Main Menu

George Washinton – natural born citizen

President Washington

One of the very first articles I wrote for this web site, in  December 2008,  was George Washington, first in war, first in peace, and first presidential usurper. It wasn’t intended to be serious, but rather to expose the silliness of some literalist reading of history. The specious argument discussed in that article said that George Washington was not a citizen of the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution (Virginia joined later), and so not eligible to be president. The reason this argument is false is that the United States existed before the ratification of the Constitution, at least since the Articles of Confederation and I would argue following the Declaration of Independence.

Implicit in that story and the source where I found the idea, is the idea that George Washington was only eligible to be president because of that special exception in the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship, for those who were already citizens when the Constitution was ratified.  However, that is not really the case. George Washington was a natural born citizen.

I explored the citizenship of Washington in a recent article: The Jay Letter. In that article, I made a strong case that John Jay, who would become the first chief justice of the Supreme Court believed George Washington to be a natural born citizen, since Jay wanted this to be a requirement for the commander in chief — a post he could scarcely consider George Washington ineligible for.

The target of that article on the Jay Letter was not the citizenship of persons born in Virginia before and after the Revolution, but rather the fact that Washington’s father died a British subject. I got vociferous objection to the idea that Washington was a natural born citizen from commenters here. What disappointed me, though, was no opponent discovered the real loophole, that even though Washington’s father died a British subject, his father was also a natural born citizen of Virginia. That is, George Washington and his father were both natural born citizens of Virginia, whether Virginia was a British Colony or a state of the United States. So Washington’s father shared his sons primary allegiance — to Virginia, and in 1887 being a natural born citizen of Virginia meant being a natural born citizen of the United States. [For those stumbling on this article unaware of the rest of what's written on this web site, I am not saying that natural born citizens must have citizen fathers.]

Lest anyone remain unconvinced that natural born citizens of the British colonies were also natural born citizens of the United States, let me point the reader to one of the numerous state legislative acts passed regarding the rights of naturalized citizens. I showed examples of these in my recent article, Tracing natural born citizen. We see language from as early as 1785 such as:

he shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen

“Natural born citizen” in this naturalization act is the terminology used to describe those persons born citizens of the Commonwealth. It could hardly refer just to the 9-year old children born since the Revolution!

The chief justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts said in the case of Ainslie v Martin (99 Mass R. 456, 457):

It was therefore then considered the law of the land, that all persons born within the territories of the government and people, although before the declaration of independence, were born within the allegiance of the same government and people, as the successor of the former sovereign, who had abdicated his throne.

So George Washington was first in war, first in peace, and the first natural born American president.

Print Friendly

182 Responses to George Washinton – natural born citizen

  1. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 5:22 pm #

    You are shopping for excuses..to justify Obama a legal president..when there are millions who believe he is not..and this belief is growing..

    Recently you stated the Jay letter was to discredit Washington..not being a natural born citizen…it was disclosed to you..Washington replied..thanking Jay him for the letter..then you switch your story to this..

    There is nothing in this world that is not subject to contradiction and dispute..this rule is tossed aside when it comes to your omni potens Obama..

    As this drama unfolds..remember these famous words..

    Those who support Obama in his tyranny and illegal administration “cannot say they have a right to keep a shirt on his back”

  2. avatar
    Mary Brown April 30, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    DraggingCanoe, I suggest going to another site Barackryphal and examine the character of your arguments. He has a very good, lucid and understandable explanation about kinds of arguments people make- the irrational kind. You might learn something.

  3. avatar
    Epectitus April 30, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    Recently you stated the Jay letter was to discredit Washington..not being a natural born citizen.

    Put down the bong, DC. Doc did not say that.

  4. avatar
    nbC April 30, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    Problem is that accusations of tyranny and illegality are basically unsupported and should be seen more as expressions of discontent best resolved through the political process.

  5. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    Hey dragging, did you like scott brown’s comment to you, “Dragging – obviously you were not aware that Obama has already re-designed the American Flag. He has placed ‘HIS’ O where the stars are and the stripes are now rainbow colored.” scott brown’s comment on the O flag was so stupid that it showed scott’s true colors as being a right wing idiot (complete idiot). scott’s belief is based on: A syndicated radio show host, Bob Grant said: “[W]hat is that flag that Obama’s been standing in front of that looks like an American flag, but instead of having the field of 50 stars representing the 50 states, there’s a circle?” He then said: “Is the circle the ‘O’ for Obama? Is that what it is?” Grant later said: “[D]id you notice Obama is not content with just having several American flags, plain old American flags with the 50 states represented by 50 stars? He has the ‘O’ flag. And that’s what that ‘O’ is. That’s what that ‘O’ is Obama’s flag.

    M. Malkin, right wing commentator was sent countless emails complaining of Obama’s O flag. She checked it out and said: “Relax, folks.That’s not an Obama flag. It’s the state flag of Ohio. designed in 1902″
    You can see it at: http://www.50states.com/flag/ohflag.htm

    Are you as numb as scott brown, you appear headed in that direction.

  6. avatar
    Arthur April 30, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    DraggingCanoe:

    You proposed that we all remember some famous words. After reading your comments, the only words I’ll remember are “teh stupid; it burns!”

  7. avatar
    Rickey April 30, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    You are shopping for excuses..to justify Obama a legal president..when there are millions who believe he is not..and this belief is growing..

    Really? You have some evidence for that “millions” claim?

    Even WND claims to have only about 500,000 petition signatures, and we know that many of those are duplicates or phonies.

    In the meantime, the birther lawsuits continue to fail.

  8. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Yeah, good luck with that!

    Idle boasts and threats from a deluded sore loser. Keep on failing. That’s all you’ve got to look forward to.

  9. avatar
    SFJeff April 30, 2010 at 6:58 pm #

    “You are shopping for excuses..to justify Obama a legal president..when there are millions who believe he is not..and this belief is growing..”

    No, we just point out the obvious- that President Obama has both been voted into office by tens of millions of voters- and these are real people rather than your theoretical millions- and he was confirmed by Congress, and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And that there is real evidence supporting his eligibility as opposed to made up evidence and theories.

    “Those who support Obama in his tyranny and illegal administration “cannot say they have a right to keep a shirt on his back””

    I got to love a cut and paste of a quote that can’t even keep singular and plurals correct.

    Humor me- detail 5 things that you would consider a Tyranical action by the President? I am looking to be amused.

    And let me tell you, i am more confident about keeping my shirt than I was January 1, 2009.

    As the drama unfolds remember these words:

    “Birthers lost every court action”

  10. avatar
    Mary Brown April 30, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    I agree. Let us know what is tyrannical and produce evidence.

  11. avatar
    racosta April 30, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    “you are shopping for excuses..to justify Obama a legal president..when there are millions who believe he is not..and this belief is growing..”

    People like this dragging guy live in a very small bigoted universe. As they only contact bigots like themselves, they think there are many. To a peraon that only knows 10 people then 10 people are a lot.

  12. avatar
    John April 30, 2010 at 7:30 pm #

    “he shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen”

    ..but NOT a Natural Born Citizen, but only to the extent that he is entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a Natural Born Citizen.

    A Natural Born Citizen is one born on US Soil to 2 US Citizens.

    Over history, governments and courts have created pseudoNatural Born Citizens (Native Born Citizens) which are NOT Natural Born Citizens but are entitled to the same respect, rights and privileges of a Natural Born Citizens. This is why some courts consider Native Born Citizens to eligible to be POTUS either though the US Constitution says ONLY a Natural Born Citizen can be POTUS.

  13. avatar
    sarina April 30, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    Dragging

    Obama said on National tv that his father was from Kenya, why Hillary, a lawyer, didn’t say anything and let him ran?

    Hillary and McCain exhausted all the resources to beat him, if something were fishy about his elegibility,he would not be President.
    Birthers don’t have common sense,either!!

  14. avatar
    sarina April 30, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    John

    Google Constitutional topic: Citizenship and read the 8 topics there, who can be President or Vicepresident. “Nowhere” you’ll find “2 citizen parents”.

    I am pretty sure you got that from Orly’s butt!!

  15. avatar
    Scott Brown April 30, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    How mature and Alinksy of you to name call. Shame on you.

    Anyway – I’ve never even heard of Bob Grant. Who and what is he?

    My comment was in jest, rather cynical actually. You mean others actually think he has re-designed the flag too? How funny.

    I had no idea he had even stood in front of a flag with an O – for Ohio! Guess that’s just the idiot in me oozing out! LOL

    Please remember we are all Americans, we really are on the same side, we just have different opinions – there is no need to sling insults or belittle someone with name calling. It just makes you look childish in my opinion. I never called myself liberal or a leftist, but neither am I a right-winger either.

  16. avatar
    Scott Brown April 30, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    Well, if by fail you mean, lack standing. Yes, but fail in as having no merit – you would be wrong.

  17. avatar
    Scott Brown April 30, 2010 at 8:06 pm #

    You need to do some research on the birther court cases. They were NOT lost – the lacked standing; therefore the case was not heard on the merits.

    Yes, the case was dismissed, but since when did dismissed and lost have the same meaning?

    And I have no clue why you think things have gotten better since 1/1/09. Obama is merely an extension of GW Bush…nothing has changed – nada. Got rid of one bad apple only to get another – and after he promised such hope and change. Neither Bush nor Obama would know the Constitution if it bit them on the backside!

  18. avatar
    Scott Brown April 30, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    And no where will you find 1 citizen parent and 1 foreign parent either.

  19. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    never been to his blog

  20. avatar
    Bob Ross April 30, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    Yeah just like when you said you presented a COLB that looked just like Obama’s and you couldn’t get a passport you obviously were saying that in jest as well

  21. avatar
    John April 30, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    Natural Born Citizen wasn’t defined because it’s definition is self-evident based on Natural Law. If you are born in a community to members of that community the you NATURALLY a Natural Born member of the community. In Minor Vs. Happersat, SCOTUS aknowledged the NBC was self-evident and there was no doubt to it’s meaning. Over time however, the courts and governments began to consider different types of members or citizens to be classified with same respects and rights as NBCs. Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen but is considered a Native Born Citizen who can be treated with same respects and rights as a Natural Born Citizen.

  22. avatar
    Bob Ross April 30, 2010 at 8:22 pm #

    Try reading Ankeny v. Gov. State of Indiana

    fake scott brown.

    The appellate decision addressed the question of whether Obama’s eligibility was affected by his father’s lack of U.S. citizenship, saying that “[b]ased 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.

    Didn’t you claim not to be a birther yet you take the birther cases seriously. I guess its just another lie youve told.

  23. avatar
    Bob Ross April 30, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    You keep rehashing old shit. How about M’Creery v. Somercille?

    Opening lines: “W. M’Creery left at his death no children, but a brother, Ralph M’Creery, a native of Ireland, who is still living, and who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, Letitia Barwell, Jane M’Creery, and Isabella M’Creery, the latter being the lessor of the plaintiff, who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States.”

    Native born and natural born has been used interchangeably by the High Court. This case stated the daughters of a non-citizen who were born in this country were native/natural born.

  24. avatar
    Bob Ross April 30, 2010 at 8:27 pm #

    Native born and natural born citizen has been used interchangeably by the supreme court.

  25. avatar
    Scientist April 30, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen but is considered a Native Born Citizen who can be treated with same respects and rights as a Natural Born Citizen.

    Including the right to be President. A debit card with a $10,000 limit isn’t exactly the same as $10,000 cash, but I will happily accept it.

  26. avatar
    John April 30, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    The critical different between NBC and Native Born Citizens is that NBC is type of citizen designed to protect against foreign influence; that’s why only a NBC can be POTUS.

  27. avatar
    Scientist April 30, 2010 at 8:45 pm #

    What if an NBC were a paid agent of a foreign government (not impossible at all)? In the real world $$$ are far more important than a parent’s passport.

  28. avatar
    racosta April 30, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    “Dragging – obviously you were not aware that Obama has already re-designed the American Flag. He has placed ‘HIS’ O where the stars are and the stripes are now rainbow colored”

    This was in jest, sure you lying sack of $hit, that’s your response after you were called on it. That statement showed your ignorance so you try and back away. IDIOT-LIAR!

    ZERO CREDIBILITY – LIAR!

  29. avatar
    sarina April 30, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    Scott

    Here are the 8 topics: Who can be President or Vicepresident of the US:

    Anyone born inside the United States *
    Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S

    “Anyone born in the US”
    “Anyone found under 5 whose parentage cannot be determined”

    Barack Obama born in Hawaii of an American mother from Kansas= NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    There you go birthers!!

  30. avatar
    sarina April 30, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Dragging

    You know it is not a blog, it is the Constitution very well explained so birthers and/or “idiots” can understand.
    ( With your comment I know you do, you just don’t want to admit Obama is eligible)

  31. avatar
    sarina April 30, 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    John said:

    “that’s why only a NBC can be POTUS.”

    I say: That is why Barack Obama is POTUS.

  32. avatar
    David Farrar April 30, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    Please note, my websit has nothing to do with my own birther beliefs.

    But, as a birther, I too have been wondering about the exact wording of Art II, Sec. I, Cls. 5 of the U.S. Constitution, specifically “natural born” citizen.

    I thought for along time, the omission of “U.S. citizen was simply an oversight…not so.

    I believe now as you do, it means a person whose father was born in America, as opposed to England, or elsewhere beside the 13 colonies.

    By the way…where was Obama’s father born?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  33. avatar
    richCares April 30, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    Amazing, scott brown says he is not a birther yet spouts birther talking points

    Amazing, scott brown says he is not a right winger yet spouts right winger talking points

    Give it up, we got your number (it is UP)

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

    The main article has been updated as follows:
    The chief justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts said in the case of Ainslie v Martin (99 Mass R. 456, 457):

    It was therefore then considered the law of the land, that all persons born within the territories of the government and people, although before the declaration of independence, were born within the allegiance of the same government and people, as the successor of the former sovereign, who had abdicated his throne.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 9:30 pm #

    My article demonstrating that George Washington is a natural born citizen is simply one of historical interest. I in no way mean to suggest that the status of George Washington’s father matters one whit to his eligibility have been president.

    There is simply no support for the suggestion that the phrase “natural born citizen” has any other source than the English common law, nor grounds to deny that the children of an aliens born in the country are natural born there under the common law.

    The idea that the framers of the Constitution had in mind a requirement for citizen parents is a patent fraud.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    John: that’s why only a NBC [not a native citizen] can be POTUS.

    Schneider v Rusk (1964):

    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.

    Minor v. Happersett:

    These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Looks like the US Supreme Court didn’t get the memo.

  37. avatar
    David Farrar April 30, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    George Washington was not a usurper because his father was born here, in this country…He was an American, thus making his son a natural born American, and at the time of adoption, a natural born U.S. citizen.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 9:44 pm #

    John: Natural Born Citizen wasn’t defined because it’s definition is self-evident based on Natural Law.

    And who, pray tell, bothered to mention this self-evident definition? Somehow I fail to see any self-evident quality in the words.

    John: Minor Vs. Happersat [sic], SCOTUS aknowledged [sic] the NBC was self-evident

    Is that same Minor v Happersett that said: “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” You can’t even SPELL Happersett much less understand it.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    Someone your age should have learned patience.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    Explain to me why all the birthers are experts on Alinsky and I’ve never heard of him in any other context.

  41. avatar
    misha April 30, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    “A Natural Born Citizen is one born on US Soil to 2 US Citizens.”

    Really? Cite the court decisions, and provide links. Otherwise, crawl back under your rock. Thank you.

  42. avatar
    Scientist April 30, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    Only native Americans (meaning Navajo, Iriquois, Cherokee, etc.) have a legitimate right to the Presidency. Sorry all of you from Washington to Obama.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 10:01 pm #

    John: but NOT a Natural Born Citizen…

    You fail to understand what I was saying. We all know that naturalized citizens are different from natural born citizens. The point is that the phrase “natural born citizen” must have applied to SOMEBODY besides 9-year-old or younger children, who where the only persons in Massachusetts when that was written who were born after the Declaration of Independence.

    John: This is why some courts consider Native Born Citizens to eligible to be POTUS either though the US Constitution says ONLY a Natural Born Citizen can be POTUS.

    And why, pray tell, do you think there is a difference?

  44. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 10:24 pm #

    And what state were you born in? Why do you dodge simple questions and keep proving yourself to be nothing but in service of The Great Deceiver?

  45. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 10:26 pm #

    Since you lie about something as simple as what state you are born in and make up stories, your own actions are evidence that nothing you say is true.

  46. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 10:35 pm #

    Sorry, but in the court of law, dismissed = FAIL. Simply put the birther record is somewhere around 70-0 and there has been nothing but FAIL at every level of jurisdiction.

    All economic indicators & serious economists point that things are headed in the right direction.

    And what state were you born in again? Oh, that’s right, you are a pathological liar and can’t help but make up garbage and contradict yourself every time you write.

    So now you blame Obama that “nothing has changed”. Well, than Obama can’t be that radical or socialist/communist/etc. and dooming this country to tyranny or whatever you people want to whine about.

    I mean the two are opposite statements that contradict each other – so which is it? Either he’s done nothing or he’s this radical tyrant. He can’t be both. Again your own words betray you.

  47. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    Now you are just spouting made up gibberish.

    The 2 US citizens requirement only exists in the made up minds of the birthers.

  48. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    And nowhere will you find that Scott Brown admits what state she is born in. You must be an illegal alien, right?

  49. avatar
    David Farrar April 30, 2010 at 10:57 pm #

    While I can’t find the case at present, here is a little snippet from Justice Scalia on what the phrase “natural born” means.

    JUTICE SCALIA: “I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here” (and, presumably, had children here) “and then went back and raised their families in England… ” — that his offspring could not be president or vice-president?

    “They did not want that.

    “They wanted natural born Americans.”

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  50. avatar
    David Farrar April 30, 2010 at 11:02 pm #

    Nice try, but that is not what the term “native” means in this discussion. For one thing, native American Indians were neither under British rule or U.S. at the time. They were natives of their own nations.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  51. avatar
    sarina April 30, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    I think I hit a birther nerve
    lol!

  52. avatar
    Rickey April 30, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    Scott Brown says:

    Yes, the case was dismissed, but since when did dismissed and lost have the same meaning?

    Since always.

    You are not only a liar (what state were you born in?), you are an ignoramus. Not a pretty combination.

  53. avatar
    nbC May 1, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    Schneider v Rusk

    Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.

  54. avatar
    richCares May 1, 2010 at 1:01 am #

    the liar says “there is no need to sling insults or belittle someone with name calling. It just makes you look childish in my opinion. I never called myself liberal or a leftist, but neither am I a right-winger either’

    Sure buddy, sure. Do you realize how lame you are? Every time you are caught in a lie you say “it was in jest”. You are not a good liar, dippy!

  55. avatar
    nbC May 1, 2010 at 1:21 am #

    True and by the same logic, neither is President Obama a usurper because he, like George Washington were born on US soil. While you may believe that the citizenship of the father has any relevance, facts and history prove you wrong.

  56. avatar
    nbC May 1, 2010 at 1:23 am #

    After all, both had fathers whose citizenship status had been guided by British Law. So what’s different?

  57. avatar
    Kevin Bellas May 1, 2010 at 2:06 am #

    david farrar the missing link between The Tea baggers and Birthers.

    http://nolp.blogspot.com/

    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/davidfarrar/

  58. avatar
    Kevin Bellas May 1, 2010 at 2:11 am #

    I like when birthers respond to their own posting when nobody agrees with them.

    davidfarrar quote

    It’s all right there in black and white dudes…there is nothing in Obama’s Certification of Live Birth that would certify him as a natural U.S. citizen. In fact, Obama’s Certification of live Birth decertifies him as a natirual born U.S. Citizen.

    You can twist it, turn it, blow smokerings around it, he is what he is and he ain’t what he ain’t. Brack Obama is no natural born U.S. Citizen, his own Certification of Live Birth tells us so.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    David farrar one big twinkie of craziness with a whipped creme filling.

  59. avatar
    Kevin Bellas May 1, 2010 at 2:18 am #

    David Farrar,

    Your blog over at TPM is crazy time. Your use of others articles as your own is timeless comedy. I especially enjoyed the following post about your blog.

    posted by expat46

    “I can’t help noticing that you’re full of shit but that’s beside the point.

    I came in here because I saw that you’d posted and I wanted to read a Libertarian Birther’s argument for smaller government.

    As I was reading your post I started to gain some respect for you, this article seemed reasoned and thoughtful even if I disagree. Then I realized I’d been duped, you had simply posted someone else’s words to make your argument.

    Then in reply to someone’s comment you DID IT AGAIN!

    Do you always let your preferred propagandist speak for you?”

  60. avatar
    nBC May 1, 2010 at 2:18 am #

    Brack Obama is no natural born U.S. Citizen, his own Certification of Live Birth tells us so.

    It shows him born on US soil. What else do you want?

    Fool

  61. avatar
    Bob Ross May 1, 2010 at 2:27 am #

    Why don’t you post the rest of the transcript?

    [Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

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

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

    Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

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

    I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

    It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

    Scalia is clearly saying that NBC relies on Jus Soli which is being born in the United States

  62. avatar
    nemocapn May 1, 2010 at 2:33 am #

    I don’t understand the birther obsession with Alinsky either. They think he’s some kind of hero to liberals, but I never heard of Alinsky until a Hillary Clinton biographer mentioned that she wrote her thesis on him. Because of that, she was labeled a communist by the right. The next time I heard of Alinsky was when someone on the right said Obama had read Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” My first thought was, “Here we go again. They’re going to say Obama is a communist.” And that’s exactly what happened. Obama has also read Adam Smith. By their logic shouldn’t that make Obama a free market capitalist?

  63. avatar
    nemocapn May 1, 2010 at 2:48 am #

    The judges in Minor vs. Happersatt ruled that women didn’t have the right to vote. Maybe that’s the reason John likes that ruling so much.

  64. avatar
    nemocapn May 1, 2010 at 2:52 am #

    What is your position on the citizenship of Chester Arthur? Arthur was the son of a British father and an American mother. His father wasn’t naturalized until after Arthur was born.

  65. avatar
    Rickey May 1, 2010 at 2:54 am #

    David Farrar says:

    I believe now as you do, it means a person whose father was born in America, as opposed to England, or elsewhere beside the 13 colonies.

    Andrew Jackson’s father was born in Ireland. How does that fit in with your theory?

    Also, the fathers of James Buchanan and Chester A. Arthur were born in Ireland.

  66. avatar
    Lupin May 1, 2010 at 2:54 am #

    “Please remember we are all Americans…”

    Actually, no, I’m French, and I fart in your general direction.

    PS: Your mother is an hamster and your father smells of elderberries.

  67. avatar
    Lupin May 1, 2010 at 2:59 am #

    Do you realize you now sound like a whiny ass titty baby?

  68. avatar
    Lupin May 1, 2010 at 3:00 am #

    “A Natural Born Citizen is one born on US Soil to 2 US Citizens.”

    Simply not true.

  69. avatar
    Lupin May 1, 2010 at 3:02 am #

    “Natural Born Citizen wasn’t defined because it’s definition is self-evident based on Natural Law.”

    Also not true.

  70. avatar
    Lupin May 1, 2010 at 3:03 am #

    Actually, yes, that’s exactly what Vattel says.

    Wrong again.

  71. avatar
    Lupin May 1, 2010 at 3:08 am #

    In addition to the fact that this, too, is untrue, you would be excluding Jewish-Americans, Greek-Americans, Irish-Americans ans a host of other folks born into families of potential dual citizenships from the Presidency.

    Do you realize how stupid you sound? And how utterly impractical your concept would be if it were real?

  72. avatar
    nemocapn May 1, 2010 at 4:21 am #

    Swift move for David to change the definition of Natural Born Citizen to someone with an American born father, rather than two American born parents. Now Herbert Hoover, son of an American born father and a Canadian born mother, is eligible. Woodrow Wilson, son of an American born father and an English born mother, is eligible, too. Ditto for Thomas Jefferson, son of an American father and an English mother. Now that leaves just Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, and Barack Obama as ineligible.

    As I understand from the birthers, if a President is not a Natural Born Citizen, everything he did while President becomes null and void. So, farewell to the states of Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, and Kansas. Sam Brownback and Michele Bachmann will have to clean out their desks. Poor Mitt Romney not only can’t run for President because he’s the son of a Mexican born father and an American born mother, he’s also not even a citizen of the US because he was born in Michigan. (Michigan entered the union under Andrew Jackson who was the son of two Irish born parents, so Michigan’s statehood is null and void.)

  73. avatar
    misha May 1, 2010 at 4:23 am #

    What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

  74. avatar
    Lupin May 1, 2010 at 5:51 am #

    An African or a European swallow?

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    I have a copy of Chairman Mao’s little red book, but I haven’t read it. Does that just make me a Communist sympathizer?

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    If all else fails, the birthers will be demanding TWO citizen fathers! Anything to get Obama.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 8:25 am #

    There are subtle distinctions here, but birthers are so ham-handed crazy that one rarely gets to the interesting stuff. But you are right that while we talk about birthplace, the founders and the court cases talk about place in conjunction with political community (jurisdiction, as the 14th Amendment calls it). American Indians, as you say, have their own nations to some extent. However, this blog is about Conspiracy Theories about Barack Obama and the President was born American, not American Indian.

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    David Farrar (quoting Scalia): natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here

    I call your attention to the boldfaced words. For an Englishman to “come here” he couldn’t very well have been “born here.”

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 8:37 am #

    Maybe she’s from Alaska, born before 1959.

  80. avatar
    northland10 May 1, 2010 at 9:11 am #

    Well, that will confuse my presidential ambitions. My father was born in a state yet, apparently now, I was not. Maybe, I am stateless. Sven, what form do I need?

    Ah well.. I think I will just take a drive in my now foreign built pickup truck.

  81. avatar
    DraggingCanoe May 1, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    The Founders were very concerned immigration..would dumb down the existing stock and the country would go down the toilet..Obama supporters are proof the Founders were correct.

  82. avatar
    richCares May 1, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    racist much?
    then why don’t you leave our toilet? Dip$hit.

  83. avatar
    Scientist May 1, 2010 at 11:14 am #

    It takes 5 Nobel laureate immigrants (of which, fortunately, there are many) to dilute the stupid in just one DraggingButt post.

  84. avatar
    Scientist May 1, 2010 at 11:19 am #

    Actions speak louder than words. And what were Scalia’s and his fellow Justices’ actions? They attended Barack Obama’s inauguration and watched their Chief administer the oath of office. While the birfers are correct that the Court hasn’t defined natural born citizen in words, their actions make crystal clear that they consider Barack Obama to be one. Game, set and match.

  85. avatar
    Lupin May 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    Careful, your bedsheets are showing.

    You’re also totally wrong about the Founders. But then, you would be, wouldn’t you?

  86. avatar
    Arthur May 1, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Scientist:

    You’re point about the edifying power of Nobel laureate immigrants led me to investigate just how many immigrants to America have won the Nobel Prize.

    According to Alex Nowrasteh of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, of the eight Americans to win 2009 Nobel Prizes in the sciences, five were immigrants. Nowrasteh goes on to point out that since 1901, twenty-five percent of American Nobel Prize winners were immigrants.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    DraggingCanoe: The Founders were very concerned immigration..would dumb down the existing stock and the country would go down the toilet..Obama supporters are proof the Founders were correct.

    Dragging Canoe, (c. 1738 – March 1, 1792) was an American Indian war leader who led a dissident band of Cherokee (joined by Upper Muskogee, Chickasaw, Shawnee, and Indians from other tribes/nations, along with British Loyalists, French and Spanish agents, renegade whites from the colonies, and runaway slaves), against the United States in the American Revolutionary War…

    Wikipedia

    So does Joe Ann know you spout racist screed on the Internet?

  88. avatar
    Scientist May 1, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    Arthur: Very interesting numbers, indeed. The sad truth is that the anti-immigrant yahoos, like those who post here, are not just sad, bitter losers. They are actually serious threats to US prosperity and security. Fewer and fewer of “the best and the brightest” are coming to the US these days. Some of the reasons are good ones-more opportunities at home as China and India become major economic engines. But some are needless barriers thrown up by the US, like foolish provisions in the Patriot Act that do more to keep out scholars than to impede terrorists. And immigrant-bashing laws like Arizona’s don’t help. Those who do leave their home countries are looking more and more at Canada, Australia, France, Sweden and other countries than at a US they see as less than welcoming. The long-term effects of this will be a diminution of the US role in the world and a lower level of prosperity for the American people.

  89. avatar
    Arthur May 1, 2010 at 1:12 pm #

    Scott Brown:

    You wrote that the birther court cases were not lost but dismissed on standing, and that dismissal and losing are not the same.

    I tend to agree with you: having a case dismissed on standing is not the same thing as losing the case, it’s worse. When a suit is dismissed on standing, it means the premise of the case is illegitimate from the outset. It’s like applying for a job and being told before you finish the application that you have already been rejected.

  90. avatar
    nBC May 1, 2010 at 1:53 pm #

    Scalia also said

    But for constitutional purposes, it seems to me, as opposed to statutory purposes, whether the person is an alien or not should depend upon whether the person is a natural born citizen of the United States or whether citizenship must be conferred by Congress.

    Hahahaha… Your such a fool

  91. avatar
    nBC May 1, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS – Oral Argument

  92. avatar
    nBC May 1, 2010 at 2:04 pm #

    Worse for DF, Scalia states just after the above statement

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

    What a fool this DF, unable to do the research he has allowed the myths of others to enslave him and be made to look foolish.

    Fool

  93. avatar
    SFJeff May 1, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

    “And I have no clue why you think things have gotten better since 1/1/09.”

    Are you really this blind to reality? The economy is far more stable and stronger than it was in January 2009. The stock market has largely rebounded. Consumer confidence is recovering. Banks and car companies have paid back the government. In January 2009 the economic situation looked desperate- now it merely looks difficult.

    “Obama is merely an extension of GW Bush…nothing has changed – nada. Got rid of one bad apple only to get another – and after he promised such hope and change.”

    Excuse me? The most sweeping reform of health insurance in our history- you may not like it, but it is certainly change.

    “Neither Bush nor Obama would know the Constitution if it bit them on the backside!”

    Apparently, they are more familiar with the Constitution than you are. I asked you to name the 5 ‘tyranical’ things you accused Obama of- and you didn’t. Put up or shut up- you think he is so bad, name what policies he is pursuing that you think are ‘tyranical’- I really want to eviscerate that argument.

  94. avatar
    G May 1, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    Figures. DraggingCanoe is named after someone who was AGAINST the US. Further proof that DC just hates America and is a seditious fool.

  95. avatar
    nbC May 1, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    A fool for sure.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 12:01 am #

    G: DraggingCanoe is named after someone who was AGAINST the US

    By the way, the DraggingCanoe commenter here is not posting from the United States.

  97. avatar
    G May 2, 2010 at 12:24 am #

    Figures. Just a crummy troll trying to stir things up.

  98. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 8:48 am #

    The Constitution requires that the president swear, “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Untied States.” The Constitution’s oath of office is specific to the government established by the Constitution, not simply to the country the United States under any government that may be in power. Remember, the Constitution was itself a revolution: replacing the failing government of the United States established by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union with a new and distinct government.

    As such, the Constitution requires the president to be loyal to the new government, not simply to the country. (The presidency is exclusively a creature of the new government. The presidency is not inherently a component of the country under any government.) This theme informs the debate of who is (and is not) a natural born citizen.

    The Constitution requires that the person who will be president shall NOT be born under the jurisdiction of a government other than the government established by the Constitution – even if they were born in the territory of the Untied States. President Zachary Taylor is one such example.

    This is why those who were citizens of the Untied States before the adoption of the Constitution were exempt from the NBC requirement. (Just like Obama, these people may have been born in the United States but were not born exclusively in the government established by the Constitution. Unlike Obama, they were exempt from the NBC requirement. See Zachary Taylor, born in the United States, whom the Constitution exempts from the NBC requirement.)

    The Constitution itself tells us what the Constitution intends by the limitations imposed by natural born citizen: the president must not be born under a government other than that one created by the Constitution, unless the person were born before the adoption of the Constitution.

  99. avatar
    Bovril May 3, 2010 at 9:01 am #

    DCBikerJohn/John/Sven etc

    Read the ACTUAL Constitution and the laws surrounding it much….? Didn’t think so.

    Again the Birfer clan is supposing some mythical 3rd category of citizen the Unnatural NBC.

    Don’t exist, never has existed, never will exist without a Constitutional Amendment.

    Don’t like it tough titty.

  100. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 11:16 am #

    I find it funny how the right constantly talks of Alinsky accusing others of being followers. However; it is the right who has single handedly started using Alinsky techniques. Take for instance freedomworks and the tea parties

  101. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 11:18 am #

    You’re just going to spam every thread with this copy and paste aren’t you? I highly doubt you wrote this all by yourself.

  102. avatar
    Kevin Bellas May 3, 2010 at 11:18 am #

    Doc,

    Look like you lit a fire under old Mario arse this weekend. He went into a long attack of this site. Of course using lies to win a argument gets you no where.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

    Here’s a small sample of his nonsense.

    “With all that, demagogue Dr. Conspiracy and his hate-filled team of birther bashers want us to believe that the Framers would have allowed a British subject by birth like Obama to be President and Commander in Chief of the Constitutional Republic. Now they want to convert President George Washington into an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to give support to their untenable position. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/george-washinton-natural-born-citizen/. Dr. Conspiracy reaches the desperate point of declaring President George Washington an Article II “natural born Citizen” even though we know that President George Washington and his parents were born “natural born subjects” of Great Britain, when they were born there was no United States of America, it is his mother’s (his father died a British subject in 1743 when Washington was 11 years old) and Washington’s adherence to the Revolution which naturalized them to become original citizens of the United States, and David Ramsay, a highly respected historian from the Founding period, provides direct evidence from that period and explains in no uncertain terms at page 3 and 6 of his 1789 dissertation, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), that the “difference is immense” between a “subject” and a “citizen” and citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html. Of course, Dr. Conspiracy takes the position that he does because he is looking for mere birth on the territory (he will even go as far as settling with British territory) to make one a “natural born Citizen” rather than have to concede that a “natural born Citizen” is one born in the United States (or in what is deemed its equivalent) to parents who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). See Ramsay; Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758 French edition) (1759 first English translation). See also all Supreme Court cases and other authorities cited and discussed in my essay, Obama – Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a Natural Born Citizen, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html. Dr. Conspiracy would have a lot to do if he had to explain why President George Washington under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was only a grandfathered “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” He figures he better stay away from that one. Hence, a Washington that is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, even though the United States of America did not exist when Washington was born, suits his unfounded position just fine.”

  103. avatar
    SFJeff May 3, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    I had never heard of Alinsky until birthers came along.

    However, I have heard of Lee Atwater, “Swift Boating” and Karl Rove.

  104. avatar
    bob May 3, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    Apuzzo no likey.

  105. avatar
    Whatever4 May 3, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    “demagogue Dr. Conspiracy and his hate-filled team of birther bashers ” ????

    I prefer to think of it a birther control.

  106. avatar
    nbC May 3, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    Apuzzo is just upset that his concepts and ideas were demolished by Dr C and his crowd of well informed thinkers.

    I understand his sentiments, it’s hard to lose face… Soon we will hear how Kerchner’s appeal is going…

  107. avatar
    Black Lion May 3, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

    Mario seems to have gone over the edge with that screed. Especially when he claims that there was a English translation of Vattel’s wotk in 1759. I guess he is tired of getting embarassed by the good Doc, Greg, Ballantine, NBC, Lupin, and the other actual informed individuals at this blog…It was actually funny stuff. I guess he will maintain his boycott of this site because he is afraid of being exposed any more….But his screed does tell us that he is still coming over here to read what the Doc has uncovered…The most interesting part was that it was just his usual bunch of lackeys (minus the former Commander) commenting on his screed….

    Some interesting parts of his attempt at satire…

    “Even though they have no history, law, or facts to support their position and that history and all United States Supreme Court cases show that the Framers used natural law and the law of nations to define an Article II “natural born Citizen,” they continue trying to sell to the unknowing person that the Framers used the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen.”

    “With all that, demagogue Dr. Conspiracy and his hate-filled team of birther bashers want us to believe that the Framers would have allowed a British subject by birth like Obama to be President and Commander in Chief of the Constitutional Republic. Now they want to convert President George Washington into an Article II “natural born Citizen” in order to give support to their untenable position.”

    “…and David Ramsay, a highly respected historian from the Founding period, provides direct evidence from that period and explains in no uncertain terms at page 3 and 6 of his 1789 dissertation, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), that the “difference is immense” between a “subject” and a “citizen” and citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”

    Of course, Dr. Conspiracy takes the position that he does because he is looking for mere birth on the territory (he will even go as far as settling with British territory) to make one a “natural born Citizen” rather than have to concede that a “natural born Citizen” is one born in the United States (or in what is deemed its equivalent) to parents who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). See Ramsay; Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758 French edition) (1759 first English translation). See also all Supreme Court cases and other authorities cited and discussed in my essay…”

    “But Dr. Conspiracy and his supporters do not stop there. They also put forth the position without providing any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment amended the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” by making a born “citizen of the United States” under that Amendment or under any Congressional Act to mean the same thing as an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Finally, they even go as far as to pooh-pooh the constitutional requirement that a President and Commander in Chief must have unity of Citizenship and sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the moment of birth and that the Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution for the security of the nation. It is by examining the Dr. Conspiracy team which is a reflection of the current Democrat and Republican parties that we can understand President Washington’s warning in his farewell address about the threat that political parties pose to the survival of the Constitutional Republic.”

  108. avatar
    SFJeff May 3, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    “It is by examining the Dr. Conspiracy team which is a reflection of the current Democrat and Republican parties that we can understand President Washington’s warning in his farewell address about the threat that political parties pose to the survival of the Constitutional Republic.””

    Mario forgot to warn also against those ignorant American voters. Because apparently in Mario’s eyes, not only are both parties co-conspirators- the majority of voters just are plain ignorant about what Natural Born Citizen really, really, really means.

    I think Mario really wants the President to be chosen by a select few of the ‘informed’, perhaps of his choosing, just to be sure.

  109. avatar
    nbC May 3, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    . I guess he is tired of getting embarassed by the good Doc, Greg, Ballantine, NBC, Lupin, and the other actual informed individuals at this blog…

    He allows himself to be embarrassed by relying on foolish premises. Fine with me, I am merely interested in the facts, reason and logic. He is constrained by a conclusion

  110. avatar
    JoZeppy May 3, 2010 at 3:11 pm #

    Perhaps Mario is hitting the sauce again? Very sad, really.

  111. avatar
    Black Lion May 3, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    The problem is that Mario is coming from an untenable and wrong conclusion and he is forcing himself to find anything or misinterpret all evidence to attempt to support that position. He has not allowed himself to be prepare for the possibility that President Obama is a NBC, so he fails everytime. Now he has run back to the safety of his moderated blog so no one can point out how wrong he really is…

  112. avatar
    Black Lion May 3, 2010 at 3:27 pm #

    I guess Mario and former Commander are attempting to push more disinformation out to attempt to confuse some folks…Over at the Post and Fail, Kerchner tries his hand at humor….The bottom line is that Mario and Apuzzo claim that they are right, but will allow no one to challenge their opinions. And the birthers eat that up. If they were so confident, they would allow dissenting opinions. But they don’t. And that speaks volumes….Because deep down they know that all of their so called conclusions could be debunked within 15 minutes….

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/03/jefferson-used-vattels-the-law-of-nations-to-write-our-founding-documents/

    “The founders and framers were fluent in French. Thomas Jefferson used his personal copy of the new 1775 French edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law to write the Declaration of Independence. He was also very influential in the creation of the U.S. Constitution.”

    “Jefferson was very influential via his correspondence to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, PA in 1787 and in getting the Bill of Rights added. Read Vattel’s Law of Nations, Volume 1 first. Then read the Constitution. We can see in the words of the Constitution the impact of Vattel and the Law of Nations once again in the words therein such as “in order to form a more perfect Union” (perfection of government to serve the people was a prime directive of Vattel).”

    “The title of the book The Law of Nations, the preeminent legal treatise of the time, is even mentioned in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, in the enumerated and limited powers of the new federal republic form of government. The impact of Vattel and Volume 1 of his legal treatise The Law of Nations on his visions for a new form of government on the founders and framers of this nation and its founding documents cannot be overstated. Vattel was the keystone legal source for the new federal government established in 1789 when the new Constitution was ratified, the first of its kind in the world and a beacon of liberty to the rest of the world.”

  113. avatar
    Black Lion May 3, 2010 at 3:57 pm #

    “Birther control”…That is a good one…The natives are getting restless in Apuzzo/Kerchner/Post and Fail land….They are even turning on their supposed savior, Bobby Jindal…I wonder if Sarah palin was shown to have been born in Canada would they make such a ruckus…

    Ed says:
    Monday, May 3, 2010 at 12:29 AM
    Let me make this clear. I am a citizen of Louisiana. I like Bobby Jindal. Bobby Jindal is not eligible to be president of the USA. In the last 6 months, I have personally sent an email to the official address’ of Bobby Jindal asking him to be sure that the Louisiana legislature passes a law insuring that anyone running for President provide proof that he/she is a natural born citizen of the USA before their name is placed on the ballot. The official site promises that each and every email sent to the governor will be responded to. As of today, I have received no response. This tells me something. Does it tell you anything?

    TexomaEd says:
    Sunday, May 2, 2010 at 11:01 AM
    Excellent analysis, John. I might add that the Republicans have another reason to remain quiet about the eligibility issue — they have a rising star amongst their ranks who could be their presidential or VP candidate in 2012 or later. His name is Governor Bobby Jindal. Jindal is not a natural born citizen. He was born in Louisiana to parents who were both legal immigrants from India at the time of his birth. They later became naturalized, but that does not matter. At the time of Jindal’s birth, his parents were citizens of India, and so Jindal was born subject to a foreign power.

    Mick says:
    Sunday, May 2, 2010 at 3:26 PM
    Jindal is certainly not a natural born Citizen, as he was born in 1961 only 6 months after his parents arrived from India in the US. They were attending Grad school, and could not have naturalized until 5 years after they arrived. Somehow FreeRepublic took issue with my writing on this issue and banned me, after over 500 views, marking it with some weird ACLU “warning”. I think it may be because Jindal is Catholic, and FR has a very Catholic base.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/02/why-congressional-republicans-avoid-the-obama-eligibility-issue/#comments

  114. avatar
    Bovril May 3, 2010 at 4:27 pm #

    H’mmm “tired and emotional” sums it up….

  115. avatar
    smrstrauss May 3, 2010 at 5:20 pm #

    This may be useful additional information to the main article:

    The reason for the grandfather clause was not so that the American-born leaders could become president. They already considered themselves Natural Born, as the writings at the time showed. It was to allow people who were not Natural Born at all but had been leaders during the Revolution, such as Alexander Hamilton, to be eligible to become president. Some historical research indicates that the grandfather clause opened the possibility of becoming president to some 60,000-70,000 men who had been born outside of the 13 colonies but had been naturalized by states before the writing of the Constitution. Hamilton, who did not become president mainly because he was the loser in a duel, was not Natural Born because he was not born in one of the 13 colonies. He was born on the British Caribbean island of Nevis.

  116. avatar
    smrstrauss May 3, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    Obama was born under a government created by the Constitution. He was born in Hawaii, a US state.

  117. avatar
    nemocapn May 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    BlackLion says (from Post & Email):
    “Vattel was the keystone legal source for the new federal government established in 1789 when the new Constitution was ratified, the first of its kind in the world and a beacon of liberty to the rest of the world.”

    A beacon of liberty? Let’s look at this work of Vattel that they claim provided inspiration in drafting our Constitution.

    From page 179 of the 1852 English edition:
    “A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force. We have a famous example of this in the rape of the Sabine women.*

    “But, though a nation is allowed to procure for itself, even by force of arms, the liberty of obtaining women in marriage, no woman in particular can be constrained in her choice, nor become, by right, the wife of a man who carries her off by force….”

    How inspirational! Men have the right to rape women, but a woman has a right to refuse to marry her rapist.

    From page 851:
    “If, sometimes, the furious and ungovernable soldier carries his brutality so far as to violate female chastity, or to massacre women, children, and old men, the officers lament those excesses ; they exert their utmost efforts to put a stop to them; and a prudent and humane general even punishes them whenever he can. But, if the women wish to be spared altogether, they must confine themselves to the occupations peculiar to their own sex, and not meddle with those of men, by taking up arms. Accordingly, the military law of the Switzers, which forbids the soldier to maltreat women, formally excepts those females who have committed any acts of hostility.*”

    Yes, I can see how Vattel inspired our founding fathers. How dare Molly Pitcher fire her cannon at the British.

  118. avatar
    Rickey May 4, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    Black Lion says: (quoting the Post & Fail)

    Thomas Jefferson used his personal copy of the new 1775 French edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law to write the Declaration of Independence.

    Apparently someone forgot to tell Dumas Malone (Pulitzer Prize-winner for his definitive six-volume biography of Jefferson) about this. 3,000 pages on Jefferson, and not a single mention of Vattel. Quite the contrary, in fact:

    In the seventeen days between June 11, when the [Declaration] committee was appointed, and June 28, when they reported to Congress, Jefferson made his draft. He consulted no book or pamphlet, though he felt entirely free to do so. “Jefferson the Virginian,” p. 220)

  119. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 1:18 am #

    That’s good, but I’ll have to get some supporting authorities for “They already considered themselves Natural Born, as the writings at the time showed” before adding.

  120. avatar
    nbC May 4, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    Not an original source:

    John Yinger

    The first source of evidence is the presidential eligibility clause itself, which grants eligibility to any “Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” This “grandfather” clause gave presidential eligibility to roughly 60,000 naturalized citizens.

    A Simple Matter of Equal Rights: Let Naturalized Citizens Run for President, Testimony Presented to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee October 5, 2004

  121. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    Yinger‘s history of the development of the eligibility clause, with footnotes.

  122. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    An interesting sentence from the Yinger history:

    The term “natural born” citizen has a long history in British common law. In fact, a law passed in 1677 law says that “natural born” citizens include people born overseas to British citizens. This usage was undoubtedly known to John Jay, who had children born overseas while he was serving as a diplomat.

  123. avatar
    smrstrauss May 4, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Re supporting authorities.

    My first source is a letter from a committee of the Continental Congress to the US Ambassadors in Europe (Franklin, Adams, etc.) in 1777.

    The committee had as members Jefferson, Sherman, Gerry, Read and Williams, and the letter said that it was “resolved [apparently by the full Continental Congress] that it was inconsistent with the interests of the United States to appoint any person, not a natural born citizen thereof, to the office of minister, charge d’affaires, consul, vice-consul, or to any other civil department in a foreign country, and that a copy of this resolve be transmitted to Messrs. Adams, Franklin and Jay…”

    I found this letter quoted on page 107 of “Republican Landmarks” subtitled “The Views and Opinions of American Statesmen on Foreign Immigration” by john P. Sanderson, published in 1856. (http://books.google.com/books?id=l1gpkmF4YPgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22republican+landmarks%22&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false)

    One interesting aspect to this quotation is that it uses the term Natural Born Citizen, were many of the states were using Natural Born Subject. Another is the clear meaning that Natural Born Citizens of the United States existed in 1777.

    There remains the question whether the use of the term meant natural born by location of birth or natural born by parents being citizens. But, as we all know, it is the birthers’ claim that the parents of Americans were NOT US citizens but were mainly British citizens, so that cannot be the meaning. Moreover, in this letter the grandfather clause does not apply. Only persons who were Natural Born Citizens could be hired by the diplomats. Presumably Hamilton would not have been eligible.

    If we include the phrase Natural Born Subject (and we really should since most experts and the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark consider that at the time Subject and Citizen were interchangeable), we find such things as the 1776 Constitution of Pennsylvania which said that ‘every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state….may purchase..land,,and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state…” (http://books.google.com/books?id=l1gpkmF4YPgC&pg=PA105&dq=%22good+character+who+comes+to+settle+in+this+state,+having+first+taken+an+oath+or+affirmation+of+allegiance+to+the+same,+may+purchase,+or+by+other+just+means+acquire,+hold,+and+transfer+land+or+other+real+estate%22#v=onepage&q=%22good%20character%20who%20comes%20to%20settle%20in%20this%20state%2C%20having%20first%20taken%20an%20oath%20or%20affirmation%20of%20allegiance%20to%20the%20same%2C%20may%20purchase%2C%20or%20by%20other%20just%20means%20acquire%2C%20hold%2C%20and%20transfer%20land%20or%20other%20real%20estate%22&f=false)

    Again, how could “natural born” mean anything other than birth in the state or in the colony that preceded it.

    My final example is the use of the term Natural Born Citizen in the book “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings [1803]” by St. George Tucker, a prominent lawyer and jurist at the time who wrote the first extended commentary on the Constitution only about six years after it was adopted.

    He (apparently quoting another expert in a letter) says: “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

    So, there were Natural Born Citizens before the constitution. Also, there were only two categories of residents: Natural Born Citizens and aliens. The reason for there not being other citizens than Natural Born Citizens is apparently that Tucker and the author he cites are referring to a time before the early states adopted naturalization measures, so there were only citizens at birth and everyone else.

    In any case, these examples show that there were Natural Born Citizens before the Constitution. That being the case, there had to be a reason for the grandfather clause, and it was to include persons other than those who had been born in America, such as Hamilton.

  124. avatar
    smrstrauss May 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    Correction. That should read “where many of the states were using Natural Born Subject.”

    Also, I forgot the citation for St George Tucker’s book. It is: “http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=693&search=%22natural+born%22&layout=html#a_1661223″

  125. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 4, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    I posted this on another thread, but since the article in question referred to this post, I thought that I would re-post it here. Apparently Mario is afraid of this line of argument…

    I recently posted the following comment on an article on Mario Apuzzo’s blog:

    A question: In light of the facts that the founding fathers most likely read de Vattel’s work in the original French and the term ‘natural born citizen’ didn’t appear in an English translation of ‘The Law of Nations’ until AFTER the ratification of the Constitution, why didn’t the founding fathers use the term ‘indigenous’ in Article II, Section I? (That being the obvious translation of the French.)

    Commander Kerchner posted this response to my comment:

    Slartibartfast:

    Brand new user ID just created. Hmmh. Do you know any of the team Mario wrote about.

    To your question …

    You must read the whole of section 212 and it is very clear that “natural born Citizen” is the correct English translation of the subject of that sentence and that is exactly what John Jay wrote in his letter to General Washington in the summer of 1787 when the Constitution was written. John Jay was fluent in French and an ardent reader and believer in Vattel’s Law of Nations. That is how John Jay conveyed in English to Washington the intent of putting that term in Article II as a “strong check” against foreign influence by requiring only a “natural born Citizen” be allowed to serve as the President and Commander of the military. To be born with no foreign claims and allegiances at birth and thus have not foreign influence on you at birth, you have unity of citizenship at birth, i.e., you must be born of two Citizen parents of a country, on the soil of that country ,,. a natural born Citizen.

    You can twist and squirm in the face of the truth and choose not to recognize the writings of Vattel and a founder David Ramsay all you want about this, but if you read the entirety of Section 212 of Vattel, Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, in either French or English the message, meaning, and intent is the same. Vattel chose the words he did in French and then immediately defined those words. The corrected English translation of those words in 1797 were again immediately defined in the rest of the sentence and paragraph. It is clear as a bell to anyone with intellectual honesty and a seeker of the truth and a student of history and the founding of our Republic. SCOTUS case quote directly from Vattel and restate in English exactly what was meant by “natural born Citizen”. Read the Venus case of 1814 and the Happersett case of 1875 for examples. See these links:

    [links removed]

    I sent in this reply which has apparently fallen victim to moderation:

    Commander Kerchner,

    Thank you for your answer. While I just created the google account for ‘Slartibartfast’, I am an occasional poster (under that pseudonym) at Dr. Conspiracy’s site and a regular poster at George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley’s site (while I use the same pseudonym there, I have revealed my identity so it is not anonymous). I’m not on any ‘team’ and I’m not filled with hate. I am a supporter of President Obama and believe that a certified copy of his COLB (assuming it confirms the information on the version posted online) is sufficient proof that he is a natural born citizen to any US court.

    I don’t find your argument persuasive since in other cases where the founders did not want their words to be interpreted in the context of English Common Law, they explicitly said so (such as the definition of the term ‘treason’). In addition, I think that the the statement

    “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    in the majority opinion of US vs. Wong Kim Ark clearly indicates that President Obama would have been a natural born citizen if BOTH of his parents were aliens (and he was born in Hawaii), but since he is the child of a US citizen born in the United States (and under its jurisdiction) I don’t think that there is any doubt that he is a natural born citizen and eligible for the office he holds.

    Lest you brand me an obot scared of legal challenges to the president’s eligibility or laws requiring proof of eligibility to get on the ballot (like the measure that recently died in the Arizona legislature), let me say that I am strongly in favor of legislation such as the Arizona eligibility measure and fully expect that at least one court case will surmount the standing hurdle in the run-up to the 2012 election and be heard by a court. I am confident that in such an event an official copy of the COLB (which must be given full faith and credit by any state and satisfies the federal definition of a birth certificate) will suffice to prove President Obama’s natural born status and if any court rules on the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ that they will come to the same conclusion as the (non-binding) precedent set by the Indiana court in the Ankeny decision.

    I expect that the effect of any eligibility law or lawsuit will be to demonstrate that President Obama is a natural born citizen in a very high profile way and totally marginalize the eligibility movement. So I wish you and Mr. Apuzzo the best of luck in attempting what I expect will greatly benefit the effort to re-elect President Obama.

    Apparently this line of argument doesn’t fit into Mr. Apuzzo and Cmdr Kerchner’s narrative about hateful O-bots who are scared of the eligibility question…

  126. avatar
    smrstrauss May 4, 2010 at 9:00 pm #

    Also there is no mention of Vattel in the Federalist Papers (about a third written by Jay). (Also, if a Natural Born Citizen did not refer to the common meaning of Natural Born used at the time, and to a new idea combining jus soli and jus sanguinis, the Federalist papers would have told us.)

    Also, Vattel recommends such things as establishing a state religion and forcing residents to join it or leave the country. One thing that he does not recommend is picking a citizen as the leader of the country. He gives several examples of countries picking their leaders from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that that is a bad thing.

    So the framers of the Constitution did not follow Vattel in all his recommendations. There is no evidence that they did in this case.

    The writers of the Constitution and other American leaders at the time used the term “Natural Born” in scores of articles and letters, but not one of them can be shown to mean “born to two citizen parents.”

    I have found at least one quotation in which Jay, Franklin and Adams used Natural Born Citizen as a synonym for Natural Born Subject, and a NBS was simply a person born in the British realm (other than the child of a foreign diplomat). The gist was that a NBC visiting Britain would have all the rights and privileges of an NBS visiting the USA. It would seem unfair if a NBC who, as you say required two citizen parents, would be given all the rights and privileges of an NBS, who merely had to be born in the country.

    And, of course, there is James Madison, who said that place of birth is the sole criterion of allegiance in the USA.

  127. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 4, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    You’re right, but my point was that my line of argument destroys the brither’s narrative that we’re just scared of the eligibility question. In addition, I think that any supporter of President Obama should want a high-profile state law or court case to bring otherwise rational people who have bought into birther propaganda back to reality. We’ve got the facts and the law on our side and so far we’re 70-0 in court, why wouldn’t we want a fight on the merits?

  128. avatar
    nemocapn May 4, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    I think what destroys the birther narrative is that Apuzzo has written an article arguing against a bunch of anonymous posters on Dr. C’s blog, rather than arguing his case in front of a court of law.

  129. avatar
    nBC May 5, 2010 at 1:38 am #

    He should be so unlucky to have to argue in front of a court…

  130. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 5, 2010 at 1:50 am #

    Exactly. Just imagine the fun if Mario, Leo, Phil and Orly all got their day in court to argue their cases on the merits. The mental gymnastics and impugning of judges required for birther blogs to spin the catastrophic failure in order to continue their illogical beliefs. I would be better irony than when Dr. Kate wrote an article on her blog praising the integrity of Judge Carter and predicting that he would rule in favor of the birthers the same morning that he dismissed the case.

  131. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 1:53 am #

    Mario Apuzzo is apparently afraid of open discussion on his web site. In fact (correct me if I am wrong here), I am not aware of any “birther” web site that allows open discussion critical of its position.

  132. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 5, 2010 at 3:47 am #

    I went a few rounds with ‘I took the red pill’ on his blog (before getting distracted by something shiny) several months ago (he used to be a regular poster at Dr. Kate’s – haven’t seen him there lately). His site doesn’t seem to be moderated and he never blocked me.

    http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/

    By the way, it seems Mario got around to replying to me:

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/responses-to-obama-supporters-comments.html

    He gave it a whole new thread! I wonder if he’ll let me comment on it…

  133. avatar
    G May 5, 2010 at 7:06 am #

    I read it. I see one of the commentators over there named “medical” spins some passive-aggressive tale about his past, painting himself as some sort of hero & victim at the same time, while slamming Dr. C in the process:

    The stinking, lazy, lying Marxist Obots (like crazy Dr. Conspiracy), are just like those jealous “thugs” from my old neighborhood, they’re too lazy to climb the mountain of life, so they’re useless failures. Now they’re all waiting for a free helicopter ride straight to the summit of the mountain of life courtesy of “the Usurper”. After all, they’re “entitled to a better life”. Boys, it’s not ever going to happen, you’ve been suckered!

  134. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 9:15 am #

    g [quoting]: The stinking, lazy, lying Marxist Obots (like crazy Dr. Conspiracy)

    I never wanted to be a character in the story, but only a facilitator of the discussion.

  135. avatar
    MuhommadMcLovin May 5, 2010 at 10:07 am #

    Doc, call an ambulance. Slartifartfest has been slammed, face first, into the mat by Apuzzo.

    Slartibartfast says …
    You’re right, but my point was that my line of argument destroys the brither’s [sic] narrative that we’re just scared of the eligibility question. In addition, I think that any supporter of President Obama should want a high-profile state law or court case to bring otherwise rational people who have bought into birther propaganda back to reality.

    Quoting Apuzzo …

    It is of critical importance that the Framers included in the Constitution the status of “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” There must be a reason for their including these two separate and distinct classes of citizenship.

    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175 (1803).

    Use of different language in different parts of a statute suggests that the words used have a different meaning. E.g. Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-30 (1997). Hence, every clause in the Constitution must be given its own independent meaning.

    The Framers were very specific in including both these terms into the Constitution. The unambiguous text and structure of the Constitution show that the terms each describe a different type of citizen and each are ascribed to different political offices. Hence, conflating “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States” is therefore simply not allowed and “inadmissible.”

    Moreover, apart from a strict textual interpretation of the meaning of the two terms, there is no United States Supreme Court decision holding or even suggesting in dicta that the two terms mean the same thing. On the contrary, the historical record, Supreme Court cases, and Congressional Acts all show that the two terms are separate and distinct with their own meaning.

  136. avatar
    Lupin May 5, 2010 at 10:29 am #

    I see that Meretricious Mario is as full of crazy squirrels as before.

  137. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 10:30 am #

    Standard Apuzzo straw man. Nobody is conflating natural born citizen with citizen of the United States.

  138. avatar
    Whatever4 May 5, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    But you are a character in this story. Kindly ol’ Doc Conspiracy, dispensing wisdom from the office connected to his home. None of those new-fangled birther theories, mind you, but good old-fashioned knowledge that our ancesters knew and understood. He’s always willing to treat new patients, but some of his colleagues get a bit testy when an outbreak of teh crazy reappears. (WHY don’t those birthers wash their brains before getting together? It just spreads teh crazy like.. well, crazy.)

    He’s up to his eyeballs in chickens that grateful patrons keep sending him in lieu of actual cash.

  139. avatar
    smrstrauss May 5, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    There IS a difference between a Natural Born Citizen and a citizen of the United States. A citizen of the United States can include naturalized citizens and a Natural Born Citizen cannot have been a naturalized citizen. That is the difference.

    Yes, the writers of the Constitution did not want foreigners to be president. A president must be a citizen. Yes, the writers of the Constitution did not want naturalized citizens to be president AFTER the expiration of the grandfather clause (which allowed naturalized citizens such as Hamilton). No, the writers of the Constitution never said that they did not allow the US-born children of foreigners to be president. They never said anything like that. They consider that the US-born child of foreigners is as much a US citizen in every way as the US-born child of one or more generations of US parents.

  140. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 5, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

    “Jindal is certainly not a natural born Citizen, as he was born in 1961 only 6 months after his parents arrived from India in the US.”

    Oh my goddess *headdesk*

    You know what will be really sad? If Jindal actually gets elected President and all the Birthers stop going after Obama nd start going after Bobby instead.

  141. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 5, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    Sorry, but I’m still standing (along with my arguments) and Mario is an epic fail just waiting to happen should he ever get the chance to present his arguments to a court of competent jurisdiction. Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens (the ONLY two classes of citizens) are equal in all respects save eligibility for the office of the presidency.

  142. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    Whatever4: take a bow.

  143. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    “the Birthers stop going after Obama nd start going after Bobby instead.”

    Which is exactly what is going to happen. Yes!!! Popcorn.

  144. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    “Meretricious Mario is as full of crazy squirrels as before.”

    Yes, but now he’s having the squirrels power his car. I’ve seen pictures of them turning wheels.

  145. avatar
    nbC May 5, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    Mario is still painfully unprepared for any oral hearings. With any luck the merits panel will disregard Mario’s request and save him from further embarrassments

  146. avatar
    MuhommadMcLovin May 5, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    Good for you, Slarti. Anyone who keeps a stiff upper-lip in the shadow of defeat is an honorable man.

    Oh, and Slarti, are Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens equal or congruent?

    What about native citizens? Didn’t the 10th Circuit rule natural born citizens and naturalized citizens “stand upon the footing” of a native born citizen, Craig v U.S?

  147. avatar
    nbC May 5, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    Oh, and Slarti, are Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens equal or congruent?

    Citizens consist of naturalized citizens (made so by statute) and natural born citizens (made so by Common Law and our Constitution)

    What about native citizens? Didn’t the 10th Circuit rule natural born citizens and naturalized citizens “stand upon the footing” of a native born citizen, Craig v U.S?

    Nope…

    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

    Clearly native born and natural born are equivalent concepts as is so well documented.

  148. avatar
    nemocapn May 5, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    Can Sarah Palin even run? Jon Christian Ryter is a guest editorialist for the web site, http://www.birthers.org. I guess that makes him a birther. The site says, “We are the Birthers, we are those who are under attack by the Mainstream Media, the once bastions of truth, have become the purveyors of cheap words. They want to mock us by giving us a label to discredit and marginalize us.”

    This is what Jon Christian Ryter said about Sarah Palin running for office in 2008:

    “What that means is that not only could Hillary Rodham Clinton not seek the office of President of the United States without Congress first adopting and ratifying a constitutional amendment degenderizing the office of President, but Gov. Sarah Palin cannot constitutionally seek the office of Vice President for the same reason. As Bill Burton so aptly noted, the Vice President is one heartbeat away from the office of President. Logic suggests that, constitutionally, since a woman cannot be President she cannot be Vice President either because the job of the Vice President is to be prepared to step into the Oval Office as President should anything happen to the commander-in-chief/head-of-state.”
    http://www.jonchristianryter.com/Plain_Talk/080829.html

    This is what he said in 2009 about Sarah Palin:

    “Like my mom used to say when she’d assign me and my siblings housecleaning chores—and then be dissatisfied with the results: ‘If you want the House clean, only a woman can do it.’ It’s time for the American people to step up behind Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin…. We need to see if she’s got the moxy to get a lot of other Republicans elected in the House and Senate in 2010. If she can do that, the country needs to get behind her in 2012 and send the New World Order packing back to 1920 where it rightly belongs—in the pages of history as the failed philosophy of greedy rich men who should be in prison, not controlling politicians from their ivory towers on Wall and Broad Streets in New York.” http://www.jonchristianryter.com/RyterReport/headlines.html

    Granted he only says to “get behind her in 2012,” but if he doesn’t mean to get behind her presidential candidacy in 2012, what does he mean? I’m confused by the birthers. Are women eligible to run according the the Constitution or not? What say the Vattelists?

    Fortunately, Jon Christian Ryter is clearer about Obama’s eligibility. From his article, “Obamination”:

    “Under US immigration law, a child born to a natural US citizen born anywhere in the world (fitting the criteria outlined here), is construed by US law to be a natural citizen only if they meet the criteria outlined above. If he met those criteria, it would does not matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, Indonesia or Kenya. Nor would it have mattered ithat the birth birth certificate posted on Daily KOs is a copy of an original (which it declares itself to be) or a Certificate of Live Birth (which iit [sic] is not)) or even a forgery.”
    http://www.jonchristianryter.com/2008/080908.html

    Glad we got that straightened out.

  149. avatar
    Greg May 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    It is of critical importance that the Framers included in the Constitution the status of “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” There must be a reason for their including these two separate and distinct classes of citizenship.

    Separate and distinct implies that there is no overlap between “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.”

    We know there must be overlap between the two terms. Guess who can be Senators or Representatives:

    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

    Surely natural born citizens can be Senators and Representatives, right?

    There is not a single case, there is not a whit of historical evidence, there is not a single Congressional Act that suggests that someone can be born here and become a Citizen of the United States because of that birth and yet not be a natural born citizen!

    In the entire history of the United States, only a single legal “scholar” has suggested anything of the sort, and he suggested it about a Justice of the Supreme Court who presumably had read the Constitution, but still ran for President despite having a British father. (This legal “scholar” is probably best known for his tacit (at best) support of the holocaust.)

  150. avatar
    Bovril May 5, 2010 at 2:52 pm #

    Muhommad dear,

    If you need to understand the legal realities may I point you in the direction of Ankeny V Governor of Indiana.

    A stirring and cogent read, timely and current which basically says Birfers are idiots, GTFOI, Obama is wholly eligible, case closed, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

  151. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 5, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    M. McL. said:

    Good for you, Slarti. Anyone who keeps a stiff upper-lip in the shadow of defeat is an honorable man.

    Since Mario has not yet (and never will, in my opinion) gotten a court of competent jurisdiction to agree with him, I don’t think that I am ‘in the shadow of defeat’, but maybe he will appreciate the compliment you just payed him.

    Oh, and Slarti, are Natural born citizens and naturalized citizens equal or congruent?

    I have a PhD in mathematics, so my definitions of the terms ‘equal’ and ‘congruent’ are technical and not applicable here, but in common usage the two terms are synonyms. NBCs and NCs are equal with the sole exception of eligibility for the office of the presidency. (any two equilateral triangles with the same side length are congruent)

  152. avatar
    MuhommadMcLovin May 5, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    RE: Separate and distinct …

    If I told you I was a naturalized citizen, then you would be open to fact I might also be a natural born citizen.

    Or, if I told you I was a natural born citizen, then you would be open to the fact I might also be a naturalized citizen.

    Naturalized citizens and Natural born citizens are separate and distinct.

    Naturalized citizens stand upon the footing of a native born citizen, as does a natural born citizen. And for that matter, so does child born in the U.S. to diplomats representing countries other than the U.S. and the children of invading armies.

  153. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 5, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    Mario Apuzzo responded to a comment of mine here:

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/responses-to-obama-supporters-comments.html

    This is my response (which I will also post to the above thread):

    [Me]: “I am a supporter of President Obama and believe that a certified copy of his COLB (assuming it confirms the information on the version posted online) is sufficient proof that he is a natural born citizen to any US court.”

    [Apuzzo response]: “An authentic and certified Certification of Live Birth (COLB), not to be confused with a Certificate of Live Birth (BC), is only prima facie evidence of a birth event. A certified copy paper version of the alleged COLB has not been presented to any controlling legal authority or even to any reporters in the major media.”

    Yes, a certified copy of the COLB is prima facie evidence of a birth event in Hawaii. I stipulated providing such to a controlling legal authority (I am confident that Hawaii DOH officials did not perjure themselves and such a document exists). I am not aware of any evidence that would be admissible in a US court of law that would cast doubt on the validity of the COLB. Also, as I understand it, birth certificates in Kenya are a matter of public record. If this is true then the lack of a certified copy of a Kenyan birth certificate with official affidavits affirming its validity is very curious…

    [Apuzzo response]: “It is rather unreasonable to argue that with every word in the Constitution, the Framers defaulted to the English common law for its meaning unless they told us they were relying upon some other law for definition.”

    It is also unreasonable to assume that they defaulted to de Vattel and implicitly created a third class of citizen (someone born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen) without in any way mentioning it.

    [Apuzzo response]: “At no time did [Justice Gray in US v. Wong Kim Ark] say that such a child born in the United States of “an” alien parent is a “natural born Citizen.” To better understand this point, we know that the Fourteenth Amendment considers born citizens and naturalized citizens “citizens of the United States” and deems both classes of citizens to be equal. But even though they are equal in rights, we know that under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.”

    As I read the 14th Amendment, it says in relevant part “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….”. I don’t see anything asserting that the classes of citizens are equal. On the other hand the Wong Kim Ark decision DOES assert equality: “… as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” If Wong Kim Ark were not eligible to run for president then he would not be ‘as much a citizen’ as a natural born citizen. Additionally, if both are co-equal citizens by operation of the same principle, by what principle do you claim that there is a difference between the two? Also, I find it interesting that “an” alien parent means just one alien parent, but ‘the natural-born child of “A” citizen’ means two citizen parents. I hope you get the chance to argue this in front of a court.

    [Apuzzo response]: “[Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana] basically took Wong Kim Ark’s definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and used it to also define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court conflated the two terms into the former. In so doing, the court obliterated the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” from the Constitution. ”

    Not true. The 14th amendment specifies two classes of citizen (‘born’ and ‘naturalized’) as does the Constitution (‘natural born’ and ‘naturalized’). To say that these terms have been conflated is a straw man argument. And while conflating distinct terms in the Constitution is “inadmissible” as you put it, I would think that adding distinctions that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution’s text (such as people who are born citizens but not natural born citizens) is equally improper.

    [Me]: “I expect that the effect of any eligibility law or lawsuit will be to demonstrate that President Obama is a natural born citizen in a very high profile way and totally marginalize the eligibility movement.”

    [Apuzzo response]: “We welcome the challenge to have a court of competent jurisdiction decide the question of Obama’s Article II eligibility to be President. We believe that if a court will give Commander Kerchner and the other plaintiffs standing, we will prevail. Once such a court decides the merits of the eligibility question (not just the standing question), I do not believe there will continue to be an “eligibility movement” and so there will not be any need to “marginalize” it.”

    So if a court of competent jurisdiction issues a finding similar to the Ankeny decision after hearing your arguments you believe that will satisfy the entire eligibility movement that President Obama legitimately holds his office?

    [Me]: “So I wish you and Mr. Apuzzo the best of luck in attempting what I expect will greatly benefit the effort to re-elect President Obama.”

    [Apuzzo response]: “Commander Kerchner, the other plaintiffs, and I are not interested in hurting or helping anyone’s chances of getting elected or re-elected. What we are interested in is that the Constitution be respected and applied as the law of the land in our Constitutional Republic.”

    I’m not interested in your intent – I would just like the eligibility issue to be addressed on it merits in as high-profile a venue as possible so that a ruling in favor of President Obama’s legitimacy (which is what I fully expect will happen) discredits the misinformation that the eligibility movement has espoused as widely as possible.

    I think that the implication that only you and those that agree with you are interested in upholding the Constitution is one of the most un-American sentiments I’ve ever heard. One of the basic principles of how America works (or is supposed to work), in my opinion, is the idea that patriotic men and women of good faith exist on both sides of arguments. The demonization of people who disagree with them by the eligibility movement (and the right wing in general) is an un-American tactic which shames the founders and all they stood for and disrespects all of the brave men and women that have fought and died to ensure our freedom.

  154. avatar
    Scientist May 5, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    Sven: Can I have a bit of whatever you’re smoking???

  155. avatar
    Greg May 5, 2010 at 3:25 pm #

    Naturalized citizens and Natural born citizens are separate and distinct.

    The sun rises in the East, too.

    Did you figure this out all on your own?

    If only that were the question being presented by Mario.

    He claims that “natural born citizen” and “Citizen of the United States” are separate and distinct.

    If I say I’m a “citizen of the United States,” does that tell you I’m a natural born, or naturalized citizen?

    Your examples show what “separate and distinct” mean.

    Natural born CANNOT be Naturalized
    Naturalized CANNOT be Natural born

    Citizen of the United States CAN BE Natural Born OR Naturalized!

    Naturalized citizens stand upon the footing of a native born citizen, as does a natural born citizen.

    Why does the English language give birthers such trouble?

    If I said, “Eggs and bacon are alike in that they’re both breakfast food, except rashers are meat,” no reader of English would think that I meant to talk about TWO different things – bacon and rashers! No reader could possibly think that bacon wasn’t meat!

    The rational reader of English would conclude either 1) rashers and bacon are two words that mean the same thing (known to kindergärtners and above as “synonyms”) or 2) I’m an idiot and cannot write English.

    Can you show me another sentence in the entire English language like the above where the last two terms are NOT synonymous, Dick? Or are you arguing that the Supreme Court Justice in question was a moron?

    And for that matter, so does child born in the U.S. to diplomats representing countries other than the U.S. and the children of invading armies.

    No, these are “aliens.” That means they are NOT citizens!

  156. avatar
    Greg May 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    At no time did [Justice Gray in US v. Wong Kim Ark] say that such a child born in the United States of “an” alien parent is a “natural born Citizen.”

    He only spent 8 pages of the 53 page decision (658-666) showing that natural born subject and natural born citizen have the exact same meaning. Since no one can conclude that Wong would not have been a natural born subject of England, had he been born before the Revolution he is, by simple logic, a natural born citizen.

    Mario is yet another birther who refuses my challenge to explain how WKA got from point A to Wong’s citizenship without the necessary premise that natural born citizenship and natural born subjectship are the same thing!

  157. avatar
    nbc May 5, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    I think Mario still has only read the dissenting opinion or the Cliff’s notes version of Wong Kim Ark.

  158. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 5, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Greg said:

    Mario is yet another birther who refuses my challenge to explain how WKA got from point A to Wong’s citizenship without the necessary premise that natural born citizenship and natural born subjectship are the same thing!

    I’m pretty sure that using logic in your argument is considered unfair…

  159. avatar
    granite May 5, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    Re: “I am not aware of any “birther” web site that allows open discussion critical of its position.”

    This one does, and it certainly needs some anti-birther comments. But he tends to cut off discussion after a few days.

    (http://www.snooperreport.com/snooper-report/2010/5/5/our-undocumented-white-house-resident.html;jsessionid=321E866701AFDEEE08EF5D312CFE75F0.web118?lastPage=true#comment8325860)

    He also covers the Kenya/Hawaii side on (http://www.snooperreport.com/snooper-report/2010/5/5/our-undocumented-white-house-resident.html), which could also use some anti-birther comments.

  160. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    Thanks. I went over and dropped a comment. I ‘d want to look at it more before bestowing the birther label to the site.

  161. avatar
    granite May 5, 2010 at 8:33 pm #

    Re: “I would just like the eligibility issue to be addressed on it merits in as high-profile a venue as possible so that a ruling in favor of President Obama’s legitimacy (which is what I fully expect will happen) discredits the misinformation that the eligibility movement has espoused as widely as possible.”

    This urge for a court to decide seems somewhat sideways to the issue of whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. He is regardless of whether a court decides.

    And it is unlikely that a court will decide, other than in the Ankeny case (Ankeny v Indiana) in which the appeals court DID decide that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen [http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf]). I read recently that the Supreme Court in Indiana turned down the plaintiffs’ attempt to appeal Ankeny.

    This means, of course, that the higher court in effect found that Ankeny is perfectly proper. That is the effect without the court ruling, and it is clearly unnecessary for the state supreme court to rule when Ankeny is correct. It only has to rule if it thinks that Ankeny and in other courts cases like it, are NOT correct.

    I cannot imagine that there would be such a court, so it is entirely possible that there will be no higher ruling than Ankeny. While the plaintiffs did appeal Ankeny to the state supreme court, I doubt that they will take the chance of appealing it to the federal courts. The risk of loss is too high. They’d prefer to fulminate that no federal court has rule, even if their decision not to appeal to a federal court is the main cause of it not ruling.

    Finally, let’s make a thought experiment about an appeal to the Supreme Court. The court has already thrown out two or three (or was it four?) birther cases, but these were grab-bags of factual allegations and constitutional claims, and the issue raised on appeal was neither the facts nor the constitutional claim but simply whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue.

    But supposing that the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs had standing or it received an appeal of Ankeny.

    Would the Supreme Court accept the case? As you say, it would settle the issue and so it might be a good thing. But that is not how the Supreme Court decides to accept cases. There have to be four justices who really think that there is an ISSUE, not that they want to make the birther nonsense to go away.

    In other words, there really would have to be four justices who really believed that it was possible that “Natural Born” stemmed from Vattel and that Natural Born Citizen might mean “born to two US parents” or that it might mean that dual nationality affects it.

    I sincerely doubt that there is even one justice who believes that this is possible. In particular, I sincerely doubt that conservative strict construction justices would hold that Natural Born means “two US parents” or excludes dual nationals, unless there were real words in the document that said either or both of those things.

    That being the case, how could the Supreme Court ever call the case?

  162. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    granite: I sincerely doubt that conservative strict construction justices would hold that Natural Born … excludes dual nationals

    My supporting argument consists of two words: Thomas Jefferson.

  163. avatar
    Don Draper May 6, 2010 at 4:25 am #

    Jefferson qualified as an American original citizen and not NBC.

    A strict constructionist knows the Founders would have stated “must be born in the United States” or “native born citizen” if that was their intention.

  164. avatar
    Mike May 6, 2010 at 5:25 am #

    A strict constructionist knows the Founders would have stated “must be born in the United States” or “native born citizen” if that was their intention.

    Well, you must not be a strict constructionist, then; to all intents and purposes, they did.

  165. avatar
    Lupin May 6, 2010 at 9:28 am #

    My God what a sewer. I need some brain bleach now.

  166. avatar
    JoZeppy May 6, 2010 at 10:00 am #

    Jefferson qualified as an American original citizen and not NBC.A strict constructionist knows the Founders would have stated “must be born in the United States” or “native born citizen” if that was their intention.

    By your definition, Scalia isn’t a strict constructionist.

  167. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    Sven, it us inconceivable to me that Jefferson and his cohort agreed with you since in 1777 Jefferson sponsored a resolution before the Continental Congress to require all US emisaries to foreign countries be natural born citizens, a post Jefferson would soon hold.

  168. avatar
    nBC May 6, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    Will this settle it? Doubt it but again it shows how little a case the birthers really have…

    Gov Lingle: President Obama born at Kapi’olani Hospital

    WND ‘reports’

    More than a year and half after Barack Obama was elected commander in chief, the governor of Hawaii is now publicly voicing the alleged exact location of Obama’s birth, saying “the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

    referring to the comments made by Gov Lingle

    “It’s been an odd situation,” Lingle said, referring to the continuing controversy over the disputed natural-born citizenship of Obama. “This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.

    “So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.”

  169. avatar
    Don Draper May 6, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    Link?

  170. avatar
    Don Draper May 6, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    The problem with selective facts is that they can be misleading.

    I believe BO was born in Honolulu, HI on Aug. 4, 1961.

    Also, I believe BO was adopted by Soetoro and the adoption was later anulled. In the interim, Barry Soetoro was issued a CLN and his US citizenship was not restored by the time he was 18 years and 6 months.

    Why is it conspiratorial or nutty to ask POTUS to release his complete birth record; amendments, changes, deletions, editions, corrections … everything?

  171. avatar
    Granite May 6, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    That is what I meant. I meant to say that a strict constructionist would not interpret Natural Born to exclude anyone unless there was legislative history saying that it excluded someone. An originalist would not rule that the phrase Natural Born Citizen comes from Vattel unless there was actual proof that the phrase was from Vattel, and a strict-constructionist originalist would be the toughest of all.

    So how could these justices vote to call the case? I don’t think there is even one justice who would.

  172. avatar
    Granite May 6, 2010 at 1:50 pm #

    You said: “I believe BO was adopted by Soetoro.”

    On the basis of what evidence? The US State Department has said that Obama was not adopted. There are no official documents saying that he was adopted, and the blood offspring of Soetoro have never addressed Obama as “brother,” only as “step-brother.”

    Not that IF he had been adopted it would have the slightest effect on Natural Born status.

  173. avatar
    Don Draper May 6, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    Found it!

    Why did Thomas Jefferson not sign the constitution?

    From what I can tell, Jefferson considered a natural-born citizen a person born in America and Washington called a person born in America a “native born.”

    If Jefferson wasn’t such a snarky, little bankrupt weasel, then I bet he would’ve slapped some sense into Washington (assuming, of course, Washington had his back turned to Jefferson.)

  174. avatar
    nbc May 6, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    Nothing, you should just no expect an answer.

  175. avatar
    Granite May 6, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

    Snooper is still spewing his hatred and strange interpretation of the Natural Born Citizen requirement. Those who would like to help debunk him, can visit this site: http://www.snooperreport.com/snooper-report/2010/4/30/obama-confirmed-ineligible-for-office.html?lastPage=true#comment8334064

  176. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 6, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    Granite,

    I feel that the birthers will find standing in court by challenging President Obama’s right to be on a given state’s ballot (or getting a state to pass a law requiring proof of eligibility). In either case, President Obama’s eligibility will be proven in a high-profile way. I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that it will get to the SCOTUS, but that’s not the only venue in which defeat can totally marginalize the birthers.

  177. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 6, 2010 at 5:00 pm #

    The only problem with your theory is the President Obama could neither lose his US citizenship nor gain Indonesian citizenship under US and Indonesian law.

  178. avatar
    SFJeff May 6, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    “Also, I believe BO was adopted by Soetoro and the adoption was later anulled. In the interim, Barry Soetoro was issued a CLN and his US citizenship was not restored by the time he was 18 years and 6 months.”

    You can believe whatever you want- there are people who believe that the Bush administration destroyed the Twin Towers, and others who believe we never landed on the Moon.

    “Why is it conspiratorial or nutty to ask POTUS to release his complete birth record; amendments, changes, deletions, editions, corrections … everything”

    Without any evidence to support your theory- yes it is nutty to ask the President to respond to anything you ask for. The President should feel no obligation to consider every theory of every citizen of the United States individually.

    Like any other individual, you have the opportunity to come up with some actual evidence to support your theories

  179. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    Here I provide an authority that talks about the exception to natural born citizenship for those already citizens at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, showing that this was not intended for those born in the United States like George Washington:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,80 shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    80 Many of foreign birth who had helped to create the United States would have been rendered ineligible had not the provision been inserted making eligible those of foreign birth who at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were citizens of the United States. The lapse of time long since removed that class and left the excepting clause the mere record of an interesting historic fact.

    Seven of the signers of the Constitution were foreign born: James Wilson, Robert Morris and Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania, Alexander Hamilton of New York, William Paterson of New Jersey, James McHenry of Maryland, and Pierce Butler of South Carolina.

    From The Constitution of the United States, its sources and its application By Thomas James Norton (1922)

  180. avatar
    G May 27, 2010 at 12:57 am #

    Dr. C – that find is worthy enough to be appended as an update to your blog article itself, and not just consigned to be buried amidst the comments.

  181. avatar
    Greg June 11, 2010 at 2:40 pm #

    Constitutional Commentary, “Contest: Was George Washington Constitutional,” 12 Const. Comment. 137 (1995)

    Here’s their case:

    1. The clause restricts eligibility to those natural born citizens and those who were a citizen on the day the Constitution is ratified.
    2. The Constitution was ratified when the 9th state signed on – it was binding only on the states that signed it.
    3. Virginia was not one of the first 9, making Washington a citizen of Virginia when the Constitution was adopted, but not a citizen of the United States, natural born or otherwise.

    The contest was going to award prizes in three categories: Best analysis of the constitutional issue, best ramifications of Washington’s ineligibility, and best remedial analysis – how can this get into court and what would the remedy be?

  182. avatar
    Sef June 11, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    Greg: Constitutional Commentary, “Contest: Was George Washington Constitutional,” 12 Const. Comment. 137 (1995)Here’s their case:
    1. The clause restricts eligibility to those natural born citizens and those who were a citizen on the day the Constitution is ratified.
    2. The Constitution was ratified when the 9th state signed on – it was binding only on the states that signed it.
    3. Virginia was not one of the first 9, making Washington a citizen of Virginia when the Constitution was adopted, but not a citizen of the United States, natural born or otherwise.
    The contest was going to award prizes in three categories: Best analysis of the constitutional issue, best ramifications of Washington’s ineligibility, and best remedial analysis – how can this get into court and what would the remedy be?

    Can we use Father George as precedent?