Main Menu

Indiana appeals court defines “natural born citizen”

scales2Following closely on the heels of the news of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial in Berg v. Obama comes this stunning decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals, rejecting the appeal of Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse in their Obama eligibility lawsuit directed at the Governor Daniels of Indiana.

Ankeny and Kruse had argued that neither Obama nor McCain were natural born citizens as required by the U. S. Constitution. The Court said:

… However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President.

The court then goes on to say (after a lengthy analysis of the law) that:

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” …

And (by jingo) the Court even cited the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott:

The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

In an important footnote to this article, the Court made it clear that:

We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

Print Friendly

, , , , , ,

176 Responses to Indiana appeals court defines “natural born citizen”

  1. avatar
    jvn November 12, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    So the claims that “no court has decided on the merits” and “no court has verified that President Obama is a natural born citizen” are gone.

    I think too, so are the birthers…

  2. avatar
    tes November 12, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    Eggsactly!

  3. avatar
    nbc November 12, 2009 at 8:02 pm #

    Ouch, another one bites the dust. Thanks Tes, your contributions are always much appreciated.

  4. avatar
    Dick Whitman November 12, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

    Okay. Let’s have Barack give permission to the Hawaii DOH to release a copy of his complete birth record, the State Department to release his complete passport record and Occidental College release his complete education record.

    Now is the time to drive a stake through the heart of the stinky ol’birthers!

  5. avatar
    nbc November 12, 2009 at 8:14 pm #

    The COLB is sufficient. But we already know that it show him born on US soil. The rest is irrelevant

  6. avatar
    SFJeff November 12, 2009 at 8:31 pm #

    Who wants to put money down that by tomorrow the Birthers sites will be calling these justices traitors also?

  7. avatar
    Texlaw November 12, 2009 at 8:35 pm #

    They’re already complaining that this court had no business discussing natural born citizen because it determined the plaintiffs lacked standing!

  8. avatar
    wendy November 12, 2009 at 8:53 pm #

    the stake was driven through their hearts, over a year ago, when the colb was posted online.
    Now is the time to do an anthropological study on why it takes over a year for some life forms to stop jerking.

  9. avatar
    Dick Whitman November 12, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    The problem with your assertion is that you believe once a native-born citizen achieves Natural-born citizen status they can never lose it. In Craig v. U.S., the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court affirmed the rights of citizenship of the native born are derived from §1 14th Amendment. Congress cannot enlarge or abridge those rights through legislation.

    For example, let’s say a native-born citizen is determined to be a natural-born citizen. Later, this individual expatriates himself and renounces his citizenship. This individual loses more than their citizenship status, they lose their natural-born citizenship status while retaining native-born citizenship status.

    So, a complete life history is necessary. It is especially important if the individual has lived outside of the country during their lifetime.

  10. avatar
    gwen November 12, 2009 at 9:27 pm #

    Barak Obama CAN”T give the Hawaii DOH permission to release a copy of his complete birth record, neither can YOU or I! The best we can get–in order to prevent corruption, is a COPY of the original. His copy looks just like that of anyone born in Hawaii, including MINE. Why would we need his passport record?? It is enough that the government issued a passport to him as a citizen of the USA. Do YOU have a passport?? Are YOU aware of the level of scrutiny an application is given before being issued. It is probably the best and certainly them most accepted form of identification. There is NO reason to release his college records, he is making no claim about them other than that he graduated and that has been verified by the schools. We didn’t look at GWB’s school records…

  11. avatar
    nbc November 12, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    Native born and natural born are equivalent with minor exceptions. A child who is taken abroad cannot lose his natural born status because of the actions of his parents. If the person returns after expatriation, he will become a naturalized citizen.
    There is no evidence that Obama meets these scenarios.
    Even if Obama had multiple citizenships, him returning to the US well before reaching the age of majority and remaining there, is sufficient to continue his nbc status.

  12. avatar
    nbc November 12, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    But standing is not an issue in state courts is it, at least standing is determined by the State Constitution and laws not the Federal laws and Constitution.
    I believe that the issue was that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim

    the Governor filed a motion to dismiss alleging in part that “the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Appellee’s Appendix at 1. The Governor also filed a memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss. On February 17, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Governor’s motion to dismiss. On March 16, 2009, the trial court granted the Governor’s motion to dismiss after a hearing. On April 13, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.

    I just wish I had all the relevant rulings and motions.

  13. avatar
    Rickey November 12, 2009 at 9:39 pm #

    Nonsense. There is no difference between a “native born citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” There are only two types of citizens, natural born/native born and naturalized. A person who renounces U.S. citizenship does not retain native-born citizenship status. That person is no longer a U.S. citizen, period.

    As for renouncing citizenship, if it had ever been done by Obama the State Department would have a record of it:

    F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

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

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

  14. avatar
    nbc November 12, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    The State argued
    Mootness
    Failure to state a claim
    Plaintiffs Do Not Have a Free Standing Cause of Action.

    Hmm what the heck is that

    In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege violations of Article II of the United States Constitution and Title 3 of the United States Code. CampI. ~ 1. Neither of these sources of federal law, however, confers a private cause of action on a plaintiff. Federal courts have concluded that the Presidential qualifications provided in Article II do not provide a private cause of action. Berg, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 522-23 (E.D.Pa. 2008) (“Like the Supremacy Clause and the foreign affairs powers, the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not confer an individual right on citizens or voters.”). Also, Title 3 of the United States Code does not provide a private cause of action. Title 3 provides the mechanism for objections to a Presidential election when Congress meets to count the electoral votes:

  15. avatar
    nbc November 12, 2009 at 10:06 pm #

    Well said

  16. avatar
    nbc November 12, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    never mind

    Motions to dismiss for lack of standing may be brought under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

    So failure to state a claim is lack of standing.

    Duhhhh

  17. avatar
    wendy November 12, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    I may be wrong, but I am unclear as to what Hawaii can provide to the person with authority. Many certificates that I have used in research, ARE the “long” form, with more details. It is possible Obama can..BY HIS CHOICE… get a copy of the original record, and then release that. His record, his choice. Just as you or I have the right to post our birth record (of any name). ASIDE FROM LEGAL AUTHORITIES.. no one else has the right to demand that document. I emphasize legal authority, since FBI or any other investigative agency, already has the right to validate the sources, and needs no court order.
    Having said that.. the “full” copy has no relevance to prove exactly what is required for this issue, which is that he was born IN HAWAII. The arguments re who was the Dr, etc, are all smokescreens being used to try and avoid admitting the fact of their own stupidity. They are deliberate arguments for the sole purpose of confusing people and planting suspicions. Like a backwards argument, “they” have already reached the conclusion that he lied, then attempt to find/fabricate proof, when the proof is non existent.
    The same is true for this alleged difference between “native” born or “natural” born. Pure BS. They refer to exactly the same circumstance, a person who is a citizen from birth.

  18. avatar
    Dick Whitman November 12, 2009 at 10:23 pm #

    The difference between native-born and Natural-born is rights.

    A person born on US soil that is not the child of an ambassador or an invading army has the the right to be determined a native-born. Once that determination is made, native-born status can never be denied regardless of actions or circumstance throughout the person’s life.

    Carefully read Craig v. U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. A native-born citizen has no right to be determined a Natural-born citizen. Natural-born citizen status can be denied. Consequently, the birth record is insufficient. A complete life record in necessary, including all State Department records to determine current Natural-born citizenship status.

  19. avatar
    Randy November 12, 2009 at 10:35 pm #

    Dick,
    Natural born citizen. period.

  20. avatar
    Bob November 12, 2009 at 10:40 pm #

    Carefully read Craig v. U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Oh, the irony.

  21. avatar
    Greg November 12, 2009 at 10:42 pm #

    Standing may, or may not be an issue in state courts, depending on the state constitution.

    Some state courts are allowed to give advisory opinions, for example, like Massachusetts.

    Standing comes from the “case and controversy” clause of Article III, so if there’s no analogue in the state constitution or legislation, then standing will have different boundaries.

    I would imagine that most states have some limitations on standing, however, to protect the resources of the state courts.

  22. avatar
    Black Lion November 12, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    Sven, I am surprised at you. Why don’t you bring back your consular passport or refugee status theories….The bottom line is that he has released the evidence he needed to release. The President was born in the US. All evidence supports that. He has never renounced his US citizenship and you have no evidence that he ever did. You also don’t have any evidence that he was a citizen of any country other than the US or has a passport for any other country. This is just another way to somehow go on a fishing expedition to find something. Fortunately for us it won’t happen.

  23. avatar
    elmo November 12, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    Hey, Dick! You forgot to demand release of his kindergarten records, the tape of his last colonoscopy, the lint from his navel, and a copy of every letter he sent to Santa Claus as a kid.

  24. avatar
    jvn November 12, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    Do I remember incorrectly or haven’t the birthers been complaining that the appellate courts handling these cases HAVE NOT “simply defined whether or not the President is an NBC?”

    Now they’re complaining that this court DID?

    Too funny…

  25. avatar
    NbC November 12, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    Yeah… A decision on the merits is only interesting if it supports your case…

  26. avatar
    misha November 12, 2009 at 11:51 pm #

    “A complete life record in necessary, including all State Department records to determine current Natural-born citizenship status.”

    Thank you for stating this. There is a real concern Barack Obama is a runaway slave. Unless he shows all his papers, this will always be a concern.

    Obama may have to be forcibly removed from the White House (remember that – it’s a White House, not a black’s house), and returned to the proper plantation.

    Hey Sven, are you a jerk, or does it just seem that way?

  27. avatar
    Rickey November 12, 2009 at 11:57 pm #

    Dick Whitman:
    Carefully read Craig v. U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Your misreading of Craig v. U.S. is astonishing. The Court of Appeals decision actually makes no distinction between “native-born” and “natural-born” citizens. The decision actually discusses the difference between native born/natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. The difference is that native born/natural born citizens are eligible to be president, whereas naturalized citizens are not.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 12, 2009 at 11:58 pm #

    wendy: Now is the time to do an anthropological study on why it takes over a year for some life forms to stop jerking.

    There is a graphic description of a chicken with its head cut off in Barack Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father.

  29. avatar
    Rickey November 13, 2009 at 12:03 am #

    It would be interesting to take a poll on how many people know the name of the doctor who delivered them, and how many actually have a birth certificate which identifies that doctor by name.

    My guess is that very few people know the name of the doctor, and even fewer have a birth certificate which identifies the doctor.

  30. avatar
    misha November 13, 2009 at 12:07 am #

    Yeah, and you forgot to demand proof he is circumcised.

    Hey Dick (no pun), unless he’s Jewish, there’s no guarantee he was circumcised. Sorry.

  31. avatar
    misha November 13, 2009 at 12:14 am #

    Here’s a quandry for “Dick Whitman”: what happens when two US citizens, have a child born on Mars? Is he/she a natural born citizen, or is the child a Martian – thus can only be president of the Galactic Federation.

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 13, 2009 at 12:27 am #

    I cannot help but wonder if the Indiana court read this blog at all when I see things like:

    We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975). During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor “that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive.” Although President Arthur’s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.

    I don’t recall anything in Reeves’ book that says Arthur’s father was an “Irish citizen.”

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 13, 2009 at 1:33 am #

    Sven (wearing a Dick Whitman mask) says: So, a complete life history is necessary. It is especially important if the individual has lived outside of the country during their lifetime.

    This just points out that birthers are unwilling to accept any reasonable level of proof, but rather insist on inspecting every atom in the universe before admitting Obama is eligible to be president.

    Well you go right on inspecting atoms. I have more productive things to do.

  34. avatar
    Texlaw November 13, 2009 at 1:45 am #

    Comments like Whitman’s are further evidence, in my opinion, that behind birferism is unadulterated racism. They have never demanded “complete life records” of any other President.

  35. avatar
    Lupin November 13, 2009 at 2:20 am #

    Are you calling Orly “stinky”?

  36. avatar
    misha November 13, 2009 at 2:49 am #

    Neither the doctor, nor the hospital, nor the time of day, are on my BC. It just has my name, DOB, city and state.

  37. avatar
    wendy November 13, 2009 at 5:03 am #

    Rickey… I have a dreaded COLB, from Calif. It has all of the above, includes Dr name (not that I can read the scribble) born 7.09 pm; age of both parents and what they both did for a living and more. It includes date received by local registrar (I hear that means it still isn’t accepted..lol). It actually shows there is more info cut off, ie if mother had other children, etc.
    I’d tell you the year.. suffice to say that I qualify for senior discounts at IHOP.
    Most people fall into the trap that what shows on their certificate is the same on ALL certificates, which is a joke. They are different in all states, and differ in different time frames. I know different through genealogy.

  38. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 13, 2009 at 5:41 am #

    Texlaw: Comments like Whitman’s are further evidence, in my opinion, that behind birferism is unadulterated racism. They have never demanded “complete life records” of any other President.

    Except for Chester Arthur of course, but only after Obama got elected! Nobody ever discussed the eligibility of Dwight Eisenhower (born David Eisenhower, that is one point already). Ike had no contemporary birth certificate, the location of his birth usually quoted (on the basis of his mother’s recollection) is probably incorrect (a biographer recently discovered Father Eisenhower bought a house in the place they lived at before they moved to Denison, Texas AFTER Ike’s birth). Note that Texas is close to Mexico. Perhaps Ike was smuggled in across the Rio Grande?

    Second, as we all know, Ike was not only entitled to German nationality, he would have been considered German by the German Empire if he had visited it during his youth (being linearly descended from German immigrants). Like Obama, Ike lost his second citizenship at the age of 23 (by enrolling in the US Army, which lost him his German citizenship under Prussian law). On the other hand, when in Britain during world war II, he tried to divorce his American wife to marry his British secretary, which would have entitled him to British nationality if the marriage had taken place in Britain (he did not get permission from his military superiors – many historians now believe this juicy story is true).

    When he got elected, he had not been resident in the US for fourteen years either.

    Hm, anyone any idea why Eisenhower was treated differently than Obama?

  39. avatar
    wendy November 13, 2009 at 6:07 am #

    Ireland is correct as per Wm. place of birth on the 1850 census. Chester also states his father’s birth place to be Ireland in the 1880 census. Both of the records show Chester to be born in Vermont. Each are primary sources (original census document), although there are known errors in those. I can’t speak for the book.
    Of course, we could use the argument that in 1850, someone foresaw that Chester planned to become President, and planted the Vermont info..just like grandma Dunham planted the birth announcements in preparation for Obama.
    I think one of my sources pulled up the naturalization date for Chester’s dad, but I don’t recall what year that was.

  40. avatar
    wendy November 13, 2009 at 6:55 am #

    Man, I am SO GRATEFUL TO YOU, for offering the illustrious conclusions of your research.
    All of which are completely your own fabrications.
    Once again, we get to glimpse the mental contortions that someone is willing to go to, to try and make something fact that never was.

    You really need to sit down with Orly, and the two of you can spend some time figuring out why Land, Carter, et al are judges..
    and you are not.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 13, 2009 at 7:39 am #

    I am not disputing the fact that Arthur’s father was Irish, only that the biography cited by the court doesn’t say so. The court had to get this information from somewhere else and that is possibly from blog comments from web sites like mine and Leo Donofrio’s.

  42. avatar
    kimba November 13, 2009 at 7:41 am #

    And they’re off and running!

    Back to the old “but he renounced his US citizenship as a 6 year old in Indonesia”

    or

    But but but, Kenyan granny! He was born in Kenya!

  43. avatar
    kimba November 13, 2009 at 7:45 am #

    They think “a decision on the merits” means a full trial with discovery. “By golly, we won’t rest until we’ve gotten every piece of information we want about Obama. Even in the Michael Jackson trial, we saw pictures of MJ’s penis. We can’t settle for less from Kenyatta Mandingo.”

  44. avatar
    MsDaisy November 13, 2009 at 8:32 am #

    Well it looks like nothing will take the wind out of her sails, on her website I see that she has filed yet another motion @ 4 am this morning.
    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=6118

    I read the motion, and maybe it’s my dyslexia or lack of sufficient amounts caffeine yet this morning but I’m not sure I can understand where she is going with it other than disregarding that BO’s citizenship is now a mute point, and just her continued paranoid ramblings.

    Excerpt:

    “Notice of appeal for both cases has been filed in 11th circuit court of Appeals. Both cases were brought by the undersigned counsel in front of Judge Land in Middle district of GA. In the first case Cook v Good the undersigned argued precisely that point, that this is an issue “capable of repetition but evading review”. The only difference being that the undersigned has brought forward Roe v Wade as a controlling authority, and judge Sloviter is understandably using Merle v US out of the third district 351,3d 92,94, (3rd circuit 2003). The undersigned has argued this point to no avail as judge Land dismissed Cook v Good claiming that the case is moot due to the fact that the deployment orders for Major Cook were revoked. In the second case Rhodes v MacDonald judge Land has dismissed the whole case 2 days after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed without giving the undersigned as much as 10 days provided by local rules to respond to the motion, and completely disregarding the whole 54 pages of pleading on all the points, while the undersigned precisely argued that there is a need for Declaratory relief and judicial determination as this is an issue capable of repetition, yet evading review. To add insult to injury judge Land has asserted $20,000 of sanctions against the undersigned in order to prevent her from arguing similar cases and in order to endanger her license and livelihood. The assistant US attorneys in this case have submitted Land’s order as some type of ruling authority for this case, and it became a lynching festival for pro Obama media thugs. While your Honor might have reservations regarding the Injunctive relief, at the very minimum based on Judge Sloviter’s ruling this court has at least jurisdiction to render an opinion and provide Declaratory relief and 42 USC §1983 relief. Based on the Declaratory relief from your Honor further action can be taken based on Quo Warranto or by Congress in impeachment proceedings.”

    Is it me, or is there an actual point to this?

  45. avatar
    misha November 13, 2009 at 8:49 am #

    “is there an actual point to this?”

    No, it’s just another incoherent ramble of hers. CAL III was not available to write it, so she winged it.

  46. avatar
    kimba November 13, 2009 at 8:55 am #

    Have Orly and CELIII parted parts? You’d think I would have felt a ripple in the force!

  47. avatar
    kimba November 13, 2009 at 8:57 am #

    HA! “Here come all the plaintiffs (aside from plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Willey Drake represented by Gary Kreep) “

  48. avatar
    Lupin November 13, 2009 at 9:22 am #

    It probably reads better in the original Moldavian (or Orcish).

  49. avatar
    milspec November 13, 2009 at 9:38 am #

    I loved this ” To add insult to injury judge Land has asserted $20,000 of sanctions against the undersigned in order to prevent her from arguing similar cases and in order to endanger her license and livelihood.”

    Livelihood I doubt the Orly has ever made a dime as a lawyer.

  50. avatar
    milspec November 13, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    I only new my doctor’s name because he was a friend of the family.

  51. avatar
    ballantine November 13, 2009 at 11:06 am #

    “I cannot help but wonder if the Indiana court read this blog..”

    I was thinking the same thing when reading the opinion. There are posts by blacklion, nbc and others that read just like the opinion, other than the opinion cites more of Wong. I guess great minds think alike. Actually, I almost always start legal research with google, as do I beleive most of my colleagues, so I think it likely the court’s clerks are going to come accross these sites pretty quickly and see that much of their research has been done for them.

  52. avatar
    Rickey November 13, 2009 at 11:06 am #

    While your Honor might have reservations regarding the Injunctive relief, at the very minimum based on Judge Sloviter’s ruling this court has at least jurisdiction to render an opinion and provide Declaratory relief and 42 USC §1983 relief. Based on the Declaratory relief from your Honor further action can be taken based on Quo Warranto or by Congress in impeachment proceedings.

    Orly seems to be saying that she’s willing to withdraw her demand the the Court remove Obama from office if it only will declare that he is ineligible. Of course she is now saying that Obama can be removed from office by impeachment, which undercuts Kreep’s argument that Obama can’t be impeached because he isn’t really the president.

  53. avatar
    Rickey November 13, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    It appears that there may have been a falling out.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22487064/RIVERNIDER-v-U-S-BANK-19-ICE-OF-RECEIPT-Re-Letter-from-Dr-Orly-Taitz-Esq-Transport-Room

  54. avatar
    Vince Treacy November 13, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    Ireland was part of the United Kingdom for the entire 19th Century and for long after.

    The Act of Union of 1800 was enacted by both the English Parliament in London and by the Irish Parliament in Dublin and created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So anyone born on the island of Ireland after 1800 was probably technically a citizen of the UK rather than Ireland, since the Kingdom of Ireland no longer existed and Ireland was no longer a nation.

    (The Act of Union passed the Dublin Parliament only after massive bribery of its Members. In addition, none of the majority of Catholics in the population were allowed to serve in it, so only the minority Protestants were represented. The Act was bitterly resented in Ireland).

  55. avatar
    Rickey November 13, 2009 at 11:27 am #

    I have two copies of my birth certificate, one issued a week after I was born in 1948 and one which I ordered 21 years ago. Both are issued by the New York State Department of Health and both are called “Certificate of Birth Registration.” They list my name, date of birth, city of birth (but not the name of the hospital or the name of the attending physician), and the full names of my parents. That’s it. The 1948 edition doesn’t have a raised seal, only the now-smudged signature of the registrar. The 1988 edition has a raised seal.

    The 1948 edition was good enough to get my Social Security Number, enlist in the Navy and register to vote. The 1988 version was sufficient proof of citizenship for me to get a passport.

    My father was a doctor and may well have once told me the name of the doctor who delivered me, but if so it is long forgotten. I do know the name of the hospital, which would be easy to identify anyway because it’s the only one in the area.

  56. avatar
    G November 13, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    …Other than dining off of PayPal donations from gullible birthers ;)

  57. avatar
    Chris November 13, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

    Don, as an advertising man you should know that you should keep out of politics.

  58. avatar
    Rickey November 13, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    She also misspelled “laches” as “latches.”

  59. avatar
    Chris November 13, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    Here’s the bio of Judge Brown, who wrote the opinion:

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/appeals/bios/brown.html

    She was a school teacher before going to law school. She has been heavily involved in supporting community outreach substance abuse programs. And yes, she’s a Republican (not surprising for what I assume is a politically appointed position in Indiana). I cannot wait to see what the birthers try to make of her.

  60. avatar
    Bob Weber November 13, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    I know the name of the doctor who delivered me, but mainly because he was also my mom’s employer! (Nice fringe benefit!) I assume that my siblings were also delivered by Doctor B., since my mom had the utmost respect for him. (If you want to know who the best doctors are, ask the nurses.)

    However, my siblings, my parents, and I have never ever discussed the circumstances of our births! (What dull lives we lead.) So I couldn’t say for sure what hospitals we were born in (except for me; it’s on my BC). And yes, I have actually once misremembered the hospital that I was born in.

  61. avatar
    Passerby November 13, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    Thia is what I’ve always wondered, and is actually what first caught my attention about the “birthers.” When you see someone repeatedly claiming something as if it were self-evidently true, when you know from your own experience that it’s definitely false, you kind of have to start wondering. These people talk about the “long form”, and how it’s required to get a passport or practically anything else, and how anyone actually born in the US must have one, as if obviously everyone knows that. It’s just odd.

    I know the name of my doctor, because my mother told me. She thinks the story of my birth is interesting (it’s at least a little unusual) and likes to tell it, and the doctor had a distinctive name. If not for that, I’d have no idea.

    If I ever had a “long form” birth certificate with that information, I’ve never seen it. I have two copies, obtained a few years apart. The forms are different, but the information on them is exactly the same: my name, my parents’ names, date of birth, county of birth, file record number, and the seal and signature. I’m pretty sure that’s it–I’d have to look to be sure. At any rate, it turns out to be (I looked it up when I got my passport) exactly the information the State Department wants on a birth certificate in order to get a passport, no more and no less. So what on earth could these people be talking about? That’s what I said to myself. And then I got kind of interested in the whole thing ….

    Really, how many other people have the kind of certificate they keep talking about? I’d kind of like to know.

  62. avatar
    Black Lion November 13, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    Great point…I would have to agree with you…

  63. avatar
    Bob November 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    Donofrio says (surprise, surprise) that the Indiana court got it wrong.

  64. avatar
    Black Lion November 13, 2009 at 4:44 pm #

    Well it looks like Leo is out of hibernation and of course slams the Indiana court decision…You have go to read this crap…He is still pushing his 14th amendment citizen nonsense…Any thoughts?

    The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizen” clause. The errors of fact and law incorporated into the decision serve as a beacon outlining the desperation certain government factions now face. Obviously, the British birth issue is getting on their nerves and this was clearly an attempt to derail further national discussion on this issue.

    The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs did not state a claim upon which relief might be granted, but then they went ahead and visited some of the underlying merits of the case in a rather cavalier manner. Since any appeal of this decision will be dismissed on other procedural grounds, no appellate court will ever review them on this issue. The upper courts will simply deny the appeal without reaching this aspect. So they took a crack at stopping this in its tracks.

    And they failed miserably. And it’s very encouraging. The arguments presented by the Indiana Court of Appeals are weak. The facts used by them are also a fantastic attempt at propaganda. For example:

    With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News…

    That’s interesting. Later in the decision they reject this fact. Amazing. It appears that the Indiana Appellate Court was not willing to accept that Barack Obama Sr. was the President’s father. That alone tells you something was rotten in Denmark. But the legal arguments they proceed upon, particularly their selective quotations from the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases illustrate a wonderful example of a court acting as one of the advocates.

    Their main argument is to state that citizens are only born or naturalized. That fails to take into account the framers (and other original citizens) who themselves were neither born citizens nor were they naturalized. So the Court proves itself a bit wonky on that point. Still, I certainly do not dispute that today all US citizens are either born or naturalized. But that’s not the point. The necessary evaluation requires consideration of the various types of born citizenship. And on this important issue, the Indiana Court of Appeals has failed.

    Born citizens can be broken up into three groups:

    1. natural born

    2. citizens by statute

    3. 14th amendment citizens

    – All three classes were born as US citizens, but not all three are the same. Persons born abroad are citizens by federal statute.

    – A person born on US soil to alien parents who were domiciled here, according to Wong Kim Ark, is a 14th Amendment citizens.

    – Natural born citizens are born on US soil to parents who are citizens.

    All of the above are citizens, but each reaches their citizenship through different circumstances.

    To be “natural born” is a circumstance of citizenship. It is not a separate level of citizenship. All citizens have equal rights. If that was not true, then naturalized citizens would be eligible for the office of President. But they aren’t. This is because the natural born citizen clause is a national security measure, not a right of citizenship. The Indiana Court conveniently ignores this point.

    Born citizens are not necessarily bestowed with citizenship in the same way. Some require a statute. Some require the 14th Amendment. Some were natural born and their citizenship was self-evident.

    The Indiana court also pointed to dicta in a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case which labelled two children of an illegal alien as natural born. That case stated:

    The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

    But nothing about the issue was discussed. The children were mentioned in passing dicta. Whether the children were natural born was not an issue in that case. And it was a mistake for the court to say they were natural born.

    The Indiana Court of Appeals acknowledges that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark did not hold that the man was a natural born citizen. Essentially, the Indiana court acknowledges that the US Supreme Court exercised judicial restraint, but the Indiana Court of Appeals here doesn’t feel that they are restrained in that regard. How brave of them.

    Furthermore, the Indiana Court chose to ignore the most relevant aspect of Wong Kim Ark where the SCOTUS clearly indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born:

    Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

    That tells you right there that the child of the citizen and the child of the alien are not both natural born.

    “…and his child… If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

    Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

    – he compares two children

    – on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

    – on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

    He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

    He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

    The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

    The Indiana Court conveniently ignored this analysis. And that comes as no surprise to me. They had to ignore it because there was no possible way for them distinguish it.

    Leo C. Donofrio

  65. avatar
    ballantine November 13, 2009 at 5:20 pm #

    I am sorry. He is an idiot. Ignore all the pages the court defines natural born citizen and focuses on one quote. Of course he leaves out part of the court that cites calvin’s case and natural born subject. The full quote is:

    “His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    If anyone read Binney or the rest of the case they would know the “same principle” Binney mentioned is the rule of calvin’s case that made children of aliens natural born, as the court says in the same sentence. There was no other class of citizens by such principle. What Binney is actually saying the children of aliens and natural born children of citizens were both citizens by operation of the rule of Calvin’s Case. Binney was determining who were citizens, not natural born citizens, and hence had no reason to call children of aliens “natural born” and trying to read an unnecessary implication into the definition of natural born which the court already specifically defined is typical of the birther lawyers.

  66. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 13, 2009 at 5:37 pm #

    I wouldn’t waste my time on Leo’s blathering.

  67. avatar
    wendy November 13, 2009 at 5:59 pm #

    Total circus. Lawyers can, and do, argue with courts… that is the process.
    But, the birther bunch? My God. It is mind boggling how they can dispute every single ruling against them, and make up whatever it is that they chose to think.
    “If I repeat it enough, and post it on enough websites, and my groupies support it.. that must make it legal”.
    There is a reason they are called Judges. There is a reason they have authority.

  68. avatar
    aarrgghh November 13, 2009 at 8:08 pm #

    donofrio will never make it into a courtroom. if you think orly suffers from delusions of persecution, think twice.

    meanwhile, any birfer who gets predictably bounced out of court on a quo warranto case will also have the pleasure of getting heckled by leo because they didn’t do it his way.

  69. avatar
    mrlqban November 13, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    wendy: Total circus. Lawyers can, and do, argue with courts… that is the process.But, the birther bunch? My God. It is mind boggling how they can dispute every single ruling against them, and make up whatever it is that they chose to think.“If I repeat it enough, and post it on enough websites, and my groupies support it.. that must make it legal”.There is a reason they are called Judges. There is a reason they have authority.

    You have the right to dispute a ruling if you have arguments that supports it. I believe Leo lays it down perfectly. There is a reason they are called Judges, but there is also a reason why there are lawyers that can dispute their arguments. Just because they are Judges doesn’t mean they speak the truth.

  70. avatar
    SluggoJD November 13, 2009 at 8:34 pm #

    LOLOLOL, outstanding reply!

  71. avatar
    Rickey November 13, 2009 at 8:50 pm #

    It appears that Orly and Charles Edward Lincoln III have irreconcilable differences and have gone their separate ways.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22520254/RIVERNIDER-v-U-S-BANK-CEL-III-AFFIDAVIT-RE-ORLY-TAITZ-Rivernider-CEL-Affidavit

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 13, 2009 at 8:54 pm #

    Donofrio:

    1. natural born

    2. citizens by statute

    3. 14th amendment citizens

    – All three classes were born as US citizens, but not all three are the same.

    Not really. They are pretty much the same. Putting aside naturalized citizens… Those born in the United States are citizens according to the 14th Amendment, and are thereby natural born citizens. Those born outside the United States to US Citizen parents are not citizens by the 14th Amendment, but they are still born citizens, and therefore (in my opinion) natural born citizens. The Indiana appeals court stated the first, and made it clear they were not ruling out the second.

  73. avatar
    aarrgghh November 13, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    … if you have arguments that supports it

    well, that’s one thing birfers have plenty of, and that’s arguments, endless arguments … just not legal ones. and birfers have clearly illustrated that they will dispute a ruling even if they don’t have any argument whatsoever, legal or otherwise. the problem (for birfers) is that they expect to win …

    aye, there’s the rub. because after dozens and dozens of suits from coast to coast judges have told the birfers over and over again that they have no legal argument. “moot”, “frivolous”, “irrelevant” and “incoherent” are just some of the terms now permanently inscribed in the case history of these eligibility suits.

    what are the chances that leo has the magic bullet? i’d wager that’s no more likely than leo actually bringing this to court.

  74. avatar
    mrlqban November 13, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

    14th Amendment does not define natural born citizenship, period; you said “those born in the United States are citizens according to the 14th Amendment, and thereby natural born citizens”

    You are adding the word “natural” yourself, the 14th Ammendment omits it. Therefore, not quite the same, sorry.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Donofrio:Not really. They are pretty much the same. Putting aside naturalized citizens… Those born in the United States are citizens according to the 14th Amendment, and are thereby natural born citizens. Those born outside the United States to US Citizen parents are not citizens by the 14th Amendment, but they are still born citizens, and therefore (in my opinion) natural born citizens. The Indiana appeals court stated the first, and made it clear they were not ruling out the second.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 13, 2009 at 9:48 pm #

    mrlqban: You are adding the word “natural” yourself, the 14th Ammendment [sic] omits it. Therefore, not quite the same, sorry.

    And by what authority do you say that it is different? What I stated was a conclusion, not a misstatement of the 14th Amendment. It was recognized long before the 14th Amendment that those born in the country were natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents (see Lynch v. Clarke and the lengthy analysis therein). The only “fly in the ointment” was the claim that those born in slavery were not citizens. This claim was laid to rest by the 14th Amendment.

    But I suppose you are a legal genius, and the appeals court judges in Indiana are idiots.

  76. avatar
    mrlqban November 13, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    aarrgghh: well, that’s one thing birfers have plenty of, and that’s arguments, endless arguments … just not legal ones. and birfers have clearly illustrated that they will dispute a ruling even if they don’t have any argument whatsoever, legal or otherwise. the problem (for birfers) is that they expect to win …aye, there’s the rub. because after dozens and dozens of suits from coast to coast judges have told the birfers over and over again that they have no legal argument. “moot”, “frivolous”, “irrelevant” and “incoherent” are just some of the terms now permanently inscribed in the case history of these eligibility suits. what are the chances that leo has the magic bullet? i’d wager that’s no more likely than leo actually bringing this to court.

    It’s not that they’ve had no legal arguments, it’s that they have had “no standing” to present those arguments. Just name one case that have been heard on the merits. Maybe I missed something since 2008. Besides, only a couple of these law suits have made the natural born citizenship interpretation their main argument. The majority of them have been about whether Obama was born in the U.S. or not, which it’s irrelevant in this context.

  77. avatar
    wendy November 13, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    you have the right if you have an argument.

    A hoax, or fabricated definition of what YOU think defines natural born citizen, IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.
    Which, in LEGAL terms.. is where you get into the area of a frivolous lawsuit..
    one that HAS NO LEGAL MERIT OR FACTS.

  78. avatar
    mrlqban November 13, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    What do you mean by what authority? I was just saying that “citizens” as used in the 14th Amendement is not the same as saying “natural born citizen”. One word versus 3 words. We don’t need any authority to tell us that 1 is different from 3.

    Talking about authority, the case that you mentioned Lynch v. Clarke is a state court case and it does not have legal weight when it comes to define natural born citizenship as this is a Constitutional issue. It is the same as some county Court judge in “Polk County” saying that aliens are natural born citizens. So, I ask you the same question, under what authority are you saying that it “was recognized long before the 14th amendment that those born in the country were natural born citizens”?
    Of course I am not a legal genius (I wish) nor I think that the appeals court Judge is an idiot, neither anybody else that has a different opinion, including you, for that matter. I am just a regular Joe that would like the Constitution to be interpreted as it was intended. At some point,somehow i strongly believe this issue should be brought up before the Supreme Court, whether you are eventually correct or not.

  79. avatar
    wendy November 13, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    THIS MIGHT HELP ON THE STANDING QUESTION…

    Standing is comprised of three elements: First, the party attempting to establish standing must have suffered an “injury-in-fact” — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent and not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct forming the basis of the lawsuit. Third, it must be likely that the injury will be redressed through a favorable decision of the court.
    213 W. Va. 80, 576 S.E.2d 807. (See footnote 2)

    Some litigants seem to have a limited grasp of why the issues are getting dumped. “Standing” IS NOT CONFINED only to certain persons having the right to file or be heard. It ALSO (and maybe more importantly, in this dispute)
    MUST be shown that an injury has happened. Not “maybe” someone was injured. Which is where the birthers get pie in their collective faces. The entire concept that Obama is illegally in office IS NOT FACT. It is hypothetical, and fabricated.
    NO ONE will have “standing” to sit there and try to argue their creative writing that somehow, they have discovered that the entire commonly accepted definition of natural born citizen, now must disappear. Magically, they exhume some Swiss philosopher, who died before the Revolution, and voila.. HE IS NOW LEGAL AUTHORITY, and to be a natural born citizen NOW requires two citizen parents.
    Judges did not get to the bench in some vacuum. DeVattel did not sign the Constitution, and whatever he thought, is not legal authority.
    Obama was legally elected, and there is no fraud concerning his citizenship status. All the shenanigans and false outrage in the world, is not going to change that.
    And it does not TAKE a Supreme court justice to figure any of this.

  80. avatar
    mrlqban November 13, 2009 at 11:16 pm #

    Well, you did not mention one case. At least you agree with me in that.

    you have the right if you have an argument that supports your “standing”. This is what the lawyers have failed to accomplish. They must pass this barrier before they bring their natural born citizenship interpretation into discussion. I am perplexed that you are calling a hoax a legitimate question of the Constitutional law. As a matter of fact, I believe this topic is the wrong blog :)

  81. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 13, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    Talking about authority, the case that you mentioned Lynch v. Clarke is a state court case and it does not have legal weight when it comes to define natural born citizenship as this is a Constitutional issue.

    So what federal court decision do you claim provides a contrary view to Lynch v. Clarke?

  82. avatar
    Dick Whitman November 13, 2009 at 11:20 pm #

    BO will state on his website that he is a native-born citizen. Why won’t he state that he is a Natural-born citizen of the U.S.?

  83. avatar
    wendy November 13, 2009 at 11:33 pm #

    those who understand that native/ natural are the same.. don’t need to be told.
    Those who need to be told, would not understand it anyway.

  84. avatar
    mrlqban November 13, 2009 at 11:49 pm #

    “entire commonly accepted definition”

    and where is your Legal Authority that supports this?

    The laws must define Natural Born Citizens, not the common beliefs.

    “Magically, they exhume some Swiss philosopher, who died before the Revolution, and voila.. HE IS NOW LEGAL AUTHORITY, and to be a natural born citizen NOW requires two citizen parents.”

    It can be argued that it has always been this way, not just NOW, and…Vattel have been cited by the Supreme Court a few times.

  85. avatar
    nBc November 14, 2009 at 12:36 am #

    Just name one case that have been heard on the merits.

    Ankeny v Daniels

    Hahaha…

  86. avatar
    nBc November 14, 2009 at 12:40 am #

    You are adding the word “natural” yourself, the 14th Ammendment omits it. Therefore, not quite the same, sorry.

    They are very much the same. Since there are only two classes of citizens, natural born or naturalized, the conclusion is simple that anyone born on US soil is a citizen born on US soil, thus native or natural born.

    It’s not that hard even though some pretend that it is.

    It was the guiding common law practice of those days, in the colonies and early states.

    It was remained undefined in the Constitution since its meaning was so well understood from common law. In fact, there are some interesting examples which show that native born and natural born are interchangeable.

  87. avatar
    nBc November 14, 2009 at 12:47 am #

    Lynch v Clarke was just an example of the prevailing thought of those days and was based on a thorough analysis of the law practices. Yes it was a State’s case which is still relevant as any court can interpret the Constitution, as they do daily. Of course, once the Supreme Court rules, you will have closure on the issue. Which is why the Wong Kim Ark ruling was so important as it showed that anyone born on us soil is a natural born citizen with minor exceptions.

    Thus Lynch v Clarke was quoted in a NY case
    Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858)

    In Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. R. 583,) the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a native born citizen, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth. That case, if [401] law, would seem to be decisive of the present question.

    This is why we have such statements as Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (Non-Whites) (1862)

    the accident of birth”—the fact that we happened to be born in the United States. And our Constitution, in speaking of natural lorn citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

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

    That nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right, as between the individual and the government, is a historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted that it is needless to prove it by authority. Nevertheless, for the satisfaction of those who may have doubts upon the subject, I note a few books which, I think, cannot fail to remove all such doubts—Kent’s Com., vol. 2, part 4, sec. 25; Bl. Com., book 1, ch. 10, p. 365; 7 Co. Rep., Calvin’s case; 4 Tenn. Rep., p. 300; Doe v. Jones, 3 Pet. Rep., p. 246; Shanks v. Dupont; and see a very learned treatise, attributed to Mr. Binney, in 2 Am. Law Reporter, 193.

    United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. .Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent Com. 1 ; Calven’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 4 Black. Com. 366 ; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. 139.

    “McCreery v. Somerville, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 354 (1824) (in determining title to land in Maryland, Court assumed that children born in the state of an alien were native-born citizens of the United States).”

    And the list goes on and on…

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 14, 2009 at 7:39 am #

    Doc high-fives nBc.

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 14, 2009 at 7:45 am #

    Yes, the Supreme Court did cite de Vattel on citizenship once, in a racially motivated decision, today believed to be one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history. I can’t see any attorney with the audacity to argue that Dred Scott was precedent before a modern court. That is one fly-speck on an otherwise clear judicial record on citizenship.

    You would do well to click the link on “citizenship” in the right sidebar on this site, and read the articles there for background.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 14, 2009 at 7:52 am #

    mrlqban: the case that you mentioned Lynch v. Clarke is a state court case and it does not have legal weight when it comes to define natural born citizenship as this is a Constitutional issue

    Given that federal courts, including the California Circuit Court (in Look Tin Sing) and the Supreme Court (in Wong) have cited Lynch, I would say that it carries considerable “legal weight”. The value of Lynch is in the scholarship of its argument.

  91. avatar
    aarrgghh November 14, 2009 at 9:51 am #

    mrlqban whines:

    it’s not that they’ve had no legal arguments, it’s that they have had “no standing” to present those arguments. just name one case that have been heard on the merits.

    standing is not an obscure technicality that exists in a vaccuum. it is the first merit. to argue otherwise is just whining.

    judge kinny of keyes v bowen went into considerable detail on the merits of that case. so did judge carter, who struggled to do just that, despite orly’s best efforts to short-circuit her own case through sheer zealotry. carter was the most patient and considerate jurist the birfers could have gotten, but the outcome, like every other, was forgone — because birfers continue to ignore that the burden of proof remains on them. just because these judges did not rule in the birthers’ favor does not mean that the merits were not heard. that’s like saying the judges never bothered to even read their filings, which orly practically accuses every judge of failing to do anyway.

    of course, what birfers means by “on the merits” changes with each dismissal. sorta like their insistence that obama show them “no, not that silly newfangled i.d., boy — we wanna see the purple one, with the stripes on top …”

  92. avatar
    Lupin November 14, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    Well, for one thing, Leo misquotes Vattel.

    Vattel didn’t say that both parents had to be citizens to be a native (natural-born). He said that the father had to be a citizen. One parent is enough.

    Say, the father is American, the mother British. You have the same alleged dual-allegiance (child born with potential UK citizenship) and yet, according to Vattel, the child is natural-born. No question about it.

    Leo can write whatever he wants, but he is 100% unarguably wrong on this specific issue.

    (And this may be the 50th time I’ve posted this.)

  93. avatar
    mrlqban November 14, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    Wong Kim Ark ruling held that he was a citizen not a natural born citizen. Besides, this ruling is controversial since 1) the Judge in this case cited another Supreme Court case, Minor vs. Happersett, that it does not even support the very Judge’s arguments in Wong Kim Ark.
    The Judge cites:
    ” At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
    So, the Minor case even supports the idea that there are doubts that people born in the US to foreign parents are “citizens”, even more doubts about natural born citizens. (“…As to this class there have been doubts…”)

    And this ruling is controversial since 2)Chester Arthur’s natural born eligibility is currently in question due to the fact that his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth and Chester Arthur appointed this very Supreme Court Judge. (this research was brought to light in Leo’s website some time ago)

    Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858)
    This cases is just citing Lynch v. Clarke here. The conclusion here was that the “present case would be decisive” if Lynch v. Clarke case was law. Nothing new to add.

    The AG opinion: AG’s do not set precedence. The opinions setforth by AG’s are made for the executive branch only.

  94. avatar
    mrlqban November 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm #

    I’m not a birther. Why do you classify me as one? This is a question of the law and that’s what I am discussing, that’s it.

    I do not believe that Obama should produce a birth certificate, it’s irrelevant if he was born or not in the U.S.

  95. avatar
    nbc November 14, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    On the contrary, his place of birth established whether or not he was natural born.

  96. avatar
    nbc November 14, 2009 at 2:45 pm #

    At best Minor shows that the Courts did not feel the need to address the issue of children born to foreigners. Of course, then there is the intermediate form, children born to a us parent and a foreigner.
    What I am showing is how courts have come to much the same conclusion, how opinions of those days supported the Courts. You insist this to be a legal question and yet then you avoid legal opinions…
    This has nothing to do with precedent, all with logic and reason, culminating in Wong Kim Ark providing the guidelines to establish who is a natural born citizen.
    Since then WKA has been quoted countless times, so it will be hard to reject WKA’s reasoning which inevitably leads one to infer that natural born refers to location not parentage.

  97. avatar
    nbc November 14, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

    You’re funny. What other choices are there? We know he was born on US soil… He signed many forms that stated that he was a natural born citizen (Arizona for instance) or that he meets the requirements for presidency.

    Desperate are we?

  98. avatar
    nbc November 14, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    The laws must define Natural Born Citizens, not the common beliefs.

    Again you are at odds with SCOTUS who has ruled more than once that in order to understand the meaning of terms not defined in the Constitution, one has to look at the common meaning of the words as found in common law practices in those days.

    Vattel has been cited a few times, mostly in dissenting opinions and overturned in WKA.
    That’s too bad but you are interested in the legal aspects are you not?

  99. avatar
    nbc November 14, 2009 at 2:54 pm #

    While I appreciate to be referred to as a ‘great mind’, my contributions are merely presenting the facts quoting the words of others and applying common sense reason and logic.
    People much smarter than me, on sites like Politijab continue to poke holes in legal arguments. The latest submission in Barnett v Obama by the DOJ reads almost verbatim on a posting by a contributor on Politijab where she points out the failures to follow local rules.
    Time after time, these people show the errors in filing, errors in motions and errors in logic and reason when it comes to these eligibility law suits.
    That 100% of the rulings have gone against the Birthers is just a logical outcome due to the lack of foundation as well as merit to these claims.
    Not that it is going to stop them. I cannot wait for Orly to pursue her meritless 39 ssn claims any further… Or the Super American Grand Jury who was once again ignored by Judge Lamberth for not following the rules.

    Fascinating stuff. And the outcomes are so predictable.

  100. avatar
    nbc November 14, 2009 at 2:57 pm #

    CEL III admitted on Facebook he had written 98% of the Barnett motions. I guess all Orly got to do is ‘sign’ them.

    Now that she is alone, the style of her submission have returned to the usual level.
    That she fully misunderstands the ruling in Berg v Obama is hilarious. Only Orly could see something positive in a ruling which denies standing…
    The good news is that the DOJ need not submit the case through judicial notice.

  101. avatar
    nbc November 14, 2009 at 2:59 pm #

    Donofrio’s record on these suits shows that all must be wrong and that his failures to convince the courts should be blamed on the courts.
    Donofrio is good at poker and bluffing is an important part in the arsenal of any poker player.

  102. avatar
    aarrgghh November 14, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    mrlqban attempts to convince himself:

    i’m not a birther. why do you classify me as one?

    if, after months of discussion and dozens of failed lawsuits, you still lie awake at night not convinced that barack obama is a natural B-O-R-N citizen of the united states and therefore qualified to sit in the chair he has occupied for the last nine months, unchallenged by anyone who matters … then i have some bad news for you, my friend.

  103. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 14, 2009 at 3:52 pm #

    All existing authorities concur in equating the term “natural born” with “native born”, and determining that born in the US= natural-born citizen. There is not a SINGLE LEGAL authority that can be cited to the contrary.

    Leo Donofrio is not a legal authority. He’s a nutcase posting on the internet. His writings can’t be cited to a court of law.

    De Vattel’s writings are not “legal authority”. They are a treatise based on his philosophical view of international law, which has nothing whatsoever to do with US law.

    Chester Arthur’s status has not been brought “into question” because some internet blogger invents some wonky theory to rationalize his way out of the obvious precedent set by Arthur’s presidency.

    The meaning of “natural born citizen” is not in question merely because the US Supreme Court case has not weighed in. The legal burden is on those who question the meaning to prove their case, both on a factual and legal basis – meaning that any lawyer bringing a suit would need to provide a court with LEGAL authority to support the 2-citizen-parent argument. Not speculation, not mere argument — but citation to specific case law and decision.

    That’s why the courts have thus far held the claims “frivolous”. When there is a legal argument to be made to support a minority view — when the lawyers can cite to specific case laws or statutes that support their argument and interpretation – then even if unpopular, and argument will not be deemed frivolous. (Cases challenging laws against gay marriage are a good example of that type of legal advocacy).

    So my only question to you, mriqban, is: what case law exists to support your position?

  104. avatar
    SvenMagnussen November 14, 2009 at 4:33 pm #

    BO seems to be under them impression a Native-born citizen is the same thing as a Natural-born citizen.

    And if he renounced his citizenship to become an Indonesian national, then he’s still eligible because he’s native-born and you cannot renounce your place of birth.

    BO swore he’s eligible. And no one has the right to question that.

    You don’t just drink the Kool-aid, you swim in it.

  105. avatar
    mrlqban November 14, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    nbc: Since then WKA has been quoted countless times, so it will be hard to reject WKA’s reasoning which inevitably leads one to infer that natural born refers to location not parentage.

    It’s ok all against one :)

    The ruling WKA had zero to do with NBC as WKA was not running for President, the ruling was about whether or not he should be a citizen. I think this is pretty clear. Therefore, you cannot use WKA to make your case that the ruling in fact defined natural born citizenship. That’s not true and it’s misleading.

  106. avatar
    mrlqban November 14, 2009 at 5:06 pm #

    nbc: At best Minor shows that the Courts did not feel the need to address the issue of children born to foreigners. Of course, then there is the intermediate form, children born to a us parent and a foreigner.

    umm, read this again, …”It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

    “born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction”. At least, Minor Court agrees that they will only consider “this” for now. They did not feel the need to address the issue because it is a different ball game when a parent is a foreigner, which it doesn’t pertains to their case. But they do state that foreigner parents makes it different. There are “doubts”. Exactly my point and it is what you are arguing against, that there is no difference, but there is.

  107. avatar
    mrlqban November 14, 2009 at 5:37 pm #

    Expelliarmus: All existing authorities concur in equating the term “natural born” with “native born”, and determining that born in the US= natural-born citizen. There is not a SINGLE LEGAL authority that can be cited to the contrary.

    I agree that native born equates to natural born, but you may have it inversed, I can argue that All natural born are native born, but not all native borns are natural born. Big difference. No Court has ruled that all people born in the U.S. regardless of parenthood are NBC as stated in the Constitution. They have ruled that they are native born, citizens, etc, but not NBC. Show me the source. This is still an open question.

    Expelliarmus: Leo Donofrio is not a legal authority. He’s a nutcase posting on the internet. His writings can’t be cited to a court of law.

    I never said Leo was a Legal Authority. He may be a nut case in many people’s eyes, but being crazy should not bar you from bringing research to interpret the Constitution.

  108. avatar
    ballantine November 14, 2009 at 6:46 pm #

    No court has ruled on NBC. The court has not defined many terms, but that does not mean a definition is in doubt. Even if it was in doubt, the court will look to all early legal authorities to define such term, not just court cases, and we have cited a multitude of early authority to support our position and you and Leo have cited none. Wait, you cited the opinion of one congressman 79 years after the convention. Is it dishonesty or incompetence that you guys never mention the 5 other members of the same congress who disagreed with him or explain why the opinion of one congressman 79 years after the convention is relevant to the original meaning when there is so much other earlier authority to the contrary. Have you found any other early authority yet?

    With respect to native birth, Wong stated that since the common law was adopted, all children born in the US are generally native born citizens. You are simply trying to read an implication into a choice of terminology. The court made clear the English common law rules controlled and under the common law all the native born (subject to common law exceptions) were by definition “natural born.” I think you need to refresh your Blackstone as you would see there are only 2 classes of people at birth under the common law, the natural born and the alien born. The natural born were also referred to as natives. There is no authority anywhere that says there is a difference between native and natural born under the common law.

    Finally, here is a list of early authorities saying that the president needs to be native born citizen or a native. Take notice it includes the most influential scholars of the early republic that court consistantly relies upon. If you or Leo disagree with this multitude you need to find authority to the contray. Clearly, there you have no such authority.

    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statments of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788).

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

    “The president must, by law, be a native born citizen; so that none need aspire to that high calling, but those who might emphatically be termed natural sons of America.” Joseph Dennie, John Elihu Hall, The Port Folio, pg. 199, (18)

    “By the provisions of the federal constitution, the President and Vice President of the United States are required to be native-born citizens; and the President is required to cause the laws of the Union to be executed.” Rep. Russel, Congressional Globe, 24th Cong., 1st Sess. pg 4256 (1836)

    ” It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] 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.)

    “Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

    “No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales…” John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, M’Culloch’s Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)

    “Afterwards however, in Convention, the words “natural born citizen” were stricken out, and the word ” native” was substituted, as the original words might have left an uncertainty as to the meaning of the Convention, for ” natural born citizen” might have had some reference to the manner of birth, while the word ” native” would refer more particularlylo the place of birth. ” Sherman Croswell, R. Sutton, Debates and Proceedings in the New-York State Convention – New York (State) Pg. 148 (1846)

    “No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native-born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, ….” Richard Swainson Fisher, The progress of the United States of America: from the earliest periods. Geographical, statistical, and historical, pg. 9 (1854)

    “The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term four years each to be a native born citizen…..Emma Willard, Abridged history of the United States, or, Republic of America, pg. 254 (1856)

    ” They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, … Samuel Clagett Busey, Immigration: Its Evils and Consequences pg. 10 (1856) pg. 10

    “Your committee is of opinion that no one can be eligible to discharge, for the time being, the functions of President, unless he be thirty-five years old, and a native born citizen. A Speaker of the House, or a President pro tempore, might not have these qualifications —and if so, he could not act as President in compliance with the Constitution.” Sen. Butler, 8/05/1856, Reports of Committees: 30th Congress, 1st Session – 48th Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 4., By United States Congress. Senate, Congress, Published 1856

    “One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of tho United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizan.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877)

    “It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, Civil Rights Acts Debates, reported in Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 387 (1866)

    “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. (2 Kent’s Com. 3d ed. l ; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 1 Black. Com. 366; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. Rep. 139.)” Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    “What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)

    “One of the qualifications of President of the United States is that he must be a native born citizen, and incontestibly were it not for this provision a naturalized citizen might, if elected, hold that high position.” White v. Clements, Georgia Supreme Court, 1870, Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, in the Year , pg. 256-57 (1870)

    “The qualifications for president and vice-president by this clause are made the same. They must, therefore, be native born citizens of the United States, or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, and been fourteen years citizens of the United States, and thirty-five years old.” John King, A Commentary on the Law and True Construction of the Federal Constitution, pg. 206, (1871)

    “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162 (1874).

    “The President was required to be thirty-five years of age, and native born, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution.” Richard Hildreth, The History of the United States of America, pg. 521 (1880)

    “The President and the Vice-President, (and hence their Electors also), are required, however, to be native-born citizens of the United States. Here we have a clear inclusion of all the States as to their native-born, and a clear Delusion of all foreign-born citizens.” Meeds Tuthill, The civil polity of the United States considered in its theory and practice, pg. 83 (1883)
    “As the president and vice-president are elected at and for the same time, the right to be chosen to both offices is dependent upon the same conditions (12th amendment). To be eligible, it is necessary to be a native-born citizen of the United States,…Hermann Von Holst, Alfred Bishop Mason, The Constitutional Law of the United States of America” pg. 84 (1887)

  109. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 14, 2009 at 6:52 pm #

    US Courts have consistently held that there are only TWO kinds of US citizens: those born citizens and those naturalized.

    As for your claim “no court has ruled that all people born in the US regardless of parenthood are NBC as stated in the Constitution.” you are wrong: on November 12th, the Indiana appellate court ruled so. Check the title of this thread.

    Oh, and let’s not beat around the bush. When Leo Donofrio divides up “native-born” into:
    A) natural born citizens
    B) citizens through the 14th amendment
    C) citizens by statute (WKA and others)

    what he really means is:
    A) whites
    B) ni**as
    C) “members of the Mongol race”

  110. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 14, 2009 at 7:08 pm #

    Actually, here’s a novel idea about the native-natural mixup. The writers of the constitution knew Vattel. And that is why they wrote “natural-born” and not “native” or “native-born”!

    Why? Because they did NOT want to cause some 19th, 20th or 21st century wingnutters to think that they had quoted Vattel and only “indigènes” (the word Vattel really used, and which is often trnslated into English as “natives”) were eligible to the US presidency. Which would have meant that only Indians could be President.

    By the way, your quotations prove to anybody who can read with comprehension that there is no difference between “native-born” and “natural-born” but birthers like mrlqban are only reading these old quotations to look for a way out – to not recognize Obama as US President. “Blablabla – I am not listening!”

  111. avatar
    Cymraeg November 14, 2009 at 7:15 pm #

    mqirban:

    FYI Within the last week or so, in an appeal of an Obama citizenship suit in Indiana, a Court of Appeals has held that “natural born citizenship” refers to place of birth only, the citizenship of the parents being irrelevant.

    If your Vattell based definition were true, there would be over 200 million Americans who are not “natural born citizens” and therefore ineligible to be president. Before women were given the vote in 1921 very few immigrant women became citizens. Neither of my grandmothers did. Therefore their children would not be NBCs and their children’s children and their children’s children into infinity. This is ludicrous.

    Your definition creates the construct that there are three classes of citizenship: (1) naturalized, (2) natural born, (3) unnatural born.

    A careful reading of American case law and pre 1783 English law makes it very clear that there are only two classes of citizenship: (1) naturalized, and (2) natural born. The unqualified term citizen means all citizens.

  112. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 14, 2009 at 8:06 pm #

    mrlqban:
    “born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction”. At least, Minor Court agrees that they will only consider “this” for now. They did not feel the need to address the issue because it is a different ball game when a parent is a foreigner, which it doesn’t pertains to their case. But they do state that foreigner parents makes it different. There are “doubts”. Exactly my point and it is what you are arguing against, that there is no difference, but there is.

    But then the Wong Kim Ark case came along and addressed the issue that had been left open by the Minor case, resolving those “doubts” in favor of the US-born son of alien parents.

  113. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 14, 2009 at 8:09 pm #

    mrlqban:
    I never said Leo was a Legal Authority. He may be a nut case in many people’s eyes, but being crazy should not bar you from bringing research to interpret the Constitution.

    But you would need legal authority in bringing an action before any court. The so-called “research” that Leo has done wouldn’t pass muster in a court of law — at best it is a matter of historical interest, but it has no bearing on legal interpretation of the Constitution.

  114. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 14, 2009 at 8:38 pm #

    Depending on the era, many women became citizens automatically when their husband became a citizen. I believe this was the case with Vice President Humprey’s mother.

  115. avatar
    Jez November 14, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    I can actually tell you the name of the doctor that delivered me, and the hospital I was born in. Both are on my birth certificate, which is just a photostat copy of the original state record. I think LA now gives out an abbreviated form, but I have the full form.

    I also know because my mother loves to remind my father that he was gone when I was born (he was in Viet Nam, not like he had a choice) and that I put her in ICU. The length of her labor gets longer every time she tells it also. She might still be in labor. :)

  116. avatar
    Rickey November 15, 2009 at 12:36 am #

    1. A native born citizen is the same thing as a natural born citizen.

    2. You continue to spew your nonsense about renunciation of citizenship. Obama lived in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10. The rules about minors renouncing citizenship could not be more clear:

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

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

    You would have us believe that at the age of ten (or younger) Obama was able to convince the U.S. consulate in Indonesia that he wanted to voluntarily renounce his U.S. citizenship, that he fully understood what he was doing, and that he fully grasped the consequences. Is it conceivable that the State Department would ever administer an oath of renunciation to a ten year old child? Of course not, it is beyond ludicrous to even suggest it.

    And there was nothing which Obama’s mother and stepfather could have done to cause Obama to lose his citizenship:

    Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children.

  117. avatar
    mrlqban November 15, 2009 at 11:06 am #

    I have one question for all of you. If John McCain is not a native born citizen (which all of you agree that it is the same as saying Natural Born Citizen, right?), why could he be President? Shoot…

  118. avatar
    mrlqban November 15, 2009 at 11:10 am #

    This is going to be interesting :-)

  119. avatar
    kimba November 15, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    mrlqban stands back, folds arms across chest and says “go ahead, convince me”. You’re funny. You like to play word games, don’t you? Note to mrlqban – you don’t win cases by parsing and playing word games. Convince us.

  120. avatar
    mrlqban November 15, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    kimba: mrlqban stands back, folds arms across chest and says “go ahead, convince me”. You’re funny. You like to play word games, don’t you? Note to mrlqban – you don’t win cases by parsing and playing word games. Convince us.

    I just want to see your logic on McCain’s NBC status. I am not here to win cases. Just like to share my point of view on the subject based on what I have learned so far, and rebutte those ideas that are out of place.

  121. avatar
    mrlqban November 15, 2009 at 12:57 pm #

    Expelliarmus: But then the Wong Kim Ark case came along and addressed the issue that had been left open by the Minor case, resolving those “doubts” in favor of the US-born son of alien parents.

    Only as to “citizens”, not NBC.

    And since so many of you argue that it was such a universal accepted concept that all people born in the U.S. aka, native born have allways been NBC as stated in the Constitution, then why in Minor case it is affirmed that there are “doubts” as to those born with foreign parents only a few years after the 14th amendment was adopted?

  122. avatar
    ballantine November 15, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

    Fair question. I think McCain is a difficult question that could be debated endlessly. I think there is insuffient evidence to really determine whether the framers would have thought him natural born. Under the common law, natural born subject and native were used interchangeably. However, Parliament, through a number of naturalization statutes, deemed children of subjects born oversees to be natural born subjects. As such persons were often called “natural born,” to the framers, “natural born” likely would have been seen has having a broader meaning than “native” as it would include such children born oversees. However, most early legal authorities nevertheless equated “natural born” with “native” or “native born.”

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    mrlqban: If John McCain is not a native born citizen (which all of you agree that it is the same as saying Natural Born Citizen, right?), why could he be President?

    The lawsuit which heads this thread (Ankeny v Daniels) alleges just that: neither Obama nor McCain were eligible.

    At the time of the ratification of the Constitution (as best I know) the only way to be born a citizen was to be born in the United States. So originally natural born and native born were the same. Later laws were passed making other classes of persons born citizens. There are serious legal scholars who argue that McCain was not eligible to be president, for example: http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/chin.htm. Senate Resolution 511 (co-sponsored by Clinton and Obama) unanimously declared that the Senate thought he was eligible. I don’t really know.

    What I do know is that the way the political system works in this country, a candidate is presumed eligible, and it takes a rather solid case to disqualify someone. This is why McCain was on the ballot and Obama was elected.

  124. avatar
    mrlqban November 15, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    ballantine: Fair question. I think McCain is a difficult question that could be debated endlessly. I think there is insuffient evidence to really determine whether the framers would have thought him natural born. Under the common law, natural born subject and native were used interchangeably. However, Parliament, through a number of naturalization statutes, deemed children of subjects born oversees to be natural born subjects. As such persons were often called “natural born,” to the framers, “natural born” likely would have been seen has having a broader meaning than “native” as it would include such children born oversees. However, most early legal authorities nevertheless equated “natural born” with “native” or “native born.”

    Very interesting, fair answer too because you admit that natural born likely had a broader meaning to the Framers than native born (the same meaning intended for the Constitution in Article II Sec 1), which it really weakens your argument that they are the same. And after all, what is written in the Constitution (and it’s true meaning) is what prevails.

  125. avatar
    mrlqban November 15, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    nbc: Vattel has been cited a few times, mostly in dissenting opinions and overturned in WKA.

    At the contrary, Justice Horace Gray agrees with Vattel as he stated in WKA:
    “…and his child… If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

    The Judge distinguishes who is just a citizen and who is a natural-born citizen (“the natural-born child of a citizen”)

  126. avatar
    Greg November 15, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    No he doesn’t. There’s nothing in the case that suggests there’s a new class of citizen, those that are born here, but not natural born. I suggest you actually read the case, from beginning to end, instead of reading Donofrio’s selective quotations, which cut more than they quote.

  127. avatar
    wendy November 15, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

    *BO seems to be under them impression a Native-born citizen is the same thing as a Natural-born citizen.*

    ‘under the IMPRESSION???!!!!’
    yes, I think that is safe to say. I also think it is safe to say that his “impression” is completely 100% accurate.
    And if he thinks that he does not have to prove it to anyone, when it comes to brass tacks, that also is completely true.
    The state can challenge the status of a candidate. Congress can challenge a candidate, either at the electoral college, or later (by impeachment proceedings). He has to provide documents for any legally authorized security investigation. He has to give his birth certificate to the DMV. If he gets pulled over for running a red light, he must give his drivers license to the cop.
    At some point in time, maybe birthers will get past the ignorant urban legend that there is some obscure rule that PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS have the authority to demand “proof”.
    Birthers seem to have no comprehension of the term LEGAL AUTHORITY. They have none. Never did, never will. They are not the CIA.
    It does not matter what worldnetdaily instigates, or if 50 million sign their silly petition.
    For ANY court action, the plaintiff is required to show that an injury happened IN FACT. No injury has happened and there will never be any standing. Lawyers can quote de Vattel or Fidel Castro or Nelson Mandela. None of them mean anything.
    Obama is under the impression that he has the same civil rights as anyone else, which is to KEEP his private records confidential, and give them to A LEGALLY AUTHORIZED AGENCY FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS.
    And, once again.. that is totally correct.

  128. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    You misunderstand your citation. It doesn’t say that the child of the alien born in the United States is not a natural born citizen. He is saying that the citizenship of both cases is the same. If you doubt, read further.

    And Gray also said:

    [An alien parent's] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

  129. avatar
    mrlqban November 15, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You misunderstand your citation. It doesn’t say that the child of the alien born in the United States is not a natural born citizen. He is saying that the citizenship of both cases is the same. If you doubt, read further.
    And Gray also said:
    [An alien parent's] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

    My citation points out that the Court contradicts the “British Common law” logic by contrasting the U.S. born child of an alien to the natural born child of a CITIZEN implying that their citizenship are not acquired the same even though in both cases they are citizens.

    In addition, the Court does not say that the child of the alien is a Natural Born.

  130. avatar
    sarina November 15, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

    “Wong Kim Ark ruling held that he was a citizen not a natural born citizen”

    Congress repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795, the wording of the Act was the same as the 1790 Act, except that the term “natural born citizen” was replaced by “citizen”. Congress never passed any law that explicitly clarified, defined or extended the meaning of natural born citizen.
    Google The Constitution on line: Citizenship read who is eligible to be president of the US.
    They even mention “anyone found under 5 years of “unknown parentage”..

  131. avatar
    mrlqban November 16, 2009 at 12:27 am #

    ballantine: The court made clear the English common law rules controlled and under the common law all the native born (subject to common law exceptions) were by definition “natural born.” I think you need to refresh your Blackstone as you would see there are only 2 classes of people at birth under the common law, the natural born and the alien born. The natural born were also referred to as natives. There is no authority anywhere that says there is a difference between native and natural born under the common law.

    It is unlikely that the NBC clause is under British Common Law, which is the basis of your claim. Check this out:

    Under the state of Virginia’s law in 1779, citizenship at birth was controlled by the principle of jus sanguinis, they adopted Thomas Jeffersons’ doctrine and it reads:

    “[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”

    [The preceding quotation is incomplete and therefore misleading. As written "all others" would be falsely understood to mean those not citizens citizen parents, but in truth the citation is preceded by a statement declaring citizenship for those born in the Commonwealth. Doc C.]

    At the time, all states were free to adopt their own citizenship laws and most of them diverged from Common British Law in the sense of Jus Sanguinis. How is this even possible (for the states to adopt jus sanguinis), if the doctrine of Common British Law prevailed?

  132. avatar
    mrlqban November 16, 2009 at 12:53 am #

    sarina: “Wong Kim Ark ruling held that he was a citizen not a natural born citizen”Congress repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795, the wording of the Act was the same as the 1790 Act, except that the term “natural born citizen” was replaced by “citizen”. Congress never passed any law that explicitly clarified, defined or extended the meaning of natural born citizen.Google The Constitution on line: Citizenship read who is eligible to be president of the US.They even mention “anyone found under 5 years of “unknown parentage”..

    sorry, I don’t understand your point here.

  133. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 16, 2009 at 3:31 am #

    You’ve omitted half of the statute. Here’s the full text — I’ve bolded part of the 1779 Virginia statute that you chose to ignore:

    “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”

    You left out the part about “born within the territory” that comes before the “and”.

    In other words you are simply trying to pass off another lie, this time with the birther tactic of misrepresenting a law by selectively excerpting the piece that you like.

    It seems pretty clear that Virginians saw citizenship by birth as something that was created BOTH by birth within the territory an by birth to a citizen.

  134. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2009 at 7:40 am #

    Sarina: Congress repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795, the wording of the Act was the same as the 1790 Act, except that the term “natural born citizen” was replaced by “citizen”.

    It is not the case that both acts are “the same” except for the replacement of the phrase “natural born citizen”. See article here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-naturalization-acts-of-1790-and-1795/

  135. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2009 at 7:43 am #

    mrlqban: My citation points out that the Court contradicts the “British Common law” logic by contrasting the U.S. born child of an alien to the natural born child of a CITIZEN implying that their citizenship are not acquired the same even though in both cases they are citizens.

    No, it does not make any such distinction. You are reading the fact that it doesn’t say “natural born” two times, as significant, whereas it really is not based on the context.

  136. avatar
    Black Lion November 16, 2009 at 11:54 am #

    The WKA ruling came after Minor and resolved the doubts. They specifically stated in the ruling that the Court looked at English Common Law to define the term natural born citizen and determined that it came from natural born subject, which meant anyone born in the jurisdiction of the US regardless of the citizenship status of the parents…Stop bringing up Minor…WKA is the case regarding citizenship…If you read the actual ruling you will see that any doubts were resolved. The De Vattel theory was specifically addressed and discarded. The dissent in the case (it was a 6-2 ruling) supported your belief. But since it was the dissent it is irrelevant…

  137. avatar
    HistorianDude November 16, 2009 at 2:33 pm #

    Why should he?

  138. avatar
    HistorianDude November 16, 2009 at 2:54 pm #

    Wong Kim Ark ruling held that he was a citizen not a natural born citizen.

    And how did the reasoning of the ruling reach that conclusion? This is not a rhetorical question. How exactly does the opinion build its review through the history of Anglo-American citizenship law to reach the conclusion that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen?

    It does so by repeatedly, explicitly and vigorously asserting that “by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

  139. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 16, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    What they’re claiming is that because the ruling did not specifically declare Wong a Natural Born Citizen, the ruling meant to say that he wasn’t. It’s an irrational argument, and probably a logical fallacy.

    They went from “Wong doesn’t apply, because it doesn’t deal with Natural Born Citizenship, just citizenship.”

    To: “The court in Wong specifically doesn’t declare him a Natural Born Citizen. Therefore, the court meant to not to, and therefore, the court ruled specifically that Wong is not a Natural Born Citizen.”

    They also claim that the sentence which states that Wong is “as much of a citizen as a Natural Born citizen born to citizen parents” supports their claim that the court specifically just declared Wong a citizen.

    Of course, they have no case law to back up their statements, and the case law that is out there (Lynch v. Clarke, U.S. v. Rhodes, etc.) specifically disagrees with them on those points.

    They went from “This is a legal interpretation of the clause and the court should define it.” to “this is the only legal interpretation, and those who disagree are obviously communist traitors.”

    It’s an illogical fallacy, with no basis in any decision. They still haven’t gotten one decision that supports their view that there’s a 3rd classification of citizenship (which they call “native born”).

  140. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 16, 2009 at 3:35 pm #

    mrlqban, People in England considered to types of citizenship:

    1. Natural Born – Those who were born Natural Citizens.

    2. Naturalized – Those who were made Natural Citizens later in life.

    McCain was born a citizen, and therefore is a Natural Born Citizen. Though the U.S. Judiciary hasn’t explicitly defined this, there is fairly wide support for this, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer. No other justices have come out in clear support for this view, but my feeling is that most justices would support it. I’m not as confident, though, in a 9-0 ruling as I am that those born on U.S. Soil are Natural Born Citizens.

  141. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    This only goes to illustrate the point I made ages ago: birthers are not seeking truth; they are seeking confirmation of what they already decided.

  142. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 16, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    Here’s my logic on John McCain.

    It partly comes from the entemology of the words “Naturalized” meaning “to make Natural”.

    Basically, there are two types of citizenship. Natural Born, and Naturalized. They both have a root in the word: Natural.

    Naturalized citizens are those that are made Natural, where Natural Born Citizens are those that are Born Natural. This entire thing that there can be a born citizen, without them being Natural Born is frankly a lot of hooey.

    Justice Ginsburg (who has Grandchildren who were born in France) and Justice Breyer (who have children born overseas) both think this way.

  143. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 16, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    Read the other parts of that paragraph.

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    Basically, at best, Minor said that there were doubts on which interpretation, and the court in Minor was not going to resolve these doubts, because Minor fit both definitions.

    A few years later, the court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark did resolve these doubts and say that anybody born in the United States (with minor exceptions being made for foreign diplomats, and invading armies in occupied territory) are Citizens at birth. Notice how Minor did not differentiate between Born Citizen, and Natural Born Citizen.

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2009 at 4:14 pm #

    While I have not researched this in depth, I’m not sure under the law at the time whether or not John McCain was a US Citizen at the time of his birth. See:

    Gabriel J. Chin, Commentary, Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 1 (2008)

    Professor Chin wrote:

    A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen. Senator McCain was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.

    This issue of the Michigan Law review is devoted to the question of McCain’s eligibility, and is a valuable example of well-reasoned debate on a legal question. One notes the total lack of debate over Obama in the academic legal community. He was indisputably born in the United States and thereby a natural born citizen,

  145. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 16, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    You ask for “logic on McCain’s NBC status”. That is actually very simple. Since all who are born in the United States are natural-born citizens, EXCEPT the children of diplomats or occupying soldiers – it follows that the same status of natural-born citizenship should be given to children of US diplomats born abroad, or of US soldiers occupying territory abroad. That is what is called reciprocity.

    Interestingly, the 14 year residency requirement was ignored in the cases of Jefferson (Ambassador to France), John Quincy Adams (Ambassador to Russia and Great Britain) and Eisenhower (Commander of US Forces in Europe). It makes sense to ignore these “deficiencies” if the law acknowledges that people under such circumstances are still under the full sovereignty of the United States.

    Note that it basically does not make much difference, since there only two kinds of citizens: natural-born and naturalized. McCain was never naturalized.

  146. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 16, 2009 at 8:04 pm #

    Technically, Jefferson, and Adams were Employed in U.S. Soil, and resided there as foreign ministers. U.S. Embassies overseas are considered U.S. Soil, and as long as they’re over there for a U.S. governmental job (such as Minister to France, or Ambassador to the Court of St. James) I have no problem with that being consdiered time as having lived in the United States.

    Eisenhour was again off serving the U.S. Military in a time of war, stationed by the U.S. Government. I again have no problem with that service being considered as being a “resident”.

  147. avatar
    mrlqban November 16, 2009 at 9:08 pm #

    Expelliarmus: You’ve omitted half of the statute. Here’s the full text — I’ve bolded part of the 1779 Virginia statute that you chose to ignore:You left out the part about “born within the territory” that comes before the “and”. In other words you are simply trying to pass off another lie, this time with the birther tactic of misrepresenting a law by selectively excerpting the piece that you like. It seems pretty clear that Virginians saw citizenship by birth as something that was created BOTH by birth within the territory an by birth to a citizen.

    I did not mean to do this on purpose. I am not trying to pass a lie, just half quoted; excuse me all, but it’s still the same idea. In Virginia you must had been both, in order to be a citizen at that time – and let me correct my mistake -you must had been from the soil and from the blood, jus soli and jus sanguinis. However, this is just an example to point out that, at the time, all States like Virginia did not adopt the citizenship British Common law strictly which is just based on jus soli criterion.

    How is it possible that at this early stage after the constitution of the U.S. was adopted that all States differ from the Common Law doctrine when it came to establishing citizenship to its residents?

    It is unlikely that the framers included a British Common Law based phrase(NBC)if at the same time they gave the freedom to each state to enact their own citizenship laws and the freedom even to deny, in some states, their citizenship based on jus soli (such as Native Americans).

  148. avatar
    mrlqban November 16, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: While I have not researched this in depth, I’m not sure under the law at the time whether or not John McCain was a US Citizen at the time of his birth. See:Gabriel J. Chin, Commentary, Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 1 (2008)Professor Chin wrote:This issue of the Michigan Law review is devoted to the question of McCain’s eligibility, and is a valuable example of well-reasoned debate on a legal question. One notes the total lack of debate over Obama in the academic legal community. He was indisputably born in the United States and thereby a natural born citizen,

    It’s funny how you come to the conclusion that for McCain you have doubts that he is a NBC, why there should be a doubt? It is pretty clear to me that based on your arguments in this forum that McCain is not an NBC because he was not born in the U.S. at the time of his birth (jus soli?) I smell double standard.

  149. avatar
    Greg November 16, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    Guess you didn’t read the law review article, did you? Not surprised. If it’s not written by a lawyer turned poker player, then it’s too tough for you.

    It’s clear that jus soli is the law of the land. There is debate about whether jus sanguinis also controls for those born to citizens abroad. It’s not a double standard, it’s the application of law to different sets of facts.

  150. avatar
    mrlqban November 16, 2009 at 9:39 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: EXCEPT the children of diplomats or occupying soldiers

    Oh wait, now you are going to argue that McCain is a citizen of the U.S. at birth based on jus sanguinis? Brilliant! Who else is going to join the cause?

  151. avatar
    mrlqban November 16, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    dunstvangeet: without them being Natural Born is frankly a lot of hooey.

    I agree, either you are natural born at the time of birth, or you are not.

    If NBC is based on jus soli, then the meaning of NBC as written in the Constitution must apply to all people equally, if NBC is based on both just soli and jus sanguinis, then this must apply to all people equally.

    The John McCain case brings chills to all those native born advocates who wholeheartly agrees that NBC interpretation is based on the jus soli criterion.

  152. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 16, 2009 at 10:12 pm #

    There may be more than one way to become a natural born citizen. If natural born citizen= “citizen at birth” — then it would extend to everyone who was a citizen at the time of their birth, whether their right derived from the 14th Amendment or via statutory provisions.

    “Jus soli” does not exclude “jus sanguinis”.

  153. avatar
    mrlqban November 16, 2009 at 10:46 pm #

    Expelliarmus: There may be more than one way to become a natural born citizen. If natural born citizen= “citizen at birth” — then it would extend to everyone who was a citizen at the time of their birth, whether their right derived from the 14th Amendment or via statutory provisions. “Jus soli” does not exclude “jus sanguinis”.

    This is a nice logic. However, if citizenship at birth is acquired and universally accepted in the U.S. solely based on British Common Law, which is jus soli, how are you going to defend your argument if McCain or any other individual was given citizenship at birth status based on X statutory provision that is based on jus sanguinis?

  154. avatar
    Jez November 16, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    Because it’s not all or nothing.
    Call it “Birthright” citizenship. A child has the right to US Citizenship by virtue of place of birth OR to whom s/he is born to. If born to at least one American citizen outside of the US, that is also a birthright citizenship. S/He is a citizen at birth, just as if s/he was born within the US.
    It’s actually quite a simple concept to grasp.

  155. avatar
    mrlqban November 16, 2009 at 11:16 pm #

    Jez: Because it’s not all or nothing.Call it “Birthright” citizenship. A child has the right to US Citizenship by virtue of place of birth OR to whom s/he is born to. If born to at least one American citizen outside of the US, that is also a birthright citizenship. S/He is a citizen at birth, just as if s/he was born within the US.It’s actually quite a simple concept to grasp.

    So, it is not just about where you have been born only but also to whom you’ve been born has validity after all, interesting.

    Jez: Call it “Birthright” citizenship. A child has the right to US Citizenship by virtue of place of birth OR to whom s/he is born to.

    “OR” —what if I change this to “And”?, oh no wait, you can’t! it’s ridiculous, it’s frivolous!

    Pssst, those Vattel “haters”, where are you? :=)

  156. avatar
    Greg November 16, 2009 at 11:44 pm #

    Here’s a clue, mrl.

    British law defined “natural born” for more than 350 years when the US decided to put it into our Constitution.

    That means that the Founders had alighted on a phrase that was coming to them with more historical meaning than any term in the Constitution comes to us.

    And, natural born meant jus soli for those born within the borders and jus sanguinis for those born without.

    Birthers have the difficult task of proving that the Founders decided, without telling anyone, to change the meaning of natural born by reference to Vattel, someone they never mentioned in reference to citizenship.

  157. avatar
    Greg November 16, 2009 at 11:48 pm #

    Natural born meant born within the borders, or born to citizens outside the borders. It meant this since the 1400s. When the Founders wrote the Constitution in 1787, the term had a specific meaning. You want to argue that the Founders chose this phrase but wanted to change it. Of course, the Founders, being the idiots they were, forgot to tell anyone they were using this 350 year old phrase in a way that it had never been used before.

  158. avatar
    Greg November 16, 2009 at 11:51 pm #

    How about this, before you pretend to understand law, you read something about it. British Common law wasn’t solely jus soli. It has been jus soli/jus sanguinis since the 1400s. Any child born in Britain was a citizen, unless his parent was an ambassador, any child born abroad to the British was a citizen.

    Or, you could just listen to the other birthers, if British law really was just jus soli, why do you folks raise such a stink about Obama’s dad being Kenyan/British?

  159. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 17, 2009 at 12:58 am #

    No, we’re arguing that McCain was a Citizen at Birth, according to U.S. Law, and therefore was a Natural Born United States Citizen. There is absolutely no difference in the terms “Citizen at birth” and “Natural Born Citizen”. English Common law doesn’t differentiate the terms, and neither does juris prudence in the United States.

    English Common Law also quite commonly accepted that Children born overseas to British Fathers were Natural Born Subjects. Britian has always done Jus Sanguinus overseas. They’ve also done Jus Soli at home. U.S. Common Law is based upon English Common Law.

    Anybody born on U.S. Soil is a Natural Born Citizen. Anybody born overseas to American Parents is a Natural Born Citizen. Those two things are not contradictory, no matter how much you want them to be.

  160. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 17, 2009 at 1:04 am #

    mrlqban, it’s one or the other. Do a Venn diagram. Jus Soli is one circle. Jus Sanguinus is another circle. Color in all of both circles. That’s Natural Born Citizenship.

    You’re trying to take an OR construct (meaning at least one is true), and trying to warp it into an AND construct (meaning both). It’s not working.

    If you’re here as anything but a troll, you’ll realize that.

  161. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 17, 2009 at 1:35 am #

    I don’t believe the Supreme Court actually quoted them in Dred Scott v. Sanford. A concurring opinion (Daniels) did in Dred Scott v. Sanford. I do not believe de Vattel occurs in the Opinion of the Court.

  162. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 17, 2009 at 1:39 am #

    I can name 3 cases that have ruled exactly that.

    Lynch v. Clarke (out of NY).

    U.S. v. Rhodes (out of KY).

    Ankeny v. Daniels (out of IN).

  163. avatar
    SFJeff November 17, 2009 at 2:56 am #

    Mriqan- I don’t see why this is so hard for you. There are only two versions of citizenship- Naturalized citizens or citizens at birth. Citizens at birth are Natural(i.e. not Naturalized) citizens. That a person can become a citizen at birth by being either born in the United States or being born to U.S. parents is not contradictory.

    What are you trying to establish Mr. Mglb?

  164. avatar
    wendy November 17, 2009 at 3:10 am #

    **The ruling WKA had zero to do with NBC as WKA was not running for President, the ruling was about whether or not he should be a citizen. I think this is pretty clear. Therefore, you cannot use WKA to make your case that the ruling in fact defined natural born citizenship. That’s not true and it’s misleading.**

    The ruling defined that he had citizenship rights FROM BIRTH, based on being born in the US, and that his parents citizenship did not preclude that. Or (another way to phrase it), he was a NOT a citizen through naturalization.
    What is misleading on that? Because they didn’t use the terminology of natural born citizen, thus, it does not apply?
    Nice try. Fail.

    as for questions relating to McCain, the present law defines birth on US soil as being a citizen, from birth. It specifically excludes persons with allegiance elsewhere, such as diplomats, since they are only in the country temporarily, and it is completely clear that they have no intent to become a citizen. So, the question came up relating to McCain, and needed clarification.. which was simple, in defining that soldiers stationed elsewhere would logically be classed the same as a diplomat. It was a Congressional interpretation/ resolution… which, by the way, was not legal authority or statute, but consistent. The use of plural when referring to his PARENTS has been grabbed on, so called proof of needing two parents. Nope. The resolution ONLY DEFINED if Congress saw any cause to disqualify McCain. Did not rewrite the law about anyone else. Such clarification was not needed for Obama, since Congress never had any doubts at all about where Obama was born. Barring a few idiots looking to bait people for votes, Congress STILL is not stupid enough to think that Hawaii’s official statements are disputable.

  165. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 17, 2009 at 4:36 am #

    Actually, a US Embassy abroad is NOT US territory. Under common law, diplomatic immunity and extraterritoriality are personal concepts. Some countries (Belgium is one of them) may indeed consider embassies territory of the represented state, but in any case, that would depend on what the represented country itself thinks about that. The residence of the Vatican nuncio in Brussels could not possibly be part of the territory of Vatican City, for instance, but the nuncio does indeed enjoy diplomatic immunity. Another interesting case: the US Ambassador to Russia traditionally does not even reside at the Embassy.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality]

    Because the laws of various countries can be different on even this matter, there was a need for a special convention on diplomatic immunity and extraterritoriality and even on international treaties themselves – how is that for a Carnap meta-level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties_between_States_and_International_Organizations_or_Between_International_Organizations. Note that even the American typist or computer analyst working for a foreign embassy in the US(let’s suggest Kenya, Great Britain, Tanzania, Indonesia, Pakistan and Russia just in case Orly is also reading this) enjoys limited diplomatic immunity: under the Vienna Convention, he or she cannot be compelled by a US court to divulge anything that he or she knows as a result of his/her work at the Embassy (like the religious practices of the Ambassador, or whether an inhabitant of the US ever visited the Embassy to apply for a passport.

  166. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 17, 2009 at 6:39 am #

    Where in my reply to you did I mention ius sanguinis. Please, if you do not want or like to be called a birther (birthers always shift the boundaries, and misquote their opponents to misrepresent their point of view) explain to me what in God’s sake does the fact that both Jefferson and John Qunicy Adams obviously did not satisfy the LITERAL meaning of the phrase “14 years a resident of the United States” have to do with ius sanguinis? Those two presidents were not even natural-born citizens!

    The point I was making was that if the children of foreign diplomats and of foreign occupying forces are not natural-born citizens even if born on US soil, then the question remains: what with the equivalent mirror image of children of US diplomats and US soldiers born abroad (provided the diplomats and soldiers are indeed US citizens, as that is not always anymore nowadays)? The argument of reciprocity means that if the children of foreign diplomats and occupying forces are not subject to the sovereignty of the United States, and remain subject to the sovereignty of the country their parent represents, this also applies to the children of US diplomats and soldiers serving abroad.

    There is no need to drag ius sanguinis into this. For all we know, McCain’s father could have been born on Guantanomo Bay Naval Base and his mother could have been a ex-citizen of China naturalized as a US citizen five minutes before McCain popped out of her belly, it would not have made any difference (apart from the fact that the number of radical birthers claiming McCain was only “a citizen by statute” would have been much higher, of course).

    Now, George Romney, born in Mexico to two US citizens on the run from US justice, is far more difficult to explain as a natural-born citizen.

  167. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 7:29 am #

    I don’t agree that reciprocity applies to the children of foreign military personnel. The child of a visiting foreign soldier is as much under the jurisdiction of the United States as the natural born child of a citizen. The exception is the child of a foreign soldier who is part of an army that holds territory and thereby prevents the US from exercising full jurisdiction over such territory.

  168. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 17, 2009 at 7:33 am #

    Well, actually Vattel was used in the dissent to Wong Kim Ark, by the same justice who claimed that making Wong Kim Ark a citizen would mean he was a citizen at birth and therefore eligible to run for president. And the majority opinion was … “so what?”.

    In retrospect, the interpretation that George Romney could run for president may be based on Wong Kim Ark and this fatally worded (for the birthers of course) dissent as well.

    Until 1795, the US continued the argument of British common law that the child of a British father born overseas did not need naturalization. Note the language of the 1790 Nationality Act: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS natural-born citizens of the United States.” “Shall be considered as”, not “are” – the same language as later used in Wong Kim Ark. Of course, on the basis of Ankeny et al vs Daniels (Apellate Court of Indiana, 2009) the two phrases mean the same thing. But the 1790 law was changed in 1795. It is unclear what type of citizenship was then enjoyed by children of Americans born abroad – until Wong Kim Ark.

    The cornerstone for George Romney’s status as NBC was laid when Wong Kim Ark affirmed that US common law is derived from British common law (which gave British nationality to all children born in the realm, with the usual exceptions, but also to children of British citizens born abroad) and that there are only two kinds of US citizens: the natural-born and the naturalized.

    Until the Supreme Court acts on this matter and defines NBC (on the basis of precedent, this definition will always say someone like Obama is NBC and should say that someone like McCain is too), the pure ius sanguinis part (= George Romney) seems due to nationality laws voted by Congress on the basis of its interpretation of Wong Kim Ark (and of the Vattel dissent).

    I personally doubt that US embassies will ever be ordered by the Supreme Court to stop handing out passports to children born abroad to a US parent and telling them they could even run for President. The world has become smaller, the chance that a child is accidentally born outside the country of its parents is increasing, and there are now so many more ways to keep in touch with the home country (telephone, radio, TV, internet) compared to 1790/5 that keeping allegiance to the home country should be much easier.

  169. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 7:34 am #

    mrlqban: “OR” —what if I change this to “And”?

    If you made this change, then you would not be accurately representing the common law. What use would that be?

  170. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 7:38 am #

    Personally, I am a “citizen at birth” advocate, not a jus soli advocate.

  171. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 7:42 am #

    mrlqban: It’s funny how you come to the conclusion that for McCain you have doubts that he is a NBC, why there should be a doubt?

    I have doubts because qualified scholars in academic publications raise reasonable arguments based on fact and law to support those doubts. Those who raise doubts about Obama are not “qualified scholars”, they are not raised in “academic publication”, they are not “reasonable arguments” and they are not based on accurate interpretation of “fact and law”.

  172. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 7:47 am #

    mrlqban: In Virginia you must had been both, in order to be a citizen at that time – and let me correct my mistake -you must had been from the soil and from the blood, jus soli and jus sanguinis.

    But that’s not what the statute says. Consider the example: “Those born in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are born citizens of the United States.” That doesn’t mean one has to be born in two places.

  173. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 17, 2009 at 7:56 am #

    Oh, but then you are starting to wonder whether the other country considers the American soldiers there as enemies and occupiers or as liberators. What are the odds that Panamanians today may not all agree on the question whether McCain’s father was an occupant or not? And remember, involving the laws of the other country is definitely a no-no area. Do not even dare to go there.

    I have a slight suspicion that English or British common law (but also French law, as on nationality it was very close to English law until Napoleon’s Code Civil, which was very Vattelesque at the start) eventually extended this “extra-territoriality” to include all children of citizens born abroad – precisely because of the legal problems arising when the other country viewed their “peaceful missionaries and/or traders” as enemy aliens. The Russians had a habit of holding up such dangerous people at Archangelsk. Sometimes for a very long time. If you get my drift.

    Now, of course, we have the Vienna conventions. Anyone trying to use those to get bi- or even multilateral agreements to avoid people receiving multiple nationalities, had better think carefully: with the world getting smaller, most people who are entitled to more than one nationality probably consider this an asset, and it will thus be very difficult to take away.

  174. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 17, 2009 at 7:58 am #

    Doc, this was a reply to “The child of a visiting foreign soldier is as much under the jurisdiction of the United States as the natural born child of a citizen.” Somehow, it did not indent, sorry.

  175. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 17, 2009 at 8:41 am #

    Well, I am no American, but even I can say that your version is the correct one. Mark: not probably correct, but 100% correct.

    It still does not address the George Romney problem though, as the question then is: was George a US citizen at birth? Although we know that we should not be concerned with the law of other countries, his case could provide an exception, as it has been claimed – in support of his running for President, of course – that at birth he had no right to Mexican nationality. And according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights (agreed upon many years after George was born) every child has a right to at least one citizenship from one country.

    You could in future envisage a world treaty (“Here comes the NWO!”) that forces the country of birth to bestow its citizenship on such a child. There are countries which recently changed their nationality laws to bestow natural-born citizenship on children born in the country whatever the nationality or nationalities of the parents, if the child would otherwise be stateless.

    Again, I am no American, I do not want to get involved into US politics, but I agree that, however powerful the “NWO”, the chances of the Supreme Court changing the status quo are infinitesimally small. The birthers will huff and puff about Ankeny and possibly get it to the Supreme Court to bring the House (and the Senate) down, but SCOTUS will refuse to take the case, even if the Indiana supreme court courageously (or: foolheartedly according to one’s viewpoint) adds Romney’s eligibility as an argument for McCain.