Main Menu

Mario Apuzzo’s new blog?

Mario Apuzzo

I’m sure that most readers here are familiar with Mario Apuzzo’s blog: A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at the web address http://puzo1.blogspot.com. That blog is a closely controlled discussion where it has been difficult to get a critical comment through moderation. (I haven’t tried lately.)

However there appears to be another blog with the same name: A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at the web address http://puzo1.wordpress.com. This blog contains articles signed “Mario Apuzzo” and articles signed “Charles Kerchner” with familiar Obama denialist content. The difference: this blog is not moderated.

I left a couple of on-topic, respectful comments:

When Dr. David Ramsay presented his petition to the US House of Representatives to unseat William Smith on the grounds of ineligibility (the purpose for which the pamphlet discussed in the article above was written), he lost on a 36-1 vote. It is likely that the House was persuaded by James Madison who said during the debate of the Ramsay petition:

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.” Madison then said: “I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member of a new community; that he was absolved from a secondary allegiance that he had owed to a British sovereign.

The Ramsay/Smith controversy makes fascinating reading. Archives of the printed broadsides and newspaper letters are included in The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections 1788-1799 Vol 1, pp 176 ff, The University of Wisconsin Press.

This debate contains the only reference contemporary to the founding of the US of which I am aware that directly cites of Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations as defining citizenship. William Smith, writing in defense of his eligibility published in a broadside titled “William Smith to the Citizens of the Charleston District” 22 November 1788:

The Doctor [Ramsay] says the circumstance of birth does not make a citizen–This I also deny. Vattel says, “The country of the father is that of the children, and these become citizens merely by their tacit consent.” I was born a Carolinian, and I defy the Doctor with all his ingenuity, arithmetical or political, to say at what moment I was disenfranchised–at what moment I lost my citizenship. [Emphasis in the original.]

Link to comment.

and

So when John Jay wrote to Washington suggesting that the commander in chief must be a natural born citizen, would you claim that Jay intended to exclude George Washington himself?

George Washington’s father, Augustine Washington, lived a British subject and died a British subject in 1743, long before there even was a United States.

Link to Comment.

We”ll have to wait and see what happens.

Update: They’ve been deleted.

,

69 Responses to Mario Apuzzo’s new blog?

  1. avatar
    Reality Check April 24, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    Doc

    Well those didn’t last long. No Birfer can tolerate disagreement. Mario is no better than Ed Hale, Orly Taitz, or any of the Birfers who know they have no facts.

  2. avatar
    mimi April 24, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    hahaha! Sorry, Doc. But I didn’t think that would last long either.

  3. avatar
    Reality Check April 24, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    It is difficult to take folks like Mario Apuzzo seriously (well impossible to do so) when they pull crap like deleting Doctor C’s respectful comments. Mario often posts on obamaconspiracy.org and does so knowing that Doc C will allow him to post yet on his site he moderates like a rabid hyena. It is a show of (lack of) character on the part of Mario, Orly Taitz, Ed Hale, Berg, et. al. that they must keep their sites pristine from criticism. Of course, the answer is obvious: they are all about donations. The really have no principles. Otherwise they would not be so terrified of intellectual discourse.

    (This will be cross posted at both blogs. Let’s see where it is allowed to remain).

    Respectfully submitted.

    RC

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    Errr, my two comments are still there.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    Reality Check: It is a show of (lack of) character on the part of Mario, Orly Taitz, Ed Hale, Berg, et. al. that they must keep their sites pristine from criticism.

    I think the important distinction that everyone should keep in mind that web sites like that of Apuzzo, Taitz, Donofrio, Hale and Berg are advocacy sites. Those web sites exist to support the views of their owners and are operated under that principle. There is no code of fairness, equal time or balanced reporting. They have a point of view and what appears on these sites is what will advance that point of view.

    This web site only advocates for the truth, and so it allows all points of view. Certainly I have a point of view, and this web site takes a position on issues, but only because I believe that these views are supported by the best evidence. I am not afraid of being contradicted because being proven wrong only makes the site better, improves public education, and promotes democracy.

  6. avatar
    Joe Horn April 24, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    If you read the Constitution it states quite clearly “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligibilie to the Office of President.” Washington was a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution so he did not have to qualify for the natural born citzen part. The founding fathers were pretty clear in what they intended whether we follow it is another matter. I think that the most important point is that no Court, not even the Supreme Court is going to unseat a President on a legal challenge after he is sworn in. People are going to have start taking civic lessons again or something. Once Obama took that oath, he is the President, and only Congress can change that. The last time I check Congress seemed pretty happy he was elected. If this stuff is going to be challenged it has to be before the guy spends a billion dollars, an enitre nation votes, and he takes the oath of office. It is not doomsday because he got elected. The Republic will survive. Chester Arthur was not a “natural born citizen” and the Rebulic survivied. It will survive this time as well. I suggest everyone stop making fun of Arizona and follow their example in establishing some clear guidelines on establishing eligibility. Then you won’t have these rediculous problems or very brave and very misguided officers going to jail for trying to do the right thing. I really feel sorry for that guy Lakin, but no Judge, civil or military, is going to give him discovery into Obama’s BC. You guys on the left should be more curious about your own people and you guys on the right should take a deep breath and relax. President Obama is not the end of the world. If you don’t like him, vote for somebody else next time. (sorry for getting preachy.)

    Joe Horn

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 24, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    Joe Horn: Washington was a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution so he did not have to qualify for the natural born citzen [sic] part.

    That’s fine, but my comment was not about the Constitution. It was about a letter from John Jay, and that letter says nothing about “Citizen at the time ….”

    I also beg to differ with you on the citizenship status of President Arthur.

  8. avatar
    PaulG April 24, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    I’m not seeing them, not at the link you provided. And what I did see is going to require brain bleach.

  9. avatar
    BatGuano April 24, 2010 at 7:46 pm #

    I suggest everyone stop making fun of Arizona and follow their example in establishing some clear guidelines on establishing eligibility.

    then we’d be leaving it up to a single state to define NBC and the 14 year residency clause for the entire nation.

  10. avatar
    Reality Check April 25, 2010 at 8:22 am #

    My comment is being held in moderation. I checked by clearing cookies and going back to the site and it disappeared. Yours may be also. Mario may or may not choose to publish them when he gets around to reading them. One reason I quit posting comments at tRSOL is that Phil would hold dissenting comments selectively for 3 or 4 days until he had composed his reply. It made a meaningful conversation almost impossible.

  11. avatar
    DiogenesLamp April 27, 2010 at 8:39 am #

    Not at all. We would require that someone presents verifiable credentials (meaning credentials that do not rely on the word of a state official, but are themselves the proof) in every state that goes along with this. We would have THAT many checks upon fraud.

    Whether you accept the Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis standard of citizenship. Barack has not proven himself to be qualified under EITHER guideline. Computer Print-outs don’t prove anything.

  12. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2010 at 10:00 am #

    meaning credentials that do not rely on the word of a state official, but are themselves the proof

    This is hilarious. Why don’t you birthers spend a few minutes and read the Federal Rules of Evidence?

    You know what is the gold standard for authenticating a document that comes from the state? A state official giving his/her word that the document is authentic. FRE 901 and 902.

    In order not to burden state officials by hauling them into court on a daily basis, the FRE allows for some shortcuts. Here are some things that are self authenticating (FRE 902):

    1. Domestic public documents under seal
    2. Domestic public documents not under seal (if an official swears under seal that it is authentic)
    4. Certified copies of public records

    Assuming Obama presented the same COLB to the State of Arizona as he did to Factcheck.org, guess what, it was under seal and certified. It is a self-authenticating document two different ways.

    So, Obama could go into any court in the land and present his COLB and it would be acceptable evidence to prove his identity, but it’s not enough for birthers.

  13. avatar
    thisoldhippie April 27, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    I guess they completely miss the fact that a “legal document” is one that is certified by the issuer – i.e. the state official. Even then, when I have a certified document to present in a court trial I also try my hardest to make sure I have the records keeper also come and tesitify as to the authenticity of said document. So, in order to introduce a document into court it has to be certified by the official who is in charge of keeping it. Otherwise it is just hearsay.

  14. avatar
    Greg April 27, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    That’s probably good practice in case the other side challenges the authenticity of the certification.

    In this case, the COLB falls into at least two hearsay exceptions. Birth certificates are explicitly excluded from the hearsay rule, as are public records.

    Sometimes I wish the birthers would get one of these into a merits position. I would love to subject their evidence to scrutiny. It would also be fun to use some of these dusty hearsay exceptions that don’t get much use:

    Reputation concerning personal or family history. Reputation among members of a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage, or among a person’s associates, or in the community, concerning a person’s birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, death, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history.

    And, if Obama is unavailable for testimony:

    (4) Statement of personal or family history. (A) A statement concerning the declarant’s own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated

  15. avatar
    Lupin April 27, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    Why oh why do you say things that are wrong, so easily disproved, and that you could have checked yourself wit google in five minutes?

    Are you stupid, of simply wasting our time?

    Even I (and I’m not even American) know that an original certified BC is self-authenticating in a court of law, barring major forgery. If authenticated by the issuing authority, case closed.

    It takes 5 minutes to check this. So are you a fool or a knave?

  16. avatar
    northland10 April 27, 2010 at 9:53 pm #

    I am trying to think of any “credentials” that could be proof by themselves. By themselves, anybody could create them. It is only the issuing organization that could make them valid. As I think through the list:

    1. Transcripts: A computer printout of the classes I took and possibly the grades. This would be sealed and certified by the university. No employer or university would except anything else.

    2. Teaching Certification: A computer printout from the State of Michigan with a seal by the appropriate state officer.

    3. My birth certificate: no matter what is on it, is no good without the seal and authorized signature from a state/city official.

    4. I even remember the the procedure book at a bank’s trust department I once worked in: …for power of attorney.. the client must sing and be certified by an officer (note: the term sing was actually in the procedures… a little misprint). So, the document would be useless without the word of some officer (and a few bars from Despina’s aria from “Cosi fan tutte” In uomini, in soldati)

  17. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 5:58 am #

    Have a question for the Obamabots..can man change natural law by civil or common law?

  18. avatar
    Bovril April 30, 2010 at 10:23 am #

    Not this crap again….The only “natural” laws are the physical laws of nature like gravity sucks, light illuminates and we all will eventually die (entropy to the max).

    Your view of “natural” law is a figment of

    a. Your febrile (not fertile) imagination
    b. A construct of Anglo-Saxon legal history
    c. A societal or cultural more or expectation

    Each society has waaaaay different views on what is “natural” and about the only things they may have in common are the “natural” laws of Eat, Poop and Procreate everything else is support infrastructure.

    So yes, laws of man can override anything except the three activities above but a law repealing gravity (a natural law) is going to be interesting.

    Idiot

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    Natural law in philosophy boils down to somebody’s opinion, and opinions change at a whim.

  20. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 4:08 pm #

    This this mean you are not natural born?

  21. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    WTF?

    DC, what you just said makes no sense at all.

  22. avatar
    Bovril April 30, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    G,

    Dragging Arse is, as you know, simply another way of saying “non seqitur”.

    For Arse in Drag, “non sequitur” is Latin for “It does not follow”….

    Like saying

    Q. How many Birfers does it take to screw in a lightbulb…?

    A. Chocolate hamster

  23. avatar
    Arthur April 30, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    DraggingCanoe:

    I think that it’s difficult to respond to your question, “can man change natural law by civil or common law” without knowing more about what you mean by “natural law.” As Bovril points out, natural law is sometimes used to describe scientific principles: the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, laws of motion, etc. If you’re referring to these laws, no, man cannot change them.

    If you’re referring to natural law as a moral framework that has been proposed to exist apart from civil law and which is perceived through philosophical or theological contemplation, then yes, man has the power to change this sort of law.

    For example, at one time, natural law was used to explain and defend monarchical forms of government. The thinking went that God had created a hierarchical universe, and that the earthy division of society into classes and ranks (serf, peasant, knight, baronet, etc.) was an accurate and inviolable representation of natural law. Of course, Thomas Jefferson believed in a different different set of natural laws. In the Declaration of Independence, they’re called “unalienable rights.” These rights were thought to have divine origin, yet they allowed men to revolt against monarchs who did not respect an individual’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Undoubtedly, then, people can change natural law.

    Finally, I agree with Bovril and Dr. C. that most examples of natural law originate within human society, and are the product of human imagination.

  24. avatar
    Arthur April 30, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    Dragging Canoe:

    You asked, “[does] this mean you are not natural born?”

    No, I’m not natural born. I was delivered through Cesarean section. But I’m still a human being!!!

  25. avatar
    Bovril April 30, 2010 at 4:55 pm #

    Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly!

    Sorry, couldn’t resist it….>8-)

  26. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    LMAO!

    Chocolate hamster!… I think I’ll start randomly saying that when people say stupid stuff. Thanks!

  27. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    Cesarean births cannot be President..wonder how Obama was born in Kenya..

  28. avatar
    Arthur April 30, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    DiogonesLamp:

    You wrote,

    “We would require that someone presents verifiable credentials (meaning credentials that do not rely on the word of a state official, but are themselves the proof) in every state that goes along with this.”

    Yes, I can see how that would work. I’ve read that in your state, for example, the state of Psychosis, the only verifiable credential one can offer for proof of citizenship is a freeze-dried umbilical cord, together with a bucket of native soil planted with at least four baby teeth.

    Of course in my state, Imagination Land, babies are brought by a stork and don’t have umbilical cords. Likewise, the Tooth Fairy makes off with all our baby teeth.

  29. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 5:54 pm #

    While reviewing the books in the Founders possession at the Convention..discovered they used..Justinian..

    He states all natural law is fixed and cannot be altered by man..he said man can change his own laws but not natural law.

    The idea came to me..what were the Founders intentions to place natural law in the Constitution..by the words natural born citizen.

    If Justinian stated natural law cannot be changed by man..and the Founders placed it in the Constitution..for President..

    It is possible..very possible..the Founders..intent..man could not change who was a natural born citizen when the constitution was ratified.

    Who was deemed a citizen..and those born..from those citizens are natural born citizens..

    I wonder who was the first natural born citizen after the ratification..

    If natural law cannot be changed..by man..how can they pass laws affecting natural born citizen..

    We should discover the Founders intent..

    Is the 14th Amendment legal.

    If man was created by God it is natural law..if man is from nature it is still natural law..

    man cannot change Gods law and he cannot change the laws of nature..

    Interesting….

  30. avatar
    nbC April 30, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    I notice that you are still proposing your foolish notions here…

    Do you still believe that black people cannot be natural born citizens? Or are you hide behind the Founders again?

    Show us you’re not a mouse.

  31. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    Now you are just being a stupid lame troll.

    Obama was born in HI and no law would exclude people born because they were a Cesarean birth. Nor would IVF babies be excluded, dummy!

  32. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    Would like to add..when I said..wonder who was the first born natural born citizen..want to include..after the ratification..was the birth of a negro baby from two negroes..considered a natural born citizen.?

    If they were not..how can they be today? If the Founders did not consider them natural born citizens.

  33. avatar
    JoZeppy April 30, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    What an utter load of pseudo-intellectual of dog droppings!!! If the founders thought God worked into this, why did they not mention Him once in the Constitution (except to specifically exclude him in faith tests and separation of church and state). If the founders thought this was “God’s unchangeable law” why did they specifically provide for the Amending of the Constitution?

    The stupidity of the post knows no bounds. It doesn’t matter if the founders had a copy of Penthouse forum available to them. Unless you can prove they specifically relied on a particular document it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.

  34. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

    Careful, your sheets are showing.

    Do you realize that your are advocating for slavery to return, just because it was legal at the time of the creation of the Constitution?

    Pathetic and sick.

  35. avatar
    nbc April 30, 2010 at 6:44 pm #

    Oh the foolishness.
    And the implicit racism. Fascinating… Pretending to be a concern troll.

  36. avatar
    SFJeff April 30, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    I am sure the writers of the Constitution- at least most of them- wouldn’t have considered any Negroes or Orientals or Native Americans to be Natural Born Citizens. Yet we do today. Which is why this whole concept of “What would the Founder’s think?” is such a stupid exercise.

  37. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    The only item in the Constitution cannot be amended is the natural born clause..that is why they used the words..natural born citizen..

    This is Jay’s strong check.

  38. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    negroes were foreigners or property..they were not citizens..and the first negro baby born in the US after the ratification was not considered a natural born citizen.

    Natural law..the law under which we are placed by our birth into the world..

    Negroes could not be citizens..they could not be naturalized..only free whites could be naturalized

    I ask again..when the first negro baby was born after the ratification..even it was not born in slavery..was it a natural born citizen..as intended by the Founders..

    Blacks can be citizens after the 14th amendment..but..natural born citizens they cannot it was the intent of the Founders to ban..Negroes forever being president. That is why they made it a natural law..a law that cannot be changed.

  39. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 7:11 pm #

    This has standing..in Court.

  40. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 7:13 pm #

    A law can be unjust..without it being any less a law.

  41. avatar
    Rickey April 30, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    DraggingCanoe says:

    Blacks can be citizens after the 14th amendment..but..natural born citizens they cannot it was the intent of the Founders to ban..Negroes forever being president. That is why they made it a natural law..a law that cannot be changed.

    Now that you have proven beyond question that you are a vile, bigoted racist, I for one have no intention to ever engage you in discussion again.

    Incidentally, the phrase “natural law” was never used during the debates on the Constitution. You are pathetic.

  42. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

    natural law..the highest rule of conduct as imposed by God on man we speak of it as natural.

    A natural born citizen cannot be created by the 14th amendment..the Founders forever banned Negroes..being President…that is why they used natural born..a natural law…cannot be touched..by man..it is forever fixed…

  43. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

    The Founders were concerned..future immigrations..would…not have a strong intellect..and would pass laws..that would change the constitution..to get votes for them selves..to remain in office..

    Bingham..the author .the 14th Amend gives negroes citizenry but does not make them natural born citizens.

    The Founders wanted Negroes banned for ever and ever..and that is why they..made natural born a natural law..

  44. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    I did not say return to slavery..Blacks can be citizens..but they cannot be president..

  45. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    The Founders removed the words ‘or a citizen’..on 7 Sept 1787 and retained natural born citizen..

  46. avatar
    DraggingCanoe April 30, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    natural born is a natural law

  47. avatar
    Scientist April 30, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    If natural born is so all fired natural, how come the US is the only country that even makes a distinction among citizens as to how they are born? Natural laws are the same everywhere. The sun rises in the East in the US, China, Poland, wherever. Apples fall to Earth, not float upwards, whether you are in Peru, Mali or France. But natural born citizen is only in the US, therefore not natural law.

    Everybody else manages to open their highest offices to all citizens and seem to do just fine with that. Why doesn’t the US trust the people? Too many idiots here like DraggingButt? Maybe we need more immigrants to raise the national IQ, no?

  48. avatar
    Scientist April 30, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    Immigration RAISES the national IQ. How did the US build the atom bomb? Mostly with scientists from Europe. Who drives innovation today? Disproportionately scientists and engineers from India, China and other countries. Check with the Patent Office and they will tell you. If the US can attract enough smart immigrants, they might even cancel out morons like DraggingButt.

  49. avatar
    Bob Ross April 30, 2010 at 8:36 pm #

    Do you own any property Dragging? Do you own any slaves?

  50. avatar
    Bob Ross April 30, 2010 at 8:38 pm #

    Yeah but you can also argue that the way the constitution is punctuated it only meant Natural Born Citizen. It did not mean of the united states.

  51. avatar
    Scientist April 30, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    Agreed. If you read the sentence according to the rules of English grammar, any natural born citizen OF ANY COUNTRY can be President. Only for those grandfathered is the US specified.

    That makes this entire debate moot, since everybody is a natural born citizen of somewhere…

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 9:48 pm #

    Scientist: But natural born citizen is only in the US

    There were some offices of trust in Great Britain in the 18th century that were barred to naturalized citizens. It’s our common law heritage, but mostly because the Founders of our country didn’t want us to get tangled up in European wars, and feared a European president would get us entangled in the affairs of Europe.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 9:53 pm #

    DraggingCanoe: natural born is a natural law

    Sorry, did you mean to provide some evidence and hit Submit too soon?

  54. avatar
    Scientist April 30, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    There are no offices in Britain today, or France or Canada or any other country that I am aware of that are barred to naturalized citizens. That is perhaps because, unlike far too many Americans, they don’t regard 18th century writings and practices as holy writ, but actually modify their laws to fit the needs of living human beings. If the US persists in its foolish backward looking, I fear it will slip further and further behind until it becomes irrelevant to the rest of the world.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 9:57 pm #

    DraggingCanoe: Blacks can be citizens..but they cannot be president..The Founders wanted Negroes banned for ever and ever..and that is why they..made natural born a natural law..

    I think DraggingCanoe shall be required to wear a SCARLET “R” from now on. Perhaps you should change your website from FreeRepublic.com to Stormfront.org.

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    DraggingCanoe: natural law..the highest rule of conduct as imposed by God on man we speak of it as natural.

    Been hearing voices, have you? Found a secret code in DNA? Found the words “natural born citizen” on a sticky bun in a diner in Memphis?

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    You know, in 2007 a full 40% of children in the US were born out of wedlock. When a child is born to a married couple the husband is PRESUMED to be the father. Out of wedlock, you may never know who the father is. The idea that someone must have a citizen father to be president is unworkable today (and was really unworkable from the beginning).

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2010 at 10:39 pm #

    DraggingCanoe: all natural law is fixed and cannot be altered by man

    And exactly where did God write down this natural law? That’s the problem. In the final analysis, natural law is nothing beyond the prejudices of the person who asserts it.

    “That’s one problem with believing in a supernatural being… trying to determine what he wants.” Counselor Troi, Star Trek: The Next Generation.

  59. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    So DC, you are still advocating that blacks have lesser rights than white people? Yep, you are nothing but a two-bit racist.

  60. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    Well, RacistCanoe,

    You continue to show your true motivation. So, tell me, in what way are people of any other color or creed “lacking a strong intellect”? Just what makes you superior to people of color, eh?

    Hence the truth behind most of the “birther” movement – folks like DC who want “Negroes banned for ever and ever”.

    Why are you so insecure about people who are different than you? Is it because in an open market and an open world, you can’t compete fairly against others?

    Disgusting and pathetic. Go crawl back under your white sheets and then slink back under the slimy rock you came from.

  61. avatar
    G April 30, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    DC, you show again how dumb you are. ANYTHING in the Constitution can be amended. That is why the Constitution explicitly contains the Amendment process, duh!

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 8:27 am #

    G: DC, you show again how dumb you are.

    Hey, could you folks find something else as a short form of “DraggingCanoe”?

    Thanks, Doctor Conspiracy.

  63. avatar
    nBC May 1, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Any observant person would know that the Constitution does not restrict citizenship. And it does not define natural born citizenship which is simply the English Common Law definition: born on US soil.

    Once you accept that blacks can be citizens, they will be citizens under the natural law premise of the Common Law and since there are only two forms of citizens: naturalized and natural born, and since naturalized requires a statute, there can be no doubt that blacks are in fact natural born.

    Furthermore the ridiculous concept that the Founders somehow understood the ‘natural law’ or ‘Words from God’ to exclude blacks is an affront to religion, reason and logic.

    Furthermore, the concept of free blacks, some of them who were even granted citizenship further undermines the foolishness of our ‘Drag’

  64. avatar
    nBC May 1, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    Worse, since the facts show that we all find our roots in Africa, the inevitable conclusion is that we all have roots as blacks and thus under God’s law we are all unable to be natural born…
    What do you say Drag?

  65. avatar
    Bob Ross May 1, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    The reason I ask if you own property is because those who did not own property weren’t allowed to vote and weren’t considered citizens. So any white non-property owning person wouldn’t be eligible either

  66. avatar
    G May 1, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    Sorry Dr. C!

    BTW, that is how I’ve always shortened your moniker – never using DC for you…so sorry for the confusion.

    Obviously, I meant “DraggingCanoe” when I used DC. But you are right, I should use something that provides a clearer distinction from now on.

    I think RacistCanoe fits.

  67. avatar
    Ballantine May 1, 2010 at 4:58 pm #

    Ignoring DraggingCanoe’s racists rantings designed to stir things up on a hostile web site, if there is anyone who wants a serious discussion on the issue of race with respect to the natural born citizenship clause under the 14th Amendment, they would need to refer to the statements of the members of the 39th Congress on the subject where they repeatedly stated that their actions would make blacks eligible to be president, and many said such was always the case. My favorite is:

    “Mr. Windom, of Minnesota, next obtained the floor. Referring to the speech of Mr. Rogers, he said: ” I wish to make another extract from the speech of the gentleman from New Jersey. He said,’ If you pass this bill, you will allow negroes to compete for the high office of the President of the United States.’ You will actually allow them to compete for the Presidency of the United States! As for this fear which haunts the gentleman from New Jersey, if there is a negro in the country who is so far above all the white men of the country that only four millions of his own race can elect him President of the United States over twenty-six millions of white people, I think we ought to encourage such talent in the country.” William Horaotio Barnes, History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 229 (1868)

    Could anyone disagree? Another good quote is:

    “It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 387 (1868)

    Whoops. You birthers really need to do some more research before you post your nonsense here.

  68. avatar
    nemocapn May 1, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    How do you define negro or black? Would a mulatto, quadroon, or octoroon be banned from the presidency? What if the person appears to be white but his Y-DNA indicates his ancestors were eastern African, e.g. what Stormfront calls the Somalid race? Is that person black?

    Also, under natural law are women excluded from being president? Under natural law are Jews or Muslims excluded?

    I really would like to know your answers to these questions, but I completely disagree with you. Blacks are natural born citizens. I’m loath to call someone “racist” because it’s a term that’s thrown about too easily that hampers rational discourse because just about anyone would become defensive if accused of racism, whether guilty of it or not. The right accuses the left of unfairly using “racism” as an “ad hominem” attack. However, I really can’t come up with a better term for the view that blacks can never be natural born citizens. Do you consider your view racist and correct, or not racist at all?

  69. avatar
    Mary Brown May 1, 2010 at 6:36 pm #

    Dragging Canoe, Shouldn’t that be individual. Devise a test that determines an individuals capactiy intellectually. Then decide what score an indiviual would need to be a Natural Born Citizen. Your whole premise is about groups, but if you insist, and if you could devise an absolutely fair test (an impossibility)then at least we would be dealing with a natural aristocacy. Wouldn’t you agree that at least in that case you would be more in tune with the capacity of an individual? Why is group capacity more important to you? Do you believe the founders, whom you admire, would want us to reject a superior person based on his ethnicity? Please understand everyone, I find all of draggingcanoe’s argument ridiculous but I want him to answer this particular aspect of it.