went through the electoral process.

    Everyone knew that if the lower court rulings were upheld, Wong would be eligible to run for President.

    If you’re Justice Gray, and you want to disabuse everyone of this notion, don’t you say it pretty explicitly? Don’t you say, “Wong becomes a lesser form of native-born citizen who cannot run for President, despite the fears of amicus?”

  547. avatar
    NBC September 5, 2009 at 3:06 am #

    30 minutes, and Kreep is in… wow

  548. avatar
    Greg September 5, 2009 at 3:09 am #

    Come on, Mario. You’re a lawyer. You know it isn’t true unless you can find a cite for it.

    Find me a single source from the founding of our nation that recognized a lesser class of native-but-not-natural-born citizen.

    Find me a single source that said that someone born here could become a citizen by birth, but not be eligible for the presidency before 1900.

    Can’t be done because this concept has been grafted onto the Constitution by historical revisionists.

    Everyone at the founding understood it to be:

    Citizens = Naturalized (class 1) and natural born (class 2)

    There were no citizens who did not fit within one or the other. The “grandfathered in” were considered, by the ante-nati/post-nati cases to be natural-born – by the fiction of the birth of our nation.

  549. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 5, 2009 at 3:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I see that you keep amending your position on whether Obama is currently a British citizen (actually a British Overseas Citizen). Well, you will probably have to amend it again.

    As you know, I have many times emphasized that it is Obama’s citizenship status at birth that is controlling for determining whether he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, whatever happened to his British and Kenyan citizenship later in his life really is not relevant to that inquiry. However, I believe that it is important to understand that Obama continues at present to be a British subject/citizen because it shows that his birth circumstances allowrd him to be born subject to the British Crown, to have Kenyan citizenship to age 23, and to currently still have British citizenship, conditions that the Founders would have found “natural born Citizen” disqualifying.

    As you know, I have maintained since April 2009 that Obama gained under the British Nationality Act 1948 (BNA 1948) Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) that the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981) converted to British Overseas Citizenship (BOC) which continues to this day.

    When you first posted your new article here, you stated that I made a mistake, but did not explain what the mistake was. I then asked you to show me what my error was. You responded by saying that in my arguing that Obama is still a BOC, I did not realize that the BNA 1981, Schedule 9, repealed the BNA 1948 and thereby nullified any CUKC status that Obama may have had in the past. You go on to state that because of that nullification, Obama no longer has any British citizenship today and therefore he has no need to renounce something which now does not exist.

    Your argument is illogical and incorrect. If the BNA 1981′s repeal of the BNA 1948 cancelled and revoked all CUKC status for the children of fathers born in Kenya when it was a colony, why does the BNA 1981 at Section 9 repeal Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963? Why would the British Parliament concern itself with doing surgery to the KIA 1963 provisions that pertain to Kenyans losing their CUKC status upon becoming Kenyans (Section 2 and 3) if there was to be no more CUKC status? Contrary to your position, what Parliament did by repealing the loss of CUKC provisions was to restore CUKC status for those Kenyan citizens. What you have failed to realize is that the BNA 1981 states at Section 26:

    “Any person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement and who does not at commencement become either a British citizen or a British overseas terrotories citizen shall at commencement become a British Overseas citizen.”

    Under the BNA 1981, Obama does not qualify for being either a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen and so he acquires thereunder BOC status. Hence, it does not matter that Schedule 9 of the BNA 1981 repealed the BNA 1948, for the BNA 1981 itself gave BOC status to all former CUKCs under the BNA 1948 who became neither British citizens nor British overseas territories citizens under that Act.

    Obama was a CUKC under the BNA 1948 which CUKC status the BNA 1981 transformed into BOC status. Hence, the BNA 1981 took his old CUKC status and transformed it into BOC status which continues to the present. The repeal of the BNA 1948 which initially created Obama’s CUKC status has no consequence on Obama’s current BOC status which he acquired under the BNA 1981. In short, Obama continues at present to be a British citizen/subject.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  550. avatar
    Greg September 5, 2009 at 3:45 am #

    I’ve seen your “evidence,” Mario, and it leaves something to be desired. For example, in your long essay, the one jtx keeps calling your “treatise,” you keep referring to the fact that the founders adopted the “law of nations” over the English Common Law. You even quote a law review article about the alien tort statute by Thomas Lee for how influential Vattel was:

    The treatise by the Swiss thinker Emmerich de Vattel entitled The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns was the supremus inter pares of the international law texts the founding group used during the crucial decade between 1787 and 1797. The Founders also read and cited other leading authorities, most notable Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, but Vattel was their clear favorite.

    Of course, in the same article, Lee writes:

    “But at the very least, it seems fair to look to The Law of Nations—and secondarily to the foundational treatises by Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf—when Blackstone and other evidence is silent or lacking on a key point, particularly as to the definition and scope of safe conducts at international law.

    When looked at in context, it doesn’t really support the notion that Vattel’s conception of the “law of nations” supplanted English Common Law, now does it?

    As another example, you write:

    The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-know by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was.

    That second sentence contains two distinct and crucial errors.

    First, the Supreme Court has said time and again that citizenship is not something informed by international law, but is based entirely on local law. Justice Gray wrote in Wong:

    Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.

    This language was affirmed in JPMorgan Chase v. Traffic Stream (BVI), 536 US 88, 98-99:

    But the argument’s more significant weakness is its failure to recognize that jurisdictional analysis under the law of the United States is not ultimately governed by the law of the United Kingdom, whatever that may be. While it is perfectly true that “every independent nation [has the inherent right] to determine for itself . . . what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship,” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 668, 42 L. Ed. 890, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), our jurisdictional concern here is with the meaning of “citizen” and “subject” as those terms are used in § 1332(a)(2).

    And in Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, 329

    In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case — that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States — the Court adverted to the “inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality.

    The second, and more crucial error is the entirely unsupported notion that “all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was” and that that definition was your definition – child of two citizen parents. That implies that other nations actually used that system.

    In point of fact, at the time of the founding, it was nearly universally understood that citizenship would be granted to those born within the borders of the nation.

    England granted citizenship to all those born within its borders, without regard to their citizenship. France granted citizenship to all those born within its borders, without regard to citizenship. Robert Joseph Pothier wrote in his treatise on French Citizenship, that “Les citoyens, les vrais et naturels Fran§ais, suivant la definition de Bacquat, sont ceux qui sont nes dans l’etendue de la domination francaise…” In other words, the true and natural citizens of France are those born within its borders. It was, in fact, the law of almost all European nations that citizenship was jus soli.

    Even by the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment, it was not a universal understanding of nations that “natural born citizenship” required birth in the nation to two citizen parents. Only Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway imposed Vattel’s rule. Holland, Denmark and Portugal applied jus soli and France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece and Russia allowed the children of aliens to get the full rights of the natural-born if certain conditions were met. For example, France, Denmark, Portugal and Holland considered the child of aliens to be a citizen unless that child declined French citizenship before coming of age.

    Not only were the nations not uniform in their understanding of citizenship, the writers about the “law of nations” were not uniform in their description of this supposedly universal law. First, Vattel appears to require only that the father make an intention to reside permanently in a nation (and it’s not clear that he requires two citizen parents). Pufendorf appears to be silent on the issue, while other prominent writers on the law of nations, Schmier, Domat, Burlamaqui, subscribe to some modified form of jus soli.

    That’s why Justice Story wrote in his treatise on the Conflict of Laws:

    that certain principles (relative to national domicil) have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law or the law of nations, as of unquestionable authority. First. Persons who are born in a country, are generally deemed to be citizens and subjects of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be, that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health, or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert, that in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.

    Story’s Conflict of Laws, 47, § 48

    Hmm. The law of nations recognizes certain universal principles of citizenship, namely that birth within the borders is enough. Yeah, some nations have adopted jus sanguinis but it’s not universally established!

    There’s a reason, Mario, that by 1798, lawyers like Nicholas George were writing:

    Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might have been divided into two classes; natural born citizens, or those born within the state and aliens or such as were born out of it. The first by their birth-right became entiled to all the privileges of citizens; the second were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states, prior to their emigrating to them.

    And it’s not because the founders intended to adopt some ill-defined “law of nations” to supplant a term that had 400 years of common-law history wrapped up in it. It’s not because the founders intuitively understood that when Vattel was talking about indigenes he meant “natural born citizen” and that indigenes was a better way to distinguish between those eligible for presidency than “veritables citoyens” which Vattel uses in the next sentence of his treatise.

    It was because “natural born” was not changed. The founders were not idiots who would use a 400 year old phrase, but reverse its meaning without telling anyone. And Vattel’s conception of the “law of nations” (adopted by no nation, and recognized as universal by no one) did not replace, in any sense, English common law on citizenship.

    In short, you are wrong, Mario. Your “evidence” when it exists, like the quote of the Lee article above, is misrepresented and ill-fitted to your purpose (influence on international affairs does nothing to prove influence on purely municipal decisions – like citizenship). More often than not, however, your “evidence,” amounts to bare assertions – like that all civilized nations recognized the definition of “citizen” to be what you imagine it to be.

    So, I’m ready to go toe-to-toe, Mario, citation by citation.

  551. avatar
    Greg September 5, 2009 at 4:00 am #

    Why don’t you just call up the home office, Mario, and ask them, “Were all Kenyan citizens granted BOC status in 1981?”

    The way I read it is that the BNA 1948 granted CUKC status, which the 1963 KIA and Kenyan Constitution killed. Section 1(2) of the KIA limited any future acts’ effects to Britain and its colonies:

    No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to Kenya, or any part of Kenya, as part of the law thereof; and on and after that day the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect with respect to legislative powers in Kenya.

    What this law sets asunder, let no future law join together.

    Unless the 1981 act explicitly granted CUKC status to Kenya and explicitly overrode section 1 of the KIA, I don’t see how you can argue that any change in that law granted citizenship to anyone who held Kenyan citizenship.

  552. avatar
    misha September 5, 2009 at 4:05 am #

    Interesting theory. I predict in ’12, the GOP will run Romney and Cantor for VP.

    Israel considers anyone biologically Jewish to be a citizen of that country. What are you going to do if that ticket becomes a reality?

  553. avatar
    AXJ-CANADA September 5, 2009 at 4:06 am #

    We must establish the actual birth place whether it was Hawaii, Kenya or Indonesia.

    Obviously actions speak louder than words and Mr. Obama has prefered to seal all his documents.

    But as a fellow AXJ member has stated, some are still public like his escrow papers…

  554. avatar
    misha September 5, 2009 at 4:12 am #

    “So, I’m ready to go toe-to-toe, Mario”

    How about dancing, cheek-to-cheek? (bada-bing)

  555. avatar
    Greg September 5, 2009 at 4:36 am #

    Prakash Shah, “British Nationals under Community Law: The Kaur Case,” 3 European J Migration & Law 271, 272 (2001)

    “However, many Asians who had settled in East African countries in preceding decades retained CUKC status despite the gradual move to independence in the 1960s on the basis of assurances by senior British government figures that they would retain their right of abode in the UK. However, by the mid- to late-1960s the heightening of Africanisation programmes that discriminated against Asians meant that many moved to the UK.

    “Like many others, Ms Kaur, who had been born in Kenya in 1949 and held CUKC status, lost her right of abode in the UK in 1968.”

    p. 274:

    “British nationality was rewritten again by the British Nationality Act 1981….CUKCs still remaining as a result of a connection with a former colonial territory, like Ms Kaur, became BOCs.”

    BNA1981 did not confer CUKC or BOC status on people from Kenya who did not have CUKC status before its passage.

    Instead of diving into a half-assed and wrong-headed exegesis of statutes you know nothing about, Mario, try some legal research!

    They have law reviews in other countries, you know.

  556. avatar
    Greg September 5, 2009 at 5:18 am #

    45 Mod. L. Rev. 179, 191 (1982)

    About the BOC system:

    “Nothing has been done to remedy the injustice done to the Kenya Asians although the special voucher scheme is to continue.”

    The Kenyan Asians were an embarrassment to Britain because they were left stateless. Do you really think the BNA 1981 would grant BOC to everyone but the Kenya Asians?

  557. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 5, 2009 at 5:42 am #

    Mario

    Although I agree with the Doc’s analysis that your argument is rebutted by the effect of Schedule 9, your argument falls even without it.

    As I’ve posted elsewhere on this topic you are fundementaly misunderstanding what a repeal in UK statute law does. With very rare (and usually controversal) exceptions the repeal does not void the provision ab initio or even from some date in the past but from the “Commencement Date”.

    Now look at Section 26:

    “Any person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement and who does not at commencement become either a British citizen or a British overseas terrotories citizen shall at commencement become a British Overseas citizen.”

    The repeal does not have effect until commencement so immediatly before commencment Obama is still not a CUKC so the section has no effect on his status.

    You ask
    “…why does the BNA 1981 at Section 9 repeal Section 2 and 3 of KIA 1963? Why would the British Parliament concern itself with doing surgery to the KIA 1963 provisions that pertain to Kenyans losing their CUKC status upon becoming Kenyans (Section 2 and 3) if there was to be no more CUKC status?”

    Quite simply it’s normal UK policy when legislating to remove obsolete provisions from the statute book they even have an on-going project to identify statutes (e.g. they recently identified 40 provisions relating to the City of Dublin). Normally such repeals are low priority but if Parliament is legislating in a related area it will add in related repeals to reduce the scope for confusion.

    Please also bear in mind that if correct your interpretation of 1981 Act wouldn’t only apply to Obama or even Kenya but to many millions of citizens of independent republics around the world. Unknowingly they suddenly become BOCs and in some cases risk losing their republican citizenship by not renouncing it. I don’t think there’s a court in the UK or US that would regard that as anything but absurd.

  558. avatar
    kimba September 5, 2009 at 7:18 am #

    His birth place has been well-established as Honolulu Hawaii. Anyone who still doubts this is only seeking to disrupt and cast doubt on the President.

  559. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2009 at 7:37 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    You observe correctly that my article on Donofrio had been amended quite a bit. This is reflective of the self-correcting nature of this blog. I am not a lawyer and while this gives me the wonderful advantage of being to pick the side that is easiest to defend, it also puts me at a disadvantage in wading through convoluted legal language. As a result lawyers like you and others that visit the blog criticize what I write, and based on that criticism I adjust what I have said to be to be either more fair, more clear or more correct.

    As to your comment, though, I do not see that is implies the need for further correction. You say: “Any person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement and who does not at commencement become either a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen shall at commencement become a British Overseas citizen.” But the Kenya Independence Act of 1963 explicitly removed CUKC from Obama and folks like him. While I am not a lawyer, I think newer laws trump older laws. And for your reference, here is the relevant section from KIA 1963:

    (2) Save as provided by section 3 [section dealing with certain women] of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day [the date of Kenyan independence] is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.

  560. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 7:43 am #

    to AJX-CANADA,
    Dr. CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D., Republican head of Hawaii’s Dept of Health, has verified Obama’s BC and that he was born in Hawaii, why do you think she is lying? As for actions, your actions appear to ignore this, why?

    Link to official Hawaii gov releae:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

  561. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2009 at 8:01 am #

    I have a somewhat different perception. What I see is careful researchers exposing your misrepresentation of sources.

  562. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2009 at 8:09 am #

    I consider the reposting of the FactCheck article by the Obama campaign on its web site to be a declaration that the conclusions of that article are correct, that President Obama is no longer a citizen of Kenya or the UK. This would completely rule out him having confirmed Kenyan citizenship.

  563. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2009 at 8:23 am #

    I’ll update the Glossary. I’m thinking of adopting a new term for the whole Obama denialist crowd: “nobot”.

  564. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2009 at 8:45 am #

    Bruce: “So far the only one I see apologizing for a publishing incorrect facts are the very people who pride themselves on checking all facts.”

    That’s right. Now how would you characterize those who do NOT apologize for publishing incorrect facts but just keep repeating them over and over? “Liars”?

  565. avatar
    Bruce September 5, 2009 at 10:38 am #

    Maybe it IS true that they are liars, all depends on how you define the word IS.

  566. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    Just for educational purposes, let me explain what Bill Clinton meant when he made the oft-ridiculed statement that it depended on what the definition of “is” is.

    Clinton said under oath “there is no sexual relation”.

    If one takes this to mean “there is [presently] no sexual relation”, then he spoke truly.

    If one takes this to mean “”there is [now or at any time in the past] no sexual relation” then he did not speak truthfully.

    It all depends on what the definition of “is” is.

    This is an excellent example of something which out of context sounds ridiculous, but upon examination makes sense.

  567. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 5, 2009 at 11:53 am #

    Problem – Pakistan wasn’t in the Commonwealth in 1981! It left in 1972 and only rejoined in 1989. So the birthers will just have to stick to the non-existant Indonesian passport to get round the non-existant travel ban.

  568. avatar
    misha September 5, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

    One thing that is taught in law school is circular reasoning. Google it.

    People who have never been exposed to that, don’t usually go through such mental gymnastics. Every time I hear it, I want to scream ‘get a hobby.’

  569. avatar
    misha September 5, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    “Anyone who still doubts this is only seeking to disrupt and cast doubt on the President.”

    This is meant to harass. This is meant to destroy someone’s reputation. Liberalism believes in the ballot box. This is legislating out of existance your opponent.

    Fie on the right wing.

  570. avatar
    misha September 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    One note to the denialists: our system of justice is based on innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.

    This is simply character assassination.

    “Show us your _____.” He’s not a runaway slave; he doesn’t have to show anything. Obama convinced a majority of Americans he was suited to be president; nothing more is needed.

    The most corrupt administration in our nation’s history was Nixon/Agnew. Agnew was taking cash bribes in his chambers in the Executive Office Building.

    Better watch out Orly: that crowd you hang with is a haven for white nationalists, tax rebels, anti-Semites, theocrats, and assorted other kooks. When you are no longer useful to them, they will turn on you.

  571. avatar
    nbc September 5, 2009 at 1:23 pm #

    Mario should spend some time understanding why the KIA was ‘repealed’. In fact, the whole mess of UK citizenship policies came to a point where the UK felt it could not control the right of abode since it was linked so closely to the various kinds of citizenship. For instance in Kenya, Asians could retain under the KIA, the right of abode in the UK and when efforts were made to take the CUKC status away, leaving these people without a state, a special group was ‘invented’ to deal with this.
    The only ‘citizen’ Obama may have become is commonwealth citizen, since the Kenyan Constitution provides for such, realizing very well that such a condition provided no dual citizenship status, which was explicitly prohibited by the same Constitution.

    Of course, Mario seems to be backpedaling now to argue that Obama was ‘disabled’ from the beginning but that requires him to show that it was Vattel’s principles and not Common Law principles which guided US policies and thinking and it seems clear that such a position is largely indefensible.

    More and more cases are found which suggest that anyone born on US soil is native born and eligible for the Presidency, indicating that the place of birth, regardless of the status of the parents is what guides the principle.

    Dr C, not being restrained from pursuing the facts, will thus be able to amend his position to match the facts, Mario, constrained by his duties as a lawyer to his client, has far fewer flexibilities here, especially after the arguments have been made in court.

  572. avatar
    AXJ September 5, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    She doesn’t have to verify anything. She is not a Judge. They only one that has to establish the facts in this case is a Jury of American Citizens. They will decide who is telling the truth and who is lying. And this time around the liers like Bill Clinton are going to jail because this whole election was a fraud controlled by Democrats from the start. Nobody has yet accounted for all the money that Obama received yet and McCain asked Obama point blank if he intended to buy the election and Obama remained silent. Qui tacit concetere said the Romans…smartest people on earth…

  573. avatar
    kimba September 5, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    AXJ, the citizens already decided. They elected Pres Obama in a fair election. There will never be a trial. This is not a question for the judicial branch. The Constitution outlines how a President is selected and his eligibility evaluated. If you think there is reason to remove Obama from office, your solution is in the legislative branch and the impeachment process that is also outlined in the Constitution.

  574. avatar
    AXJ September 5, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    kimba: AXJ, the citizens already decided. They elected Pres Obama in a fair election. There will never be a trial. This is not a question for the judicial branch. The Constitution outlines how a President is selected and his eligibility evaluated. If you think there is reason to remove Obama from office, your solution is in the legislative branch and the impeachment process that is also outlined in the Constitution.

    Not so fast my friend, Obama cannot be impeached because he has no right to be President. He is not a natural born citizen and only a natural born citizen can occupy that post. The is a quo warranto out and we are waiting for the Grand Jury to act.

    We thinks a lot of Democrats will be accused of conspiracy against the American People, even the Supreme Court Judge that got so nervous knowing what he was doing that he secretly decided to repeat it…

    Your case is doomed and you know it…it is just a question of time now…just for the facts, AXJ is not Republican, it is its own Political Party…just look it up in Spain.. http://www.axj.com.es …you gullibel Americans will believe anything…

  575. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    those AJX’ers certainly show a great deal of delusion in their comments, is it the water or the mushrooms?

  576. avatar
    misha September 5, 2009 at 3:53 pm #

    Apparently, some people in Spain are inhaling the same gas the denialists here in the States are using.

    Hey, AXJ: stick to writing a history of Franco.

    From my archives: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i10106

  577. avatar
    kimba September 5, 2009 at 3:54 pm #

    Your cases are the ones that are doomed. Unless you slept through US History and Civics class, you know the only way to remove a President from office is by impeachment. Or you could turn your energy toward finding someone who might get more votes in 2012. Or you can wait until January 20, 2017 when Pres Obama becomes ineligible via the 22nd Amendment. But wait, it sounds like you are not a US citizen, so it can’t be expected that you would understand our separation of powers. You are the one who has been led astray. If you’re not a US citizen, this is none of your concern. You are just a troll, here to solicit traffic to your own website.

  578. avatar
    Kevin Bellas September 5, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    I do know for certain that AXJ is not a natural born US citizen.LOL

    With this fact I ignore him.

  579. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    Part of the AXJ’s delusion involves a complete mis-read of Sept 8 court case. They think it will be in Orly’s favor and will allow discovery on the fake Kenyon BC. Where did this come from, must be from Orly’s distorted comments on it.

    For a little reality here is Judge Carter’s Minute Order:
    “Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato’s August 6, 2009 Order Striking Filed Documents from the Record and Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), filed with the Court on August 18, 2009, and noticed for a hearing on September 14, 2009, at 8:30 a.m. (the “Discovery Motion”). Despite the September 14, 2009 noticed hearing date, Plaintiffs request an earlier and expedited” hearing on the Discovery Motion. Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request, the Court hereby sets a new hearing date on the matter for Tuesday, September 8, 2009, at 8:00 a.m.”

    The “Discovery Motion” matter being the review of Judge Nakazato’s orders; this is not an evidentiary discovery hearing, so why are Birthers so excited? Very unlikely Nakazato will be overruled. In any event there will be no discovery and no ruling on the fake BC. Are all AXJ’ers idiots or on drugs, reality is not their friend!