Main Menu

Supreme Court Justice Scalia believes natural born citizenship is jus soli

Justice Scalia

Justice Scalia

Jus soli citizenship is based on the land of birth and jus sanguinis is citizenship based on parentage. In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS  (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).

Here is the relevant section from the transcript:

Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

They did not want that.

They wanted natural born Americans.

[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

The transcript is fascinating listening.

Thanks to NBC for the link! We have such GREAT commenters here!

, , ,

121 Responses to Supreme Court Justice Scalia believes natural born citizenship is jus soli

  1. avatar
    Dave Muckey September 27, 2009 at 6:35 pm #

    Ohhhh, SNAP!

  2. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen September 27, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    Yes, but Justice Scalia has not read Orly Taitz’s absolutely brilliant exegesis of deVattel’s theories of Natureles or Indigenes, whoops. I mean “natural born citizens.” Once Dr. Taitz dumps her massive unintelligible pleadings on Justice Scalia’s bench (personally, if necessary), he will come around.

    In much the same way as Chief Justice Roberts came around to Dr. Taitz’s way of thinking.

    Or maybe not so much.

  3. avatar
    Sally Hill September 27, 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    Odd how Scalia didn’t say ONLY jus soli. I could be wrong and there is no more to it than what he said, but that was my first impression – I’m not seeing that he is saying only jus soli but not jus sanguinis.

  4. avatar
    Sally Hill September 27, 2009 at 9:05 pm #

    P.S. – I would guess it would depend on the context and since you only snipped a small portion of what I’m sure was a lengthy back and forth – I’m dubious as to the context.

  5. avatar
    nbc September 27, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    Wow, if you were as diligent towards claims made the birthers then we would not have to educate you as to the facts.

    As to the context, I am sure that you noticed the link Dr C provided.

  6. avatar
    IzMeBee September 27, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    nbc: Wow, if you were as diligent towards claims made the birthers then we would not have to educate you as to the facts.As to the context, I am sure that you noticed the link Dr C provided.

    But that would require reading and actual free thought. Words are hard!!!

  7. avatar
    nbc September 27, 2009 at 9:37 pm #

    There is also an audio link for those who have trouble reading…

  8. avatar
    misha September 27, 2009 at 9:41 pm #

    “for those who have trouble reading…”

    Yeah, like 99% of birthers denialists.

  9. avatar
    Ms. Cris Ericson September 27, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    Hi! Some people on some blogs state that under the Paper Reduction Act that many states ONLY have the SHORT FORM birth certificates that do NOT state the name of the attending medical doctor nor the name of the hospital, such as the short form that President Obama is allegedly using to “prove” his status as a natural born citizen.
    These bloggers are in error. Ask any medical mal-practice attorney! Any woman with a healthy delivery may go home and days later discover a problem. A woman or her baby could have problems from spinal injection, wrongful use of forceps, avoidable breach birth, etc. THERE IS ALWAYS A MEDICAL RECORD OF WHO THE DOCTOR DELIVERING THE BABY WAS AND WHICH HOSPITAL THE BABY WAS BORN IN!

    President Obama is allegedly costing the taxpayers a fortune by hiring attorneys at taxpayer expense, allegedly, to SERIOUSLY AND WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY CONCEAL THE FACTS OF HIS BIRTH. Regardless of 5 USC Section 552(a) Privacy Act, wouldn’t it be better to just REVEAL ALL?

  10. avatar
    Ms. Cris Ericson September 27, 2009 at 10:08 pm #

    Birthers can Petition the Federal Election Commission for a New Rule requiring all Presidential candidates to submit their original long form birth certificates for public inspection.
    http://fearlessblogging.com/post/view/3256

  11. avatar
    nbc September 27, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    Why? Why reveal medical records, assuming that they still exist which may be covered under privacy rules?
    Are you really willing to give up your privacy rights?

    Regardless, the short form is the official birth certificate, sufficient to establish natural born status.

    The rest is just a pathetic fishing expedition.

  12. avatar
    nbc September 27, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    That is a rule that can never pass since the federal rule under full faith and credit clause must accept short form birth certificates if they are the only document the state provides.

    Silly Cris…

  13. avatar
    Ms. Cris Ericson September 27, 2009 at 10:12 pm #

    If the above posting at fearless blogging was removed because they aren’t really fearless, then go to
    http://vermontnews.livejournal.com
    and scroll down to the article with instructions for
    Birthers to Petition
    the FEC
    for a New Rule
    to Require
    original long form birth certificates of Presidential Candidates.
    http://vermontnews.livejournal.com

  14. avatar
    IzMeBee September 27, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

    Hi Cris..

    I don’t think he is the one costing us any money at all. More that the people who are filing the lawsuits are the ones costing the taxpayers money.

    And by all what do you mean? All could mean a lot of things. He hasnt concealed his birth. He was born in Hawaii. As for facts are you looking for how long the labor was? Was she fed ice chips? I am afraid that goes to confidential information that none of us have a right to. Nor should we.

  15. avatar
    NBC September 27, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    Ironically, it appears that Ms Cris is proposing a change to the Constitution or since she insists on petitioning the FEC a violation of said Constitution.
    Ironic isn’t it?

  16. avatar
    IzMeBee September 27, 2009 at 10:18 pm #

    Ms. Cris Ericson:
    http://fearlessblogging.com/post/view/3526

    Your link is a fail.

    But from the main page…

    hehehee

    Your girlfriend…

    …likes dressing up in an animal costume as foreplay. Get some advice on how to tell her that “naughty chipmunks” aren’t really your thing — or find someone to help you learn to live with it.

    Now thats a win..

  17. avatar
    NBC September 27, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    http://fearlessblogging.com/post/view/3256

    and indeed it is ironically presented as upholding the Constitution…

  18. avatar
    IzMeBee September 27, 2009 at 10:35 pm #

    Must be something about birthers and websites.

    http://vermontnews.livejournal.com/#post-vermontnews-4541

  19. avatar
    Whatever4 September 27, 2009 at 10:45 pm #

    There’s two separate sets of records — hospital and State. The hospital will have all the details necessary for malpractice, continuing health, consultations, insurance claims, etc. in the mother’s and the baby’s files. The state vital records office doesn’t care about that. The information that they DO care about is now electronically transmitted from the hospital to the Department of Health, no paper at all. These probably include hospital, doctor, mother’s DOB, demographic info for use in aggregate reports, electronic signatures, and way more info than appears on the documents that are then printed out when requested. The “short form” is an abstract of specific fields in the record, printed on demand. There is no long form or vault copy anymore — the data are stored in electronic form.

    Both types of records are protected under very strong privacy laws, for everyone, as they should be.

  20. avatar
    ImaForener September 27, 2009 at 10:49 pm #

    Cris Ericson – the natural born citizen version of Orly Taitz.

    If you have never seen this before it is truly mesmerizing – a free-time candidate spot by Ms Ericson in Vermont from 2008.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nzjpmkfpi8s

  21. avatar
    Mary Brown September 27, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    Your logic is rather off. There may be a hospital record but does the State require that information to ascertain citizenship? Who the doctor was has nothing to do with where you were born. I am not a lawyer but I would assume the needs of medical records that talk about care and the needs of the State that talk about citizenship are different. There is no logical reason to know the name of a doctor or midwife if citizenship is the issue. Obama is wise not to give in to those who call for this disclosure. Why, because it is the first step to a fishing expedition about every aspect of his life. I also believe it protects the political process to some extent from those on the extreme ends of political oppositon. I can just see the future where everyone has to disclose every school record, every record dealing with a parents divorce, every record of college life and even kindergarten.

  22. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 27, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    Is this supposed to be some kind of great find. Of course “natural born Citizen” requires jus soli, including a McCain-type situation in which by legal fiction we create jus soli.

  23. avatar
    Whatever4 September 27, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    OK, half of birthers think that the Long Form birth certificate is the whole answer, half think that it doesn’t matter because you need two citizen parents, and half (since they seem mathematically challenged as well) say that Obama’s citizenship was somehow lost or misplaced in one of his moves.

    I think it’s a States Rights issue. Each state runs its own elections, sets its own rules in choosing electors and getting on ballots. Being a States Rights Gal, I suggest that states should set the process for verifying qualifications of candidates who choose to run in their states. I believe they already do that.

  24. avatar
    nbc September 27, 2009 at 11:02 pm #

    Her acting skills are right on par with Orly’s legal skills

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    Those of us who read for meaning (as opposed to those who are looking for a crack to escape through) have no problem understanding what Scalia was saying, and how it dooms your already doomed crank theories.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 11:11 pm #

    I think the point is that Obama has been indicted as a criminal by a few folks dressed up like a grand jury. A fake judge has instructed the kangaroo court that unlike any other criminal prosecution, the defendant Obama must prove his innocence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but to an ontological certainly. Therefore, Obama, in order to “justify his lustful desires to be president”, must rule out any remote possibility that his birth registration was fraudulent, including exhumation of the doctor who delivered him to see if any “last notes” confessing the fraud were buried with him.

    Something like that. Yes Mary, it’s Alice in Wonderland all over again.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    Yes, she used comment here in the early days.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    Hi. Haven’t seen you in a while.

    Your proposal won’t work. An increasing number of states don’t issue Certified Copies (what you call a “long form”) any more. It’s all electronic for the future.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 11:23 pm #

    There’s no guarantee that a hospital will keep medical records for 50, 60, or even 70 years! Step back into the real world.

  30. avatar
    jvn September 27, 2009 at 11:23 pm #

    To those who claim that the quote from Justice Scalia is not applicable because the case he was talking about was not about defining NBC, let us not forget that we also have the record of Justice Scalia (and the rest of the SCOTUS) DENYING a hearing to each and every BC case (and “he can’t be NBC because his father was British” case) that has reached them.

    Scalia’s seeming affirmation of NBC by jus soli is supported by his rejection (and lack of comment) on that very issue.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    Good grief, woman, have you never heard of a hyperlink?

    I don’t provide links to all my sources just because I ENJOY copying and pasting.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 11:29 pm #

    I suppose it depends on what the definition of “that is” is. In normal speech “that is” indicates equivalence. Scalia didn’t say “only” because he wasn’t speaking to a bunch of birthers who don’t understand standard English when it comes to any text containing the words “natural born”.

  33. avatar
    aarrgghh September 27, 2009 at 11:34 pm #

    well, since we’re all piling on poor cris tonight:

    “certifigate: specialists wanted”

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 11:40 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Apuzz

    But of course, that is not what Scalia said. He linked “natural born citizen” and jus soli with the word “is”, not “includes”.

    I don’t expect you to break down in tears and say “I can’t do this any more.” But I know, and you know, that you don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell with this case you have. De Vattel was never controlling in American citizenship law.

    Kerchner will be dismissed for lack of standing as soon as the court gets around to it. You will appeal, and lose. You will appeal to the Supreme Court, and be denied. One does not have to be especially clever to see this.

  35. avatar
    NBC September 28, 2009 at 12:25 am #

    When it comes to Scalia he will most likely reject any such such based on lack of standing. Since the Constitution spells out how and who, the Courts have no jurisdiction.

    Simple, clean and to the point. No need to argue any further.

    Mario can fine-tune and amend his ‘arguments’, he will not find a court willing to hear them.

  36. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 28, 2009 at 2:10 am #

    FEC will not make this a rule. At most, they’ll require a certified birth certificate, which the COLB does qualify under.

    Birthers don’t seem to understand that proving your birth place to the Federal Government for one thing (such as proving citizenship for a passport) is no different than proving your birth place to the Federal Government for another thing (such as running for President).

  37. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 28, 2009 at 2:21 am #

    What is it about birthers that don’t understand that proving your place of birth to the Federal Government is no different than proving your birthplace to the Federal Government?

    If a document is accepted as proof for a passport. It should be accepted for this, plain and simple.

    It’s been proven that the COLB is accepted as proof of the birth place for a passport. There is no way that the FEC will make it so that it doesn’t qualify as sufficient proof for another thing.

    Furthermore, they tried going the state route, with Missouri being one of the states that was looking into it. That process got derailed when the Missouri law makers realized that Missouri only issues short-form birth certificates, as many states do.

  38. avatar
    Mike September 28, 2009 at 7:18 am #

    It states that “interested parties” can petition for rule changes, which, I imagine, indicates candidates, political party officials and so on, rather than simply anyone.

  39. avatar
    Jack Grogan September 28, 2009 at 10:29 am #

    Without the background history of the founders’ concern to exclude those who had dual allegiance by reason of birth status of parents, as well as birth location (outside the U.S.), the discussion seems purely speculative bantering between two lawyers, whether or not one of them is a member of the Supreme Court.

    Jaxfax

  40. avatar
    Greg September 28, 2009 at 10:41 am #

    You mean without the fiction of the founders’ concern “to exclude those who had dual allegiance by reason of birth status of parents.”

    If it were a real concern, one of the founders would have mentioned it. To someone. Somewhere.

  41. avatar
    Lupin September 28, 2009 at 10:52 am #

    As Greg says, this notion that “dual allegiance” (actual or potential) would somehow make you ineligible for the presidency is pure fiction.

    Ask yourself how many US citizens have dual allegiances. The answer is: A LOT. Dual allegiances apply not only to those whose father or mother, even, in some cases, a grandparent, was a citizen of another country, but also those who have married a citizen of another country, and in the case of Israel, who have converted to Judaism.

    Seriously: could you see excluding all those people, in the millions, from the Presidency?

    Obama is no different than millions of other Americans, who could, if they wanted to, apply to become dual citizens of one country or another, but have not done so.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    Ah well one of those lawyers (the one on the Supreme Court) would be voting on the issue should it ever come before the court.

    The real reason to post this exchange is expose the birther lie that their crank definition of natural born citizen has any support in the legal community.

  43. avatar
    Bob Weber September 28, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    Sterngard Friegen wrote:

    “Once Dr. Taitz dumps her massive unintelligible pleadings on Justice Scalia’s bench (personally, if necessary), he will come around.”

    Hasn’t Orly already accosted Scalia at one of his book signings?

  44. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 28, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    Under Article II, “natural born Citizen” status is established at the time of birth not later in life. Your Italian+Jewish examples do not present any problem when applying the Vattelian “natural born Citizen” standard to them. As long as those Italians+Jews were “natural born Citizens” when born (possessed Unity of Citizens which is unity of jus soli and jus sanguinis in the child at birth), there is no disqualifying factor under Article II in one of them wanting to be President, even if he or she may acquire additional citizenships later in life through marriage, religion, or otherwise (of course assuming he or she is still a U.S. citizens when it is time to qualify for the Presidency under the 20th Amendment).

    It is also critical to remember that under Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause, the focus is whether at a minimum one qualifies for the Office of President and Commander in Chief as of the time of birth, not whether at a maximum one deserves to occupy that office because it is the will of the People and the Electoral College as expressed through a valid election of a qualified candidate.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Under Article II, “natural born Citizen” status is established at the time of birth not later in life.

    I would tend to agree with you there and I think the Framers had this scenario in mind. However, if one listens to the transcript of the oral arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS there is a special distinction made by the plaintiff’s attorney for those made citizens by specific legislation that acts retroactively to their birth. The question is also raised (but not answered) whether a Natural Born Citizen can be naturalized (albeit at birth). The plaintiff’s attorney believed that in Rogers, the Court made that determination. While I think there some things that are settled for those born in the United State, there is a great deal that seems to be left loose by the Constitution.

    In British common law naturalization acted retroactively to birth. It has been my contention that the “natural born” language in British common law is there solely to distinguish between citizens who were born subjects and subjects who by law were subjects as citizens at birth because of naturalization. De Vattel in his discussion of English law says that the child of an alien born in England who is a subject at birth is “naturalized”.

    What I would like to see developed is some legal framework that distinguishes between persons who are citizens at birth and those who are entitled to be citizens at birth. That is, how does one draw clear legal distinction between those descendants of Jews, Germans, Irishmen, Frenchmen and Italians (now or historically) who have a right to citizenship in those countries vs. the specific case of Barack Obama. By not “claiming” citizenship, participating in the society, obtaining a passport or living in the country, is a jus sanguinis person really a citizen? If we accept the feudal model of citizenship, then the answer is no. You may disagree, but I have a very hard time seeing that de Vattel would consider Barack Obama a citizen of the UK (of course de Vattel is looking at the problem philosophically rather than legally).

  46. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 28, 2009 at 6:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    John Jay underlined the word “born.” Hence, I believe the intent is really born, not made born retroactively through legal fiction.

  47. avatar
    Greg September 28, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    The Italian and Jewish examples possess other citizenships at birth by operation of those nations citizenship laws.

    It points out that your conception of citizenship, the Mario Misrepresentation, is under-inclusive, in that people with Dual Citizenship can still be “natural born citizens” despite the operation of the MM rule.

  48. avatar
    Greg September 28, 2009 at 6:33 pm #

    In addition to underlining “born,” John Jay used a term with an established meaning, one that had been in use in England and America for more than 400 years.

  49. avatar
    nBc September 28, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    Hamilton’s proposal which predated, if I am correct, Jay’s letter states born a Citizen. Natural born likely extends this to include born abroad to one or more US citizens as did the English Common Law. This is particularly relevant since the first Congress passed a law granting natural born status.

  50. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 28, 2009 at 6:56 pm #

    Greg,

    Just so we can start out even, I believe that you are misrepresenting what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.

    Now let us move on. I need specific examples of your Jewish and Italian examples in order for me to address them.

  51. avatar
    nBc September 28, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    It is also critical to remember that under Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause, the focus is whether at a minimum one qualifies for the Office of President and Commander in Chief as of the time of birth, not whether at a maximum one deserves to occupy that office because it is the will of the People and the Electoral College as expressed through a valid election of a qualified candidate.

    Does the same ‘logic’ apply to the age or residency requirement?

  52. avatar
    Mark September 28, 2009 at 7:13 pm #

    Mario,

    1) You call yourself an “Esq.” Orly calls herself an Esq. What is the difference
    between an Esq. and a reqular lawyer?

    2) How does your batting average compare to Orly’s on winning cases in Federal Court on the Obama eligibility issue?

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    Well like I said, I tend to agree. However, John Jay was not at the Constitutional Convention and whatever he intended really doesn’t matter.

    I would ask, though, if someone born in 1789 of two citizen parents was a natural born citizen in 1791 and if so was he still a natural born citizen in 1796?

  54. avatar
    Greg September 28, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    No, you don’t need specific examples. Simply imagine Country X that has jure sanguinis citizenship laws. They do not believe in the denaturalization of any of their citizens, no matter how many generations distant from the homeland the newborn child is.

    Thus, John and Jane Natural, whose great-great-great-grandparents left Country X have a child and Country X considers that child a citizen of their country. Thus, despite your rule, that child is born with dual citizenship.

    It’s a function of the rule, recognized even by Vattel, that every sovereign has the complete and absolute right to define who their citizens are, without regard to what other nations do.

  55. avatar
    Bob September 28, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    1. “Esq.” means “I’m a licensed attorney.” In the United States, anyone licensed to practice law may use the title “Esquire.”

    2. Taitz is 0-4, with one case pending. (There’s also been some never-filed cases and demand letters.) Apuzzo is still at-bat (so 0-0).

  56. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 28, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Based on those limited facts, I cannot imagine that child still not being a “natural born Citizen” in 1796.

  57. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 28, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    “It’s a function of the rule, recognized even by Vattel, that every sovereign has the complete and absolute right to define who their citizens are, without regard to what other nations do.” Thank you, Greg.

    We say the child is a “natural born citizen” based on our standards. End of story.

  58. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 28, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    Of course. First the candidate meets the minimum requirements (age, residency, and “natural born citizen” status). Then he/she has the privilege to qualify for the office. Per Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5, all eligibility factors must be satisfied before the candidate may qualify. Qualification is done by Congress under the 20th Amendment.

  59. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 28, 2009 at 7:41 pm #

    Mark,

    Please ask me a question that has some legal and intellectual relevancy to the serious issue at hand.

  60. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo September 28, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    jvn,

    You express yourself as though you are knowledgeable and well-researched on what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Would you be so kind and cite one U.S. Supreme Court case that defines Article II “natural born Citizen” by jus soli alone. Mind you, your answer must be focused on defining a Article II “natural born Citizen” and not on defining a 14th Amendment born “citizen of the United States.” If you answer back by saying that they are the same, then you have failed to answer my question and that will prove to me that you do not have any U.S. Supreme Court authority for your proposition.

    Happy hunting.

    Thank you.

  61. avatar
    dunstvangeet September 28, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

    Mario, I’ve given you several examples on Itilian Citizenship.

    Look at this legally…

    In Italy, the children of citizens are automatically citizens under the jus saguinus philosophy. They do not disallow dual citizenship, even for adults (though they do allow people to renounce their citizenship).

    So, a husband and wife (who are Italian Citizens) move from Italy in say 1925. They have children born in the United States between 1925 and 1930, when they finally Naturalize and get their citizenship. According to Italian Nationality Law, they are Italian Citizens at birth. They are also U.S. Citizens at birth.

    Those children grow up, and say between 1945 and 1950 marry other American Citizens (for conviencance, lets say other Italian-American Dual Citizens from birth). This second-generation American was born to 2 U.S. Citizen Parents from birth. They were also born to 2 Italian Citizen Parents. They are both Italian Citizens, and U.S. Citizens at the point of birth.

    Would you consider them Natural Born Citizens? They were born to 2 U.S. Citizen Parents. However, they are also Italian Citizens from birth. Is this a Natural Born Citizen?

  62. avatar
    Mark September 28, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    Bob,

    Are you a simple country lawyer?

    Are you a fancy pants Esquire?

    Me, I am just a simple computer programmer.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    Well, Smith v. Alabama said that the Constitutional definitions come from British Common Law, and those clearly defined a natural born as being born in the territory without regard to the status of ones parents. It is a two-step process to logically derive the definition, but it is done.

    As you well know, no U. S. Supreme Court took upon itself to define natural born citizen in one step in any way (unless there is a case out there that nobody here knows about).

    We could consult a legal dictionary for what it means, that that would cite some cases that held jus soli. I frankly believe that is simply an accident of history that you have the one square centimeter that you are standing on. Any number of courts in any number of cases could have just switched a couple of equivalent terms around, and you’d be left to arguing that they are “bad law”.

  64. avatar
    nBc September 28, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    But you stated

    whether at a minimum one qualifies for the Office of President and Commander in Chief as of the time of birth

    Age and residency requirement surely do not seem to apply to that standard. Furthermore, where does it state that natural born is a requirement ‘at birth’ and cannot be retroactively assigned?

    For example the following bill filed by Inhofe

    ‘(2) CITIZENSHIP FROM BIRTH.—An individual who becomes a citizen of the United States pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be deemed to have been a citizen of the United States at birth and shall be issued a United States Consular Report of Birth.

    When an American citizen gives birth to a baby abroad, that child is considered a citizen from birth (as long as the American parent is eligible to transmit their citizenship to their birth child). The citizen parent simply goes to the nearest embassy and shows the child’s birth certificate, their marriage license (if married), and proof of the parent’s American citizenship. Once these documents are verified, the baby is issued a U.S. passport and a U.S. Consular Report of Birth. Both the passport and Consular Report of Birth are deemed under the law as proof of U.S. citizenship. The Consular Report of Birth also acts as that baby’s birth certificate for the rest of their lives. The baby will not have a state issued birth certificate like babies born in the United States.

    Being deemed a “citizen at birth” allows a foreign born adopted child to enjoy the same right to a passport and Consular Report of birth as a biological child. Under adoption law, once an adoption is finalized, adopted children are entitled to the same legal rights, duties and responsibilities as a “natural born” child.

  65. avatar
    Greg September 28, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    So, your rule doesn’t really care about dual citizenship.

    As I said, it’s under-inclusive in that it allows dual citizens from birth to become President and over-inclusive in that it denies the Presidency to those who aren’t born with dual citizenship.

    But, actually, the story ended when the child was born here. Regardless of what other countries believe, he’s a natural born citizen. Whether the other countries believe that because they operate under jure sanguinis or simply jus sanguinis we operate on jus soli.

    End of story.

  66. avatar
    nBc September 28, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    Exactly, which is why the fact that these standards were guided by english common law practices, is so relevant.
    Of course, if you accept this then there is no reason to accept Vattel’s definitions as relevant since there is no Law of Nations when it comes to defining who are aliens and who are citizens.

    Oh those tangled webs…

  67. avatar
    nBc September 28, 2009 at 8:27 pm #

    Oops.

  68. avatar
    Greg September 28, 2009 at 8:32 pm #

    Would you be so kind and cite one U.S. Supreme Court case that defines Article II “natural born Citizen” by jus soli alone.

    I recommend you read Wong Kim Ark again. He spends at least 20 pages explaining that “natural born” means jus soli, whether applied to citizen or subject.

    By contrast, Wong explains that jus sanguinis is decidedly not part of the common law definition of the term “natural born”. Citing several British laws from the 1300s on, Justice Gray writes:

    The statute of 5 Edw. III recites the existence of doubts as to the right of foreign-born children to inherit in England; and, while it is declaratory of the rights of children of the King, and is retrospective as to the persons specifically named, yet, as to all others, it is, in terms, merely prospective, applying to those only “who shall be born henceforth.”

    And citing Binney’s influential pamphlet on children born overseas to American citizens, he continues:

    There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle. Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203.

    Indeed, wrote the Court “the great weight of the English authorities, before and since he wrote, appears to support his conclusion.” citing Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 17a, 18a; Co.Lit. 8a, and Hargrave’s note 36; 1 Bl.Com. 33; Barrington on Statutes, (5th ed.) 268; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; I: ord Chancellor Cranworth, in Shedden v. Patrick, 1 Macq. 535, 611; Cockburn on Nationality, 7, 9; De Greer v. Stone, 2 Ch.D. 243, 252; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 17, 741. In fact,

    “The acquisition,” says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) “of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.”

  69. avatar
    nbc September 28, 2009 at 9:56 pm #

    From our friend at Politijab

    I can envision the PERFECT case to address the issue of “natural born” citizen in the appropriate context -i.e., distinguishing between natural born and naturalized. The PERFECT case would have something like the following facts.
    * * *
    After a historically horrendous terrorist attack on the United States, an enemy fighter is captured in the region where the group responsible for the attack resides, during a battle between US soldiers and the enemy (identified as the group responsible for the attacks). This enemy fighter is designated as an “enemy combatant.”

    He (or, to be precise, his (foreign) father) thereafter challenges his “enemy combatant” status on the grounds that he is a (natural born) citizen (i.e., a citizen by birth, rather than a naturalized citizen whose post-citizenship actions may “strip” him of his US citizenship). Because this captured enemy soldier is a (natural born) citizen, he argues, he is entitled to the Constitutional due process protections afforded US prisoners.

    He is deemed a (natural born vs. naturalized) US Citizen because he was born here while his parents, two Saudi nationals, were in Louisiana on a work visa, which expired shortly after his birth, whereupon he returned to Saudi Arabia as a toddler (where he was a citizen by virtue of his parents’ citizenship) and never returned to the US.
    * * *
    I mean, how much more ‘perfect’ of a case/set-up can be imagined????? How many (US) Americans (typically more focused on outcome than analysis) would not support a decision finding that a foreign enemy fighter, who was captured while battling US troops, was not, in fact, a citizen because, e.g., neither of his parents were US citizens/both of his parents were foreign nationals; or because he (and/or they) were not subject to US jurisdiction; or because he was a dual citizen at birth who returned to his home country; or any other of a number of reasons ????

    And. Yet. When presented with this exact case, along with multiple amici briefs* filed making the above arguments, seeking overturning of Wong Kim Ark and its progeny, the US Supreme Court declined to change the rules.
    *See, e.g., Eagle Forum Hamdi Amicus Brief; and Claremont Hamdi Amicus Brief
    The case was Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Instead of using this “perfect opportunity” to overrule Wong Kim Ark and/or narrow the rules re: birthright (natural born) citizenship, the Court stated simply (without analysis) that Hamdi was a citizen, entitled to protections under the Constitution. In dissent, Scalia referred to Hamdi as a “presumed American citizen.” Thomas’ dissent assumed, without expressly saying, that Hamdi was a US citizen (by stating that Hamdi was, arguably, entitled to Constitutional due process protections).

    My view is that if the Court declined to take up the issue of (natural born) citizenship in the above context, there is no way that it is ever going to take up the issue in the context of a duly elected President.
    Edit: Edit for typos and to change “He argues that …” to “He is deemed …” The DoD did not very vigorously challenge his US citizenship in the lower courts, I don’t think. And I’m sure that they did not challenge it on appeal. On appeal, they “assumed” that he was and argued that he could be deemed an enemy combatant anyway. The Amici, however, argued strenuously that he should not be considered a (natural born/birthright) US citizen.

  70. avatar
    nBc September 28, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    “The acquisition,” says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) “of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.”

    Poor McCain

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 28, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Based on those limited facts, I cannot imagine that child still not being a “natural born Citizen” in 1796.

    My apologies. I mistyped my question.

    Let me ask it differently.

    Let’s say John Jay and Ms. Jay went to France in 1789. Ms. Jay bears a child that year. Was the child ever a natural born citizen? What if the child were born in 1791?

  72. avatar
    nbc September 28, 2009 at 10:26 pm #

    A well-known exposition of natural law theory with which the Founders were undoubtedly familiar is Samuel Pufendorf, The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature (William Tooke trans., Ian Hunter & David Saunders, eds., Liberty Fund 2003) (1691). The following excerpt is squarely on point to our story:

    A State or Government being thus constituted, the Party on whom the Supreme Power is conferr’d, either as it is a single Person, or a Council consisting of select Persons, or of All in General, is called a MONARCHY, an ARISTOCRACY, or a FREE STATE; the rest are looked upon as Subjects or Citizens, the Word being taken in the most comprehensive Sense: Although, in Strictness of Speech, some call only those Citizens, who first met and agreed together in the forming of the said Society, or else such who succeeded in their Place, to wit, House-holders or Masters of Families.

    Moreover, Citizens are either Originally so; that is, such as are born in the Place, and upon that Account claim their Privileges; Or else, Adscititious; that is, such as come from Foreign Parts.Of the first Sort, are either those who at first were present and concerned in the forming of the said Society, or their Descendants, who we call Indigenes, or Natives. Of the other Sort are those who come from Foreign Parts in order to settle themselves there. As for those who come thither only to make a short Stay, although they are for that Time subject to the Laws of the Place: nevertheless, they are not looked upon as Citizens, but are called Strangers or Sojourners.”

    In other words, it seems likely that the term natives of indigenes as used by Vattel, who was surely influenced by Puffendorf referred to the original ‘founders’ and their descendents. A far more strict definition than natural born which even under Mario’s interpretations extend the right to run for presidency to anyone born to two US parents, while the above definition would restrict such only to the original founders and their direct descendents.

  73. avatar
    nBc September 28, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    Oops source: E Pluribus Unum: Well Maybe Not Everybody Towards A Re-Examination Of Birthright Citizenship by Gary Endelman

  74. avatar
    nBc September 28, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    Interesting quote

    The Croatian nobility, in particular, occupied an important position among these latter. This nobility was also a member of the Sacra Corona and, by virtue of its noble rank, was directly Magyar1. Hungarian legal authorities have denned the admission of foreigners by saying that besides ” natives” (nativi), foreigners too (indigenae) received Hungarian ” citizenship ” (civitasy).

    And so the meaning of the words becomes more cloudy

  75. avatar
    Bob September 29, 2009 at 12:27 am #

    Please ask me a question that has some legal and intellectual relevancy to the serious issue at hand.

    So much for being “A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers.” (More like “A Place to Ask Questions To Get Snippy Non-Answers.”)

  76. avatar
    Lupin September 29, 2009 at 2:13 am #

    You write:

    “Under Article II, “natural born Citizen” status is established at the time of birth not later in life. Your Italian+Jewish examples do not present any problem when applying the Vattelian “natural born Citizen” standard to them.”

    Even if your definition is correct, it still does not eliminate the fact that the child of Jewish parents (even with US citizenship) is potentially an Israeli citizen from birth.

    I’m not knowledgeable enough about Italian citizenship laws, but I can attest with 100% accuracy that the child of a dual US-French citizen born in the US is also entitled to French citizenship at/from birth.

  77. avatar
    Lupin September 29, 2009 at 2:19 am #

    We don’t have standards which is why we’re having this discussion in the first place.

    Vattel states that one parent is enough to make one a Naturel. Granted, he says the father. But in the second edition, the mother is found equally capable.

    So by that standard, Obama is a Naturel, because his mother was a US citizen.

    The logical consequence of your idiosyncratic opinion would be to make ineligible any child born with one parent who is either an alien or a dual citizen.

  78. avatar
    rtcr September 29, 2009 at 4:10 am #

    The natural born citizen clause is precise, clear, definite.

    There is no room for argument, for interpretation, for construction. ONLY ROOM FOR APPLICATION.

    The place of birth is completely IRRELEVANT.

  79. avatar
    rtcr September 29, 2009 at 4:16 am #

    “A far more strict definition than natural born which even under Mario’s interpretations extend the right to run for presidency to anyone born to two US parents, while the above definition would restrict such only to the original founders and their direct descendents.”

    To be natural-born citizen, you have to be BORN A U.S. CITIZEN and be born to U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS.

    A child of U.S. citizen parents born abroad is a natural-born citizen, provided that at least one parent had resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth.

    —————————————–

    ARISTOTLE:

    For practical purposes, it is usual to define a citizen as ‘one born of citizen parents on both sides’, and not on the father’s or mother’s side only; but sometimes this requirement is carried still farther back, to the length of two, three, or more stages of ancestry. Aristotle, Politics, III. 2, 1275b22-24.

    Citizens are ‘those born of citizen parents on both sides’. Arist., Ath. Pol. 42.1, 26.4, 42.1.

    MORSE:

    A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country. NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. Eligibility for the Office of President. Alexander Porter Morse. 66 Albany LJ 99 [1904].

    http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.0

  80. avatar
    Lupin September 29, 2009 at 5:06 am #

    It would be simpler to follow the thread if the people on your side of the argument agreed on a common set of sources.

    For instance, whatever his merits, Vattel totally contradicts your definition. No buts or ifs. As far as Vattel is concerned, one parent, the father, is enough.

    So maybe YOU dismiss Vattel, while Mario enshrines, or you both pick and choose whatever bits supports your theories.

    In any event it is anything but “clear, precise and definite”.

  81. avatar
    Greg September 29, 2009 at 6:42 am #

    Bully for you. You’ve got one source 2000 years before the founding and one 100 years after.

    Too bad the term “natural born” had a set meaning when the founders wrote the Constitution and no one from the time of the founding changed the meaning.

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 29, 2009 at 7:33 am #

    In regards to Morse, you must understand the legal history of jurisdiction. Within the boundaries of the United States, its jurisdiction and sovereignty is and must be absolute (Justice Marshall in the case of The Exchange). So while Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject who had no intent to become a US Citizen or to live here permantly, so long as he was in the United States the United States had complete jurisdiction over him. At the time Barack Obama was born, the jurisdiction of the United States over him and his parents was complete and absolute.

  83. avatar
    nBc September 29, 2009 at 12:38 pm #

    But but but…
    The problem with many of these arguments around allegiance is that the people do not understand how the terminology was being applied. Indeed, while Obama was in the United States, including during his birth, his allegiance to the United States was full and absolute and no other country could claim his allegiance. This was because Obama was fully under US jurisdiction. The only exceptions would have been if Obama was born to a foreign dignitary or invading military, or in the US to Indians not owing taxes.

  84. avatar
    aimee December 29, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    He is our President. If he has with held this information only to cause this , what will and is becomming a HUGE EVENT in our SUPREME COURT . I say gaurd yourself greatly for remember Clinton was a Master at DISTRACTION!As it unfolds do not become caught up in it, nor the Great “Change” when those Great Trials are held. Israel may just not let it all happen. That would be Jesus comming quite soon. I generally do not write on a WWW either , I Refuse . Peace within to all . You do know this IS all monitored-remember Big Bro ? lol. Love, The Widow , Aimee Lynn p.s. Thanks Justice Scalia for the hope for what is Right . I will pray that you will be able to expose Quicly and Justly the Truth with all Wisdom in merciful measure as it IS The Judges God has passed this Judgement to Rule over.If above I am correct. The President is guilty of WASTING The Courts time.

  85. avatar
    aimee December 29, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    Futher a House Divided will not Stand. Dual Alliegences . Parents of 2 Nations . O and of GREAT differences most of us seem to get all the Ramifications of ,SO did OUR Founding Fathers and We The People who ARE U.S. BORN CITIZENS! That shows more weight with Honorable Justice Scalia above in the Arguements . Liberty to live free and achieve here is wonderful , but there are Rules.

  86. avatar
    nBc December 29, 2009 at 3:15 pm #

    Indeed there are rules and they state that Natural Born is to be found in English Common law which means any child born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents (with minor exceptions).
    May I suggest you check your grammar? Scalia understands the law which is jus soli, not jus sanguini.

  87. avatar
    aimee December 29, 2009 at 3:37 pm #

    Well sorry ! I cannot help it I am who I am . My communication , Comprehension , expression are good . I was a Foster Child and with all that kind of history, I DO MY BEST. Thank God I strive to achieve and I know the Truth Quickening , I just wanted to share . I could be a …… like so many with histories such as mine. ( you fill in the blanks , you must be a rude , nasty or arrogant type) Again I do my best. Good day to you.

  88. avatar
    aimee December 29, 2009 at 4:06 pm #

    I am embarressed that I am not as “Smart with my Grammar ” I am great with people and serving kindly. I am sorry myself now for being rude above. Please forgive me. I am even on here right now because I read EVERYTHING I can. I do not write for the grammar and other reasons. I just have such a grave , real issue I want so badly before The Honorable Justice and I see so much delay and so much needed heard and declared by OUR Nations Court Rulers and then this Injustice at mighty levels and it is everywhere and here at my base of the earth level and my child taken for Gov. gain and the Corruption of it all. I am a base waitress at a tiny diner. And by upitties I lose my child. I am not / was not a evil doer. How could a foster kid easy prey like me Win my son in Corrupt Courts that were NOT Obeying the law ? (as greatly in my case) I can read and understand though , but alas it hurts to be made to feel stupid of beneath others , like I am such nothing.

  89. avatar
    G December 29, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    Wow…sounds like someone went off their medication, or at least needs to seriously up their dosage!

  90. avatar
    G December 29, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    Aimee,

    After reading your further post explanations, I would like to offer my apologies if my comment reply above came off harsh.

    If you are just trying to do your best in a difficult world and you are using the internet to help you learn what you can, then I applaud your efforts and wish you the best of luck.

    We’re not trying to make fun of you on the grammar issue – being a written medium as this is, I’ve read your postings several times now and am just being honest that I’m still not at all sure what you have been trying to say and convey on here. Again, I apologize if we’ve come across harsh towards you.

    I appreciate that you’ve done your best to explain why grammar is not easy for you.

    Please see that people are just trying to understand what you are saying and if grammar is a challenge for you in your writings, then it will also become a challenge for us in trying to read or understand what you mean to say.

    The only impression I get is that you’ve had a rough time in life and that feel you are just trying to do your best, but you are also very fearful for the future and perhaps a bit paranoid about what could happen.

    I cannot comment on the situation between your son and the courts, as I do not know what transpired there. (Nor is it my place to do so, as that is a matter of your private life, so I do not wish to intrude.) But I do have compassion for a fellow human being just trying to get along in a harsh world.

    As I said, I’m still confused as to what points you were trying to make or what questions you were asking on here.

    All I can offer you is that instead of allowing yourself to be fearful in a harsh and sometimes confusing world, continue to try to be the best person you can be and look to what you can do to remain hopeful and positive instead of full of fear and paranoia.

    Fear, paranoia, distrust and the unknown allow people to fall for various conspiracy theories and start to believe in other scary “what if” scenarios. It seems that you want to believe in a lot of this stuff, and I hope you will consider that maybe you have been too trusting of people who have been telling you these wild stories and theories, as I don’t think they have been very helpful nor healthy for you.

  91. avatar
    aimee December 31, 2009 at 1:35 am #

    I am just so saddened by so many evils that I see. There are so many good things forgotten. There are serious issues out here too, and simple solutions .

    In my original line of comment my point was simply . I am an American. Our President must be an American without any Division of Loyalty by Birth , born an American ,according to our Constitution . Period. This issue of birth over our President must be heard and in my opinion quickly, why wait, why would America wait? Just get the Birth Certificate . If President Obama has hidden information , expose it and be done with it , if there is wrongdoing , the punishment should fit the crime, supposedly he has hidden with the use of the Law originals.If that is so and it turns out he is American then Why take up our precious time ? That is also though lessor a crime. Why is all of this made so difficult? The Corruption in the world let alone the corruption in “high places” we all should look up to is out of control. I do not think I am paranoid nor do I fear much anything. I just think it is a shame so much out here in America is needed and yet all the dishonsty, lack of honor , I could go on and on. We ALL must obey our laws and for those governing our laws to use so much mumbo jumbo are nutz! Not me. I do rely on God to guide my discerning and it’s not looking good. How long will we allow so much disgrace , lack of rule , lawlessness, eccetra, a merciless people.

    Thank you for your kindness and time .

  92. avatar
    NbC December 31, 2009 at 1:50 am #

    The birth certificate has been presented.

    Now what…

  93. avatar
    G December 31, 2009 at 2:16 am #

    Aimee,

    Thank you for taking the time to post and reply. I think I’ve got somewhat of a better idea of what you are asking, so I’ll do my best to respond to your points. If I’ve misunderstood some of your concerns, just let me know.

    I agree that we live in an imperfect world, full of imperfect people where there is a lot of greed, corruption and evil. Yes, our government too is imperfect – with flaws, ineptitude and corruption, because a government is made up of people, and people are flawed. That is just reality.

    I wish people could act better and that government could act better and all we can individually do is try to do the right things in our own lives and not contribute to the problem.

    I think I understand part of your point about “mumbo jumbo” – a lot of the problem in “legal speak” (particularly in contract law, as one example) is that it is not written in a way that makes sense to the “common man”. If only more straightforward language was used. Also, in both law and even bureaucracy itself, there seems to be layers upon layers of confusing clauses and conditions and convoluted procedures that can be complex or hard to follow.

    On those complaints of yours, if I am correct in understanding those points you are making, I get it. And I both empathize and agree.

    However, the reality is we live in a complex world. Part of that is a responsibility we all have as individuals is to not let ourselves be “hoodwinked” or taken advantage of, just because we don’t understand the system. If we don’t understand something or how a process works, then we are responsible to look into it or ask someone to help explain it to us. This is best done when you can do it in advance. If not, well, at least learning a lesson the “hard way” is of value, provided you bother to make the effort to learn from it and not let it happen again.

    Too many people just get angry when they misunderstand things and just “blame” the system as opposed to learning why the law ruled against them or why things happened a certain way. If you just remain angry and blame the system, you remain a victim and don’t learn anything and will just be taken advantage of again in the future.

    Similarly, a lot of people get easily “conned” into believing conspiracy theories, because they sound like they have a grain of legitimate concern on the surface and unfortunately, people then just buy into them and don’t bother stopping to think if they really make sense or dig deeper to find out if they are legit or not.

    And here is where this ties into your concerns about the President’s birth certificate. If there were any actual “legitimate” concerns about Obama’s eligibility under our Constitution to hold the office he holds now, then A) I’d agree with you and B) trust me, it would have been dealt with.

    The reality is that Obama, as a candidate DID post online a copy of the birth certificate provided to him (and verified as such) by the state of Hawaii for all to see. That birth certificate clearly states his date of birth in HONOLULU, HI. All these crazy claims being made by the “birthers” about “long form certificates” or being born somewhere else or making up new rules about requiring both parents of a child to be citizens for a child born in the USA to be a natural born citizen are just made up BUNK by folks who aren’t happy that Obama is president and wish to confuse people and try to legitimize him.

    If you spend some time on this site or on any actual news sites, you will see that these issues has been deeply looked into for well over a year and a half now and there is nothing credible to support the wild claims that the “birthers” make.

    Not one shred of evidence has come forth to back up the crazy theories that the “birthers” con people like you with. Not one “birther” court case (and there have been well over 60) has gone anywhere except being thrown out or denied, and often the judge involved has clearly called them frivolous.

    Therefore, the processes and laws of our Constitution are just fine and are being followed. There is no crisis or “lawlessness” to the extent you seem to be indicating. Our current President is just that because he was duly and legitimately elected, by “We The People”, in a proper manner as outlined in our Constitution and in accordance with our laws and election procedures.

    Not everyone is going to like him or agree with him all the time or vote for him. But that is normal and how our system is supposed to work.

    The only ones in this situation you should be mad at are those that are trying to take advantage of you and con you with their crazy “birther” claims and outright lies, which they can’t seem to back up with any solid evidence.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 31, 2009 at 10:29 am #

    aimee,

    The President presented a birth certificate in June of 2008. Some people have gone to a lot of trouble writing newspaper ads and making Internet web sites trying to say that a birth certificate is not a birth certificate, but ads and web sites don’t change the truth. The State of Hawaii says they examined their records, and Barack Obama was indeed born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961.

    In one of the lawsuits a state appeals court in Indiana said plainly that there is no Constitutional requirement for presidents to have two citizen parents. That court just repeated what many other courts, constitutional scholars, text books and US Attorney’s General have said all throughout history.

    So if Obama was born in Hawaii, and being born in the United States is all it takes to be a natural born citizen, what question remains?

    The only question is why a minority of the people would prefer to believe rumors than documented facts. I built this web site for people like you, who have been taken advantage of by tricksters who make up stories and tell lies for political advantage.

  95. avatar
    aarrgghh December 31, 2009 at 11:27 am #

    [test comment]

  96. avatar
    aarrgghh December 31, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    aimee, this is the definition of a conspiracy theory:

    former president bush knows his successor could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    former vp cheney knows his former boss’ successor could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    former presidential hopeful mccain knows his former rival could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    former presidential hopeful clinton knows her former rival could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    former vp hopeful palin knows her former running-mate’s rival could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    the republican national committee knows their rival party head could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    40 republican senators know the president could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    178 republican congresspersons know the president could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    173 electoral voters know the president could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    9 supreme court justices know the president could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    the joint chiefs of staff know their commander-in-chief could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    ken starr and every 5-star attorney in the country know the president could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    rush limbaugh, glenn beck and all the president’s biggest political rivals in the mass media know the president could be an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    hawaii’s health department knows the president is in fact an illegal usurper and won’t do anything about it.

    hawaii’s republican governor knows about its health department and won’t do anything about it.

    … but a ragtag assortment of mostly anonymous personalities of dubious qualifications from across the internet knows the president is an illegal usurper and can do something about it.

  97. avatar
    SFJeff December 31, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

    G,

    I want to you thank you for responding in such a thoughtful and clear fashion. I was as guilty as some of others because I dismissed Aimee’s post because I couldn’t understand it but you took the time to ask her to clarify her concern and then addressed them clearly and soberly.

    Very well done. And Happy New Year all.

  98. avatar
    G December 31, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    You’re welcome, SF Jeff! Happy New Years to you and everyone on this site!

  99. avatar
    Expelliarmus December 31, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    Note — Time magazine has listed “the birther movement” among the top 10 untruths of the year – see: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1945060_1945068,00.html

    #1 –> Death Panels
    #2 –> Balloon Boy
    #3 –> Hiking the Appalachian Trail
    #4 –> The Birther Movement

    In other words, not only is it a big lie, but it’s not even a very good one.

  100. avatar
    aimee January 2, 2010 at 6:22 pm #

    If in fact the Birth Certificate is valid that our Leaders have seen it , then Barak Obama is undeniably our President and those “birthers” or whomever do not like it need to find a next Election man/woman who can win against him. In the meanwhile we need to ALLOW him to be our President. We must also ALL of us , pay attention.

    As far as Birth Certificate , land/ nation of Birth , here is how I see it: If the Presidents father intended for his homeland to claim / raise his son , then there may be a Question of Loyalty. Dual Citizenship . That may be addressed possibly , but a conspiricy is silly . From what I have seen , I believe our President has this trouble of Loyalties and that is why we see so much hesitation/wavering.

    We are a Sovergion Nation.We are NOT a One World Order Nation .

    ( I know my spelling/grammar but I cannot type either so it would take hours to properly form this for me, sorry)

    I was not accusing lawlessness up there in Our Supreme Court. I read all I can and I believe many of our Absolute Top Powers that be are in fact Honorable men and women , but then it is human to make error .

    As I’ve stated I am just a base human , but I know God is truly Omnippitent, Omnipotent , and Omnipresent. What I hope is that those sitting over us truly know this also. The Word is Truth and Prophecy with or without ‘therorist’ will prevail.

    Happy New Year. Goodbye.

    Aimee

  101. avatar
    nbc January 3, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    I believe our President has this trouble of Loyalties and that is why we see so much hesitation/wavering.

    Any examples?

  102. avatar
    Greg January 3, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    George Bush Sr. called for a New World Order. He negotiated NAFTA which Clinton signed into law.

    What conflict of loyalty did these Presidents have?

  103. avatar
    Anti-Anti's January 6, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    My whole issue is, why on earth if he was not trying to hide something would he not just release the records to prove it and shut the theorists up? Also we must look at and remember Barry having the ability to go in and out of pakistan during the early 80’s means he was traveling under a passport of another country as pakistan was on the USA no travel list…..Down with the party system so people have to educate their minds on who the person really is when they vote!!

  104. avatar
    Anti-Anti's January 6, 2010 at 8:14 am #

    OMG Grammar Nazi….Shut the hell up!

  105. avatar
    Anti-Anti's January 6, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    ROFL yeah and the first picture of it did not have the seal of hawaii, the second had the seal but had no folds…and the third had all…rofl You honestly dont believe a man in his position with what he has to lose cant get something done that a mexican who just snorkled the river can do by way of getting a fake birth certificate? COME ON PEOPLE…force the realese of all records he is hiding!

  106. avatar
    Anti-Anti's January 6, 2010 at 8:24 am #

    Then why did his Grand mother say he was born in Kenya? Then suddenly die? Why has Kenya built a shrine at the “birthplace” of Barry? Why will he not release his school records, medical records, and how was he able to travel to pakistan in the early 80’s when no other AMERICAN could? Still to many questions without answers

  107. avatar
    Anti-Anti's January 6, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    read the constitution Amiee, these elected representatives in our representative republic DO NOT sit over us…WE THE PEOPLE MEANS WE THE PEOPLE NOT WE THE GOVERNMENT!

  108. avatar
    Anti-Anti's January 6, 2010 at 8:32 am #

    lol look at healthcare? Look at the war? Look at Cap and Tax? All of these major congressional issues and all have had to get people pais off so they could pass it and all have people turning back entirely on this fake prez! The people who voted for Obama are as guilty as he is based on the fact they did not educate their minds on the man…you elected a prez who said America needs to be a third world country so americans know what a struggle really is….ROFL IDIOTS

  109. avatar
    JoZeppy January 6, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    It’s pretty simple. You don’t acknowledge idiots. You ignore them. You see, they make B.S. up, and keep repeating it long after it has been proven long….like the non-existent Pakistan travel ban.

  110. avatar
    Black Lion January 6, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    You do realize that you lose credibility when you make statements that can easily be refuted. There was no travel ban on Americans to Pakistan in 1981. Period. That was a story made up by Mario and even with a mountain of contrary evidence, refuses to admit that he is wrong. Barack Obama was able to travel to Pakistan in 1981 on his US Passport. The same one he traveled to Indonesia on when he was 6 and returned to HI on when he was 10. There is no mystery.

  111. avatar
    Greg January 6, 2010 at 11:40 am #

    The Governor of Hawaii is a Republican. The Director of the Department of Health is a Republican-appointee. You don’t think that if there were anything fishy about the COLB allegedly issued by the Hawaiian Department of Health one of those Republicans would have noticed it and mentioned it?

  112. avatar
    Greg January 6, 2010 at 11:42 am #

    Why do birthers keep claiming that no one could travel to Pakistan in 1981 when there is a New York Times travel piece about going to Pakistan from the month before Obama traveled to the country?

    You’re right there are a lot of questions still unanswered.

  113. avatar
    Greg January 6, 2010 at 11:48 am #

    All of these issues are ones supported by Democrats. They aren’t anti-American ideas, they are anti-Republican ideas. Obama’s alleged ties to Kenya or England or Indonesia didn’t make him support universal health insurance. Hillary Clinton, a woman born in Illinois, supported each of these issues.

    You’ve just given more proof that your concerns about Obama aren’t principled stands about the Founders’ beliefs about those born to aliens, but a disagreement over policy.

  114. avatar
    Black Lion January 6, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    You want to see how silly the birthers are? They can’t even get their so called facts straight. Anti-Anti’s says “Then why did his Grand mother say he was born in Kenya? Then suddenly die?”. He doesn’t realize that these are different people. His step-grandmother, who the birthers claim made the statement that he was born in HI, never even said that. And she is still alive. His grandmother on his mother’s side did pass away, but she never said anything of the sort. When you can’t even get your story straight, then how can anyone take you seriously….

  115. avatar
    dunstvangeet January 6, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    There’s also on a foreign ship in U.S. Territorial Waters (I think this would also apply to a foreign aircraft or an U.S. airport when they have not gone through customs)…

  116. avatar
    SFJeff January 6, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    Anti-Anti (appropriate name by the way- against nothing)

    Did you ask to see President Bush’s Birth Certificate? President Clinton? Reagan? Nixon?

    Nope. Just this one. And when he produces it, and it is verified by more than one agency, you call it a forgery. Why the hell should he bother to pay attention to you?

  117. avatar
    G January 6, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    Aimee,

    Of course we are a sovereign nation. We always have been and I don’t see anything at all that has changed in that.

    Different leaders are going to have different perspectives on how to best address the problems of our nation. That has always been the case and always will, as are leaders are just individuals with their own minds, just like we are. You may disagree with direction or decisions made, but how in any way is our sovereignty at stake? That seems to be quite a stretch of the imagination to me.

    I really think that you allow yourself to be ruled by fear based on pure speculation and “what-if” conspiracy scenarios with nothing tying them to the reality of the world we actually live in.

    I don’t understand your question of “divided loyalties” either. Can you give me any examples of what you are referring to?

    And you keep referring to some One World Order…which doesn’t seem to exist, other than in fiction and paranoid conspiracy theories.

    Also – what is this Prophecy stuff about?? I have no idea what you are talking about here either.

    I’m glad that your faith has been a source of strength and guidance for you to help you focus on how to do the best you can in life and to try to do the right things.

    However, I fail to see a connection between that and anything else you’ve said and so I remain confused on what exactly you are still so worried about.

    Happy New Year and thanks for posting,
    -G.

  118. avatar
    G January 6, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    Uh…dude…what do you think the government is?

    A government is the body within a community, political entity or organization which has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws, and regulations.

    We The People elect individuals from amongst our population to represent us and carry out these duties.

    Is the system perfect? NO – far from it.

    Is there a lot of abuse, corruption and incompetence? YES.

    Does our constitution and body of laws provide ways to address these issues? YES.

    Does our system provide you with the ability to participate in the system- either at the ballot box, by right of petition, by rules of law and the courts and even by the right to run as a candidate yourself? – YES.

    In a richly diverse country where individual freedoms are protected, are there always going to be vastly diverse points of view and positions on issues and direction? YES.

    Therefore, not everyone is going to be happy and you will never have all people in agreement, which is why our government represents the overall general will of a majority of “We The People”, (while doing what it can to ensure that the rights of the minority are not squashed.)

    Yes there are lots of flaws as mentioned above in our system, but in a country of over 300 Million people, what exactly do you expect?

    I think all of us wish that more of our elected officials focused more on being true “public servants” than on greed, ego, money and power.

    In summary, we have the government in place that We The People put into place.

    If you have ideas on how to improve that, I’m sure we’d all be interested. Otherwise, you are just complaining for the sake of complaining and have nothing of value to contribute here.

  119. avatar
    Rickey January 6, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    Anti-Anti’s says:

    Why has Kenya built a shrine at the “birthplace” of Barry?

    Where exactly is this shrine which Kenya has built? Do you have photos of it? A link?

    I’m sure you must have this information, because I know how carefully birthers check and verify their facts. I will breathlessly await your response.

  120. avatar
    SFJeff January 6, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    Well the birthers alternately think that Hawaii Grammie can’t be believed because she fraudently filed Obama’s birth papers in Hawaii, and also that Kenyan Step-Grammie misquoted statement must be taken as truth because, well she is his grannie, well sort of….

    Oh and lets not forget the Birther innuendo that Hawaii Grannie’s death was suspiciously convenient for the President.

    These people can’t even keep straight which Grannie is which, let alone which one is the ‘reliable witness’ grannie.

  121. avatar
    jay dee May 30, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    Tranparency transmarancy, the big OB is a ??? Ye shall. Knpw them by their fruits (not Rhomie), and there are ample rotten fruits for any honest bloke