Donofrio v FactCheck.org (Updated again)
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 come 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 his 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:
-
- 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.
- 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.]
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Doc
I’ll post chapter and verse on that later – have to dash to an appointment now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Doc
As you now 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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pressed the submit button by accident – more coming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“… 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.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“… 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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
” 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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Yes I do. Britain amongst others – 179 dead. another 210 and rising in Afghanistan.”
No disrespect intended, but Afghanistan is a lost cause.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No argument from me Misha.I’ve been saying that from the start.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But not all African Americans were slaves, even in 1776.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Greg
AXJ is the only person that has ever been banned at Politijab, he’s a troll of the first magnitude.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re kidding, right? Give me ONE example of something he did that is!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How about this, Blackie?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pat-boone/2009/09/03/essay-president-without-country
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Unfortunately, vital statistics from 1961 do not indicate the number of bi-racial births (insofar as “bi-racial” even makes sense).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, we’ve gone through this issue already. Biracial births in HI in 1961 were not as common as your fantasies allow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmmm…Do you have a name?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Barbara Nelson:
http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Now THAT’S a reliable source!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your question was if he had a name…Now that you were provided with one you now challenge the source. Interesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
and don’t forget that heavy will become bi-racial, he will turn brown from having his head stuck up his rear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the bigot racist says “Hmmm…Do you have a name?”, how heavy of him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the bigot racist says “Now THAT’S a reliable source!”, how heavy of him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OOPS!
http://news.aol.com/article/obama-approval-rating-among-independents/652324
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, there is one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Uhh…. by 1961 a huger percentage of Hawaiians were already bi-racial.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
O.T. Posters may be interested in the discussion of birtherism at the Volokh Conspiracy blog.
http://volokh.com/posts/1251868126.shtml
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, and carrying a cross.” Sinclair Lewis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…The great political philosopher.
You people are a joke!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“You people are a joke!”
As are you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, this is a fun place!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We certainly are doing a lot of laughing!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You forgot Mario Apuzzo. The Three Stooges of law.
Talk about a motley crew.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok. There ARE some trolls!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you look closely enough at DNA, you’ll find that we’re all adopted out of Africa.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We came from Olduvai Gorge, the Cradle of Mankind. Completely correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You better be careful. Some people will not be happy to hear the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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 Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i”. 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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe Donofrio is misinterpreting the statement. However Aligineae is not online.
The complete quote is
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
By statute children born abroad to US citizens is a natural born citizen as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is supported by
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apparently, Donofrio is quoting the Binney quote on page 693. And his ellipses make all the difference. Here’s his quote:
And here’s the original with the ellipses removed:
Those are some pretty critical ellipses. The reference to Lord Coke especially.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, now that is what I would call ‘creative editing’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No that’s what I would call misrepresentation, typical of the committee that make up the body of his posts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Now that is hilarious, it surely does so, and I find it fascinating that you are allowing yourself to become entangled in such practices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
O.T. Volokh Conspiracy is now covering Chester Arthur.
http://volokh.com/posts/1251923886.shtml
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I guess that’s how he travelled to Pakistan then. Birther question solved; let’s go git ‘im!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In Arabic, Barack means blessed. In Hebrew, Barack means lightning. And in Birtherspeak, Barack means octaroon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I had thought the same. Besides not feeding trolls, do not stick your fingers in the cage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Opinion of Attorney Bates with some excellent references to citizenship.
and
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
and
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Obama was born in Hawaii, and thus a U.S. citizen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I really hope you will drop by on September 9 and comment on what happened in court.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
please report your failed delusions on Sept 8
it will be fun to read your responce!
Carter will not be your hero!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It was already reported HERE on this blog August 22.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You liberals will believe anything, even the fact Bill never had sex with Monica…you guys are a joke…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
what Names will AJX call Judge Carter after Sept 8, delusions are so hard to swallow. Poor guy!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah, like Mark Foley.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
keep up with your delusions, but please report back to us after Sept. 8, will you promise that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have never been drunk.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Duck, weave. Nope, still no facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Please read my column on New Jersey.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Grace Murray Hopper is a lady. Must be a different Admiral Hopper.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
what should be a 15 minute motion hearing.
Should be. Will be? The Orly Roadshow needs at least an hour to perform.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“It’s conspiracy all the way down.”
Wait, it’s not?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“So which AXJ are you?”
AXJ: asshole extra juicy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
HA! Misha. Bringin’ the funny to OCT since 2008.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe it is
AXJ Accion por la Justicia (Spanish)
hit the web site axjus.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe you mean Gorbachev?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
$10 for membership and low interest loans WTF…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Assuming that both persons returned to the US and resided there for 14 years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Conspiracy,
I guess you have not read all the available case law on the subject.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A remarkably uninformative and evasive comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cite please?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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 Français, 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.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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:
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.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
jtx to greg:
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t you jtx would get tired of having the floor moped with he/she/its arguments and just go out and play.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Apuzzo writes:
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).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mario says:
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Talk about an argument senza sugo. I would appreciate a legal argument.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some may say the same about your ‘legal filings’ in Kerchner.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Conspiracy,
Can you explain to me why Obama and his enablers would be so accomodating to McCain, their political rival?
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
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:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If it’s based on the law, why would it change based on who was being subjected to the inquiry?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I couldn’t have said it better.
The subtext really IS vile.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I contribute levity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
misha,
Now I can live with that comment.
Mario
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You mean like this:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/3765120149_c563060f6e.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just the right place for your nose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why, thank you. Glad you saw the Charles Addams cartoon.
He was always my favorite. Addams was from New Jersey.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sally, you ignorant slut.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“has broader implications, potentially leading to a major alteration of constitutional law in this field.”
…the field of election-finance laws.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can you show me in the briefs where any of the parties or amici address “natural born citizen?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Moe – what are you on?”
He’s counting his toes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You forgot about the third class found in Article II, i.e., “natural born Citizen.”
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Natural born citizen is just native born with minor exceptions.
We have aliens and citizens, the class of citizens includes natural and naturalized.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And you can find Founder saying that there was a citizen who was born here who did not become a natural born citizen?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Constitution only mentions two: natural born and natural ized.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pure unadulterated rubbish. Totally fictional construct. Hasn’t the SCOTUS refused to hear this twice already?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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:
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.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Man, you guys are getting pretty desperate in your wishful thinking. Hilarious….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Watch Sotomayor stab Obama in the back.
In regards to what? Will she, at some point, rule against the Obama administration? Surely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So much for the concept that natural born citizen is lost when having or acquiring dual/double nationality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
THIS is a scaaaaaary story, Misha.
But you’re right. This can’t end well for our Republic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Domiciled is not required. If you are present in the jurisdiction and not an ambassador, then you are subject to the jurisdiction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China. What’s your point?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not sure I see a fact in your post, 6toe. Groundless speculation, yes. Facts, not so much.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From Wong Kim Ark (on non-permanent aliens):
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nope, allegiance was understood to be related to location.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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 …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The fact that you repeat your tired and incorrect arguments over and over doesn’t make them true.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you repeat a lie often enough…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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”??).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Source: Edward Bates Attorney General, 1862
Just the facts…
In fact, the President stated quite the opposite, namely that he is not a Brit, just as the facts show. Why are you lying?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have you no shame… Oops…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, just read this
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,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
He’ll also promise to cover the meaning of life, plans for the water powered car and how to win at online poker.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
He’ll also promise to publish plans for a perpetual motion machine, and it’s going to work this time, dammit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Donofrio is demanding Obama renounce a citizenship he doesn’t have.”
I demand Donofrio quit playing poker and act like a lawyer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I demand that Donofrio quit playing lawyer and act like a poker player!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is not about Black or White, actually if you read the posts they already asked O’Reilly for a clarification…still waiting…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The communist left in “Rusia” and China also drink water.
You drink water, right? Commie!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is this the same grounded person who posted a photograph of the justices of the Supreme Court overprinted with the word “WUSSY”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah, that one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, there’s some truth for you. More than I’ll ever see here. So Leo’s human, but at least he’s honest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe he means Leo is grounded in the sense of being on the no-fly list.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ll update the Glossary. I’m thinking of adopting a new term for the whole Obama denialist crowd: “nobot”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What crime do you think he’s committed and what mens rea does it require?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
JTX- you are a liar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mittens is my snarky name for Mitt Romney.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I couldn’t put it better! Bravo!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Give it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mary Brown:
Your NYBC is from HI too??? Good Grief – will wonders never cease!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, Sun Yat Sen had a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. A bit different my dear confused friend.
Sigh… Why the disregard for facts…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Got a “birth certificate” for George W Bush? Dick Cheney? John McCain? Sarah Palin? Glen Beck? I doubt it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No OBAMA anywhere?
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/obamas-parents-divorce-decree-stanley-ann-soetoro-lolo-soetoro-child-custody-obama-indonesian-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-born-in-kenya/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Citizen Wells, you are joking. Yes, I’ve been there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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 ________!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
* 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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have in my possession – really – two authentic Kenyan birth certificates: here and here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@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…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
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.
Like or Dislike:
0