Main Menu

The Great Mother of all Native Born Citizenship Pages

There seems to be strong historical evidence that the founders of the country considered native born citizen and natural born citizen the same thing. Consider the following from commenter Ballantine and see of you don’t agree:

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…

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 consistently relies upon. If you or Leo [Donofrio] disagree with this multitude you need to find authority to the contrary. 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 (statements 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 particularly to 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 Constitution, 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)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

157 Responses to The Great Mother of all Native Born Citizenship Pages

  1. avatar
    Dick Whitman November 14, 2009 at 10:25 pm #

    The native-born citizen classification is a right enumerated by the Fourteenth Amendment and bestowed upon children born within the territorial limits of the U.S. with few exceptions.

    The Natural-born citizen classification is a privilege “standing upon the footing” of the native-born citizen classification. The Natural-born citizen classification it can be taken away with due process, i.e. a native-born citizen convicted of treason against the United States. Also, a native-born citizen who renounces their citizenship loses their Natural-born citizen classification.

    Once the native-born citizen classification is obtained can only be diminished through self-imposed attribution.

  2. avatar
    wendy November 14, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    once again, perhaps you need to review what Clay Land tried to explain to Mz Orly:

    You have the right to say what you want, or believe what you want.
    THAT RIGHT stops at the courtroom door. When you walk into the courtroom, what you choose to believe is your problem. The JUDICIAL system in this country is based in law. REAL law, not what Orly wants it to be, or Donofrio, or Berg, or any of the rest of the batshit fraternity.
    sit there for the next 20 yrs, and spin your words and concepts until you are dizzy.
    It means nothing. Nada. Fun exercise, grounded in fabrication. Not facts. It isn’t research. It is debate, based in the inability to separate the power of the internet to screw with your head.. and the real world, where Obama is the same as he always was, and won the election.
    America works on law. The law provides for this country to be run by free elections, not con games like Orly wants to run. Orly’s failure to understand the law (not the law as she wants it to be, the real one) might land her in jail.

  3. avatar
    John November 14, 2009 at 11:37 pm #

    Even if Obama is a “Natural Born” or “Native Born” citizen, Obama might in fact not actually be one. Obama could be considered psuedoNatural Born Citizen. Why? Because Obama’s father was never an American Citizen. Obama Sr. was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1947. The act stipulated that any children Obama Sr. had were also bound by the Act. In essense, at the instant of his birth, Britian had a legal claim on Obama Jr.

    Many may be familiar with the story and movie “Not Without my Daughter”, in which a supposed Natural Born American child goes to Pakistan. Because the mother was married to a Pakistian citizen, Pakistan actually had a legal claim for any children born in the marriage. When the child went to Pakistan, the country enforced their claim and she was unable to leave.

    Some have suggested that once a person has become a British Subject, he or she is forever one unless he takes steps to rennounce.

    Incredibly, if this were true, if President Obama went Britian to today, it’s theoretically possible for Britian to enforce their legal claim on Obama.

    However, this may not be possible unless Obama actually goes therr because Obama is US Citizen under Juristication and Britian can’t extend their claim into US Sovertry.

  4. avatar
    John November 14, 2009 at 11:49 pm #

    But even if the BNA of 1948 does not apply, the story “Not Without My Daughter” does provide proof that a person born on US Soil who is supposely considered a Natural Born citizen is not immune to the legal claims of allegiance from other countries. The only possible way to prevent this to interprete that Natural Born citizen is one born on US Soil to 2 US Citizens. Court cases on “Natural Born” citizen have revolved around rights. However, the term “Natural Born” occurs only once in the Constitution. It is not meant covey rights as the courts have contiously tried to maintain. The term “Natural Born” citizen is meant as security measure to prevent foreign influence. The story “Not with my Daughter” would seem to contradict this if we were take that “Natural Born” simply means being born on US Soil.

  5. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 15, 2009 at 12:21 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I have already maintained (also posted on this blog) that at the Founding “natural born citizen” and “native born citizen” meant the same thing.

    Through the years, native born continued to mean the same thing as “natural born citizen.” But during these later years, for some courts and authorities “native born citizen” took on a different meaning from “natural born Citizen” as evidenced by their saying that “native born” meant simply being born on U.S. soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (under an expansive and incorrect interpretation of the jurisdiction clause). These authorities used the expression “native born citizen” to distinguish them from naturalized citizens. But regardless of the different meaning that “native born” took on for these authorities, the meaning of “natural born citizen” never changed from its original meaning, i.e., born in the country to citizen parents.

  6. avatar
    brygenon November 15, 2009 at 12:21 am #

    John: Even if Obama is a “Natural Born” or “Native Born” citizen, Obama might in fact not actually be one.

    What is anyone to make of such gibberish?

  7. avatar
    brygenon November 15, 2009 at 12:37 am #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: But regardless of the different meaning that “native born” took on for these authorities, the meaning of “natural born citizen” never changed from its original meaning, i.e., born in the country to citizen parents.

    Mario, you seem to have missed an important lesson from your defeat in Kerchner v. Obama. What you present is the kind of thing you use to convince yourself and your fellow birthers. Your arguments always win in your own head, on your own blog, and in your own paid advertisements, but understand: that’s it for you. Did you expect readers here to be impressed by the unjustified proclamations of a loser?

  8. avatar
    brygenon November 15, 2009 at 12:51 am #

    John: John says:
    November 14, 2009 at 11:49 pm (Quote)

    But even if the BNA of 1948 does not apply, the story “Not Without My Daughter” does provide proof that a person born on US Soil who is supposely considered a Natural Born citizen is not immune to the legal claims of allegiance from other countries.

    What a mess. Regardless of one’s citizenship, when in another country one is generally subject to that country’s claims of allegiance. There is a notable exception: one traveling under a diplomatic visa is immune.

    President Obama has been to Britain. This line John and other birthers are spewing is absolute crap. The British proved themselves the most gracious and respectful of hosts.

  9. avatar
    brygenon November 15, 2009 at 12:55 am #

    Dick, you forgot to include citations that would give a reader some reason to believe anything you wrote to be true.

  10. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 15, 2009 at 1:09 am #

    brygenon,

    If anyone is a loser, it is you. And not only a loser but a pathetic, wretched being, who lives in a boxed-in world wondering where he or she fits in. The only place you can believe yourself to be anyone is on the internet where you can hide behind your screen name and become any character you wish you were but really are not.

    Do you really think that you are worthy enough to call another person a loser? You better stop watching that teenager stuff on television.

  11. avatar
    Rickey November 15, 2009 at 1:12 am #

    Mahtob Mahmoody (the daughter in Not Without My Daughter) is a natural-born citizen of the United States and she is eligible to be president of the United States (that is, she will be after she reaches the age of 35).

    The legal issue in Not Without My Daughter had nothing to do with “legal claims of allegiance.” It had to do with custodial rights under Iran’s sharia law.

  12. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 15, 2009 at 2:02 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    I take you at your word that you have previously said that ‘natural born citizen’ and ‘native born citizen’ were the same thing, but that just makes you consistent. You give absolutely no argument to support you theory in response to a plethora of quotes implicitly and explicitly equating natural born and native born over the course of more than a century. Do you really believe that your unsupported opinion is more persuasive to anyone?

  13. avatar
    wendy November 15, 2009 at 2:05 am #

    **Many may be familiar with the story and movie “Not Without my Daughter”, in which a supposed Natural Born American child goes to Pakistan. Because the mother was married to a Pakistian citizen, Pakistan actually had a legal claim for any children born in the marriage. When the child went to Pakistan, the country enforced their claim.**

    Again, I challenge your interpretation.
    The movie above deals with a real, ongoing..BUT DIFFERENT.. issue, which happens to be child custody. This problem still exists.. including Japan, Brazil, and other places that are not signatories to the Hague Convention. Countries which are not parties to the above.. simply don’t agree to respect/ enforce custody rulings from other countries. NONE of those countries have “claims” to the child or their natural born citizenship. The children in these horrible cases REMAIN natural born citizens, and NOTHING invalidates their status per American laws.

  14. avatar
    nbc November 15, 2009 at 2:08 am #

    Wow, now that’s quite some loser.

  15. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2009 at 2:12 am #

    It’s the “…to citizen parents” where you take a giant leap into the land of lying liars.

    You know very well (how could you not?) that as per Vattel, explicitly and unambiguously, it is enough to have one parent, the father according Vattel 1st ed, to be deemed a Native.

    The nationality of the mother doesn’t matter.

    Hence if Obama’s father had been a US citizen and his mother a British citizen, he would have been born with the same potential dual allegiance, and yet as per Vattel, been a Native.

    Your entire argument is promulgated on a lie, which you keep repeating.

  16. avatar
    wendy November 15, 2009 at 2:14 am #

    BNA does not apply. Or, more correctly.. it DOES NOT SUPERCEDE or invalidate American law.
    The comment relating to Obama comes from his book, and is not legal authority, nor does it explain anything in legal terms.
    Children born in the US, are ENTITLED to US citizenship laws, with the exception of some, such as diplomats. Such children of parents with two different citizenships ARE CALLED DUAL FOR A REASON. It specifically means that they have entitlement to EITHER of the citizenships.
    Yes, British law was applicable to Obama.. it DID NOT invalidate his American rights through his mother.
    SURELY… intelligent persons as yourself, would recognize that IF Obama made an error in his book and called the moon green cheese..it would not be legally accepted that the moon is, in fact, a milk product?

  17. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2009 at 2:25 am #

    ” … a pathetic, wretched being…”

    Oh the irony!

  18. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2009 at 2:28 am #

    You don’t understand dual citizenship issues at all.

    What the other country says DOES NOT MATTER.

    WE (well, you, the US) define what a citizen is.

    Ireland, for example, might have had a claim on JFK because of his Irish ancestry. So what?

    Again: what might or might not happen in another country because of that country’s opinion has NO BEARING on the issue. None whatsoever.

  19. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 15, 2009 at 2:48 am #

    nbc,

    Et tu, nbc, who had been the epitome of wisdom but now thou falls too, to the blind loyalty of fools.

  20. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 15, 2009 at 2:51 am #

    lupin,

    It is not that my argument is promulgated on a lie. The problem lies in your not understanding that when Vattel said “parents,” he meant “parents,” for the wife followed the condition of her husband.

  21. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 15, 2009 at 2:56 am #

    Slartibartfast,

    I cannot respond to your comment because you fail to show what is proven or demonstrated by “a plethora of quotes implicitly and explicitly equating natural born and native born over the course of more than a century.”

  22. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 3:02 am #

    Loser? I win. My therapist once called me “a loveable nebbish.”

  23. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 3:07 am #

    One more note to Mario: you say this has nothing to do with race.

    When, not if, Cory Booker announces, I will be watching to see what you and the rest of your crowd say and do.

    One peep about Booker, and I will say “j’accuse.”

  24. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 3:30 am #

    “What is anyone to make of such gibberish?”

    qwertasdfg/.,mncu

  25. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 15, 2009 at 3:44 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo,

    Nothing is ‘proven’ (I’m a mathematician by training and I work as a scientist, so ‘proof’ is a very specific and very high standard to me), but the list of quotes shows that diverse sources over more than a century equated the terms ‘native born citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ whereas the only place I have ever seen the argument that the meanings were originally the same and later diverged is in your post upthread. What evidence do you have for this? Why should we give more credence to evidence that you have not provided than, for instance, a ruling by an Indiana court? (Which I understand is not in any way a binding precedent, but that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong and in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, agreeing with the court’s interpretation seems the rational course to me.)

  26. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 15, 2009 at 3:48 am #

    misha,

    You speak of “when, not if, Cory Booker announces,” as though he has the power and right to determine his destiny simply by proclamation.

    I sense delusional tendencies in your grandiose expressions, probably the product of your wanting to prove your worth to a world that you perceive has having for so long persecuted your being.

  27. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 15, 2009 at 3:49 am #

    Wendy,

    It would seem to me that Perkins v. Elg strongly supports your interpretation as well.

  28. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 4:11 am #

    I thought you were a DWI lawyer. Turns out you are a wannabe psychiatrist.

    You want an example of irony, try this:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/10/electric-cars-are-dangerous.html

  29. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2009 at 5:42 am #

    No. This is absolutely incorrect. Vattel said nothing of the sort.

    When Vattel said “parents,” he unambiguously meant “either parent,” which is why, in his next sentence, he added the precision that the father’s citizenship status prevailed in the determination of who is a “native.

    (I think that specification may well be be unconstitutional under your constitution today, but I’m no expert on the US Constitution, so I could be wrong.)

    In the second edition, the editors felt that Vattel had been less than thorough on the issue, so they added a footnote clarifying that, if the child was born out of wedlock, then the mother’s citizenship trumped the father’s.

    (I have no idea why, but that’s what they said.)

    So your understanding of Vattel is wrong.

    It’s a fairly simple article and, if read in the original French its entirety, without being truncated, it clearly establishes unambiguously that, as far as Vattel was concerned, the mother’s citizenship did not “follow” the condition of her husband, as you state. (You just made that up, didn’t you?).

    A. Were we living in Vattel’s era, and were his treatise the law of the land, you would win your argument because Obama’s father’s citizenship (UK) would indeed trump his mother’s (US). I accept this.

    B. However, you would still LOSE your argument on either (a) grounds of dual allegiance, i.e. under Vattel, it is possible to have dual allegiance and still be a native as long as the father is a citizen; and (b) both parents not being US citizens, i.e.: Vattel makes no such requirement as a precondition to be a native.

    So let’s assume that, today, you can no longer argue A (father’s citizenship trumps mother’s). The only thing left is to argue the two-pronged B. Which is what you seem to be doing.

    But we have just established that, under Vattel, both arguments fail.

    I’ve refrained from ever discussing US cases such as Wong Kim Ark, Dredd Scott etc here because, ultimately, I’m not competent to do so. I accept that.

    You attempting to interpret a French law treatise is equally dubious.

    I have a Maitrise en Droit from the Sorbonne University and 30 years experience. I read Vattel at University and thereafter, long before this ever became an issue, and likely long before you did.

    In fact, I’ve even suggested here that people read other works by Vattel, which I find a lot more interesting, and provided links thereto.

    In short, I know Vattel a lot better than you do, and not just because of the language.

    I have a few times been called to be an expert witness (in matters of copyright) and while I would be reluctant to be one on Vattel, I still feel confident enough to state unambiguously here that your argument, to the extent that it is based on Vattel is wrong.

    (I make no representation in matters pertaining to US law.)

    I can’t help suspect that you know perfectly well that this is the case (because you’re not Orly and you’re not that stupid), and that you are arguing in bad faith.

    The reason why is because you continue to argue, and include in your pleadings, a number of lies that have been thoroughly investigated and unambiguously discredited, such as the grandmother’s declaration and the Pakistani travel.

    I would be more respectful towards you if you stuck to legal theories as opposed to including a grab-bag of lies in your arguments.

  30. avatar
    Slartibartfast November 15, 2009 at 5:58 am #

    Lupin,

    It is my understanding that under the 19th Amendment (Giving women the right to vote) and the 14th Amendment (stating that all citizens are equal), any distinction between how citizenship flows from the mother and from the father would be unconstitutional. Thanks for the insight into Vattel.

  31. avatar
    MsDaisy November 15, 2009 at 7:22 am #

    As I said before I’m not a lawyer, but I did give birth to an American child overseas. (Japan) And unfortunately he was one of those born first and then we went to the hospital babies. (We were military) The military hospital wouldn’t issue him a BC because he was not actually born in the hospital. Long story short he was finally issued a BC by the American Embassy in Tokyo, and I was told that he was classified as a natural born American (born abroad), but he would be entitled to duel citizenship (American/Japanese) by virtue of his place of birth. But in order for him to become a Japanese National at the age of 21 he would have had to renounce his American citizenship and pledge his allegiance to Japan. Of course he didn’t.

    I now have 2 stepdaughters, (2nd marriage) both born in the US to an American mother, and British father. The same applied to them, when they became adults they too were “entitled” to become British Nationals, but in order to do so they would have had to renounce their American citizenship, which of course they didn’t either. All three of them ARE natural born Americans and all three carry American passports.

    So what is so hard to understand about Obama? He would have had the same choice, but he never “chose” to renounce his American citizenship and is every bit as much of a NBC as my son and stepdaughters.

    I swear I truly believe that the issue of Obama is not that his parents were not “both” American citizens, but it’s only an issue because his parents were not “both” white.

    Plain and simple

  32. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 8:07 am #

    Of course. As I wrote in my reply to Mario, what is this crowd going to do when Booker announces? I can’t wait to see the mental gymnastics.

    Also, I now support an amendment to allow naturalized presidents, after 20 yrs residency. Here are some fine NBCs: McVeigh, Anwar al-Awlaki, Ma Barker.

  33. avatar
    ballantine November 15, 2009 at 8:12 am #

    Yes, we know your evolving meaning theory. However, unless you can cite any authority pointing to a definition of native born citizen different from Wong, it’s just another baseless assertion. You say “their saying that “native born” meant simply being born on U.S. soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (under an expansive and incorrect interpretation of the jurisdiction clause).” Who said this? Wong stated that before the 14th amendment, “native born citizen” was defined by the English common law:

    “…it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”

    Almost word for word from Blackstone. And for your assertion the definition changed, Wong cites much earlier authorty, the two most influential scholars of the early republic in fact, defining native and native born in accorance with the common law. So gee, when did this magical change take place?

    I suggest you go read the debates from the constitutional convention. Delegate Gerry proposed that members of Congress be natives which was defined by delegate Gerry as a dicriminion on place of birth. No one objected. It was also pointed out that several of the delegates that were foreign born would be precluded from office by such provision clearly indicating the others considered themselves natives. Of course, none of these delegates had citizen parents. There is little doubt what the founders that “native” meant. Funny how no on in the debate brought up parentage at all.

    Please find me one legal authority in american history that defines “native born citizen” differently than Wong.

  34. avatar
    Mike November 15, 2009 at 8:22 am #

    Blockquote>I have a Maitrise en Droit from the Sorbonne Impressive; which college did you study at?

  35. avatar
    kimba November 15, 2009 at 8:25 am #

    Well that is just as much gibberish as what John wrote earlier. Native born and natural born meant the same thing through the years until one day they didn’t? Utter nonsense. You can’t cite any case where “native born” and “natural born” weren’t used interchangeably, which is probably why you didn’t. Which “authorities” are you referring to? The ones in your head? Come on, Mario, you’re getting lazy. You’re not talking to your minions here. Tell us where any “authority” used “native born” and didn’t mean “natural born”.

  36. avatar
    kimba November 15, 2009 at 8:27 am #

    He’s trying to catch up with Orly! Next thing he’ll be working toward his black belt in a martial art.

  37. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 9:11 am #

    Banzai.

  38. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    Responding to Mike. The way the French educational system works is somewhat different.

    One takes one’s baccalaureat at 18, which roughly is the equivalent of US high school + 1 or +2, depending which baccalaureat we’re talking about. The Math/Science (which used to be dubbed “C” in my days) is quite tough.

    Then one can either go to a public university or a private college. University is where you get a Law Degree; there are no private law schools. License = 5 years, maitrise = 6 years, doctorate = 8 years.

    Private colleges are either for engineers or MBAs. That’s usually 5 years.

    In my own case, after my C baccalaureat in 1972, I did 6 years at the Sorbonne where I got my Masters in 1978, and parallel to that (which is somewhat unusual), a 5 years MBA from the Paris Business School. It required some juggling.

    I finished my last year’s law while working for Barclays in Paris after I got my MBA in 1977. Then I worked for Credit Lyonnais in Los Angeles for 7 years (1977-85), building their film financing division.

    My last year at the Sorbonne was in a joint program with NYU, with an American law professor teaching in Paris and a French law professor teaching in New York; that was very interesting.

  39. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2009 at 11:25 am #

    My other “bee in the bonnet” with the birthers, Mario included (who has never answered my questions on the topic) is this:

    If your desire to fight for your interpretation of the US Constitution is so genuine and so great that you feel compelled to launch a Quixotic assault on Obama, then show me what you have done to protect the US Constitution before.

    It’s simple.

    I don’t even need lawsuits; show me articles on the web, in magazines, any place where you have publicly tried to defend the Constitution.

    I don’t even ask you to be correct: show me articles in which you have argued that income tax is unconstitutional. Yes, that’s crazy and discredited, but at least it would prove that you’re sincere in your beliefs.

    During 8 years of Bush-Cheney, numerous people wrote articles arguing about the constitutionality of this or that policy: Glenn Greenwald on Salon, others in RAW, Common Dreams…

    The much quoted, (in)famous quote “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” was resurrected in 2006 by J. Posner. There were heated debates, on the right and the left…

    Mario, Leo… Show me any evidence whatsoever that you have cared about the Constitution before a black man was elected President.

    I’m waiting.

  40. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 11:34 am #

    Yeah, me too.

    I personally know someone of Arabic descent, who was railroaded when Gonzalez decided the Constitution was a nuisance.

    Not a peep from that crowd for the 8 years of thuggery. Watch what happens when Booker announces.

    J’accuse.

  41. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 15, 2009 at 11:35 am #

    kimba,

    I already have One.

  42. avatar
    Dick Whitman November 15, 2009 at 11:35 am #

    Obama moved with his mother and her new husband from his place of birth to Indonesia to start a new life. He were so sure of his decision they changed his name to Soetoro and renounced his citizenship to enjoy the benefits and privileges of an Indonesian national. Besides, Soetoro could regain his US citizenship if chose before he turned 18 years and 6 months.

    When he renounced his citizenship, he became a native-born expatriot and lost the privilege of Natural-born status. The fact Obama will only affirm he is native-born and won’t release his Occidental College transcripts indicates he knows he lost his Natural-born citizenship status.

  43. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo November 15, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    misha,

    I am happy to see you agree with me.

  44. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    Sven, you are a cretin.

  45. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2009 at 11:45 am #

    Where on Earth do you find such rubbish? I mean, really, this is totally, utterly absurd.

    I’ll let better informed folks than I quote you US law chapter and verse, but I’m pretty certain that a minor cannot renounce his citizenship and his parent(s) can’t do it for him either.

    I mean, this is pretty basic stuff for every country I know.

  46. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2009 at 11:46 am #

    And a bigot.

  47. avatar
    milspec November 15, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    Sven, don’t you ever learn.

  48. avatar
    Lupin November 15, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    One of the most enlightening features of US society is indeed the vigorous debates you enjoy about laws, policies, etc. framed of course, by that legal and political masterpiece that is your Constitution.

    I’ll gladly tolerate and humor maverick opinions (let’s call them that) as long as they’re sincere.

    Alas, in this case, what I suspect is rank hypocrisy, racism and possibly preying on the gullible.

  49. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    Our right wing is in competition with the wingers in Germany and Russia.

  50. avatar
    kimba November 15, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    It’s birther fantasy fractured fairy tales:

    “Once upon a time there was a little boy who at the age of 6 renounced is US Citizenship, became and Indonesian and changed his name to Soetoro.”

    They just never stop to think through how their little fantasies ruin other parts of their fantasy about the well-oiled conspiracy.If he was “chosen” by some African-Communist conspiracy starting in 1960 or earlier to be born to a white American woman and some day rule the world, why would the conspiracy have allowed Lolo and Ann Soetoro to muck it up by adopting young Barry, changing his name and his citizenship? Of course, that what makes it a conspiracy theory – it doesn’t have to make sense or hold up to scrutiny.

  51. avatar
    Dick Whitman November 15, 2009 at 12:13 pm #

    As Ms. Daisey clearly illustrates with a life experience, American children are born abroad and classified as Natural-born citizens. Native-born and Natural-born are separate and distinct.

    All the name calling in the world won’t change the fact BO renounced his citizenship and chose not to reaffirm it when he turned 18 and a half.

  52. avatar
    milspec November 15, 2009 at 12:18 pm #

    Bad translation from the original Vorgon?

  53. avatar
    Dick Whitman November 15, 2009 at 12:32 pm #

    Anyone can renounce their U.S. citizenship. No one, not even the parent(s) of a minor child, can renounce the citizenship of another person.

    Okay?

    Step away from the cult. You’re being manipulated.

  54. avatar
    MsDaisy November 15, 2009 at 12:46 pm #

    What are you talking about? Obama was never “adopted” by his stepfather, that tale was debunked long ago. Nor is a 6 year old legally able to renounce his citizenship. And Obama’s mother as an American couldn’t renounce her son’s citizenship any more than I could have declared my son a Japanese National. Being born in Hawaii to an American mother made him a NBC, having a British father, (just like my stepdaughters) did not make him (or them) British citizens at birth, but gave them the right to duel citizenship meaning they could “choose” to become British citizens if they so desired once they reached adulthood. And in order to become British they would have to “as an adult” renounce their American citizenship. Obama never did that. Where do you people get this crap?

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2009 at 12:58 pm #

    Sven [Dick Whitman]: the fact BO renounced his citizenship

    In what sense is this a fact?

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2009 at 1:09 pm #

    Lupin: I’m pretty certain that a minor cannot renounce his citizenship and his parent(s) can’t do it for him either

    That was decided in Luke Skywalker v Vader, I believe (or something that sounds like that).

    It is possible for a US minor citizenship to renounce citizenship, but only after convincing a consular official that the minor knows what they are doing, are not being influenced to do it, and really wants to. I cannot see any situation where a 10-year-old child could meet those criteria. I believe there is a presumptive age (14 if memory serves right) below which such a renunciation would be considered extraordinary. Parents cannot renounce US citizenship for a minor.

    Expatriation was the source of several interesting court cases following the revolutionary war.

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

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    Slartibartfast: It is my understanding that under the 19th Amendment (Giving women the right to vote) and the 14th Amendment (stating that all citizens are equal), any distinction between how citizenship flows from the mother and from the father would be unconstitutional.

    No. Surprisingly enough, it is constitutional to make gender-based distinctions in passing citizenship. That very question was argued in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: …the meaning of “natural born citizen” never changed from its original meaning, i.e., born in the country to citizen parents.

    I looked it up in a legal dictionary, and that’s not what it says.

  59. avatar
    rigs November 15, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    milspec: Bad translation from the original Vorgon?

    More like the original Pottsylvanian.

  60. avatar
    Rickey November 15, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    The rules about renunciation of citizenship have been explained to Sven on multiple occasions. His response is to remain obtuse.

    A few points worth considering:

    1. If the U.S. consulate had in fact administered an oath of renunciation to Obama, the State Department would have a record of it. Of course, it is inconceivable that an oath of renunciation would ever be administered to a child age 10 or under.

    2. If Obama had renounced his U.S. citizenship, he would not have able to obtain a U.S. passport.

    3. If Obama had renounced his U.S. citizenship, he would not have been able to register to vote.

    4. If Obama had renounced his U.S. citizenship, he would not have been eligible to run for the U.S. Senate.

    Of course, Sven will not even attempt to address these points because he knows what he knows, the facts be damned.

  61. avatar
    Greg November 15, 2009 at 3:03 pm #

    He were so sure of his decision they changed his name to Soetoro and renounced his citizenship to enjoy the benefits and privileges of an Indonesian national.

    1. Parents cannot renounce the citizenship of their children. Adoption by a foreigner has zero effect on citizenship.

    2. 6 year-olds cannot renounce their own citizenship. 10 year-olds might be able to, but they’d have to convince an American consulate that they had fully thought through the implications of the decision and have the maturity to do so.

    3. There is no evidence of an adoption.

    4. There is no evidence of a formal renunciation.

    How stupid can an argument get?

  62. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 3:07 pm #

    “In what sense is this a fact?”

    From the Jerome Corsi school of journalism. This is a branch of the Spiro Agnew school of public administration.

  63. avatar
    Greg November 15, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    Constitutional law – it’s not a cult.

  64. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 15, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    Lupin: In the second edition, the editors felt that Vattel had been less than thorough on the issue, so they added a footnote clarifying that, if the child was born out of wedlock, then the mother’s citizenship trumped the father’s.
    (I have no idea why, but that’s what they said.)

    They didn’t have DNA testing back in those days.

    The law has always been that children born in wedlock are presumed to be the offspring of the husband.

    Historically, children born out of wedlock would have to be acknowledged by the father to establish any sort of rights or relationship, prior to the advent of paternity tests in the 20th century. (See http://science.jrank.org/pages/5065/Paternity-Parentage-Testing-History-paternity-testing.html) Also, birth certificates had not yet been invented, so there was no official way of recording an unmarried but acknowledged father at or near the time of birth.

    So in Vattel’s time there were 2 types of children, those whose fathers were known, and those whose fathers were unknown. So the footnote means, “citizenship is gained from the father, if determined; if undetermined, from the mother” — with marriage simply being the only consistent way they had at the time to legally determine who the father was.

  65. avatar
    misha November 15, 2009 at 3:09 pm #

    “How stupid can an argument get?”

    If it’s from a birther, there is no limit.

  66. avatar
    Greg November 15, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    When you win the case, you can call yourself a winner. Otherwise, you are a loser – of this case and issue.

    Duh!

  67. avatar
    Greg November 15, 2009 at 3:20 pm #

    I love that we’re now quoting movies as support for the birther position.

    The Not Without My Children scenario can occur even if one is born to two citizen parents. If dad later renounces his US citizenship and takes up the citizenship of another country, then takes the kids, for example. Or, if Dad had an ancestral tie to the nation, thus making his children have the ancestral tie. Or, if Dad is a religion favored by the nation in question.

  68. avatar
    Texlaw November 15, 2009 at 3:26 pm #

    Damn, Mario was trolling here again and I missed him?

    I hope, for the sake of his paying clients, that he is a better DWI lawyer than he is a constitutional litigator.

  69. avatar
    wendy November 15, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    you know I am rebutting the movie being used, right, Greg?
    just another nail in the movie analogy, then I’ll leave it go.
    Parental abduction issues exist within the US, not just internationally. Parents run with the kids from one state to another, in hopes to get more favorable rulings where they take the child. In some states, if the married parent does this, it is a felony. In others, it is shrugging the shoulders and a “personal dispute”.
    The core issue is residency and jurisdiction of which court. Not a damn thing to do with status of citizenship.
    Fail #583 for the birther crowd.

  70. avatar
    Greg November 15, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    Yes, sorry, I wasn’t clear. I love that the birthers, having been pwned when quoting the Constitution, Vattel, the Founders, the authors of the 14th Amendment, and court cases, have now turned to the last resort of Constitutional arguments, movies.

    See, if we allowed the children of aliens to become President, what would have happened in Independence Day?

  71. avatar
    SFJeff November 15, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    Adopted in Indonesia? Ridiculous.

    It is commonly known that Santa Claus adopted Obama in the North Pole after taking him there from Africa on his sled.

    Main stream media has just been covering this up, but soon Glen Beck will blow this story wide open. President Obama- Santa Clauses secret love child.

    I know its true because I wrote it myself.

  72. avatar
    John November 15, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    It’s good bet that Obama was adopted. The records are probably in Indonesia. The divorce decree uses syntax to suggest Obama was adopted. If in fact he was adopted, then he lost his US Citizenship. I assume that when someone is citizen they can fall under the juristication of country they are a citizen of. It makes absolutely no legal sense to suggest that a minor can become a citizen of another country and not lose the citizenship of the other assuming the coutries don’t recognize dual citizen. When Obama was adopted and became an Indonesian citizen, his citizenship and juristication to the US was severed. However, since he was a minor it possible that Obama could have regained his US citizenship at a certain age. There is no evidence to suggest this. Addition is makes no sense to believe that minor can never lose his US citizenship under any circumstances except unless he or she allows. A minor has no concept of such important decisions and there is no way some authority would allow such a loss to occur.

  73. avatar
    kimba November 15, 2009 at 6:43 pm #

    Wow. What do you smoke that lets you dream up all this nonsense about what is a good bet, and what the hidden meanings are in a divorce decree? Must be some good sh!t. Except it is complete gibberish to the rest of us.

    “There is no evidence to suggest this. ”
    Oh, no evidence at all other than little inconsequential details like, he has a US passport, he served in the Illinois house, the US Senate. He registered for selective service. You know, things you have to be a US citizen to do.

    Put down the pipe, John. You’re full of it.

  74. avatar
    kimba November 15, 2009 at 6:44 pm #

    Santa is a ni—-?

  75. avatar
    Pretty in Pink November 15, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    MsDaisy: As I said before I’m not a lawyer, but I did give birth to an American child overseas. (Japan) And unfortunately he was one of those born first and then we went to the hospital babies. (We were military) The military hospital wouldn’t issue him a BC because he was not actually born in the hospital. Long story short he was finally issued a BC by the American Embassy in Tokyo, and I was told that he was classified as a natural born American (born abroad), but he would be entitled to duel citizenship (American/Japanese) by virtue of his place of birth. But in order for him to become a Japanese National at the age of 21 he would have had to renounce his American citizenship and pledge his allegiance to Japan. Of course he didn’t.I now have 2 stepdaughters, (2nd marriage) both born in the US to an American mother, and British father. The same applied to them, when they became adults they too were “entitled” to become British Nationals, but in order to do so they would have had to renounce their American citizenship, which of course they didn’t either. All three of them ARE natural born Americans and all three carry American passports.
    So what is so hard to understand about Obama? He would have had the same choice, but he never “chose” to renounce his American citizenship and is every bit as much of a NBC as my son and stepdaughters.
    I swear I truly believe that the issue of Obama is not that his parents were not “both” American citizens, but it’s only an issue because his parents were not “both” white.
    Plain and simple

    So, all of your children are Natural-born citizens of the U.S., but not native-born citizens of the U.S. And since your children made a choice not to renounce their U.S. citizenship during their lifetimes, then they meet the Natural-born citizenship eligibility requirement for being President.

    The problem with Obama is that his Indonesian school record indicates he is a native-born U.S. citizen who became an Indonesian National. And since Indonesia does not recognize dual-citizenship, then he would have to renounce his U.S. citizenship before becoming an Indonesian citizen.

    I could see U.S. Consular Affairs Officer accepting this as a valid reason to renounce his citizenship. His mother was married to an Indonesian National. I’m sure they planned to live the rest of their lives in Indonesia. Why wouldn’t Barry want to become an Indonesian citizen?

    If Barry changed his mind, then he could have reaffirmed his U.S. citizenship until the age of 18 years and 6 months. But, he enjoyed using scholarships reserved for foreign nationals. So, he chose not to file to regain his U.S. citizenship and state his oath of allegience.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2009 at 7:22 pm #

    Sven [wearing his pink troll costume that I don’t think is at all pretty] pokes a stick in the ant hill by making the ignorant remark: The problem with Obama is that his Indonesian school record indicates he is a native-born U.S. citizen who became an Indonesian National.

    Since that is impossible both by US and Indonesian law, it cannot be true. While Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro are no longer alive to tell us why the extra-legal school record says Obama was an Indonesian national, it wasn’t so.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 15, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    John: It’s good bet that Obama was adopted.

    Besides your personal prejudice, is there any reason to believe that this happened? The divorce decree says no such thing either. You go on to state the legally impossible assertion that “If in fact he was adopted, then he lost his US Citizenship”. I don’t know whether you are a liar or just ignorant.

  78. avatar
    wendy November 15, 2009 at 7:46 pm #

    “The problem with Obama is that his Indonesian school record indicates he is a native-born U.S. citizen who became an Indonesian National”.

    the problem with the school record is that it proves his stepfather wanted him in school. It proves that a stepfather can fib.
    It also proves that some people have no clue as to what “proof” really is.
    Nothing else.

  79. avatar
    John November 15, 2009 at 7:47 pm #

    The divorce decree does state Obama is the child of both Lolo and Stanley Ann Dunham. If he was adopted, then Obama should have been referred a Stanley Ann Dunham’s child from a previous marriage. From what I understand, syntax in divorce proceedings state as such.

  80. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- November 15, 2009 at 7:54 pm #

    Note that Mr. Apuzzo did not refute the assertion that Kerchner v Obama was shot down faster than the Iraqi Air Force. Nor did he refute the point that this makes any arguments of his regarding President Obama’s citizenship worth a warm bucket of spit. Nor did he refute the point that this does in fact make him a loser.

    Indeed, it seems Mr. Apuzzo is a bit put upon by such facts. Whether this is because his reputation is swirling down the drain faster than he can chase anything labelled ‘PARAMEDIC’ is something I’ll leave for the reader.

  81. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- November 15, 2009 at 7:57 pm #

    I keep hearing you mention Booker and I’m lost. Is he thinking of NJ-Sen?

  82. avatar
    Rickey November 15, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

    The interesting thing is the way birthers such as John twist logic in order to support their preconceived notions.

    If it is indeed true that Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, then the “good bet” is that Indonesia would not have allowed Obama to become a citizen even if he had wanted to do so. Indonesia would have declared, “No, you cannot become a citizen of our country because you are a citizen of the United States.” In that case, Obama would have had to formally renounce his U.S. citizenship before he could become a citizen of Indonesia.

    However, even if Indonesia had ignored its own rules and granted citizenship to Obama (and of course there is no evidence of that), it would have had no affect upon his U.S. citizenship, because U.S. law controls. In fact, when a U.S. citizen is naturalized in another country, there is a legal presumption that the person intends to retain his or her U.S. citizenship. From the State Department website:

    The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

    The adoption question is, of course, a red herring. Even if Lolo Soetoro did adopt Obama (and there is no evidence of an adoption), it would have had no effect upon Obama’s U.S. citizenship.

  83. avatar
    wendy November 15, 2009 at 8:07 pm #

    what YOU INTERPRET from alleged divorce papers is totally useless.
    Get your head out from all the scripts and fabrications. THE ONLY PROOF OF AN ADOPTION WOULD BE A DECREE OF ADOPTION.
    And that proof does not exist.
    USE YOUR BRAIN. The US govt is completely capable of finding and accessing any record it needs, including if there was an adoption.
    Look at LAWS. EVEN IF there was an adoption (which there was not)..it STILL WOULD NOT negate his citizenship.

  84. avatar
    Rickey November 15, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    Sorry, John, you don’t know what you’re talking about. In fact, the divorce decree makes no mention of Obama. The divorce complaint is a fill-in-the-blanks form which states “The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren) above 18 but still dependent upon the parties for education.” The form is referring to the number of children that “the parties” (meaning both Lolo and Stanley Ann) had IN THE AGGREGATE at the time of the divorce filing. There is no space on the form to delineate which children were Lolo’s, which children were Stanley Ann’s, and which were the offspring of both of them, so of necessity they are lumped together.

    As noted, the divorce decree makes no mention of Obama. The divorce decree refers only to Lolo, Stanley Ann and Maya. If Lolo had any legal relationship to Obama, one would expect to see a reference to Obama in the divorce decree, since Obama was still a full-time student at the time of the divorce. But in fact there was no need to mention Obama in the decree, because he was never adopted by Lolo.

    Link to Documents

  85. avatar
    Black Lion November 15, 2009 at 9:44 pm #

    John, you may want to look up the SCOTUS ruling in the Perkins v. Elg case….It specifically stated that a Natural Born US citizen born in the US cannot lose their US citizenship as a minor, even if they are adopted….But you already know this…You just want to be contrary….

  86. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 15, 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    I have a feeling that birthers will still be inventing fantasies about why Obama is not eligible to be President on January 19th, 2017.

    Reality is not a strong point with them.

  87. avatar
    Randy November 15, 2009 at 10:08 pm #

    John, U.S. law is the superceding law. U.S. citizen. Indonesia can have all the laws it wants but U.S. law is what we are talking about.

  88. avatar
    Mary Brown November 15, 2009 at 10:08 pm #

    Sven, prove it. Where are the papers. Oh, a five-year-old cannot renounce his citizenship without a procedure, which if I am correct, requires an interview His parent cannot renounce it for him. Your wording gives the impression that you believe a small child understands these matters. He never renounced his citizenship and please use one name. It is silly of you to do this. Grow up.

  89. avatar
    Mary Brown November 15, 2009 at 10:13 pm #

    My sister teaches in a very good school district in another state. They regularly have folks who claim they live in the district and can send their children to school when they do not. People want their children in good schools. They can tell all kinds of fibs, including name and address changes if need be.

  90. avatar
    Mary Brown November 15, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    Why do all this name stuff? Is he one of my preschoolers pretending?

  91. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 15, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    Case you’re thinking of is Perkins v. Elg, which ruled that citizenship cannot be given up due to the action of parents.

  92. avatar
    SFJeff November 15, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    Wasn’t it Sven who asked why no one had come forth to vouch who was present at Obama’s birth in Hawaii? Okay forget about a doctor trying to remember one birth out of thousands….how many children do you think a Consular official hears renounce their U.S. citizenship in their entire career? Now that would be a rare event.

    So Birthers- if you insist on this fantasy, at least you can find the Counselor official. Shouldn’t be hard- during that time period there were probably only a handful of people who were empowered to handle something like that.

  93. avatar
    nBc November 15, 2009 at 10:42 pm #

    Et tu, nbc, who had been the epitome of wisdom but now thou falls too, to the blind loyalty of fools.

    Blind loyalty of fools. Now you’re funny guy Mario. Is it by design or by accident?

    So how does it feel that the burden to defend yourself in court has been lifted and that Berg has made any hope of a successful appeal minimal?
    With friends like those…

    PS: Me thinks thought protests too much and thinks too little

  94. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 15, 2009 at 10:42 pm #

    Read a decision called Perkins v. Elg.

    Nothing can automatically sever U.S. Citizenship, John. It hasn’t been true for over 75 years.

    Notice that not even Apuzzo is arguing this anymore.

  95. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 15, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    Meant that Nothing can automatically sever U.S. Citizenship for a minor.

  96. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 15, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    While it’s not binding precedent, it is something called a “case on point”. Basically, while it is not binding, it is how another court decided this very issue. It is very persuasive.

    Notice how the Federal District Courts have been quoting eachother in the rulings recently. They’re not bound by the ruling, but it is very persuasive.

  97. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 15, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    Stariblast, I don’t think you’re right. I believe that there’s a case called Nguyen v. U.S., which argued exactly that (that U.S. Law could not differentiate between mother and father in Nationality Law), and that argument was ruled against in a 5-4 decision.

    That’s the same case that gave us such gems in Oral Arguments such as Justice Scalia equating Natural Born to Jus Soli, and Justice Ginsburg stating that she believed that her grandchildren who were born in Paris were Natural Born Citizens.

    However, that only applies to children born out of wedlock, and I’m not sure about the law with children born in wedlock.

  98. avatar
    Greg November 15, 2009 at 11:13 pm #

    I could see U.S. Consular Affairs Officer accepting this as a valid reason to renounce his citizenship.

    You can see a US Consular Affairs Officer accepting that a six year-old child could make the decision to renounce his citizenship?

    Do you also believe the moon is made of green cheese? That the Easter Bunny hides eggs in your yard every year?

    Can you tie your own shoes?

  99. avatar
    Greg November 15, 2009 at 11:17 pm #

    It makes absolutely no legal sense to suggest that a minor can become a citizen of another country and not lose the citizenship of the other assuming the coutries don’t recognize dual citizen.

    What doesn’t make sense is the Rule Against Perpetuities. Oh, and the Rule in Shelley’s case.

    But, those are the rules. Just like it’s the rule that parents cannot revoke their children’s citizenship.

    Don’t like it? Amend the Constitution.

  100. avatar
    Lupin November 16, 2009 at 2:25 am #

    The best proof, IMHO, that the birther madness is fueled by rank racism is this:

    If somehow Obama was removed, the line of succession (if I understand it correctly) is Biden, Pelosi, Byrd, and Hillary Clinton.

    How is that different, policy-wise?

    We’ve already established that birthers don’t really care about the Constitution. We’ve now established that it’s not about policies as well.

    If you think removing Obama will save the country from being turned into Hell-on-Earth, think again.

    So the only thing left is: color of the skin.

    (For attorneys who get paid or take donations, there is of course another all too evident motivation…)

    Rank hypocrites and bigots, all of them.

  101. avatar
    misha November 16, 2009 at 4:05 am #

    I say Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I further say Rush Limbaugh was with him.

    I also say Sarah Palin is the reincarnation of Evita Peron.

    Prove otherwise.

  102. avatar
    MsDaisy November 16, 2009 at 6:21 am #

    Yes all of my children are Natural Born American Citizens, just like Obama. You people are so FOS it’s laughable, every one of you base all your accusations on one word, “IF”, but none of you have the first scrap of evidence of “fact”. Everything is IF this, IF that, IF the other. My dear departed mother use to say; “IF an elephant had wings, it’d be a hell of a bird”.

    Well “IF” you can come up with hard-core evidence of all this wild nonsense about Obama giving up his citizenship, being adopted or any of the other “IF’s” you allege then put up or shut up!

    You know racism is a terrible thing, and is certainly not PC. When Obama was nominated as the Democratic candidate it was so blatantly obvious that these “racists” unable to flat out say what they were thinking, “Obama’s a Ni, and we don’t want a Ni in the White House”, had no choice but to say things like, He’s a Muslim, He’s a terrorist, He’s not an American, He’s not eligible to be POTUS, and Gawd only knows what else! And the best one was when these people were confronted about their opposition to Obama being simply because he was black, many of them came back and said, “Well he’s not “really” the first black POTUS because he’s half white”. Pah-Leease!

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2009 at 7:53 am #

    One notes the following problems with the Indonesian school record:

    It is not signed by Soetoro
    It is not signed by a school administrator
    It is not signed by the school nurse
    It does not have the name of the nearest hospital
    It does not have a raised seal
    It is not folded

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2009 at 7:55 am #

    I have seen this in conspiracy thinking before, the belief that things on a pre-printed form apply uniquely to a particular situation.

  105. avatar
    MsDaisy November 16, 2009 at 10:29 am #

    Okay, which one of you is f*king with Orly? Now she’s on a mad search for this “Gatekeeper” LOL
    From her website:

    “Does anyone know, who is this clerk-gatekeeper from Louisiana State University at 11th circuit?”

    “Posted on | November 16, 2009 | No Comments
    Submitted on 2009/11/15 at 8:57pm
    You don’t have a chance with this appeal at this point. There is a new clerk on the 11th circuit who used to be an intern with the Democratic Party who will make sure this appeal goes down in inglorious flames. I will send you his name but you must first indicate that you are serious about pursuing this angle by mentioning a “Follower from Louisiana” in your next article. It must be written exactly that way with “Follower” capitalized. I will only reveal this bit of information: the clerk went to a famous school in Louisiana at this point.
    Earn my trust and I will tell you much more.”

  106. avatar
    Pretty in Pink November 16, 2009 at 11:08 am #

    A congress is not a cult? Man, you really are brainwashed.

    Step away from the Kool-aid.

  107. avatar
    Pretty in Pink November 16, 2009 at 11:15 am #

    Rickey: The rules about renunciation of citizenship have been explained to Sven on multiple occasions. His response is to remain obtuse.
    A few points worth considering:1. If the U.S. consulate had in fact administered an oath of renunciation to Obama, the State Department would have a record of it. Of course, it is inconceivable that an oath of renunciation would ever be administered to a child age 10 or under.2. If Obama had renounced his U.S. citizenship, he would not have able to obtain a U.S. passport.3. If Obama had renounced his U.S. citizenship, he would not have been able to register to vote.4. If Obama had renounced his U.S. citizenship, he would not have been eligible to run for the U.S. Senate.Of course, Sven will not even attempt to address these points because he knows what he knows, the facts be damned.

    1. It would help if Obama would make his State Department records public. If he’s eligible, there’s nothing embarrassing in the record, i.e. application, copy of BC, name changes, photos, etc …

    2. He traveled as Indonesian refugee with emergency travel papers provided by the US State Dept. acting on behalf of his surviving, U.S. Citizen grandparents.

    3. Ha Ha Ha. That’s funny!

    4. Barry Soetoro has been murdered.

  108. avatar
    Pretty in Pink November 16, 2009 at 11:18 am #

    Sven Magnussen and Barry Soetoro are missing. I suspect foul play.

  109. avatar
    misha November 16, 2009 at 11:40 am #

    I believe our readers would enjoy this:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/11/dont-cry-for-me-alaska.html

  110. avatar
    Greg November 16, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    WTF? Who said Congress?

    Constitutional law says that children cannot have their citizenship revoked because their parents did something. It says that taking the citizenship of another country doesn’t revoke your citizenship. It says that children cannot revoke their citizenship unless they prove they are making the decision consciously and with full consideration of the implications – something no 6 year-old could possibly prove.

    That’s not a cult!

  111. avatar
    Black Lion November 16, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    Here is an interesting article from our friends at WND. I guess the birther money making machine must be low, especially with all of the recent loses by Orly and others…I have excerpted some of the article…It is a pure con game….Really funny stuff….I am sure there will be some birthers that fall for it and “donate”…Just like they did to Orly to bring down the scary Muslim Usurper….

    And, in fact, we are erecting new billboards. The latest one went up this week in Pennsylvania.

    Why not more?

    I’ll tell you why.

    Because your enthusiasm has evidently waned. I’m afraid I have to pass the buck to you.

    Petition signups are stagnant. We’ve been flirting with 500,000 for weeks – even months. Do you not know anyone who should have signed that petition by now? It’s imperative that you help us get the word out. It’s free. It’s just an expression of the fact that you believe this is an important issue. I believe millions – tens of millions – agree with the sentiment. Help me find them. Make this petition go viral.
    Contributions to the billboard campaign are down. Right now, every new billboard WND erects is costing us money. There are no donations to pay for new billboards or even to maintain the old ones. If you want to see an expansion of this very effective campaign, one that completely put this issue of eligibility on the map, you’ve got to help me spread the word.
    Sales of our documentary, “A Question of Eligibility,” the primer for understanding this issue, are down significantly. If you want to introduce someone to this topic, there is no better way than to lend them a copy. Again, if this is an important issue to you, help us get the word out.

    Most people can contribute $5 to a worthwhile campaign, too. That’s all I’m asking. Do what you can. Can you help me spread the word by sending this column around to all your friends?

    Don’t concede the presidency to Obama without making him prove his eligibility. It would be a terrible precedent. And it would be a disaster for the country. One year has been bad enough. Can you imagine four or more?

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115991

  112. avatar
    kimba November 16, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    My understanding is the birthers think if Obama is ineligible, the election is nullified and that eliminates the whole Obama administration. I am not sure if they want a new election or just McGrumpy installed as President. But in their eyes, if Obama is removed, Biden doesn’t simply succeed him. I think they want the do-over, because it doesn’t seem like the righties care much for McCain.

  113. avatar
    Black Lion November 16, 2009 at 12:55 pm #

    It looks like Leo is back with a vengance…It is a good thing that he is our “citizen” attorney…I would hate to wonder what would happen if he was not out there misrepresenting the law and thinking that he knows more about the Constitution than actual Judges…

    Natural Born Citizen
    Indiana Court Of Appeals Trips Over Natural Born Citizen Issue.

    “Thank you.” From Leo Donofrio to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

    Dear Indiana Court of Appeals:

    – Thank you for bestowing my work with meaning. I have been feeling that the efforts I put into this blog had become meaningless. But since your propaganda filled decision in the Arkeny and Ruse case came down, I know my readers are more than prepared to see your ruse for the deception it is. They are educated and well versed in the law and facts and prepared for this moment.

    – Thank you for ignoring the important fact of American history unearthed by this blog in December 2008 when we exposed that Chester Arthur lied about his parents heritage and that his lie kept the nation from knowing that he was a British subject at the time of his birth. Your mention of him in Footnote 16 makes it appear as if the nation was aware of Chester Arthur’s dual nationality, but there was not one single reference to this fact in all of American recorded history until that news was broken here. Your decision gives our work true meaning and depth. For anyone who has come into contact with our reporting thereto knows – whether they support Obama or not – that you have disgraced your robes and oaths by playing fanciful with the facts and portraying that which was hidden from the voters, the media and American history – until we discovered it last year – as if it were known to the public at large the whole time. Your disgrace is my potential realized.

    – Thank you for the motivation you have recharged my soul with. The issue is not going away. Instead, it’s destiny awaits in the DC District Court.

    Very Truly Yours,

    Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney

  114. avatar
    Black Lion November 16, 2009 at 12:57 pm #

    Orly will never learn…This is more of her crap…

    Today at the Continental Congress a decorated attorney Mark Lane discussed a well known case that he handled. It was a defamation of character case , During the appellate court hearing at the DC court of appeals Antonin Scalia, who later became one of the Justices of the Supreme court has made a very important statement: “You can have 10,000 newspaper reports, it still doesn’t make it one true statement”
    During the last few days I was attacked in the media more then ever before.
    An hour ago, an attorney, a liberal democrat, who came to my Bill O’Reilly protest, has called me and stated how appalled he is about the media reporting. Many of you have seen the reports that I posted on this web site: pictures and videos, showing some 60 people standing around me with signs, however MSNBC Rachel Maddow show, have reported on the protest today and did something totally despicable. They cut out a picture of me and tried to show me as the only one there talking to myself, even though there were a lot of protesters and cameramen recording the event

    I am submitting some documents to court. Please, forward to me all the info you have about clerk Velamoor’s prior work for Perkins Coie, his donations to Obama campaign, info you saw re the other clerk (I think her name is Wendy Lutz or Nicole Lutz), her donations to Obama campaign
    I also, need you to send to me again a printout about this Pentagon attorney, rebeccah Elaine Ausprung who I faced in Rhodes and Cook, her donations to Obama and DNC.
    I, also, need info, whether, the two US attorneys on Barnett case donated money to Obama campaign and DNC. They represent the United states of america in this case, they supposed to be impartial. The names are David DeJutt and Roger West.

  115. avatar
    elmo November 16, 2009 at 1:02 pm #

    Right. They think McCain would become president because he was first runner up in the election. See, it’s kind of like the Miss America pageant…

  116. avatar
    elmo November 16, 2009 at 1:04 pm #

    Well, there’s an argument Orly hasn’t thought of. Next thing you know, she’ll be citing the made for TV movie “Not Wihtout my Daughter” as authority in her legal pleadings.

  117. avatar
    Black Lion November 16, 2009 at 2:36 pm #

    Anyone know who this woman is? Is she a birther or just clueless? This screed is so full of misinformation you would have thought it came from Orly….

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter166.htm

    By Lynn Stuter
    November 10, 2009
    NewsWithViews.com

    Tomorrow is Veterans Day, commemorating our men and women who fought (and died) to keep this country free under the Constitution and Bill of Rights established by our Founding Fathers.

    On November 4, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama was elected to the office of president of the United States. The evidence grows that Obama is not an American citizen, was not eligible to the office he holds, should never have been allowed on the ballot in any of the 50 states.

    1. Not one of the Senators of Representatives in Congress has actually seen Obama’s birth certificate. They have seen pictures of a document posted on the internet, but they have not seen the actual birth certificate.

    2. Hawaii claims to hold a birth certificate for Obama but that does not mean Obama was born in Hawaii. At the time Obama contends he was born (1961), Hawaii (Act 96, Session Laws of 1911, Special Session of 1909 and the Organic Act) allowed for the birth registration, in Hawaii, of foreign-born children. Until the actual birth certificate is produced and examined; where Obama was actually born is unknown and unproven.

    3. No Hawaiian hospital is willing to own up to Obama being born there. Meanwhile, Obama and his half-sister have claimed he was born at two different hospitals. When Obama finally decided he was born at one particular hospital, internet sites set about to “correct” their stories to reflect his unproven claims, including the left-wing website, Snopes.com.

    4. On page 26 of his book, Dreams from my Father (2004, paperback edition), Obama states he found his birth certificate in with other documents in his grandparents home. If Obama was actually born in Hawaii, such undermines the need for Hawaii to produce a laser printed document only produced after 2001—the Certification of Live Birth that has appeared in pictures on the internet, that Hawaii refuses to authenticate, and that forensic experts have dubbed a forgery.

    5. Obama has claimed dual citizenship at birth, American by his mother, Kenyan by his father (actually, this would be British as Kenya was a British colony at that time). Historically, “natural-born” requires two American parents. This makes Obama ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, irrespective of the birth certificate issue. Whether a dual citizen at birth, indications are that Obama because an Indonesian citizen and remains so today.

    6. African newspapers have consistently claimed that Obama is “Kenyan-born”. One such article that recently surfaced is dated 2004. This means he did not have dual citizenship at birth was a British subject at birth as his mother was not of the age required to confer her citizenship to Obama.

    7. Obama’s paternal step-grandmother, Sarah, also claims he was born in Kenya and she was present at his birth.

    8. Obama was listed, in the Soetoro/Dunham divorce papers, as dependent on Lolo Soetoro for the purposes of education. As Obama was over the age of 18 at the time, he could only be considered the legal child of Lolo Soetoro if he was legally adopted by Soetoro. Evidence points to him being adopted by Lolo Soetoro, to becoming (ca 1966) an Indonesian citizen. No evidence exists that he was ever an American or that he reclaimed American citizenship. The terminology used in the divorce papers may have been to facilitate Obama in receiving foreign student aid to attend college in the United States.

    9. Indications are that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat National Committee personnel knew Barack Hussein Obama was not eligible to the office of president; that the nomination of a non-American as the Democrat candidate was deliberate.

    Since his usurping of the office of president, Obama has worked tirelessly to dismantle what remains of the once great nation, the United States of America. He has

    1. plunged this nation $1.4 trillion dollars further in debt, more than any president in history;
    2. pushed every piece of Marxist legislation to come forth from the House and Senate;
    3. taken over private companies in violation of the United States Constitution;
    4. used the public coffers to bail out his Wall Street benefactors;
    5. used his public office to promote and assist radical left-wing organizations like the Black Panthers, ACORN, and Moveon.org;
    6. surrounded himself with czars who have a known Marxist agenda;
    7. traveled the world denigrating America and the American people;
    8. bowed in fealty to his Muslim brothers;
    9. partied hearty in the White House at taxpayer expense while Americans lost their jobs;
    10. insulted America’s allies at every opportunity while affiliating himself with the leaders of Marxist regimes.

    More recently, one of Obama’s Muslim brothers shot and killed at least 13 people, wounded at least 31 at Ft Hood in Texas. While former President George Bush and his wife, Laura, met with families, the wounded, and mourners, Obama was in DC, twisting the arms of members of the U.S. House of Representatives to pass his Marxist healthcare reform bill (H.R. 3962). After all, if he can’t kill them with bullets, what better way to kill them than by withholding (rationing) health care?

    In commemorating the men and women who have died for our country, for the cause of freedom, Public Television broadcast a show Sunday night on the vast cemeteries that sprinkle the European landscape where Americans fought and thousands died in World War II. They fought for their country and for those who came after them, their progeny.

    And now we stand at the precipice of the totalitarian state with a man occupying the White House, usurping the Oval Office, who isn’t an American; who has, by his own actions and words, declared himself a Marxist.

    The United States Congress, assembled, has refused to remove this usurper sitting illegitimately as our president.

    The United States Supreme Court, and lower courts, have refused to address the growing body of evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not our legitimate president; going so far as to make the ludicrous claim that they cannot overturn the vote of millions, in essence saying that popular vote (if it could even be claimed to be uncorrupted) is above the law.

    The mainstream media of the United States has refused to expose this illegitimate president. Indications are that their actions are the result of threats and duress should they expose Obama for the fraud he is.

    If those who are supposed to uphold our laws, according to their oath of office, refuse to do so, then they leave the American people no choice but to take matters into their own hands.

    This past week we have seen three shootings occur in this country—in Florida, in Texas, and in Washington state. Each of these shootings was directed against a company or government entity seen as unjust. This is the direct result of the refusal of those entrusted to do so, to uphold the law; this is a direct result of the corruption that permeates our government and the companies now seen as partnered with it in the fascist state. When the rule of law breaks down, and it has, then anarchy reigns.

    All the men and women who have died for this country, it would seem, from the War of Independence to present day, have died in vain.

    Are you angry yet?

  118. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 16, 2009 at 2:53 pm #

    When all else fails, because

    a) the birth certificate from Hawaii will always be deemed more trustworthy to a US court than some joke or forgery from Kenya, Zanzibar or Canada (see what Judges Land and Carter said about birth certificates)

    b) no court is going to go against Wong Kim Ark AND Ankeny et al vs Daniels

    the birthers “will always have Indonesia” (“we will always have Paris”).

    In the case of Obama’s school “record” (in fact a slip of attendance paper that has no legal value in any court on the planet except to prove that you did not attend a diploma mill like Orly Taitz)- there are various reasons for the fib or fibs. Obama’s mother and his “stepfather” did something suspicious in the eyes of Indonesian law: they had a mixed religion marriage. Yes, a muslim man may marry a Christian woman, but only through an Islamic marriage. There was also the little problem that Obama’s mother was not really Christian either, but an atheist – something not allowed in Indonesia. Writing that Barack (or Barry as he was called when little) was a muslim, took care of that little problem and also meant he did not have to attend Roman Catholic religious classes. Oh, yes, that slip of paper is from a Roman Catholic school…

  119. avatar
    MsDaisy November 16, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    Maybe this is her problem. (Well one of them, she has so many) She does no research on her own but relies solely on her tin foil hat brigade and takes whatever fantasy they produce as gospel.

  120. avatar
    Black Lion November 16, 2009 at 3:10 pm #

    I would agree with you…She always seems to want others to do her research for her…If I was one of her followers I would be asking where all of the donated money has gone…

  121. avatar
    Black Lion November 16, 2009 at 3:14 pm #

    I see the birthers are pushing this “continential congress” thing…I took a look at it…Typical wingnuttery….Looks like a similar scam to the so called american grand juries and super duper grand juries….I love on the page the big “donate” button….

    http://www.cc2009.us/

    Why Continental Congress 2009?
    The purpose of CC 2009 is to add a period to the end of the “Liberty Sentence” — in other words, government accountability for violations of individual, unalienable Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

    The Right to Liberty and Freedom from unrestrained acts of Government has been evolving over a long period of time. Key historic milestones have been the Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, our Declaration of Independence and America’s State and Federal Constitutions.

    However, there is one remaining milestone to be achieved before individuals can say, “We are Free”: the ability of the individual to hold government officials accountable when they violate any of the remaining provisions of the Constitution.

    No matter the number of enumerated and un-enumerated individual Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, they are meaningless unless, when violated, the individual is able to hold their government officials accountable. It’s well settled in American Jurisprudence that “any Right that is not enforceable is not a Right.”

    It is self-evident that individual Rights are eviscerated in the absence of recognition of the individual’s unalienable Right of accountability (enforcement). For that reason, constitutional scholars refer to the Right to hold the government accountable as the “Capstone Right” — the Right that caps all the others.

    While a self-evident Truth, the Founders included a written guarantee of the Right of accountability in the First Amendment, as an absolutely necessary and critical part of the overall balance of power between the People and Government officials.

    However, the Right of accountability has been all but forgotten by the People. Until relatively recently, there has been little cause for them to claim and exercise the Right.

    These are tough times; a struggle of historic proportions is underway between those who do not believe that the rights of the majority are tempered by the minority and the individual under the rule of law and those that do.

    Before Americans can truly say, “The God who has given us Life has given us Liberty” – that is, before the evolution of Liberty can be said to be complete, one elusive milestone needs to be achieved: a clear and resounding demonstration of the individual’s Right to hold government officials accountable to the rest of the Constitution. The result would be an enormous shift of power from the Government back to the People where the ultimate power was meant to reside in the first place.

    The mettle of the Constitution is, indeed, tested in tough times. Enter Continental Congress 2009.

    If Continental Congress 2009 can realize its purpose, the American people will have, for the first time, an opportunity to experience the Fullness of the Gifts intended for each of us, realizable only by obedience to our Founding Documents. Our people do not know what they are missing! If the outcome of Continental Congress 2009 is realized — a Nation that Beholds and Embraces Its Constitution — what advantages would show themselves in our daily lives.

    ADVANTAGES OF CC 2009

    No more undeclared wars that undermine the economy, the family and the Constitution.

    No more gifting of public money and credit to private corporations for decidedly private purposes, which undermines the economy, the family and the Constitution.

    No more debt-based, fiat currency that undermines the economy, the family and the Constitution.

    No more direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor that undermine the economy, the family and the Constitution.

    No more War on Terror with its developing Police State, which undermine the economy, the family and the Constitution.

    No more unenforced immigration laws that undermine the economy, the family and the Constitution.

    No more counting votes in secret, a practice that undermines the economy, the family and the Constitution.

    No more attempts to disarm Americans.

    No more attempts to create a North American Union.

    BENEFITS OF CC 2OO9

    Government restraint, individual Rights and governance by the people as a Republic under the rule of law.

    Individual Prosperity and quality of life rather than booms and bust

    Respect rather than hatred abroad

    Creditor rather than Debtor status

    Rule of law rather than Rule of man or Whim

    Pride rather than apathy

    Happiness rather than fear

    A servant government rather than privileged autocrats controlling and enslaving the rest of us.

  122. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    Disadvantages of CC 2009

    The role of elections is replaced by courts.

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    See my articles on Lynn Stuter:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/factchecking-lynn-stuters-latest/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/lynn-stuter-new-article-old-lies-all-bunk/

    She may be the great mother of all birthers. She’s also a home schooling advocate and really hates T-Mobile, and appears to be a general far right-wing crank.

    She also runs

    http://www.learn-usa.com/

  124. avatar
    MsDaisy November 16, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    So what’s this all about? Orly has been apparently filing fraudulent papers with the court? Hummm, looks like “Lucy is going to have to splain herself” again. (Or is this old news I just missed out on.)

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22497192/DOC-19-Rivernider-and-Lincoln-v-US-Bank-Natl-Assn-Notice-of-Receipt-of-Orly-Taitz-Ltr-Dated-11-6-2009

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22546059/RIVERNIDER-v-U-S-BANK-21-ORDER-TO-SHOW-CAUSE-Show-Cause-22528724-DOC-21

  125. avatar
    Chris November 16, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    If she believes all this cr*p, then by definition she is a “birther.”

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 16, 2009 at 4:47 pm #

    I don’t know. When you do a deal with the devil, there are consequences. Apparently Charles E. Lincoln III has been filing things under Orly’s name that she didn’t know about. Lucas Smith has attacked her most ferociously. As long as it’s not Obama Conspiracy related, I’m sort of ignoring it.

  127. avatar
    SFJeff November 16, 2009 at 7:03 pm #

    Wow- thank you for posting that Continental Congress thing. At first I thought- okay this is some folks passionate about the Constitution- then I looked further

    These are Anti-Income Tax Constitutionalist who use the same rhetoric that has been used against Obama- let me give you a few gems:

    2006
    It has been a trying, but exciting year as we have moved closer to a declaration by the High Court of our Rights and the Government’s obligations under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment.
    Our civic education and civic actions continue to arouse interest and gain support from the People, many more of whom are beginning to understand the true meaning of the Petition Clause and its power to hold Government accountable to the letter and spirit of each provision of the Constitution.

    Just as discontent breeds change, change breeds discontent. The Government is not happy with our activities and is doing what it can to chill the enthusiasm of people to associate with us. The Government has a vested interest in the status quo. Our Government does not want to be held accountable. No government does.
    The battle for Liberty continues – as it must.

    Faced with a shrinking window of opportunity within which to defeat the despots who threaten our Liberty, this Foundation — your Foundation — is more in need of your support and commitment than ever.
    (see the ecstatic conviction that the Courts will rule in their favor, along with a plug for money?)

    2007
    Within months, in all probability just before the Easter break, the hot topic of the day in every single law school in America will be the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in our case entitled, We The People v. The U.S. Government.
    Given the enormous and far-reaching implications of this decision, either in favor of the People or against them, law school professors everywhere will be anxious to analyze and “mine” the decision,

    2007
    We also showed that the President of the United States was adhering to this enemy of the United States by giving aid and comfort to Mexico and its invaders and that Congress was acquiescing: This is treason.
    (here we go with treason)
    2008
    Taking advantage of one final procedural step to ask the U.S. Supreme
    Court to hear the landmark Right to Petition case, on February 1st
    Bob Schulz filed a Petition for Rehearing.
    “According to its own precedent, this Court would be abdicating its duty and committing treason to the Constitution if it fails to [accept jurisdiction and hear this case]” wrote Schulz. “Tyranny marks a government that ignores its free People.”

    (see the Courts are treasonous too)

    April 2008
    The proof is in. The federal courts have been found to be co-conspirators with the Executive Branch in a collusive scheme to avoid being held accountable to the Constitution by the People.

    Then in October of 2008, they join the Birthers- what a surprise?

    “Obama: Show Evidence of
    U.S. Citizenship or Withdraw”

    2006
    It has been a trying, but exciting year as we have moved closer to a declaration by the High Court of our Rights and the Government’s obligations under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment.
    Our civic education and civic actions continue to arouse interest and gain support from the People, many more of whom are beginning to understand the true meaning of the Petition Clause and its power to hold Government accountable to the letter and spirit of each provision of the Constitution.

    Just as discontent breeds change, change breeds discontent. The Government is not happy with our activities and is doing what it can to chill the enthusiasm of people to associate with us. The Government has a vested interest in the status quo. Our Government does not want to be held accountable. No government does.
    The battle for Liberty continues – as it must.

    Faced with a shrinking window of opportunity within which to defeat the despots who threaten our Liberty, this Foundation — your Foundation — is more in need of your support and commitment than ever.
    2007
    Within months, in all probability just before the Easter break, the hot topic of the day in every single law school in America will be the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in our case entitled, We The People v. The U.S. Government.
    Given the enormous and far-reaching implications of this decision, either in favor of the People or against them, law school professors everywhere will be anxious to analyze and “mine” the decision,

    2007
    We also showed that the President of the United States was adhering to this enemy of the United States by giving aid and comfort to Mexico and its invaders and that Congress was acquiescing: This is treason.
    2008
    Taking advantage of one final procedural step to ask the U.S. Supreme
    Court to hear the landmark Right to Petition case, on February 1st
    Bob Schulz filed a Petition for Rehearing.
    “According to its own precedent, this Court would be abdicating its duty and committing treason to the Constitution if it fails to [accept jurisdiction
    and hear this case]” wrote Schulz. “Tyranny marks a government that
    ignores its free People.”

    April 2008
    The proof is in. The federal courts have been found to be co-conspirators with the Executive Branch in a collusive scheme to avoid being held accountable to the Constitution by the People.

    Then in October of 2008, they join the Birthers- what a surprise?

    “Obama: Show Evidence of
    U.S. Citizenship or Withdraw”

    But I bet their conference is going to be a hoot.

  128. avatar
    wendy November 16, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    just one more group, who falsely believes that their “rights” have been violated, and by gosh/by golly… that gives them reason to defy legal authority.
    Never mind that they don’t have a clue as to what real laws are, except what they distort in their own minds.

  129. avatar
    Rickey November 16, 2009 at 7:33 pm #

    Orly is such a sad case.

    Rebecca Ausprung, the Army lawyer, did indeed donate $250 to the Obama campaign last year and $400 to the Democractic Party of Virginia after the 2008 election.

    http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=VA&last=Ausprung&first=Rebecca

    Of course, Major Ausprung doesn’t represent Obama in the Rhodes case. She represents the two Army officers who are defendants in the case. And, as she argued to Judge Land, the case is about Connie Rhodes, not about Obama.

    I have no idea where Orly thinks she is going with this.

  130. avatar
    aarrgghh November 16, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    passionate? oh yes.

    about the constitution? um, which one?

  131. avatar
    ImaForener November 16, 2009 at 11:15 pm #

    Lucas Smith has been feeling left out of the crazy-stakes, so he has posted another of his earth-shattering pronouncements –

    “Hello everyone. For some time now I’ve been looking for a new “in” to get my foot in the door of a courtroom to expose Obama for the native Kenyan that he is. I found an attorney that is willing to work with me, and on my terms. The attorney is originally from Iowa, as I am.  We will not be filing Quo Warranto. We will not be filing anything similar to the civil / criminal actions that have been brought against Obama to date. Respectfully, Lucas Smith.”

    And Lucas now advertises that he has degrees in “Sociology, Social Sciences and Afro Caribbean studies”. Apparently a key piece of establishing your birther street-cred is to match the bizareness of your claims with an equally long list of degrees. If only Lucas had managed to get a degree in Afro-Caribbean-dental-realty, he’d have really been cookin’ with gas.

  132. avatar
    Rickey November 16, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

    The primary person behind “CC2009” is Bob Schulz, a tax protestor who has gotten into hot water for encouraging people to refuse to pay their Federal income tax. He has filed dozens of lawsuits against various branches of the government, and it appears that all of them have been unsuccessful.

    http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/robert-schulz

  133. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 17, 2009 at 7:36 am #

    It still surprises me that there’s enough money in this to make it worth his while.

  134. avatar
    Scientist November 17, 2009 at 8:48 am #

    Any birther entertaining fantasies that the court is going to overturn Wong Kim Ark and re-open the issue of who is a birth citizen is smoking something much too strong. You need look no further than the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision of 2004. Yaser Hamdi was born in Louisiana to 2 non-immigrant Saudi parents (I believe his father was a student at LSU). Shortly after, they returned to Saudi Arabia and young Hamdi never saw the US again. While the Supreme Court had a vigorous debate over what rights should be accorded a US citizen who was an enemy combatant, there was NO dispute from any justice nor from any of the attorneys that Hamdi was a US citizen.

    Now if the Court in 2004 was completely satisfied that the child of 2 Saudis born in Louisiana who lived only briefly in the US is a natural born citizen, they are certainly not going to waste any time over whether the child of a US citizen born in Hawaii and who lived 45 ot so years in the US is one.

    The birthers have 0 chance of winning with this argument. ZERO!!!

  135. avatar
    Black Lion November 17, 2009 at 10:28 am #

    A bit off topic but germane is an article in the Washington Times (a wingnut newspaper) regarding the President…The editorial said the following…

    “So far it’s a memorable trip. He established a new precedent for how American presidents should pay obeisance to kings, emperors, monarchs, sovereigns and assorted other authentic man-made masters of the universe. He stopped just this side of the full grovel to the emperor of Japan, risking a painful genuflection if his forehead had hit the floor with a nasty bump, which it almost did. No president before him so abused custom, traditions, protocol (and the country he represents). Several Internet sites published a rogue’s gallery showing how other national leaders – the prime ministers of Israel, India, Slovenia, South Korea, Russia and Dick Cheney among them – have greeted Emperor Akihito with a friendly handshake and an ever-so-slight but respectful nod (and sometimes not even that).

    Now we know why Mr. Obama stunned everyone with an earlier similar bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, only the bow to the Japanese emperor was far more flamboyant, a sign of a really deep sense of inferiority. He was only practicing his bow in Riyadh. Sometimes rituals are learned with difficulty. It took Bill Clinton months to learn how to return a military salute worthy of a commander in chief; like any draft dodger, he kept poking a thumb in his eye until he finally got it. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, seems right at home now giving a wow of a bow. This is not the way an American president impresses evildoers that he’s strong, tough and decisive, that America is not to be trifled with.

    […]

    But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy ’60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to “hope” for “change.” It’s no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of “the 57 states” is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.”

    Wow…The subtle racial bigotry in that screed is obvious. Personally attacking his parents, and suggesting that he has fatally flawed genetics because of that and then implying that his grandparents did a poor job of raising him while attacking the character of everyone in Hawaii at the same time? It sounded like that was written by Orly…

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/pruden-obama-bows-the-nation-cringes/?feat=home_headlines

  136. avatar
    kimba November 17, 2009 at 10:55 am #

    The emperor and the emperess were delighted with his bow. If you see the whole sequence of pictures it was a very cordial gesture. Obama is 6’1, the emperor looks to be 5’1. I believe the custom is to bow below the level of the head of the other person, so poor Barack had to bend over that far to bow correctly. As for the criticism, it’s so petty and mean-spirited, who really pays attention, especially when Georgie boy kissed the Saudi prince on the lips. All you have to do is whip that one on them and they shut up.

  137. avatar
    Scientist November 17, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    George H W Bush bowed as well. He also vomited on the Japanese Prime Minister, something that Obama managed to avoid.

    From the NY Times

    Presidential Bows, Revisited
    By DAVID E. SANGER
    The ongoing cable-and-blog dustup over whether President Obama somehow dishonored America’s image by bowing to Emperor Akihito of Japan the other day was reminiscent of another argument over the exact same issue – 20 years ago.

    It was a different president, of course: George H.W. Bush, who came to the issue with some pretty solid credentials: As a young man who was shot out of the sky by the Japanese. And it was a different moment: The funeral of Emperor Hirohito, Japan’s wartime leader, and father of the current Japanese emperor.

    Mr. Bush was even newer to the presidency at that moment than Mr. Obama is today. Barely a month in office, he traveled to Tokyo for Hirohito’s funeral, declaring it was the right way to honor a former enemy turned ally. It was the first imperial funeral in many decades, a huge state event. And naturally it poured rain on the guests; ladies in their finest kimonos and Sumo wrestlers alike sank into the mud.

    Then came the moment: When Mr. Bush approached the Emperor’s casket, he bowed deeply.

    Those of us who had lived in Japan thought nothing of it. That is how respect is shown in Japan. But the pre-cable pundits were screaming, and soon one of our colleagues, the late Gerald Boyd, asked Mr. Bush about it at a news conference.

    Mr. Bush danced around an answer for a moment, mentioning members of his squadron who never came home, and Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s decision to keep the emperor system, as a way of unifying the Japanese people. Then he said this:

    I’m representing the United States of America. And we’re talking about a friend, and we’re talking about an ally. We’re talking about a nation with whom we have constructive relationships. Sure, we got some problems, but that was all overriding — and respect for the Emperor. And remember back in World War II, if you’d have predicted that I would be here, because of the hard feeling and the symbolic nature of the problem back then of the former Emperor’s standing, I would have said, “No way.” But here we are, and time moves on; and there is a very good lesson for civilized countries in all of this.

    So did President Obama violate protocol? Well, yes, but not by bowing. He made the mistake of both shaking hands and bowing at the same time, a big breach of etiquette. The truth was that he was supposed to choose one or the other.

  138. avatar
    misha November 17, 2009 at 11:03 am #

    “Georgie boy kissed the Saudi prince on the lips”

    I thought about the homo-erotic aspect of that. Is George supressed? Inquiring minds want to know.

  139. avatar
    misha November 17, 2009 at 11:15 am #

    “He also vomited on the Japanese Prime Minister, something that Obama managed to avoid.”

    Throwing up on someone is a time honored conservative expression of affection.

  140. avatar
    Black Lion November 17, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    I guess he got the Afro-Caribbean studies degree while running through the streets of the Dominican Republic pretending that it was Kenya….As far as the others go I am sure he got them from Orly’s college while he was in jail…

  141. avatar
    Lupin November 17, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    Didn’t GWE Bush kiss the Saudi King on the lips? And hold his hands?

    That rumbling sound you npw hear is the collective EWWWW…

    Ah, also, Ike bowed to DeGaulle, although I have no idea why.

  142. avatar
    Rickey November 17, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    Also, I understand that Nixon bowed to the Emperor, and Eisenhower once bowed to Charles De Gaulle. Such hypocrisy.

  143. avatar
    SFJeff November 17, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    “This is not the way an American president impresses evildoers that he’s strong, tough and decisive, that America is not to be trifled with.”

    Yeah- evildoers pretty much base all of their decision on how President’s bow. I imagine after seeing that bow, Al Qaeda knows they can get away with anything.

    What garbage.

  144. avatar
    Scientist November 17, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    There is absolutely no doubt that the birthers are wrong on the law. Not just mistaken but gloriously and spectacularly wrong from beginning to end. More importantly, they are morally and philosophically wrong, and spectacularly so. That someone of Barack Obama’s background can become President is not a sign of America’s weakness but a sign of its strength.

    The birthers would throw up walls and fences, as though America were East Germany or North Korea. Well, birthers, tear down those walls! You can dress up for tea parties in pantaloons and live in your little world of 18th century Swiss writers if you want, but that is a formula for dismal failure in today’s world.

    That your legal arguments are a dismal failure is obvious. They have gone and will go nowhere in court. But your entire mindset is an even more dismal and pathological failure. I have nothing but pity for you

  145. avatar
    Greg November 17, 2009 at 4:04 pm #

    First, the racism in that Washington Times article is not subtle.

    Second, Google Scholar now lets you search legal cases and journal articles. A search of “natural born citizen” allows us to get, for example, all the federal cases that have used the term, not just the Supreme Court cases.

    Here is one, Mah Ying Og v. Clark that demonstrates at a lower-court level the same congruity between Native/Natural Born. The immigration act allowed a person who was denied entry to sue in court to prove they were a national of the US. Mah Ying did so:

    This controversy arose by reason of the fact that the plaintiff sought to reenter the United States from abroad but was excluded by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as an alien. He claims that he was born in the United States and, therefore, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

  146. avatar
    elmo November 18, 2009 at 9:21 pm #

    Wonder if Orly has met this Schulz. He sounds like her kind of guy, and she’s just broken up with Lincoln…

  147. avatar
    elmo November 18, 2009 at 9:32 pm #

    Everything in that screed has already been amply debunked.

  148. avatar
    red red rose December 9, 2009 at 3:06 pm #

    Mah Ying Og v. Clark
    “This is an action for a declaratory judgment to adjudicate that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States by birth.”

    The motion was DENIED.

    Mah Ying Og claimed in court that he was a natural born citizen. The court did not affirm that. I can claim in court that I am Lithuanian royalty. Just because I claim it in court doesn’t make it true.

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 9, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    I assuming you are referring to all the claims made by Apuzzo and Taitz that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

  150. avatar
    Greg December 9, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    Which Mah Ying are you talking about? The District Court decision that Mah Ying couldn’t challenge the agency’s determination that he was not a citizen was overturned by the DC Appeals court in 1950. (187 F.2d 199)

  151. avatar
    Linda January 21, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    This piece is a joke from the 1st letter written. Not only has Dr Conspiracy completely taken out of context the words of those who spoke them. Dr Conspiracy replaces words to fit the article & the cause of usurping the constitution. If you want the real quotes uneditted, you can go search the comments at TRSOL.

    Dr Consiracy is a fraud and a LIAR!

  152. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2010 at 1:57 am #

    Poor Linda, accusations but no evidence to support such. I am adding links to the full context on my site and have found Dr C’s quotes to be extremely accurate.

    Loser…

  153. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2010 at 3:18 am #

    If you want to see them in context I have started to provide direct links here

  154. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 21, 2010 at 3:20 am #

    Nice to see that you proved 1) you didn’t read the article in question as each quote is footnoted correctly and are not taken of out context.
    2) and that you are a liar.

  155. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2010 at 3:22 am #

    I proclaim with great confidence that Linda will be unable to support her claims about Dr C.
    That she attempts a truly ad hominem attack underlines the powerful nature of the work performed by true patriots like Dr C.

    Linda, consider your “Mission Failed”

  156. avatar
    Ballantine January 21, 2010 at 7:39 am #

    My, my. I know it must be upsetting for birthers to see so much authority contrary to their fringe theory. I guess all you can do is claim it is out of context. The meaning of a clear, unambiguous statement is not changed by the context. The simple fact is you can citd no early authority at all defining natural born citizen in accordance with your theory. No court has every endorsed such theory and there isn’t any evidence the framers adopted it. It isn’t in any legal dictionary or constitutional treatise and was specifically rejected by the supreme courtin Wong Kim Ark.

  157. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2010 at 11:05 pm #

    Linda: Not only has Dr Conspiracy completely taken out of context the words of those who spoke them. [sic]

    It would seem to me that if you had actually read the article, you would know that I didn’t write it.