Main Menu

“Birther” bill in Arizona

According to the East Valley Tribune, a new bill being introduced by Rep. Judy Burges in the Arizona legislature stems from the Obama “birther” controversy. The bill, according to the Tribune, would require candidates to provide certifiable evidence of their US Citizenship and place of birth to be on the ballot for president.

“With what’s happening throughout the world, we need to make sure that our candidates are certifiable,” Burges said.

I personally think that it would be a good thing, given all the rumors and doubts about the two leading candidates in the last election, that some of the states do take on the responsibility of verifying candidates’ credentials. I was troubled, however, by the article’s comment:

The kind of certification Burges wants, though, could be more difficult than simply checking for a valid birth certificate, as the arguments about his legal qualification go beyond whether he was actually born in Hawaii.

I cannot see each state independently defining “natural born citizen” for a federal office.

170 Responses to “Birther” bill in Arizona

  1. avatar
    rolomonkey January 18, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    Good to see the Legislature getting down to business and working on the important issues.

  2. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    “we need to make sure that our candidates are certifiable,” Burges said.”

    Finding candidates who are “certifiable” should be no problem. Alan Keyes for one.

  3. avatar
    JoZeppy January 18, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    The states have no power to attempt to define United States citizenship, and even their power to define a citizen of their own state is very limited. Any attempt of a state to create a definition of “natural born citizen” inconsistent with federal would get tossed so fast the state legislators would look like utter idiots for even trying…but then again, birthers aren’t worried about looking stupid.

  4. avatar
    sponson January 18, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    If Arizona or another state overreached in this manner, attempting to assert their own right to judge who is a “natural born citizen,” it might provide a prime opportunity for another modern-day clarification specifically from the US Supreme Court on the definition of the term. I certainly don’t think one is necessary but I also don’t think Arizona would be pleased with the outcome under any circumstances.

  5. avatar
    kimba January 18, 2010 at 6:07 pm #

    I would say Berg’s, Donofrio’s and Kerchner’s cases each presented a prime opportunity for the Supreme Court to have provided a “modern day” clarification of natural born citizen. They turned down all those opportunities. If Arizona passes a bill with its own definition of natural born citizen, it would be struck down as unconstitutional because states can’t make laws about federal offices. Its being about natural born citizen probably wouldn’t come into play. Birthers still have fantasies about the Obamas being frog-marched out of the White House after a Big decision by the US Supreme Court. I’ve said it before, I think birthers all suffer from a mass delusional illness – a folie a plusieur.

  6. avatar
    John January 18, 2010 at 6:35 pm #

    Burgess might not actually be suggesting that “Natural Born” citizen should defined or changed. But certainly as in Obama’s case, Obama’s qualifications to serve as POTUS do go much further that validating his Hawaiin Birth. As Phil Berg has argued, there is an entirely separate argument and investigation about Obama Indonesian citizenship problem and what affect that would have Obama’s qualification to be a truly a “Natural Born” citizen and thus eligible to serve as POTUS.

  7. avatar
    John January 18, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    From the Article:
    “A lawsuit filed in federal court in Pennsylvania charged, among other theories, that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian man and moved there, and that he failed to reclaim it as an adult. But Judge Barclay Surrick threw out the case without ruling on the legal theory, saying the plaintiff did not have standing to sue.
    The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected the case.”

    This issue remains unresolved.

  8. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

    This issue remains unresolved.

    Because there is no evidence to support the case…

  9. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 18, 2010 at 7:03 pm #

    I agree with you that the Court would strike down the law, but the Berg, Donofrio, and Kerchner cases did NOT provide the Supreme Court opportunity to do anything, as there was no jurisdiction due to the procedural stance of any of the cases.

    The US Supreme Court would not be able to simply reach out and strike down an Arizona law for similar reasons. A case would have to come up in which there was proper jurisdiction. The most likely setting would be if a candidate was precluded from being on the ballot because of the law — that candidate would have standing on which a lawsuit could properly be based.

    You can follow the bill and read the actual text here:
    http://www.statesurge.com/bills/sb1158-arizona-700929

    The specific “birther” language in the bill is as follows:

    A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SHALL SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE STATES THE CANDIDATE’S CITIZENSHIP AND AGE AND SHALL APPEND TO THE AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, PROVE THE CANDIDATE’S AGE AND PROVE THAT THE CANDIDATE MEETS THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

    The bill as currently written does not define “natural born citizen” so assuming it passes in its present form, unless and until there was a challenge there probably wouldn’t be a Constitutional issue presented. The only possible Constitutional issue I see to the law itself would be one of vagueness — its hard from the wording to know what sort of documents would constitute “proof”. The birth part is easy — Obama’s Hawaii COLB would clearly satisfy that part — its the residency requirement that would be trickier. (How do you “prove” where you have lived for the past 14 years? Is an affidavit sufficient? Do you need to attach utility bills, your drivers licence, voters registration records?)

  10. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2010 at 7:04 pm #

    As Phil Berg has argued, there is an entirely separate argument and investigation about Obama Indonesian citizenship problem and what affect that would have Obama’s qualification to be a truly a “Natural Born” citizen and thus eligible to serve as POTUS.

    There is no evidence of an Indonesian citizenship. Furthermore, SCOTUS has been clear that children cannot renounce their natural born birth right citizenship.

    Mission Failed.

  11. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    I agree residency is tricky. I have heard some scholars argue that the 14 years have to be the 14 consecutive years preceding taking office. If that is the case, then Hoover and Eisenhower were ineligible due to their residency overseas doing war relief and fighting WW II. Is the US national identity so weak and threatened that it can’t stand having a President who has experience with the rest of the world? The more I see the tangled web here, the more strongly I come to favor the simplest solution of all-open the Presidency to ALL citizens and let the voters decide. Can somebody please tell me what is so wrong with that?

  12. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 18, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    I’d add that the irony of this bill is that John McCain would probably have a much tougher time meeting the requirements, given his Panamanian birth. Leave it to an Arizona Republican to write a bill that could have prevented their own Senator from qualifying for the ballot.

  13. avatar
    Rickey January 18, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    The law would have a better chance of withstanding judicial review if it simply declared what documents are required, rather than calling for documents which prove this or prove that.

    I personally wouldn’t have a problem with a state demanding that a candidate submit a certified copy of his or her birth certificate.

  14. avatar
    dunstvangeet January 18, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    Perkins v, Elg pretty well settles the theory.

  15. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    But that’s “old law”…

  16. avatar
    JoZeppy January 18, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    No, the issue was resolved long ago. Just because Berg failed to do the basic reseach on the issue, and argued an unsupportable claim that was dismissed on standing, doesn’t mean there is any doubt about what the law says on the issue.

    The law is quite clear. Nothing Obama nor his parents did could have had any impact on his status as a natural born citizen of the United States.

  17. avatar
    dunstvangeet January 18, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    In most residency requirements, overseas in duty of the U.S. Government usually counts. Plus, it’s where their official residency is…

  18. avatar
    Dave January 18, 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    The sponsor of this bill is not just pandering but basically swindling the birthers. As noted above, it requires candidates to provide proof that they meet the constitutional requirements; it also specifies that the Sec. of State rules on whether the requirements have been met. I feel certain that if the Sec. of State attempted to block a candidate with some crazy theory of why they are ineligible, the candidate would take it straight into federal court, where the burden of proof would be on the Sec. of State. This is not the birther’s dream, it’s the birther’s nightmare.

  19. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 18, 2010 at 11:53 pm #

    However, as seen with Hawaii’s COLB, since that is an accepted form valid to prove residency and all legal requirements, how can Arizona define how each state handles the issuance of their COLBs/BC’s?

    If MN or NJ issues long form BC’s, why should Hawaii’s or NY’s be thrown out as invalid because they only issue short form versions?

  20. avatar
    misha January 19, 2010 at 5:31 am #

    I am re-posting this from another thread:

    I’m a good example. I was born in NYC. In Israel, I was asked to serve in the IDF. So I went to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, and talked with a legal affairs officer. I asked, if I served in a foreign army would I lose my US citizenship, because there is that proviso.

    He told me “no.” I was told in order to lose my US citizenship, I would have to renounce it in writing. Which of course I would never do. So here is someone who served in a foreign army, and came back to the States on his US passport.

    Sorry birthers.

  21. avatar
    Scientist January 19, 2010 at 6:22 am #

    misha-John Walker Lindh not only fought in a foreign army, he fought against US forces. Not only did he retain his citizenship, but the US government agreed to feed and shelter him for the next 20 or 30 years.

  22. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 19, 2010 at 9:09 am #

    Beat me to it.

  23. avatar
    Rickey January 19, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    Hawaiiborn says:

    However, as seen with Hawaii’s COLB, since that is an accepted form valid to prove residency and all legal requirements, how can Arizona define how each state handles the issuance of their COLBs/BC’s?

    I don’t believe that they would be able to. They would have accept whatever form of birth certificate each state has decided upon.

  24. avatar
    misha January 20, 2010 at 12:11 pm #

    OT @Lupin: This is why Japan and China will leave us behind: “Science Teacher With Bible Divides Ohio Town”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20teacher.html

    I brought this up, because this is the same crowd that gave rise to denialists.

  25. avatar
    HellT January 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm #

    Hey, now there’s a birther basketball league:

    The All-American Basketball Alliance announced in a news release Sunday
    evening that it intends to start its inaugural season in June and hopes
    Augusta will be one of 12 cities with a team.

    “Only players that are natural born United States citizens with both parents
    of Caucasian race are eligible to play in the league,” the statement said.

    http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2010/01/19/nba_563760.shtml

  26. avatar
    Black Lion January 20, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    Anyone ever heard of the “undead revolution”? It seems like they are a bunch of Vattel kool aid drinkers over there…Even though the posting is months old the birthers think it is some sort of manifesto on NBC…

    http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

    There were three types of citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution:

    1. Those who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the Declaration of Independence. On that day, July 4, 1776, millions of former British subjects became citizens of a sovereign America.

    2. The children, their heirs, born of those pledged citizens, were the first natural-born citizens of the new nation.

    3. A person naturalized into citizenship through an act of law requiring an oath and and renunciation to any former allegiance.

  27. avatar
    Greg January 20, 2010 at 4:30 pm #

    Hmm. They never did get around to publishing anything else, did they? Not a very impressive “revolution.”

  28. avatar
    Greg January 20, 2010 at 4:33 pm #

    I guess they won’t focus on jumping?

    Anyway, this guy sounds like a real genius:

    “There’s nothing hatred about what we’re doing,” he said.

    and

    “People will come out and support a product they can identify with. I’m the spoken minority right now, but if people will give us a chance, it’ll work…”

    Spoken minority?

  29. avatar
    misha January 20, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    @ksdb: Do you think Kermit The Frog’s father was an enchanted prince? How is he able to talk like a human? Help me out here.

  30. avatar
    misha January 20, 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    Here’s a group of white guys in perfect formation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI

  31. avatar
    brygenon January 20, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    Dave: I feel certain that if the Sec. of State attempted to block a candidate with some crazy theory of why they are ineligible, the candidate would take it straight into federal court, where the burden of proof would be on the Sec. of State. This is not the birther’s dream, it’s the birther’s nightmare

    But there’s no reason to think a Secretary of State shares the birther’s delusions. If the bill becomes law, which is unlikely, candidates would simply submit the docs and the SoS would put them on the ballot.

    The challenges would come from the eligibility deniers, and when I say “challenges” I mean tantrums. The poor AZ SoS would be flooded with calls, faxes and e-mails demanding to know how he verified eligibility, lecturing him with made-up facts and laws, and accusing him of corruption/cowardice/treason.

    For the birthers, ‘twould be neither dream nor nightmare. Just more of the same.

  32. avatar
    BlackLion January 20, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    Agreed…But the birthers over at tROSL think that these guys are some sort of legal savants…

  33. avatar
    kimba January 20, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    What tRSOL’ers are about is trying to make and enforce a law that keeps anyone who isn’t their kind of white from ever being in any position of power let alone President. It’s almost dead blog walking over there anyway.

  34. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 20, 2010 at 9:06 pm #

    Dear Greg,

    As to the possibility that a State will establish a check-off list of requirements for POTUS and VPOTUS candidates trying to register:

    When initial “surprise” and “outrage” was voiced by birthers that not a single legal authority was demanding proof of Article 2 eligibility by one of the birther formulas, I posited that it was no accident of irresponsibility. The authorities in every state understood that to construct a checklist of circumstantial qualifications for eligibility, one would need to make sure such questions were testing for compliance with a legal definition of “Natural Born Citizen” before using such a list to exclude a candidate. Their being no such explicit definition, and with NBC’s persistent “either/and/or” jus soli/jus sanguinis ambiguity never resolved with a bright light by SCOTUS in so many words, what better solution than to honor each candidates’ interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen” by simply asking them to attest that they were in compliance with the term of Art, and have them respond in accordance with how they personally resolved any residual ambiguity in the term of arts contemplation.

    My analysis explains the otherwise strange lack of any eligibility check list, and argues against the birther exclusive definitions which they claim, have always been the operative one, reaffirming that every four years historically, 48 to 50 controlling legal authorities have testified to the absence of any official exclusive legal definition of “Natural Born Citizen”.

    Do you agree with my observation?

    Thanks again for your tireless accounting of so much relevant information and so many legal insights.

    Benji Franklin

  35. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 20, 2010 at 9:16 pm #

    Dear Doc,

    ZING! Chalk up another one today: In the Chicago Daily Herald:

    A Fox River Grove-based blogger questioning the citizenship of President Barack Obama lost her bid Wednesday to have a special grand jury empaneled to investigate her claims.

    McHenry County Judge Sharon Prather rejected the petition for a grand jury filed by Sharon Ann Meroni, founder of Patriot’s Heart Media Network, saying there is no lawful justification for it.

    “There is no legal basis for you to do what you’re asking to do,” Prather told Meroni in court. “The law does not allow it. There are no facts pled in your petition which would require what you’re seeking.”

    Meroni, who initially filed the request in December alleging widespread voter fraud in Illinois, said she was disappointed in the decision and intends to appeal.

    “The issue is how did we elect a president without anybody verifying he is constitutionally eligible to serve?” she asked.

    Meroni, a Barrington Hills resident who goes by the alias Chalice Jackson online, said her allegations go beyond Obama to a system that, she believes, does nothing to verify citizenship of candidates and elected officials.”

    Another close call!
    Benji Franklin

  36. avatar
    G January 20, 2010 at 10:42 pm #

    Yes, that has been a very disturbing story and as a citizen of the state of OH, a shameful embarrassment as well.

  37. avatar
    G January 20, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Wow…

    This racist fella really thinks he’s not being racist with his league idea and honestly believes he’s going to get 12 cities to support fielding teams for them?

    That is truly delusional. And sad.

  38. avatar
    Linda January 21, 2010 at 2:16 am #

    Dr Conspiracy is a fraud & a liar. I just went back to his site and spent a considerable amount of time researching his references for myself, since they are regurgitated here ad nauseum.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/11/the-great-mother-of-all-native-born-citizenship-pages/

    Now I know why he doesn’t link directly to the specific quotes. He would be COMPLETELY EXPOSED!

    They are ALL completely taken out of context and in some cases, he even changes the words or he word mines and makes a quote look like it is in its entirety, when in fact he has omitted much of the original quote to fashion one that better fits his conspiracy which is obviously to help the Statist destroy this country from within.

    This is disgusting & BL & bry, I see you comment there and I will not waste any more of my time debating such despicable acts against our Constitution, Nation & its patriot citizen, but especially acts that bring greater harm to the brave men & women who serve to save your a** from getting blown up by those that wish to destroy us.

    Either come to the table with me, in the same faith and credibity that I hold myself to, with your own findings in their entirety with links to the direct archive or go find another for your sick games. HOWEVER, if your intentions are to learn the true history of our country and help to preserve & protect it, then I welcome your response.

  39. avatar
    Linda January 21, 2010 at 2:23 am #

    Look for the thread at freepers very soon

    “So-CAlled Dr of All Obama Conspiracy Theory Busters EXPOSED as a FRAUD!”

  40. avatar
    misha January 21, 2010 at 3:09 am #

    @Linda: Do you think Kermit The Frog and Miss Piggy are an item? Do you think they sleep together?

    Also, my cat licks his bottom. Do you think the bacteria can make him sick? My cat tells me he loves me. Do you think his act of love is a fraud, only to get me to feed him?

    Help me out here.

  41. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 21, 2010 at 3:12 am #

    wow, talk about delusional. Linda, put down the crack pipe will ya.

  42. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2010 at 3:15 am #

    Poor Linda, when lacking arguments she resorts to accusations.

    What a fraud.. And she calls herself a ‘patriot’?

  43. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 21, 2010 at 3:15 am #

    To add: most of what that article quotes are court cases that are not “available” to be linked to. This is where birfoons, like yourself need to go to a building called a LIBRARY and hit the LAW BOOKs that cover these cases.

    Example of a quote from that page you are crticizing:

    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).

    See that? its says “pg 195-196” That means it CAME from a book, print publication, journal or magazine. Some things that you seriously have no idea what they are.

  44. avatar
    aarrgghh January 21, 2010 at 3:23 am #

    linda, in a spray of drive-by sanctimony:

    I will not waste any more of my time debating such despicable acts against our Constitution, Nation & its patriot citizen, but especially acts that bring greater harm to the brave men & women who serve to save your a** from getting blown up by those that wish to destroy us.

    the onion called. they want their punchline back.

  45. avatar
    NBC January 21, 2010 at 3:42 am #

    Read the Elliot Reference here

  46. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2010 at 6:47 am #

    Benji: I can’t imagine any Secretary of State doing more than asking for a birth certificate. By that term I mean whatever form of document the candidate’s home jurisdiction uses. They are Constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to the acts of other states. The only situation that might cause them an issue would be a foreign-born child of US citizens, which, I believe, is why Congress decided to provide guidance in McCain’s case.

    Something that the birthers ignore is that the electoral system, like the legal system, is ADVERSARIAL. The primary mechanism for enforcing eligibility is the complaints of rival candidates. They have standing in courts and in the court of public opinion. Obama had several well-financed Democratic challengers and none raised eligibility issues, nor did any of his general election opponents. The most obvious reason is that they did not consider him ineligible. If they had, you can bet they would have challenged in a heartbeat. Even Alan Keyes, for reasons I don’t understand, waited until the inauguration to file his “challenge”.

    To use a sports analogy, don’t expect the referees to reconsider a call if the opposing coach doesn’t argue it. And if you’re a coach, don’t write a book 5 years later criticizing a call that you failed to argue at the time.

  47. avatar
    misha January 21, 2010 at 7:41 am #

    Linda: your medicine is wearing off. Get help.

  48. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 8:27 am #

    Linda is a bit upset that Bry, Sue, Loren, Earl, myself has debunked her ridiculous theories regarding natural born citizen and Wong Kim Ark over at tROSL. Over the past couple of months she would post her “so called research” and her opinions and feel that she knew more that legal scholars and judical experts.

    She also claimed to have top secret information that proved Obama and Odinga conspired regarding the Kenyan elections and that Obama donated money to Odinga. When called on is she of course could not produce it.

    Also when asked by numerous commenters to name one constitutional expert that agreed with her innane Vattel/Leo theory, she could never name one. Or when asked to show one case after the Wong ruling that defined a NBC as having 2 citizen parents, she first tried to use Perkins v. Elg, then had nothing else when it was shown that the ruling designated Elg a citizen of the US.

    So in summary Linda is one of those extreme birther so called patriots. I am surprised to see her here because she seemed to like moderated birther sites. However I doubt she will be coming back. She does not like to be shown that she is wrong….

    For example here is her post that set things off…She admitted that Wong was decided correctly and then when I pointed that out to her she tried to change her story….She was not happy and I guess decided to make the good Dr. C her strawman….

    Linda says:
    January 20, 2010 at 5:30 pm
    Oh my, I guess since I took the major part of yesterday off from commenting in order that I may further continue my education into the history of our founding, it seems some took it as an absolute rejection of them on my part.

    How lonely it must be to be so dependent on another for ones knowledge, especially since the knowledgeable one is busy gaining further knowledge.

    If one wants to understand common law, one must study its origins and I have just finished another most fascinating,

    “Lectures on American Law: of the common law, of nature & philosophy of evidence, of the constitution of the United States and of Pennsylvania, (the breakdown of the separate depts. of government)and most importantly, of citizens & aliens (which directed me back to the previous one I had read for in which I gathered additional evidence)”.

    I am also sure my new found knowledge will also be the butt of many of your future facetious remarks. Remarks that have nothing to offer but strip-mined quotes taken out of context. But if they happen to fall on even one set of unbiased ears, then my work is fruitful and ripe for seeding.

    And as far as that WKA natural born subject = natural born citizen, I do admit now after reading this latest lecture that, under what was commonly known as common law’ at the time of the revolution, your argument could be held as true. But you have yet to put in the proper context as it relates to the common law adopted by the United States and it will be in my next series that this will be addressed.

    As far as going out of my way to upload to my computer and then upload to the internet what I have, is NOT going to happen. Though it may pleasure me, it serves no purpose in this debate.

    In the meantime, may I suggest some instructive reading so that you may learn exactly what common law’ means.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=lIs0AAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    Linda says:
    January 20, 2010 at 7:31 pm
    BL: Linda, OK you now admit that WKA did define “natural born citizen”? If you are then are you saying that you were wrong before? And are you saying that your research has shown you that there is common law adopted by the US that is not the same as English Common law? I am just trying to see your point. I am interested to see American common law and how it came about. And if it is separate than English common law. I am looking forward to your comments regarding this issue.

    No, Grey did not declare WKA to be a natural born citizen and why was that? Why did he stop short of that? Why did he suddenly declare that the US adopted the notion that the law accepted a dual form of citizneship?

    As to what the original definition of natural born subject’ was, under the original meaning “common law” at the original founding of England, is where the answer lies. This is covered indepth in this lecture on common law. I had only studied Vol I thus far and had only skmmed Vol II. Now I wish I had done it in reverse.

    I clearly see now how the 2 terms have been misconstrued to mean the exact same and I am excited in this new found knowledge and to be able to bring it to light.

    Keep in mind 2 words when reading it, despotism & feudalism. They are at the core of the Statist interpretation of the meaning of the 2 and as the author states, there is nothing more repugnant to a Republik form of government than despotism.

  49. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 8:32 am #

    Linda also posted her response and issue with Dr. C over at tROSL…Interesting because the doctor was not the issue. It was the fact that Linda admitted that Wong ruling did declare him a NBC. That probably made the birthers a tad bit upset so she attempts to change the subject….

    Linda says:
    January 20, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    FYI to self: write comments in MSWord, spell check then copy & paste. DUH! Phil, feel free to delete my previous post that is all run together.

    I clearly see now how the 2 terms have been misconstrued to mean the exact same and I am excited in this new found knowledge and to be able to bring it to light.

    Let me rephrase that.

    I clearly see now HOW the term natural born citizen’ is being misconstrued by the Statist to mean the same thing as a natural born subject’ at the time of the revolution.

    But it was not the common law of England at the time of the revolution that the framers looked to. It was the original common law’ of England, which was the original common law of nations, not the laws as they were under the feudal British government. It was the law of their ancestors that they looked to in forming our government & defining its citizens. They were looking to get back to the common law’ in its purest & happiest form.

    Hence the Declaration of Independence. Its words taken right out of the purest form of common law’ which is the law of nature & the law of nations coming together to form a new society.

    But she got called out by commenter Bystander over there and never responds…

    bystander says:
    January 21, 2010 at 5:59 am
    Linda – you were exposed as a liar just a few comments ago. Are you disgusting – and if not, why not?

    bystander says:
    January 21, 2010 at 6:46 am
    Linda said:

    Either come to the table with me, in the same faith and credibity that I hold myself to, with your own findings in their entirety with links to the direct archive or go find another for your sick games. HOWEVER, if your intentions are to learn the true history of our country and help to preserve & protect it, then I welcome your response.

    Looks like Linda is looking for a way out of the corner she has backed herself into.

    I just wanted to catch everyone up with Linda and her intentions…

  50. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 8:33 am #

    aarrgghh, as usual great response…

  51. avatar
    Greg January 21, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    Is this Berg’s Linda L, or a different Linda?

  52. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 8:39 am #

    Greg, I don’t think she is Berg’s Linda. But I am not sure. I think she is a freeper from somewhere in South Dakota or something…She never gave any info so it could be….Either way she claims to be some sort of legal expert and researcher on the early founders and Constitutional intent….

  53. avatar
    kimba January 21, 2010 at 8:41 am #

    This from the same Linda who when asked to cite her sources explains ” Oh, believe me, I downloaded it from the Kenya Ministry site before it was pulled, but I just don’t have time to find the CD I copied it to today.”
    and
    “I have a picture of an Obama COLB that CLEARLY DOES NOT have a seal.” And when asked to post it, replies
    ” I just can’t find it right now, it’s in my archives. But I know I have it so there”

    Linda is a dissembling nutjob.

  54. avatar
    misha January 21, 2010 at 8:47 am #

    Yeah, his is the best response. Gee, I thought I was being the best at snark. Oh, well.

  55. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 8:55 am #

    Kimba, you saw how many people called her on her nonsense…And she would claim that she could not upload the document and then she didn’t want to upload it because it was top secret and along with the so called evidence she received from the Kenyan government she was submitting it to her state’s AG.

  56. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 8:57 am #

    Also look what the AZ bill spawned…This nonsense from some NY birther, freeper, so called patriot….

    The Accountability Bill

    A Bill To Be Entitled

    New York State Presidential Candidate Qualification Verification
    Accountability To NYS Citizens Act

    1 Section 1: An individual seeking placement (ISP) on New York State’s election ballot(s) for the

    2 office of President or Vice President of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per

    3 requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

    4 A) Hard-copy proof is to be submitted to the New York State (NYS) Board of Elections

    5 Executive Director(s) office.

    6 B) Determination of age, natural born citizenship and past fourteen years residency is by

    7 information on or within an individual’s official birth certificate, school and work records, social

    8 security information, documentation of international travel history that the ISP knows of to

    9 the best of his/her ability and his/her past seven years of tax records.

    10 (1) Written and signed permission by an ISP must be granted to the NYS Board of Elections

    11 Executive Director(s) office to obtain proof of documents submitted to its office from various

    12 sources listed within the documents.

    13 C) The NYS Board of Elections Executive Director(s) office is to make its determination

    14 within four weeks from the date of an individual’s full submission of documents, confirmation of

    15 such full submission by the ISP and his/her signed statement, granting the office

    16 permission to obtain proof of documents submitted to its office, as per Section 1 B (1).

    17 D) With the exclusion of social security numbers, contained on documents, all pertinent

    18 information obtained and pertinent findings that are obtained from such documents of

    19 an ISP who is approved are to be made available to the public for viewing, in order for

    20 the office’s approval to be enacted and the ISP to be placed on New York State’s ballot(s),

    21 pending the fulfillment(s) of other current and future New York State requirement(s).

    22 (1) An ISP must first view the information and findings of the NYS Board of Elections

    23 Executive Director(s) office that it deems pertinent and approve such findings to be made

    24 public, in order for such to be made available to the public for viewing.

    25 E) Compliance with this act and the burden of proof of eligibility is fully on the ISP.

    26 F) Disputes are to be handled through the New York State courts, with all legalities applicable.

    27 Section 2: This act will be instituted in the State of New York.

    28 Section 3: This act is to be instituted on or before November 1, 2010.

    Written by Debra J.M. Smith – September 17, 2009
    References: The U.S. Constitution

    http://www.debrajmsmith.com/AFFOIsp5.html

  57. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 8:58 am #

    Misha, you are excellent also..Especially with poor Mario…

  58. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 9:02 am #

    And the birther bill in AZ has our buddy “Steve Cee” in a tizzy…I guess he e-mailed Burges and below is her comment…Notice the Vattel and Post and Fail as sources…Which means she is not only pandering to the birthers, she may actually be one…

    slcraig says:
    January 21, 2010 at 8:37 am
    I have been in touch with the office of Judy Burges in regards to the Arizona Bill HB2441. As reported there are a number of co-sponsors and supporters’ involved with its introduction. Here is a snippit of a correspondence indicating that the ‘group’ are taking the big picture’ seriously, and that is encouraging.

    “To: SL Craig

    Thank you so much for your great efforts to assist us in our understanding(s) as again evidenced by the detail of what you wrote below.

    In my prepared statement which will be delivered before the committee(s) of the Az. Legislature, I do cite Vattel and the four Supreme Court cases that both you and the Post & Email (which I have mostly read) have mentioned. However, your summaries of them below are so precise and succinct that understandings become even easier.

    I think the biggest matter you have raised for us is whether or not to go more than “halfway” as you put it and place the actual definition of natural born citizen directly into our proposed legislation HB2441

  59. avatar
    kimba January 21, 2010 at 9:07 am #

    Pretty sure it’s PatriotLinda from the old PlainsRadioNetwork.

  60. avatar
    kimba January 21, 2010 at 9:17 am #

    Whatever she publishes on FR will be the usual warmed-over more-of-the-same Leo-Orly-Berg-Kerchner mish-mash.

  61. avatar
    misha January 21, 2010 at 9:23 am #

    Thank you (take a bow).

  62. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 9:39 am #

    Of course…But she will try and cite some early scholars like Kent and parse his words to make it look like they are supporting her wild accusations and theories…

  63. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    Take a look at this article, An All-White Basketball League? That’s Funny,” at http://www.pamil-visions.net/an-all-white-basetball-league-thats-funny/210801/

    The article takes the metaphor of an imaginary all-white basketball league based in the South and tries to use it to show that the “natural born Citizen” clause is racist. Again using the metaphor, it argues that “sports is about inclusiveness” and that such a league will “tak[e] our nation several steps back…”

    It talks about white people wanting to set up an all-white basketball league. It says that to be a team member, “you must not only be a natural born citizen of the United States, but have a Caucasian mother and father.” The writer considers the concept of such a league to be equivalent to pushing an “elitist mentality onto the nation.”

    In describing the league’s requirement of having to be a “natural born Citizen,” the writer, Kristen, says, “I mean, what does this really sound like, people? Let’s call it what it is.”

    What Kristen does not get is that in order to be a “natural born Citizen,” you must have been born in the U.S. to a mother and father who are also U.S. citizens. I do not see any race or color in those qualifications. Kristen’s article is nothing but a desperate attempt at playing the race card in the Obama eligibility issue. It is a loathsome attempt at that. It is demagoguery at its best and pure race bating. What is the writer saying, that we are supposed to give Obama a pass because he is “black?” The writer should just get over the fact that Obama does not qualify for the Office of President, not because of his race or the color of his skin but because he does not meet the constitutional eligibility requirements which have absolutely nothing to do with his race or color. To try to justify Obama’s holding on to an office for which he is not constitutionally eligible by using his race or color is despicable and itself racist.

    Lastly, if the writer wants to write about anything, she should start by writing about Obama refusing to show his birth certificate to the nation. But then I guess because Obama is “black” he does not have to do that.

  64. avatar
    kimba January 21, 2010 at 9:59 am #

    Well, my friend, I think this is the response that fits everything and anything Linda can say:

    “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true”
    From:http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Linda can parse and pick and preen and prance all she wants but “natural born citizen”, for a person born inside the United States, was defined in the Wong Kim Ark case and Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Linda has stated she doesn’t believe Obama was born in Kenya, so she apparently accepts he was born in Hawaii. The only thing Linda has left is to ping-pong back and forth and round and round about whether Obama was born in Hawaii, whether WKA defines NBC for people born in the US, or whether another nation’s citizenship laws trump US citizenship law. Debunk one and she bounces to another, and back again. It’s a waste of good ideas to debate her any further is my opinion.

  65. avatar
    kimba January 21, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    Shouldn’t you be getting your hood and robe pressed for your next Klan rally?

  66. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 10:08 am #

    MArio, I guess they did not get your “opinion” in the state of Indiana…maybe you should go over there and explain your theory to the jurists that rendered this decision and denied the appeal…And don’t forget to take the former reserve Commander with you….

    On November 12, 2009, a three-judge panel in the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an Opinion for Publication defining natural born citizen: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    A Petition for a Rehearing was filed on December 9. From the Docket of the Indiana Clerk of the Courts:

    12/09/09 APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING (9) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (9) BY MAIL DATE 12/09/09 JS 12/11/09

    This has now been Denied by the Indiana Court of Appeals:

    1/15/10 APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED. FOR THE COURT, JOHN G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE, ALL PANEL JUDGES CONCUR. KJ

  67. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 10:33 am #

    Black Lion,

    Did you not read the United States Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett. Surely the United States Supreme Court trumps the Indiana State Court.

  68. avatar
    Greg January 21, 2010 at 10:49 am #

    Did you not read the decision in Minor v. Happersett? The court clearly left open the issue of children born to aliens, an opening that was closed by Wong Kim Ark.

    Minor cannot trump the Indiana State Court because it doesn’t say anything of precedential value about children born to a non-citizen.

    I shouldn’t have to explain this to a lawyer, Mario. You’re bringing disrepute onto the profession – arguing in ways that are transparently disingenuous!

  69. avatar
    ballantine January 21, 2010 at 10:51 am #

    Actually the Indiana court correctly points out that Minor declined to address the issue of native born children of aliens and the Wong Kim Ark did. The court then simply quotes the clear language from Wong Kim Ark defining natural born citizen in accordance with the English common law as any real lawyer would. Not really that hard.

    It is pretty sad that all you really have is a case that declines to address the dispositive issue and have to rely on dicta in Minor stating there have been doubts that the common law applied without regard to parentage. The court does say it had doubts, nor does it say who exactly had doubts or what those doubts were. Hence it is simply not authority on the issue. I suggest you go figure out who the court had in mind and cite them. In the mean time, the rest of the world knows that there is no well-known legal authority stating that the common law required citizen parents. If you can find some we would be happy to read it.

  70. avatar
    ballantine January 21, 2010 at 11:33 am #

    Like the idiots on WND forum a while back trying to claim Rawle didn’t really mean to define natural born citizen in accordance with the common law despite language that could not be clearer.

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

    It was pretty comical and just shows that these people will never accept any evidence no matter how clear.

  71. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    Still misreprenting Minor? Of course, your brief in the Appeals Court has other such examples of poor reading comprehension.
    Wong Kim Ark trumps Minor since Minor did not address a child born to one or more aliens.

    Why you continue down this road even though people have more than once corrected you is beyond me.

  72. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    It is pretty sad that all you really have is a case that declines to address the dispositive issue and have to rely on dicta in Minor stating there have been doubts that the common law applied without regard to parentage.

    Well said…

  73. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    What Kristen does not get is that in order to be a “natural born Citizen,” you must have been born in the U.S. to a mother and father who are also U.S. citizens

    Not according to the Supreme Court and Common Law.

    Pathetic Mario, truly pathetic how you continue to ignore the facts.

  74. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2010 at 12:04 pm #

    On Politijab, Tes has started to expose other issues with Mario’s latest filing

    Appellants Brief @ 19:

    We can see from Jefferson’s laws of 1779 (A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth, May 1779) and 1783 (An Act for the Admission of Emigrants and Declaring their Right to Citizenship, October 1783) that he devised a system of citizenship that was based on jus sanguinis meaning that no matter where the child was born if he was born to U.S. citizen parents he was a citizen. On the other hand, his law provided that even if the child was born on U.S. soil, if his parents were not U.S. citizens, then the child also was not a citizen and would have to naturalized in order to be such.

    I can never figure out with these birthers whether they’re just stupid, or deliberately deceitful. But the above statement is an outright falsehood. That a licensed attorney made the statement in a federal court appellate brief is … appalling

    One of many examples of creative quoting.

  75. avatar
    ballantine January 21, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Yes, his brief is full of the same old dishonest stuff. Appeals courts will not be amused by such stuff. The 1783 viginia naturalization statute made no distinction between the native born with citizen parents or alien parents and did not require any native born person to be naturalized.

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

    Minor did not say “it was doubtful” that native born children of aliens could be citizens, but said “there have been doubts” as to whether the jus soli rule applied without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Big difference between a court saying there have been doubts about the doctrine applying without exception and claiming the court took ownership of a doubt about the doctrine applying generally by claiming the court said “it was doubtful.

    I could go on and on, particularly the Wong Kim ark nonsense, but to keep saying Marshall defined natural born citizen by citing a provision of Vattel that did not contain such term, with such citztion being solely on the question of the domicile of a citizen during the time of war is absurd.

    Mario is going to wind up fighting sanctions at some point.

  76. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    To understand why Tes considers the argument to be appalling read the text of the act

    A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth, May 1779:

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

    and

    Act for the Admission of Emigrants and Declaring their Right to Citizenship, October 1783:

    SECT. 2. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That that all free persons born within the territory of this Commonwealth ; all persons, not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the Act, [entitled], ” An Act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth;” and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner herein after mentioned ; and that all persons, other than alien enemies, who shall migrate into this State, and shall before some Court of Record give satisfactory proof by oath (or being Quakers of Menonists by affirmation) that they intend to reside therein, and also take the legal oath, or affirmation, for giving assurance of fidelity to the Commonwealth (which oaths or affirmations the Clerk of the Court shall enter on record, and give a certificate thereof to the person taking the fame, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar) shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and advantages of citizens, except that they shall not be capable of election or appointment to any office, legislative, executive, or judiciary, until an actual residence in the State of two years from the time of taking such oaths or affirmations as aforesaid, nor until the shall have evinced a permanent attachment to the State, by having intermarried with a citizen of this Commonwealth, or a citizen of any other of the United States, or purchased lands to the value of one hundred pounds therein.

    In fact, these acts show that Congress was not convinced that Jus Sanguini applied under the Constitution and found it necessary to enact a law to grant (natural born) citizenship to children born abroad to one or more US parents. If this had been Common Law practice at the time, the Constitution would have been sufficient. Instead, like in England, explicit legislative actions were needed to extend citizenship to children born abroad to one or more US parents.

    The Constitution’s Jus Soli foundation clearly did not cover these Children.

    The fact that legislative intervention was needed indicates that Mario’s ‘arguments’ are severely flawed. After all, many of those who passed this legislation had also been involved with the Constitution and understood what was meant by Natural Born Citizen and how it failed to cover children born abroad to one or more US parents.

  77. avatar
    nbc January 21, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    The facts are so painfully clear that I am surprised that some still get it wrong…

  78. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    You said “the rest of the world knows that there is no well-known legal authority stating that the common law required citizen parents.” You are very wrong about that. Without getting into so much of the evidence, I will just direct you to Thomas Jefferson and the Minor v. Happersett decision itself.

    In Minor, Justice Morrison Waite said:

    “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens” (emphasis supplied).
    Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 (1874).

    The Supreme Court in that very paragraph in effect said that a “citizen” is a child born in the United States to United States citizen parents. Since Happersett was born in the United States to parents who were both United States citizens, it was not necessary for the Court do determine the answer to the second question, i.e., whether it is relevant to consider the status of the child’s parents when determining if the child is a “citizen.” As we can see, the Court clearly defined a “natural born Citizen” to be a child born in the United States to United States citizen parents. Note that the Court did not say “citizen fathers.” The Court said that as to this class of citizen there has never been any doubt as to their “natural born citizen” status. On the other hand, the Court refused to say that a person born in the United States to foreign parents was even a “citizen,” let alone a “natural born citizen.”

    First, the Minor decision has to be analyzed with the understanding that our citizenship laws have to be defined within the historical context of the beginnings of our nation. We started the new nation by way of revolution. At that point we had to first have “citizens.” These were the first members of the new society and therefore its first “citizens.” Thereafter, we had “natural born Citizens.” These were the descendents of “citizens,” the latter being either born citizens or naturalized citizens. Hence, our nation needed citizens first before we could have “natural born Citizens.”

    Second, we have to consider that in Minor’s quoted passage, the Court referred to the “common law.” Hence, the Court said that the “common law” provided the definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Under that “common law,” the Court clearly defined a “natural-born citizen” to be a child born in the United States to United States citizen parents. Note that the Court did not say “citizen fathers.” The Court said that as to this class of citizen there has never been any doubt as to their “natural-born citizen” status. On the other hand, the Court refused to say that a person born in the United States to foreign parents was even a “citizen,” let alone a “natural born citizen.”

    In referring to the “common law,” and providing a definition of “natural-born citizen” that requires that the parents of the child also be citizens, clearly the United States Supreme Court did not look to let alone rely upon English common law for that definition, for that law only required birth on the soil and made no reference to the child’s parents (jus soli). If Minor had looked to English common law there is no way that it would have had any doubts that a child born in the jurisdiction to alien parents would have been a “natural born subject” (the expression that the English common law used). Minor was decided in 1874 while Wong was decided in 1898, or 24 years later. Minor, being closer in time to the Founding would have more precedential value and be more reliable than Wong Kim Ark on the question of whether English common law defined an Article II “natural born Citizen” and what the definition of that citizen is.

    In light of Minor’s clear statement as to what our federal “common law” (not English common law) said regarding what a “natural born citizen” is, one can only wonder how Wonk Kim Ark could have gotten the question of whether English common law defined our national citizenship so wrong. Wong Kim Ark becomes highly suspect given that it made no attempt to explain Minor’s clear rejection of the English common law as the basis for defining national citizenship and its embracing of jus sanguinis citizenship rather than jus soli citizenship.

    Wong only answered the question left open by Minor, i.e., whether a person born in the United States to foreign parents was even a “citizen.” The decision had nothing to do with what a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, the decision dealt with the issue of whether our nation was going to allow a person born on U.S. soil to alien parents to be an initial member of our society. The Court said yes and that is all it said. But allowing that person to be an initial member of the society did not make that person a “natural born Citizen.”

  79. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    Mario,

    How about we trump that with what Justice Gray I believe said in WKA, which was in 1898, 26 years after Minor…

    “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

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

    “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. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

    Note the line where it states that “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens”? That seems to be pretty implicit to me.

  80. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 21, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    Dear Mario,

    You wrote: “What Kristen does not get is that in order to be a “natural born Citizen,” you must have been born in the U.S. to a mother and father who are also U.S. citizens.”

    You fault Kristen for not recognizing your usurpatively declared personal self-serving interpretation of the Constitution as legitimate; what you do not get is your personal BELIEF about Article 2’s meaning is not definitively or exclusively the Law.

    St. Peter: “Okay, next we have Mario Apuzzo and Martin Luther King Jr. both requesting the last available mansion in Heaven. Dr. King your reputation precedes you, so let’s hear from the little rat whose community support of alcoholics anonymous is seen only in his unceasing efforts at helping drunks stay unidentified and behind the wheel.
    Mario:”Thank you, St. Peter, one point if I could, my name is spelled “Mario Appuzo” but it’s pronounced, “Orly Taitz”!

    “Now, having just this moment become a supporter of equal opportunity housing, I hope Dr. King won’t have an advantage over me here, just because he was assassinated and is black. Now I…..”

    St. Peter: “I’ve heard enough! Uh, God? Can you hear me? Okay, we’ve got another racist lawyer here who thinks we can’t tell. Could we have him and his ancestors and all of his descendants subjected to 500 years or so of slavery and unspeakable physical abuse, so he won’t feel discriminated against or cocky when I get him back up here at the gate, and send him straight to Hell?

    Benji Franklin

  81. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    Mario, can you cite one case regarding citizenship decided since Wong that uses Minor or any other SCOTUS ruling other than Wong to make it’s decision? We can cite many cases. Westlaw can cite over 1000 times that Wong has be referenced in rulings regarding citizenship? Can you find one that supports your theory in the last 100 years? Or better yet can you find one constitutional or legal scholar that agrees with your innane De Vattel parents must be citizens requirement for a NBC? I bet you can’t. And that is because no one of any significance in the legal community agrees with you.

    I will let the Appeals court of Indiana respond to your theory….

    “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

  82. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    Black Lion,

    You are trumping in reverse. It is what is closer in time to the Founding that has more precedential value, not what is further away.

  83. avatar
    ballantine January 21, 2010 at 1:19 pm #

    You can keep citing Minor, as that is all you have. However, as the Indiana court said, such court declined to address the question of whether children of aliens can be natural born citizens. Keep spinning away, but Minor doesn’t say it had doubt, it says there has been doubt without telling us who has had doubt or whether such doubt relates the the common law doctrine generally or to the exceptions. Without clarification, this citation means nothing. You may claim that the court’s referance to the “common law” means something other than the english common law, but this is your speculation, as the court does not define the common law. Of course, Wong Kim Ark spent about ten pages telling us the citizenship in America was defined by the rules of the English common law and our common law was their common law, but we know you just pretend this case doesn’t exist. Of course, the Ankeny court could read english and could see that Wong Kim Ark answered the question left open by Minor regarding children of aliens being natural born.

    Your referance to Jefferson makes no sense. Jefferson’s 1779 statute was ambiguous at best. The 1783 statute was much clearer:

    “Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act intituled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth;” and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner herein after mentioned;….LAWS OF VIRGINIA, OCTOBER 1783, Henings Statutes at Large, pg. 323

    The 1792 statute cited in Lynch v. Clark was the same:

    “In Virginia, an act was passed in 1792, entitled “an act declaring who shall be citizens of this commonwealth,” and providing for acquiring and relinquishing the right of citizenship. The first section provides, ” That all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right of citizenship under former laws, and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth,” &c. (1 Rev. Code of Va., 1819, p. 65. And see Barzizas v. Hopkins, 2 Randolph’s Rep., 278, 281,282.) This was a substantial re-enactment of a statute passed in May, 1779, ch. 55 ; (except that the latter was limited to free white persons,) another in October, 1783, ch 16, 17; and another in October, 1786, ch. 10.”

    Of course, Jefferson does not purport to define the common law nor define “natural born,” so I am not sure what your point is.

    It is clear you cannot point to any authority that states the common law required citizen parents, only one authority that say someone, somewhere had doubts.

  84. avatar
    ballantine January 21, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    Nonsense, later cases obviously trump previous cases except for believers in the original public understanding of the constitution who look to the very early use of the applicable terms by courts and other legal authorities. I suggest you read Justice Scalia and Thomas who will tell you cases close to a century after the convention are not very relevant to the original public understanding of the constitution.

  85. avatar
    aarrgghh January 21, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    misha and the whole crew here has had and will continue to have many an inspired moment to look back on (as long as doc’s comment widget keeps breathing at least).

    but i think all the snark artists owe a real debt of gratitude to the wackaloons and trolls that show up here.

    in their (dis)honor i pop another big bubbly bottle of birfer tears for the house!

    salut!

  86. avatar
    misha January 21, 2010 at 1:37 pm #

    Hi Mario!

    I have a dilemma: if a homeless person is hit on the middle of the Benjamin Franklin bridge, who is resposible for the remains – NJ or PA?

  87. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    Mario-I think we deserve an answer to the following question. In fact, if you ignore or duck it, I think you should leave this board for good in total disgrace. It’s a simple one-no legal mumbo-jumbo. Here goes:

    Assuming that you actually believe the arguments you spout, and given that Obama’s father’s citizenship was known when Obama declared his candidacy in January 2007, where were you until November 2008? Even if you lacked the client or time or wherewithal to file a “lawsuit” you could have written Senator Obama a letter explaining why you thought he was ineligible and why he should withdraw his candidacy. You could have copied the DNC, major media, and Congress. But you didn’t. So why not?

  88. avatar
    HellT January 21, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    That Judy Burges is some crazy. She’s also sponsoring a bill in AZ that would provide tax credits for the members of militias. Each militia member would get a tax credit equal to the cost of one hundred rounds of ammunition. If the member has any dependents, s/he buys each of them one hundred rounds of ammo and declares them militia members, too, and takes a tax credit for the additional ammo purchases.

    Just what we need – tax-dodging, gun-loving hatriots forcing the sane citizens to pay for their ammunition.

    It’s Arizona HB 2339, introduced this year, if you want to look it up.

  89. avatar
    ballantine January 21, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    Mario’s brief also contains the falsehood that Dred Scott cited Vattel on citizenship. One Justice cited Vattel, not the court. Big differance. One Justice also specifically defined “natural born citizen” in accordance with the English common law and this opinion was later cited by the 14th amendment congress and a majority of the supreme court. I would suggest Mario read the majority opinion in Dred Scott. Such opinion does not touch upon the question of natural born citizenship, but makes clear his claim that native-born children of aliens were naturalized is wrong as the term “natualization” was clearly understood not to apply to the native born, only to the foreign born:

    “The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417 (1857).

    “But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” George Washington Paschal, The Constitution of the United States defined and carefully annotated, note 274, (1968)

  90. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    ballantine,

    What a brilliant statement you just made. If the cases close to the time of the convention are not very relevant, what does that tell you about the ones that are further away.

  91. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    misha,

    It depends on whether the old sot is found dear or alive.

  92. avatar
    ballantine January 21, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    You must have trouble comprehending. You have not cited any cases close to the time of the convention. More correctly, you have not honestly cited any cases close to the time of the convention. Your citation to the Virgina naturalization statutes are wrong and your citations to The Venus and Shanks are nonsense. The bottom line is you can cite no legal authority close to the time of the convention supporting your theory. Citations a century later are not close in time.

  93. avatar
    misha January 21, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    Dead of course. I said “remains.”

  94. avatar
    bob January 21, 2010 at 2:33 pm #

    Question for Mario:

    If you were arguing a case in a federal circuit court, and that circuit court had recently published a case on the issue that governs your case, and opposing counsel failed to even acknowledge — much less discuss — this controlling case, to what would you ascribe this failure?

    Incompetence? Lack of ethics?

  95. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    You have to be kidding me. The most recent ruling is the one you cite when looking for cases to support your theory. First of all you rely on Minor when Minor doesn’t really support your position because they don’t address the children of aliens. Wong specifically addresses that issue and spends pages explaining how it came to its decision and that a natural born citizen is comprable to a natural born subject. Since Wong eviserates your argument, you either continue to ignore the ruling or try and parse it so that it doesn’t say what we all know it does say. And you can’t get past the issue that all recent caselaw regarding citizenship references Wong and its definition of Natural born citizen. However again Mario, show us one legal or constitutional scholar that agrees with your theory. Please. If it was so obvious, there has to be someone that supports it. Especially when you have people like Edwin Meese, Ted Olson, and Akil Reed who implictly states that a natural born citizen is someone born in the US no matter the citizenship status of their parents.

  96. avatar
    Sven Magnussen January 21, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    Mario: Demand to see Barack’s Certificate of US Citizenship, form N-560 or N-561, a document issued by the United States government as proof of U.S. citizenship.

    Specific details of eligibility include:

    * Your parents are U.S. citizens, but you were born abroad.

    * At least one of your parents became naturalized when you were under 18 years of age and met the special conditions of the law.

    The Certificate of Citizenship is a document that is issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

  97. avatar
    richCares January 21, 2010 at 3:13 pm #

    “What is a Certificate of Citizenship
    The Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-560 or N-561) is a document issued by the US government as proof of U.S. citizenship. An individual, who obtained U.S. citizenship either by action of law while residing in the United States or by having been born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents, has the right to apply for a U.S. Certificate of Citizenship. ”

    Hey Dummy, Neither applies to an individual born in the USA! (Obama was born in Hawaii, the USA)

    Where did you get your ignorance, were you born with it?

  98. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    richCares,

    I do not know about anybody else but when I was born I knew all about the N-560 and the N-561.

  99. avatar
    Dave January 21, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    Of course it is unlikely the Sec. of State would be a birther. My point was just that there is no scenario in which this bill does what they want, though that’s what the sponsor is pretending.

  100. avatar
    Sven Magnussen January 21, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    richCares: ”Hey Dummy, Neither applies to an individual born in the USA! (Obama was born in Hawaii, the USA)Where did you get your ignorance, were you born with it?

    It’s a joke, Rich. Buy yourself a sense of humor.

  101. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    I thought you meant like “he remained there.”

  102. avatar
    Black Lion January 21, 2010 at 4:14 pm #

    Sven, and can you explain to us why the PRESIDENT would have one? Since he was BORN in the United States he would not need one nor have filled out one of those forms. Unless people born in the US to an American parents was required to fill one out in 1961. Again fail. Sven you come up with the most illogical and inplausible scenarios possible and somehow think that it would translate into anything other and a fantasy for you. In all your time you have not provided one piece of evidence to support your theories. Why not just push the Pakistan travel ban myth while you’re at it. Because coming up with theories without supporting evidence makes you look as foolish and any attorney pushing a theory that has already been debunked.

  103. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    ballantine,

    You can make all the bombastic, categorical statements that you want. You can make your baseless claim to have the support of all the law that exists. But when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, the devil is in the detail.

  104. avatar
    SFJeff January 21, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    Sven-

    Could you let us know when you post something that is meant to be a joke? Because really, I can’t figure out what distinguishes your joke posts from your other posts.

  105. avatar
    misha January 21, 2010 at 4:42 pm #

    Mario:

    Let me re-phrase:

    A homeless person is struck and killed in the middle of the Benjamin Franklin bridge. He is lying lengthwise directly on top of the state line, 50/50.

    Which state is responsible for his remains, NJ or PA?

  106. avatar
    JoZeppy January 21, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    Oh, the irony!

  107. avatar
    Sven Magnussen January 21, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    SFJeff: Sven-Could you let us know when you post something that is meant to be a joke? Because really, I can’t figure out what distinguishes your joke posts from your other posts.

    SFJeff –

    Don’t talk to me or I’ll let everyone know “Meg” is a closet birther.

  108. avatar
    SFJeff January 21, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    You forgot to let us know whether that is a joke or not. And who is Meg?

  109. avatar
    ballantine January 21, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    Wow, what a great comeback. I may be bombastic, but I am not a small-time, DWI lawyers pretending to be a constitutional scholar. I am sorry, but your brief is embarassing. Do you plan on correcting the clear falsehoods or do you want to risk sanctions? Are you going to correct your false claims with respect to the Virginia naturalization statutes, as the 1783 is unambiguous in granting citizenship to all the native born? Are you going to correct your false claims with respect to Dred Scott and The Venus? How about the false claim the Minor said “it was doubtful” the native-born children of aliens could be citizens? Of course, pretty much none of the authority you cite support your theory. The indian cases had nothing to do with citizenship and were the progeny of Ludlam v. Ludlam which held that the english common law provided for jus sanguinis citizenship as well as jus soli citizenship. These cases in no way state that a child of aliens cannot be natural born and the supreme court in Wong Kim Ark said this line of cases were wrong. Most real lawyers would stop citing cases after the supreme court said they were wrong in fear of being sanctioned. Your citation of Shanks is dishonest as the case had nothing to do with citizenship at birth and Story, on the same date, wrote a long opinion unambiguously stating that the english common law rules defined citizenship in America. You have been told all this and have ignored it. If I was counsel for the defense, I would move for sanctions.

    Of course the 3rd circuit will not consider any of this as the only issues up for appeal are standing and jurisdiction. There, you are still putting forth silly arguments like the 1st amendment requires congress to respond to your petitions, that congress cannot make you feel insecure without due process of law or that you can sue congress for not debatingissues equally. I am not sure why people put forth claims that have no basis in text or history, but I think the clerks and judges will get a good laugh out of this nonsense.

  110. avatar
    Sven Magnussen January 21, 2010 at 5:26 pm #

    SFJeff: You forgot to let us know whether that is a joke or not. And who is Meg?

    You’re mumbling.

  111. avatar
    NbC January 21, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    You have no idea how ironic this sounds to those better informed in the legal facts surround the NBC issue.

    Lovely, thanks for the good laugh Mario. Do you think it would amuse the Court?

    I would not be surprised if the Appeal Court rejects the brief based on its excessive length

  112. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    nbc,

    You do not correct me, I correct you.

  113. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 21, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    Dear Mario,

    You confessed: “I do not know about anybody else but when I was born I knew all about the N-560 and the N-561.”

    Okay, we kinda knew you currently don’t know anything about anybody else, but who would have guessed you were a prenatal idiot savant crapping on Certificate of Citizenship forms then like you crap all over the Constitution in the name of patriotism now.

    Benji Franklin

  114. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    Mario the coward- You are STILL ducking the question that you must answer. In case you forgot, here it is:

    Assuming that you actually believe the arguments you spout, and given that Obama’s father’s citizenship was known when Obama declared his candidacy in January 2007, where were you until November 2008? Even if you lacked the client or time or wherewithal to file a “lawsuit” you could have written Senator Obama a letter explaining why you thought he was ineligible and why he should withdraw his candidacy. You could have copied the DNC, major media, and Congress. But you didn’t. So why not?

    Waiting, waiting

  115. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    Benji Franklin,

    Your and your buddies’ phony persona can only impress your gang on here but no one with a real brain.

  116. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo January 21, 2010 at 8:12 pm #

    ballantine,

    You are in check mate.

  117. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    Mario- You are chicken excrement….

  118. avatar
    NbC January 21, 2010 at 8:42 pm #

    It seems you are confused about the rules of chess as well. Hint, it ain’t checkers..

  119. avatar
    NbC January 21, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    It’s a federal case I tell you.

  120. avatar
    NbC January 21, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    Mario seems to be confused about cause and effect…
    Poor sod.

  121. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2010 at 9:20 pm #

    misha-With most people, it would be whichever state the head is in. If he were a birther, though, it would be whichever state got the most intelligent part, the ass.

  122. avatar
    richCares January 21, 2010 at 9:44 pm #

    whenever a birther gets called on something stupid he claims “it’s a joke”. Thats Sven!

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: the devil is in the detail

    Are you sure you didn’t mean to say “the devil is in de White House?”

  124. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2010 at 9:53 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: when I was born I knew all about the N-560 and the N-561

    I didn’t. We didn’t have any foreigners where I grew up in rural Alabama. Well there was that one Cuban kid in high school, but just the one.

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2010 at 10:21 pm #

    The crux of your interpretation of Minor is a distinction between “natural born citizen” and a “citizen born in the United States”. If there were such a distinction in law or in the language of authorities or in court decisions, then you might squeak by separating the two parts of the Minor commentary, but this just is not the case. Over and over again, the citations we have say “citizen: natural born or naturalized”. If, as you say, Minor defined “natural born citizen”, then I would ask how such an irrelevant definition belonged in the context.

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    Methinks Mr. Apuzzo has become a disciple of that quote mangler P. A. Madison.

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo: Surely the United States Supreme Court trumps the Indiana State Court.

    And surely the Indiana Court of Appeals’ interpretation of Minor v. Happersett trumps yours.

  128. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2010 at 11:02 pm #

    Linda: They are ALL completely taken out of context and in some cases, he even changes the words or he word mines and makes a quote look like it is in its entirety

    I think there may be cause for clarification. The page Linda discusses, http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/11/the-great-mother-of-all-native-born-citizenship-pages/, is a guest article by ballantine. It doesn’t contain hyperlinks to its sources. It should not be confused with the article I wrote,
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/ that does have hyperlinks to sources.

    In any case, the way to discuss something is not to make sweeping generalizations, but to make a specific point about a specific citation and why you think it is out of context or has wrong wording, and post that underneath the page in question. If after discussion I am persuaded that there is a problem, then I’ll fix the article. That’s how things work around here.

  129. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 22, 2010 at 2:08 am #

    Well, if you had a real brain, you would understand what is being said to you

    OBAMA is a NATURAL born citizen of the US. nothing you say, nothing you do will change that FACT

  130. avatar
    Hawaiiborn January 22, 2010 at 2:11 am #

    Well that is talent. When you were born, barely a second old, you knew about the form N-560?

    gee, what kind of food did you’re mother eat while pregnant to make you all cognizant an able to know about a form, to which you were only 1 second old?

  131. avatar
    NbC January 22, 2010 at 3:05 am #

    I will just direct you to Thomas Jefferson and the Minor v. Happersett decision itself.

    There he goes again with his inability to read Minor which did not address children born to alien parents. Wong Kim Ark filled in these gaps and concluded that any child born on uS soil, regardless of the status of the parents is a natural born citizen.

    As to Jefferson, again you are way off mark as Tes has shown. Such a misreading of what Jefferson actually said borders on the irresponsible. And I am being kind here.

  132. avatar
    NbC January 22, 2010 at 3:11 am #

    Wong Kim Ark becomes highly suspect given that it made no attempt to explain Minor’s clear rejection of the English common law as the basis for defining national citizenship and its embracing of jus sanguinis citizenship rather than jus soli citizenship.

    That of course is a total figment of your imaginations. Minor never embraced Jus Sanguini

    What Minor really said was

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

    No mention of Jus Sanguini, just that the issue of children born to citizens on the country’s soil (jus soli) where natural born citizens.

    You are making the logical fallacy that All X are Y to conclude that all Y are X.

    In fact, the court in Minor observed that they issue of children born on US soil to foreigners was less conclusive but declined a ruling on this issue, as it had no relevance to the case. When a relevant case did come up, the Court, concluded, based on Common Law history that indeed, any child born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents, was a natural born citizen. Just as Common Law practices at the time of the Constitution had held. And since the Constitution had left the term undefined, the meaning of the term had to be found in common law meaning.

    But you know all this…

  133. avatar
    Ballantine January 22, 2010 at 6:58 am #

    “ballantine,

    You are in check mate.”

    Yes, your repeated misstatements of case law no matter how many times you are corrected is too much for me. Not going to fool any court, as they can read.

  134. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 22, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    One of course notes that the court in this comment embraces common law as the source for understanding the term “natural-born citizen”, thereby putting another nail in the denialist legal coffin.

  135. avatar
    Ballantine January 22, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    You also need to do some research on the common law. We understand that since so many authorities say to look to the common law the define citizenship, you need to pretend that the common law is something other than the english common law that was adopted in all the states after the revolution. However, when 19th century lawyers spoke of the common law this is what they were referring to. There was no other common law. While local precedents might have made it slightly different that the law in england, it was in all material respects the same:

    “on the subject, the question of citizenship can only be determined by reference to the English common law, which, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, was, to a greater or less extent, recognized as the law of all the States by which that Constitution was adopted.” Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 NY 356, 360-61 (1863).

    “The only principles of law, then, that can be regarded are those common to all the States. I know of none such which can affect this case but those that are derived from what is properly termed “the common law,” a law which I presume is the groundwork of the laws in every State in the Union, and which I consider, so far as it is applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the country, and where no special act of legislation controls it, to be in force in each State as it existed in England (unaltered by any statute) at the time of the first settlement of the country. The statutes of England that are in force in America differ perhaps in all the States, and therefore it is probable the common law in each is in some respects different.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 435 (1793).

    The court in Wong quoted Minor’s instruction to interpret the constitution by the common law in the same paragraph it tells us to interpret by the english common law. There was no difference in theses terms except in your head.

    Like it or not, all the early citizenship cases I have seen were decided on the basis of english law. Even Ludlam in 1863 was still decided solely on the basis of English law, as was Wong Kim Ark in 1898. The debates on the 1855 naturalization act again were based upon English law as that was the common law they were talking about. The quote of Mason that the birthers like to cite was Mason arguing, along with Patrick Henry, that the English common law should be expressly adopted in the Constitution as it had been in Virginia. He was not saying our common law was different, only we would not have a common law without it being adopted in the Consitution.

    Like it or not, the supreme court has always defined terms in the Constitution by reference to the English common law, not any other common law, a practice which continues to today as Scalia has been documented to cite Blackstone more than Madison. Chief Justice Taft explains:

    “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925).

    You can pretend all you want that there was some other common law, but the common law the founders grew up on and practiced law under was the English common law and that is what the court has always looked to.

  136. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 22, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    Let me explain, Rich.

    The USCIS can only provide a Certificate of Citizenships to persons who obtain their citizenship through the CFR, i.e. naturalized citizens.

    If BO presents a Certificate of Citizenship, then he is a naturalized citizen.

    Ha Ha Ha. Get it?

    On the other hand, when his Certificate of Loss of Nationality sees the light of day, then he’s ineligible to be a candidate for POTUS.

    Are you starting to tie it all together, Rich? The key to successfully challenging a candidate for POTUS is not through his BC, but through records created through his actions during his lifetime and held by various agencies in the Executive branch of the U.S. Government.

  137. avatar
    Black Lion January 22, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    And if there are no records? Will that be enough or will you cry and claim that somehow the President has “scrubbed” his records? Come on. You are making a ridiculous claim based on a serious lack of evidence. Do you have anything? You entire argument hinges on the fact that it was somehow probable, so the President is required to prove that it didn’t happen rather than you proving that it did. You want to change the burden of proof and put it on the President. Interesting. You must not care abou the rule of law or the US Constitution. Why do the birthers claim to care about the rule of law but want to violate it in order to meet their goals? Is hatred of the President that much of a motivating factor?

  138. avatar
    Scientist January 22, 2010 at 9:28 am #

    Sven-Did you miss the news? Obama is not “a candidate for POTUS”. He is POTUS. Time is of the essence of the law. If you hit me with your car and I wait 5 years to sue you, it doesn’t matter how good my case is, the court won’t hear it. And belive me, your case is anything but good. Regardless, all court jurisdiction ended on Inauguration Day. Tough luck for you…

  139. avatar
    brygenon January 22, 2010 at 10:25 am #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: You are in check mate.

    Having fun imagining you are the judge, Mario? In the world in your head, you win. In the real world and real court, not so much.

  140. avatar
    Black Lion January 22, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    One must realize that Mario is the same person that said some the following ignorant statements in his so called appeal of his losing case:

    “Plaintiffs allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. They also allege that even if he was so born, he cannot be an Article II ‘natural born citizen’ because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen, all of which makes him ineligible to be president and commander in chief of the military,”

    “If Obama is not an Article II ‘natural born citizen,’ plaintiffs cannot trust him to protect them. In such a case, plaintiffs have a right under the Fifth Amendment to bring an action against Obama and Congress in which they seek to protect their own life, liberty, and property, including their safety, security and tranquility, and to have Obama removed from office because he is not a ‘natural born citizen.’ These are real and concrete life and death needs,

    And has stated the following…

    “A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications,” he has explained. “The court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II ‘natural born citizen.’

    The article also goes on to note

    “that “Further, it explains Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship when Kenya gained its independence from Britain. Further doubts are raised by his relationship with an Indonesian stepfather during his childhood and his travels to Pakistan in 1981.”

    So we know 2 things…Mario doesn’t understand that the SCOTUS has already determined what a natural born citizen is and he is wilfully continuing to place debunked information such as the Pakistan travel ban in his appeals…

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122587

    This is where you can tell the ability of Marion as an attorney. For instance if I had a hostile witness (Mario) who was going to testify about the veracity of something (Pakistan travel ban) one the witness stand, something that I could impeach on cross examination by proving that such ban did not exist, which in turn would cast doubt on the rest of his testimony, what do you think the odds of me winning the case would be. I would have to guess pretty good since I was able to show the judge/jury that the witness was lying and continuing to lie about something that could be easily reseached and debunked. Now imagine if that was opposing counsel. And Mario wonder’s why this case will never see the light of day.

  141. avatar
    brygenon January 22, 2010 at 10:40 am #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: You do not correct me, I correct you.

    That’s just in your head, Mario. Here’s how it works in the real world: You don’t correct the judge. The judge corrects you.

  142. avatar
    brygenon January 22, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    I’d ask why he did not bring this up even sooner. Long before Obama ran for president, legal references have been saying that “natural born citizen” means citizen by birth and that jus soli is the law in the U.S.

    Where are Mario’s law-review articles challenging the prevailing view? How come no one heard him state his theory until he needed reasons why Barack Hussein Obama cannot be President of the United States?

  143. avatar
    Lupin January 22, 2010 at 11:03 am #

    As I pointed out more than once here, Mario has NEVER evidenced any interest in constitutional matters EVER — that is, until he was hired by white supremacists to do their dirty job. No articles, letters, even blog postings. NOTHING. Mario is a sock puppet with a hood on it.

  144. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 22, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    Now, BL, you said you didn’t have a problem with the Birther Bills as long as they requested documents (either here or tRSol). Is that correct?

    Wouldn’t it be prudent to request records from state record keepers and Federal agencies?

    Otherwise, you may have the situation we have with BO. The US State Department issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to Barry Soetoro after his Statement of Understanding and Oath of Renunciation are processed. Later, Barry has his adoption voided and continues his life as BO.

    None of it really matters until he decides to run for President. Has he affirmed his allegiance to U.S.? Is he stateless? Or is he still an Indonesian National?

    As a matter of National Security, these questions should be answered.

  145. avatar
    brygenon January 22, 2010 at 11:16 am #

    Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote: Your and your buddies’ phony persona can only impress your gang on here but no one with a real brain.

    Mario, when you make a comment like that, does it occur to you to look in the mirror?

    You win in your own head, on your own blog, and in your own paid advertisements in Reverend Moon’s paper, but that’s it for you. When you bring these arguments to a real court with a real judge, you have the same success rate as Orly Taitz.

  146. avatar
    Scientist January 22, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    Here’s a riddle for you birthers

    Q: What do you call a 28-year-old born in Khazakhstan to a Bolivian father and a Chinese mother, later adopted by an Algerian if they ran for the presidency and were elected and the election was validated by Congress and they were sworn in by the Chief Justice?

    A: Mr (or Madame) President

  147. avatar
    Scientist January 22, 2010 at 11:25 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Has he affirmed his allegiance to U.S.?

    Yes, when he was sworn in as Senator and as President. Also, when he was sworn in as an Illinois State Senator. And he likely said the Pledge of Allegiance in school in Hawaii every day.

  148. avatar
    nbc January 22, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    On the other hand, when his Certificate of Loss of Nationality sees the light of day, then he’s ineligible to be a candidate for POTUS.

    Problem is that there is no Certificate of Loss of Nationality other than in your imagination.

    Mission Failed

  149. avatar
    brygenon January 22, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    ballantine: Nonsense, later cases obviously trump previous cases

    Remember that Mario Apuzzo’s expertise here is in *losing*. The current prevailing precedents are the arguments that are *winning*, so don’t expect Mario to take them up.

    Mario Apuzzo lost Kerchner v. Obama in The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He’s appealing to The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the same court that just two months ago affirmed the dismissal of Berg v. Obama and designated the unanimous opinion “PRECEDENTIAL”. Berg’s case had been dismissed on standing, same as Apuzzo’s.

    When reading Mario’s comments remember that, whether he intends it or not, they’re about how to *lose*. They’ll make a lot more sense if you keep that in mind.

  150. avatar
    brygenon January 22, 2010 at 12:12 pm #

    Black Lion: Linda is a bit upset that Bry, Sue, Loren, Earl, myself has debunked her ridiculous theories regarding natural born citizen and Wong Kim Ark over at tROSL

    Yup. She cried the same river over at Phil’s site. I’m pretty sure I’m the ‘Bry’; haven’t decided whether to reply over there. The response I’ve typically used when people throw that kind of tantrum is: “Yeah, no one ever says, ‘Thanks for debunking me.'”

  151. avatar
    Greg January 22, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    You might have the situation like with Barack, where the Intergalactic Fleet goes back in time and prevents his renunciation of citizenship and so no Certificate of Loss of Nationality is ever issued.

    So, we should clearly request records from the Time Lords to see what the true timeline was.

  152. avatar
    NBc January 22, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    Linda claims the works of James Wilson.
    I have excerpted some examples of his position which appear to be at odds with Linda’s

  153. avatar
    NBc January 22, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    Now you know how we feel when observing your musings 😉

  154. avatar
    Black Lion January 22, 2010 at 3:47 pm #

    Sven, correct. It there is a bill that is constitutional and requests documents like a birth certificate, and the state wants to make it a requirement, then I am OK with it. But to be specific if they are requesting kindergarten records, baptismal records, copies of a senior thesis, and other nonsense like that then no, I am not OK with it. Not only is that not required by the Constitution, it is not relevant to whether or not a candidate is a natural born citizen of the US. Either way Sven it is premature to speculate until we see what kinds of documents the states believe they are entitled to see from a candidate.

  155. avatar
    Black Lion January 22, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Sven speculates:

    “Otherwise, you may have the situation we have with BO. The US State Department issues a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to Barry Soetoro after his Statement of Understanding and Oath of Renunciation are processed. Later, Barry has his adoption voided and continues his life as BO.”

    Sven, lets list the lies in the previous statement.

    1. No legally admissible proof that the President ever went by the name Barry Soetero.
    2. No proof that the state department ever issued a Certiciate of Loss document.
    3. No proof that the President ever renounced his US citizenship.
    4. No proof that the president was ever adopted.

    That is amazing. You managed to include 4 different lies in one paragraph. That must be some sort of record. And yet you wonder why the birthers are not taken seriously. Here is a hint. If you are going to make up a story, please at least have one piece of proof or you look kind of dumb.

    Sven, do you have some sort of proof of this fantasy of yours? Again you are claiming a situation that you cannot prove existed. So you want someone to prove a negative. The law doesn’t work that way. If you have some sort of proof that the President lost his citizenship, then lets see it. Again you come up with this wild speculation that is not supported by the law nor any sort of proof at all. And somehow we are supposed to believe that the President is hiding something. Amazing….

  156. avatar
    Black Lion January 22, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    Good..I posted her entire new rant over on the other thread…

  157. avatar
    dunstvangeet January 22, 2010 at 4:18 pm #

    But don’t you understand…

    Plessy v. Fergueson was closer in time to the year that the 14th Amendment was written. It was the 1920s. Brown v. Board of Education was written in the 1960s. Therefore “Seperate but equal” is still clearly what the founders intended, and still the law of the land. Don’t you understand their master plan?

  158. avatar
    Black Lion January 22, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    duns, don’t give him ideas…I am sure he would make the claim that Brown v. Board of Ed was bad case law because the founders intended through the Constitution to keep slaves separate….

  159. avatar
    ksdb January 22, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    misha: ksdb: Do you think Kermit The Frog’s father was an enchanted prince? How is he able to talk like a human? Help me out here

    Is Kermit your pet name for Obama?? The way his head bobs back and forth between teleprompters is very similar. Good call, Misha!

  160. avatar
    Black Lion January 22, 2010 at 11:44 pm #

    More Linda…

    Linda says:
    January 22, 2010 at 8:31 pm
    What is obvious to me is that we have all these koolaide drinkers who claim to know the law, when in fact they have NO clue of it because they completely rely on statist professors, lawyers & judges (who either brushed off this learning as trivial nonsense as Blackstone did or skipped the subject entirely) as their sole source of information.

    God forbid they would ever open a book and actually learn the history of common law because if they ever did, their brains might explode.

    Jan 21, 2010: 1st amendment upheld, now onto A1S8C4, the 14th & A2S1C5.

    YES, the originalist are back in FULL armour! Let immigration reform commence so we may have the platform in which to bring all these usurpations to light.

  161. avatar
    NbC January 23, 2010 at 2:13 am #

    loser

  162. avatar
    Ballantine January 23, 2010 at 6:53 am #

    I guess it had to come to this. The birthers now have to attack Blackstone himself. Unfortunately, all early authority defined allegiance and citizenship in accordance with Blackstone, not some ancient common law.

  163. avatar
    BlackLion January 23, 2010 at 11:10 am #

    Linda attacks what eviserates her arguments…She has attacked Blackstone, Justice Gray, and any legal scholar or constitutional professional that disagrees with her…

  164. avatar
    misha January 23, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    @ksdb: “Is Kermit your pet name for Obama?? The way his head bobs back and forth between teleprompters is very similar. Good call, Misha!”

    You should watch Monty Python, or other British, to learn how to insult. As it is right now, you are a rank amateur. If you think this stings, you are waaay off.

    BTW, my pet name for Obama is Barack. Barack in Hebrew means lightning, and in Arabic means blessed. Unfortunately, McCain’s first name can also mean toilet.

    See? That’s witty. Your’s is like a lead balloon. Try harder next time.

    BTW, I read on the internet that barnyard animals become skittish when you are around. Are the rumors true? Why is that?

  165. avatar
    Black Lion January 23, 2010 at 11:49 pm #

    More misinformation…Sometimes you just have to wonder about the birthers…

    Tom says:
    January 23, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    After much deliberation and considerable debate the Founders/Framers finally settled not only on a single figure to serve as the nation’s highest magistrate but, most importantly, they decided that this person would be an office holder with virtually unchecked powers. A strong chief executive would have to be someone drawn from a pool of candidates in whom there existed absolutely no inborn foreign attachment. This would not guarantee loyalty but was a measure being taken to better ensure that the nation’s leader be free of undue foreign influence. This, it was felt, could best be achieved when ONE’S PATH TO CITIZENSHIP was taken through 2 citizen parents(when properly identified) and the native soil. Any route, otherwise, traveled would permit a foreign sovereign(ty) to attach itself, rightfully, legally , and in keeping with long tradition, through “the blood” , “soil” or both to the newborn and to justly exercise its rights, subsequently, there upon. Can you not see how untenable a situation this would be?

    “On every question of construction[of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”
    Thomas Jefferson June 12, 1823-letter to Judge William Johnson

    Come on, folks. This is “Jr High-School” level stuff.
    B.O. Jr has nothing but the utmost contempt for the “Average Joe” as he is confident that none of you are “Smarter than a 5th Grader” and are incapable of “figuring out” that he is NOT an Article II , natural born U.S. citizen based on his public declarations, alone

  166. avatar
    aarrgghh February 23, 2010 at 4:50 am #

    via freeperville: az birfer bill hb 2441 dead?

    “02/22/10 W/D

    “w/d” = “withdrawn”

  167. avatar
    Mara April 21, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    If Obama was adopted his original (truthful) birth certificate was sealed by the State Of Hawaii and an amended (falsified) birth certificate was issued to him.

  168. avatar
    G April 21, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    And of course there is ZERO evidence for such a silly adoption scenario, so the point of your meaningless speculation is what, exactly?

  169. avatar
    BatGuano April 21, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

    If Obama was adopted his original (truthful) birth certificate was sealed by the State Of Hawaii and an amended (falsified) birth certificate was issued to him.

    besides the fact that there is no evidence that obama was adopted……… adoption does not effect US citizenship.

  170. avatar
    SFJeff April 21, 2010 at 6:14 pm #

    If Bush was adopted his original (truthful) birth certificate was sealed by the State Of Connecticut and an amended (falsified) birth certificate was issued to him.

    We must demand Bush release his original truthful birth certificate! And what about his dad? Do we really know whether Bush Sr. was not adopted?

    Mara is on to something here- we should always assume our Presidents were adopted, and presume they were actually born in a foreign country, and have them prove that they weren’t. Thats what we have always done isn’t it?