Main Menu

John McCain – natural born citizen

John McCain

This is the second in a new series of articles examining the citizenship of American presidents and presidential candidates. In the first I demonstrated that our first president, George Washington, was a natural born citizen. Here we look at John McCain, 2008 Republican candidate for president. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to two US citizen parents.

To forestall possible objections, the McCain campaign requested an opinion from Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe and former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson. That opinion appears as Appendix A to an article by Gabriel Chin (Chin disagrees that McCain is a natural born citizen). The US Senate took up a resolution (S. Res. 511) that declared John McCain a natural born citizen. The resolution, sponsored by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, passed unanimously.

John McCain’s eligibility was challenged in a lawsuit filed by Fred Hollander (Hollander v McCain). Just before this suit was dismissed for lack of standing, Hollander introduced a fake birth certificate alleging that John McCain was born in the Republic of Panama. Hollander is the best known, but not the only lawsuit to be filed alleging John McCain was not a natural born citizen. Others include the Pennsylvania case filed by Carmon Elliott.

In the federal court for the Northern District of California, Markham Robinson filed suit against California Secretary of State Bowen (Robinson v Bowen et al) seeking to prevent McCain from appearing on the November ballot. In his order in the case,  federal judge William Alsup went beyond dismissing the case for lack of standing and wrote about the underlying issue of McCains’ eligibility:

Article II states that “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 eligible to the Office of President.” Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1970). Many decades later, the Fourteenth Amendment set a floor on citizenship, overruled the Dred Scott decision, and provided that all born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were citizens. Nonetheless, subject to the floor of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has always been left to Congress to define who may be a citizen by reason of birth (or naturalization proceedings, for that matter). Id. at 829–30.

At the time of Senator McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”  Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.  The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. 1 Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth.  In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.  This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.

I find this interesting both because it clearly says that natural born citizens are those who are “citizens at birth” and that natural born citizenship may be attained retroactively through statute.

Print Friendly

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

398 Responses to John McCain – natural born citizen

  1. avatar
    John May 1, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    Regardless of whether John McCain is an NBC, it is of much signifiance in that Congress investigated and vetted McCain but failed the do anything with Obama. The cry for investigation into Obama’s eligibility was far far greater than that of McCain and yet Congress did nothing. It is widely believed that Congress refused to investigate Obama due to political reasons and fear of racism. Further, it also believed that McCain and Hillary knew full well of Obama’s eligiblity problem and that the resolution was a deal to keep McCain quiet about the issue.

  2. avatar
    JoZeppy May 1, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    No, there is no significance. You see the problem is the McCain was not born in the US. Obama was. There was no investigation for any other president either, because they all, like Obama, was born in the US. There is no controvery except for a small contigent of bitter idiots that can’t accept any president except for the one they voted for. They spent 8 years trying to kick Clinton out, and now they are manufacturing excuses to try to object to Obama.

    The sooner you come to terms with it, the sooner the majority of society will stop calling you an idiot.

  3. avatar
    aarrgghh May 1, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    john, whining:

    “The cry for investigation into Obama’s eligibility was far far greater than that of McCain and yet Congress did nothing.”

    that’s not quite right: congress did do something. on january 8 2009 it unanimously certified the electoral votes without objection and qualified obama as the next president.

    i’d say that’s something.

    also:

    “it is widely believed …” and “it is also believed …” = “i believe”

    i suggest you stop whining, man up and take ownership of your own delusions.

  4. avatar
    G May 1, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    *sigh*

    Of course a much simpler and straightforward conclusion is the very significance of Congress investigating McCain but NOT Obama is because for McCain, there was some clarification needed, while for Obama, they all viewed him as clearly NBC and of no question & concern at all in terms of his eligibility.

    That is where you conspiracy kooks deserve your mockery. You have to come up with convoluted & twisted plots that everyone would have to be “in on” to make sense. Face it, there is no plot that everyone is “in on” but you. The reason that nobody but birthers like you see things that way is simply because you are WRONG and the rest of us live in reality.

    To insinuate that HRC & McCain would help cover up for their main rival, Obama is ludicrous! They were both harsh rivals of him at all stages during the election and tried to do everything they could to smear him & win instead of him. If there was any iota of a problem with Obama’s birth certificate, they would have been all over it immediately.

    You are a pathetic and delusional joke.

  5. avatar
    JoZeppy May 1, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    And now that I think of it, there is something significant. You’ll note they asked for the opinions of real Constitutional law scholars, like Lawrence Tribe…not Taitz, Apuzzo, or Donfrio. And you’ll note none of those real Constitutional law scholars have waded in on the side of the birthers….kinda tells you something, doesn’t it?

  6. avatar
    richCares May 1, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    john, you seriously need some mental help, your delusions are controlling your life, really sad.

    when Obama threw his hat in the ring he requested and supplied his COLB to enter the race.

    Hawaii Gov site states “the Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.(COLB) which is what Obama supplied.
    http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl/

    Now go back to your mental ward!

  7. avatar
    nbc May 1, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    I find the reasoning to be highly suspect. The Constitution clearly states that statutory law can be used to provide for uniform naturalization, which is not how natural born is to be understood, which was under common law practices limited to being born on soil. Even in England, it was not common law but rather statutory law which guided natural born status for children born abroad.
    In the US this is a problem because if the US can make natural born citizens through statutory law and retroactively then the term natural born loses any meaning.

    Check out Rogers v Bellei and Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS

    I doubt that SCOTUS would be that amenable to the interpretation of the Court in Robison v Bowen. A good thing that there is no longer a controversy here :-)

  8. avatar
    Arthur May 1, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    John:

    Regarding Sen. McCain’s citizenship status, you wrote, “it is of much signifiance (sic) in that Congress investigated and vetted McCain but failed the do anything with Obama.”

    Your statement is incorrect. To begin with, there was no “congressional investigation” to vet McCain, because the action that was actually taken (S.R. 551) occurred in the Senate, and not the Congress. You may remember that “congressional” refers to the House of Representatives, or to the House and Senate as a body, but not to the Senate as a single body.

    What you have mistakenly called a “congressional investigation” was a “simple resolution.” A simple resolution does not go to the House for a vote, it doesn’t go to the President to sign, and it does not have the force of law; rather, it is simply an expression of the Senate’s opinion on a particular matter. There were no Senate hearings into McCain’s birth before the resolution was written or approved, and the resolution was merely a courtesy to McCain. By the way, Sen. McCain has never made his birth certificate public.

  9. avatar
    Scott Brown May 1, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    McCain was not born in the US. Obama was.

    ….as far as you know….from what you’ve been told since you were not present at his birth, no one can say for 100% certain.

    Yes, common sense tells us that he was, but to make such a statement as FACT is naive at best. We are talking about a politician, and we all know how honest ALL politicians are, right?

  10. avatar
    Scott Brown May 1, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    they all viewed him as clearly NBC and of no question & concern at all in terms of his eligibility.

    HAHAHAH – that’s too funny of a statement.

    Who is ‘they’?

    If he is ‘clearly’ a NBC and there is no question or concern at all in terms of his eligibility….

    why is this blog even in existance?

    why are you even posting?

    Of course there are questions….now, if you (like the media) choose to close your eyes and ears to it, that’s another issue all together.

    I’m not saying he is not a NBC…really, I don’t know. I see both sides of the coin, so I’m not really certain one way or the other. But one thing for sure – not EVERYONE thinks he is a NBC and there definitely IS a question about it….even Michelle thinks he was born in Kenya. Now, I think his wife is simply misinformed, I think he was born in Hawaii, but with even his wife floating the idea that he was born outside of the US – there ARE questions – to believe otherwise, is again, naive at best.

  11. avatar
    Scott Brown May 1, 2010 at 7:06 pm #

    I’m sure I will be called a liar again, most on this site like to do that; however, as a general rule Hawaii does not issue long-forms, but they CAN be verbally requested. Obama simply has not done so, and I really see no reason that he should.

    He supplied a BC (as far as I know) – I’m no authority on forged digital images. I’ve heard both ways, so again, I don’t know if it accurately depicts his original BC or not.

    However, there IS a long-form and he CAN request it verbally if he so desired. You can better bet that there is a record of where he was born and what doctor delivered him as well as his weight and length at birth. That information is stored on the long-form and it IS there. Should he supply it? No – there is no reason for him to do so.

  12. avatar
    Scott Brown May 1, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    “simple resolution.”

    and non-binding at that.

  13. avatar
    richCares May 1, 2010 at 7:10 pm #

    Who wants to pay attention to the liar. Let’s review that Scott told dragging about the “O” flag and the described it as “He has placed ‘HIS’ O where the stars are and the stripes are now rainbow colored”. An accurate description of what he didn’t know was the Ohio State flag. After that rather graphic description he later states that was in jest. He said “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.
    Yet he had previously told Dragging “… obviously you were not aware that Obama has already re-designed the American Flag”. His description “O where the stars are and the stripes are now rainbow colored” strongly suggests he saw the flag. So his comment to Dragging was either what he believed to be true and if not, a lie meant to deceive the dumb birthers. Either way a common birther action plus he is a lying sack of ______!
    Calling him a liar on this and his COLB story is not name calling, it’s the truth. Hey Scott go back and crawl behind your birther rock, you have no credibility here, regain some smarts (unlikely). And stop using the real Scott Brown’s name, it’s an insult to him.

  14. avatar
    John May 1, 2010 at 7:10 pm #

    The Senate did a intense internal investigation into MCcain. The Senate is part of Congress. Neither the House nor the Senate lifted a finger to even look into Obama’s issue despite millions and millions of requests. In fact, no senator or Congressman has ever scene Obama’s BC. It has been captured on the record that numerous Senators or Congressmen who like to see Obama’s proof of eligiblity. Unfortunately, due to political reasons and the fear of racism, no politicians are really willing to make real inquires. I suspect this why no objected to certification of the vote as well investigating Obama.

  15. avatar
    Scientist May 1, 2010 at 7:11 pm #

    I’m sorry, but I find your reasoning suspect. Laws must have a valid, demonstrabable purpose or they should be done away with. As a scientist, I can’t accept that a law is valid simply because some 18th century fellow wearing a wig thought it might be a good idea. I need empirical, as up-to-date as possible. So I ask:

    What is the social purpose of restricting any office based on place of birth? Is there data to suggest that citizens born on US soil are better citizens or have a more finely developed sense of morality or loyalty than those born overseas? Please don’t give me court cases; I want empirically verifiable data. If the data doesn’t support the law, then the law needs to be changed.

  16. avatar
    John May 1, 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    I suggest you listen to Margaret Hemenway, Lakin spokesperson, if you want get a good insight on some the motivations behind politicians regarding Obama’s eligibility.

  17. avatar
    richCares May 1, 2010 at 7:12 pm #

    Hey liar, here’s what Hawaii says:
    “…the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”
    see Hawaii gov link
    http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl/

  18. avatar
    richCares May 1, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    john, see that mental health specialist now, before you go completely bonkers.

  19. avatar
    Scientist May 1, 2010 at 7:19 pm #

    I find this very interesting. So you agree that there is no reason for Obama to request any form beyond the COLB. That suggests you consider any information not on the COLB to be irrelevant (you are correct in that belief, since the name of the hospital, doctor, birth weight, etc. ARE irrelavant) So I have to ask-what exactly is the point you have spent the last month trying to make?

  20. avatar
    Kathryn N May 1, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    “It is believed:”
    You don’t by any chance have evidence, beyond the sweaty mental masturbation by the denizens of Free Republic, that Hillary Clinton and John McCain were collusive in some dark conspiracy to the subverst the Constitution?
    I love that squirrely birther language. The inability to posit easily ascernable facts in simple declarative sentences is a certain symptom of the odd mental handicap known as birtherism.

  21. avatar
    richCares May 1, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    he is trying to gain credibility, but too little to late – he lost it forever.

  22. avatar
    nemocapn May 1, 2010 at 8:24 pm #

    I agree with you, JoZeppy. According to Jill Pryor in the Yale Law Review, “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born…But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved. Eligibility for children of American Indians born on reservations, persons born in United States territories, children born on American military bases, and children of United States diplomats stationed abroad is also uncertain.”
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9655857/Jill-Pryor-Natural-Born-Citizen

    McCain claimed to be born in the Panama Canal Zone, while Obama claimed to be born in Hawaii. That is the only reason why
    Mccain’s eligibility and not Obama’s was questioned. Some legal scholars believe it’s unclear McCain is a NBC because he was born abroad. Other legal scholars share my view that McCain is a natural born citizen since he was a citizen at birth. It seems to be the predominant view today that if someone is a “native born citizen” or “a citizen at birth,” he or she is a “natural born citizen.” Under that view, Obama and McCain would be natural born citizens no matter where they were born.

    Of course, there is a traditionalist view favored by the birthers that would exclude Obama as a NBC if he were born abroad, but that’s not the common view. Since this traditionalist view involves interpreting the phrase NBC according to original intent, it could exclude people who are non-white, female, and/or people who don’t own property. If SCOTUS rendered a traditionalist opinion, it would likely be unpopular, especially with the largely female electorate. They would also be criticized for ruling on a sitting President’s natural born citizenship because of the political question doctrine.

  23. avatar
    G May 1, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

    ….as far as you know….from what you’ve been told since you were not present at his birth, no one can say for 100% certain.Yes, common sense tells us that he was, but to make such a statement as FACT is naive at best.We are talking about a politician, and we all know how honest ALL politicians are, right?

    And what state were you born in Scott Brown? Of course you assume everyone else is dishonest, because YOU ARE.

    What a weak argument – all politicians must lie…blah blah blah. May I ask you how that is different from any other group of people out there? All these ad hominem attacks on government and politicians are just straw men attacks – after all, our government is made up of people, elected by the people or working for the people. The private sector is just as full of BS and corruption as the public sector. Just as the churches are and pretty much everywhere you find people for that matter. Some of those people are quite flawed and dishonest, just as YOU most certainly are.

    So, common sense says that all evidence points to the president being who he says he was and his birth certificate says he was. In this country, we have a rule of innocent until proven guilty, so unless you can provide solid evidence to contradict that, you’ve got nothing but evil gossip and the appearance of a hateful sore loser going for you.

  24. avatar
    Mary Brown May 1, 2010 at 8:36 pm #

    Where were you born Scott or Scotta? I will not be naive enough to believe you until you give me the name of the state. Let’s see. I was born in NY, moved to Washington State. I traveled the US with my military husband and now reside in Nebraska. I give you all of this information to illustrate that you can safely give me the name of the state. If I can, you can.

  25. avatar
    nemocapn May 1, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    I have my Certificate of Live Birth, and it doesn’t have my weight or height at birth. I’ve collected numerous vital records and haven’t seen a birth certificate yet that has height and weight on it. Lt. Col. Lakin’s Certificateof Live Birth also doesn’t have is height or weight. That is something that typically appears on a birth announcement, not a birth certificate.

    No one can get a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii according to this article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin:
    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

  26. avatar
    G May 1, 2010 at 8:42 pm #

    BS Scott Brown, the cowardly liar who can’t even admit what state she was born in!

    This blog exists because the world is full of dishonest hate-based losers like you who make up lies and intentionally spread misinformation. We’re here to call you out on your crap.

    Obviously, you have poor reading comprehension skills, because you wonder who THEY refers to. Read again. Obviously, it refers to congress in context of my reply – NONE of them had ever raised or made any objections to Obama’s eligibility – either during the campaign or when the rubber really met the road and they had to certify his election. NOT ONE SINGLE OBJECTION. Why is that, do you think? Simply put – because there is NO legitimate reason to object nor is there any real controversy except in the birthers minds.

    And yes, you ARE a BIRTHER, although you try to deny it and you are nothing but a deceitful little concern troll.

    Do you really believe that Michelle Obama thinks Barack was born in Kenya? Really? Are you that stupid or just that petty. You demonstrate what a total moron and snake you are every time you utter something so stupid.

    I’ll continue to post to call you and other liars and fools out on your deceit and stupidity.

    Why are you still posting here? We’re all on to your game and will continue to call you out on how full of BS you are. Face it, you have no real points and only come here because you are a petty little lying troll.

  27. avatar
    BatGuano May 1, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    I’m sure I will be called a liar again, most on this site like to do that;…….

    and with good reason. you’ve made a claim that could be verified ( or debunked ) by simply letting us know which state you were born in. you refuse to do that but continually proclaim that it is the truth.

  28. avatar
    G May 1, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    Do you have any proof for what you said? I call more BS that you just pulled out of your ass.

  29. avatar
    G May 1, 2010 at 8:55 pm #

    Why would we listen to a known political operative who is giving bad advice to Lakin which has ended his military career and reputation? Without her “advice” he’d never be facing court martial.

    Asking her for advice makes as much sense as asking a strung out blind crackhead off the street to perform critical open heart surgery in order to save your life!

    If that is the kind of advice you take, I’ve got some swampland in Florida to sell you. No wonder your posts come off so ill informed and full of silly nonsense!

  30. avatar
    G May 1, 2010 at 8:56 pm #

    All you have to do to stop being called a liar is to stop lying and to stop ducking simple questions when asked. Bed. Made. Lie.

  31. avatar
    JoZeppy May 1, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    Millions and millions of requests? Utter B.S. The reason there was no investigation wasn’t political, there is no credible evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii, making him an NBC. Just because you are among the small handful of delusional malcontents doesn’t mean the reast of the country has to entertain your stupid questions. You and your ilk are nothing but a sad novelty to poke at and mock. Nothing more.

  32. avatar
    JoZeppy May 1, 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    Why would anyone want the insight of a delusional spokesperson of an even more delusional soon to be former military offer?

  33. avatar
    Bob Ross May 1, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    My my fake scott brown so many words yet little substance. People still believe we faked the moon landing, the earth is flat, the US government invented aids to hurt black people. Again just because a ridiculously stupid group believes something wild does not give it merit.
    His wife doesn’t believe he was born in Kenya. Again stop repeating the same old discredited bullshit like you having your COLB denied while getting a passport.

  34. avatar
    Bob Ross May 1, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    Doc why are my comments awaiting moderation?

  35. avatar
    Bob Ross May 1, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    You’re lying again dipshit. There is no way to get a long form. The law states otherwise and since we both know you’re not from Hawaii you have no authority to speak from.

    Here we go talking about “forged digital documents”. Which document was forged?

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    nemocapn: I have my Certificate of Live Birth, and it doesn’t have my weight or height at birth

    No, but it’s on the original form or computer record. What the birthers don’t get is that all birth certificates are “short forms” some just shorter than others. You can be pretty sure that your height and weight was recorded on a form and reported to the State; however all that “statistical data” is not printed on a certificate.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

    Bob Ross: Doc why are my comments awaiting moderation?

    It has something to do with a 4-letter word contained therein.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    Kathryn N: “It is believed:”

    They learn stuff like that over at WorldNetDaily. WND uses phrases like that to publish things they know are not true.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    John: The Senate did a [sic] intense internal investigation into MCcain [sic].

    Hardly. The Senate Judiciary Committee considered a few expert opinions on what Natural Born Citizen meant. That was all that happened. Look it up. However, if you do believe that the Senate investigated thoroughly, then I am sure you will respect the report they based their opinion on (see p. 19-20). It says, among other things:

    The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-9 I (1983): and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirming that the phrase natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a “natural born” citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens. …

    Senator McCain’s status as a “natural born” citizen by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parents is consistent with British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. … The Framers substituted the word “citizen” for “subject” to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two terms are otherwise identical. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34-35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress’s statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were “natural born” citizens fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one’s birth made one natural born.

  40. avatar
    nbC May 1, 2010 at 11:16 pm #

    You are right, laws can and must be changed if they do not make sense. Similarly, Constitutional provisions need to be changed using the appropriate Constitutional remedy: it’s called amending.

    It’s not that I disagree with your position, I am merely pointing out that you cannot just circumvent the Constitution just because it does not make sense.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 11:24 pm #

    Scott Brown: as a general rule Hawaii does not issue long-forms, but they CAN be verbally requested.

    That’s very interesting, and it might even be true. What I sincerely doubt is that you really know one way or the other. If you knew this was true, you must have a reason to know that it is true, and if you had that, why didn’t you share it.

    This is why you are having such a rough time on this web site; you say things, but you omit the supporting reason and evidence. You are building a reputation as a credulous individual, one who believes things without good reason.

  42. avatar
    Rickey May 1, 2010 at 11:26 pm #

    John says:

    Regardless of whether John McCain is an NBC, it is of much signifiance in that Congress investigated and vetted McCain but failed the do anything with Obama.

    John’s delusions continued unabated.

    Try reading The Congressional Record. There was no investigation of McCain’s status, no vetting. A bi-partisan, non-binding Senate resolution was introduced and was unanimously approved without any debate whatsover.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    Scott Brown: who is [sic] ‘they’?

    The Congress. It’s obvious in the comment.

    Scott Brown: why is this blog even in existance [sic]?

    It’s not for the benefit of Congress, but for those who will not or cannot exercise critical thinking when confronting rumors about Obama’s eligibility. Also we’re having a little fun being arm-chair experts in a narrow slice of American history and jurisprudence.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    Scott Brown: you were not present at his birth, no one can say for 100% certain…to make such a statement as FACT is naive at best.

    Have you ever seen England? Would you call it a FACT that England exists? Nothing is 100% certain, which is why birthers set “100% certain” as the criteria for verifying Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility: so they can keep denying no matter what the evidence is. At some point, the reasonable person accepts reasonable evidence and gets on with their life.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2010 at 11:52 pm #

    I respect your disagreement, but I would point out that much of the same crew that wrote the Constitution were part of the first Congress that passed the Act of 1790 that declared that children born abroad to US parents were “natural born citizens.” I don’t have any problem with the application of a retroactive law. McCain was born of two citizen parents. Changing the law does not make McCain any more or less an American. If a later law recognizes such persons as “natural born” that simply reflects the more current understanding of the facts of birth. It seems to me that a person is no more or less a natural born citizen based only on the year of their birth.

  46. avatar
    Kathryn N May 1, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    Have you signed the WND birther petition? You can sign it as many times as you want, using whatever name you please. I recommend using Clueless Idiot.

  47. avatar
    nemocapn May 2, 2010 at 12:09 am #

    Margaret Hemenway’s motivation is negative campaigning for the Republican party. The lead counsel for Lakin, Paul Rolf Jensen, was reported to have been one of the people who dropped the dime on Eliot Spitzer. Jensen’s “good friend” Roger Stone, who was also involved in Spitzer’s downfall, is a well known Republican operative.

    The Safeguard Our Constitution web site prominently features a PDF by “Western Journalism.” That is a web site run by Caleb Heimlich, who’s running for State Representative in Puyallup, Washington as the Republican candidate.

    An official press release from the American Patriot Foundation says of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, “Even as it is, the document contains a warning that it is merely ‘prima facie’–threshold, rebuttable and thus inconclusive –evidence of birth…” That statement misrepresents what “prima facie” means. The press release implies that “prima facie” evidence is to be considered questionable and lacking on the face of it. That’s wrong. Prima facie evidence is to be considered factual on the face of it. Prima facie evidence is “true, authentic, or adequate at first sight.” It is “evident without proof or reasoning.”

    Many Freepers loved the book, “Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House” by Gary Aldrich. On page 1, Aldrich wrote, “Everyone has experienced moments of great clarity when we see or hear evidence that is irrefutable. Judges have a name for it–they call it prima facie evidence, facts that are indisputable and require no explanation. Water is wet, fire burns, con men con.”

    While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that prima facie evidence is irrefutable–it may be refutable–it’s still adequate to establish a fact until someone can provide evidence refuting it in a court of law. Obama’s certified copy of a certification of live birth is prima facie evidence of the facts of his birth in any court of law.

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

    John: The cry for investigation into Obama’s eligibility was far far greater than that of McCain and yet Congress did nothing.

    Sen. R. 511 was passed in April of 2008. There was no “cry” for an investigation of Obama at that time. In fact it was not until the June/July time frame that a foreign news organization, the Israel Insider, started publishing articles fanning suspicion, along with the right-wing propaganda machine World Net Daily. Beyond a handful of PUMA blogs, there was no widespread discussion of Obama’s eligibility until after Phil Berg filed his lawsuit in August, 2008. It took a year before the birther movement “took off”, and the election was already history by then.

    John: Further, it also believed that McCain and Hillary knew full well of Obama’s eligiblity [sic] problem and that the resolution was a deal to keep McCain quiet about the issue.

    A conspiracy involving the entire Congress? This why we call the birthers crazy.

  49. avatar
    nemocapn May 2, 2010 at 1:13 am #

    I respectfully disagree that my height and weight are on my original birth certificate. The Legal Handbook for Texas Nurses by Susan Scherman Murphy says, “The ‘For Medical and Health Use Only’ section of the birth certificate is not part of the legal birth certificate. Consequently, the information in that section is confidential and may not be released or made public; its only use is for anonymous statistics.” I suspect the state I was born in has similar restrictions. Height and weight are not part of my original legal birth certificate.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 2:39 am #

    The Western Center for Journalism is the creature of World Net Daily’s Joseph Farah according to this article at the Huffington Post.

  51. avatar
    Lupin May 2, 2010 at 4:22 am #

    “It is widely believed that Congress refused to investigate Obama due to political reasons and fear of racism.”

    You keep using that word, “widely”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  52. avatar
    Lupin May 2, 2010 at 4:24 am #

    “…we all know how honest ALL politicians are, right?”

    Well, we certainly know how honest YOU are.

  53. avatar
    Lupin May 2, 2010 at 4:27 am #

    “But one thing for sure – not EVERYONE thinks he is a NBC and there definitely IS a question about it…”

    Yes, there are two schools of thoughts on the subject, yours and the rest of the world’s.

  54. avatar
    Lupin May 2, 2010 at 4:29 am #

    “I’m sure I will be called a liar again…”

    Ding-ding! We have a winner!

  55. avatar
    Lupin May 2, 2010 at 4:34 am #

    “Neither the House nor the Senate lifted a finger to even look into Obama’s issue despite millions and millions of requests.”

    You do know that you have to actually put a USPS stamp on a letter for it to be delivered, not just scrawl “sovereign post” or “Dieu et mon droit” on the envelope?

  56. avatar
    Lupin May 2, 2010 at 4:42 am #

    As yes, Margaret Hemenway, the self-described “Virginia parent” who claimed in an article hosted by Human Events that her daughter’s first grade teacher told her class that she was marrying another woman and “read aloud, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about two male “gay” guinea pigs, promoted by the “Gay Lobby for children.”

    But as it turned out, it was all a lie.

    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/margaret-c-hemenway

    A fine role model, another proven liar.

  57. avatar
    misha May 2, 2010 at 5:40 am #

    It is believed that barnyard animals become skittish when Joseph Farah is near.

  58. avatar
    misha May 2, 2010 at 5:50 am #

    There was another internet rumor that went flying around: Ariel Sharon’s mother was a concentration camp prisoner, and his father was a SS guard.

    But this one is true: I got a call from the Mossad, three months before 9/11, telling me not to accept a transfer to my company’s WTC branch.

    I tell that to everyone who says 9/11 was an inside job.

  59. avatar
    misha May 2, 2010 at 6:18 am #

    “Have you signed the WND birther petition?”

    Yeah, I signed it Ben Dover, and the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe. I went back and signed it Jor-El Cohen. Then there’s the famous British-Israeli comedian, Hugh Bris.

  60. avatar
    Scientist May 2, 2010 at 8:59 am #

    If you look through the voluminous codes of just about any jurisdiction you will find outdated laws that make no sense today. There have even been TV shows where they actually act out the “violation” and have the actors “arrested” to make fun of the laws. Legally, you are correct that the proper course of action is for legislatures to periodically review the entire code and purge outdated laws. In the real world, they often don’t take the time to do that, preferring to focus on more pressing matters. So, law enforcement and the public do what sensible people do, ignore/laugh at those laws. Even for laws that are not totally laughable, some jurisdictions make it a deliberate policy not to enforce certain laws (simple possession of marijuana, for example). I have no problem with that.

    Regarding McCain, I have absolutely not a shred of doubt that had he won the election, he would be sitting in the White House and any court challenges against him would have been dismissed as summarily as those against Obama (correctly so, in both cases). The courts, properly, give wide deference to the will of the voters when it comes to choosing their leaders. The courts might (I wouldn’t bet my life savings either way) intervene in the case of an undisputably ineligible candidate (someone who was 25 or someone born overseas with no US citizen parent). Where there is an arguable case either way, I simply don’t see any judge thwarting the will of the voters.

    An election is a different matter from the Bill of Rights. Minorities need to be protected from majorities who infringe on their fundamental human rights. But the sole purpose of an election is for the majority to choose their candidate.

  61. avatar
    misha May 2, 2010 at 12:06 pm #

    “Scott Brown: you were not present at his birth, no one can say for 100% certain…to make such a statement as FACT is naive at best.”

    I have never been to “Austrailia,” and for all I know, it exists only on maps. Have you ever seen a kangaroo anywhere other than zoos?

    So your premise is correct: “Austrailia” may not exist, and who knows where Obama was born, or if he was born at all.

    Good catch.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    Who among us can say with 100.0000000000000000000000000000000% certainty where we ourselves were born? At some point the quest for certainty get ridiculous.

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

    Yes, it is absolutely true that not one of the nearly 200 GOP Congressmen has called for an investigation into the President’s eligibility. But the reasons you give seem a bit vague. What “political reasons” are you talking about? And can you clarify “fear of racism”? Does that mean that every single GOP Congressman thinks that the voters in his district will throw him out of office if he questions the President’s eligibility?

  64. avatar
    Bob Ross May 2, 2010 at 1:53 pm #

    I thought it had something to do with replying to scott brown :P

  65. avatar
    Arthur May 2, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    misha:

    Funny you should mention Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, because my aunt, Ima Shyster, used to clerk for Les Cheatum before marrying my uncle, Hugh G. Rection. The Rev. Willie B. Schtupping officiated.

    By the way, I always though Hugh Bris was Greek, so thanks for the correction.

  66. avatar
    Ballantine May 2, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    From an academic point of view, McCain’s eligibility is much more interesting and subject to substantive debate than Obama’s eligibility. The implications of the Act of 1790 cuts both ways. Such Act can clearly be interpreted as an admission that foreign born children of citizens would not be citizens without a naturalization act. This interpretation is supported by the legislative history as it was stated that they should provide for the foreign born children of citizens just like Paliament had done in making such persons “natural born subject” for all intents and purposes. While some English and American authorities believed such English statutes to be declaratory of the common law, see,e.g., Ludlam v. Ludlam, the overwelming majority thought these persons to be naturalized subjects with most, but not all, of the rights of native born natural born subjects, and thought that such persons would not be natural born without a naturalization statute. Such authorities would include Blackstone, Chitty, Jefferson, Kent, Binney and the majority of early american legal authorities we could think of. For example, persons made natural born subjects under such English statutes had all rights of natural born subjects other then the right to sit in Parliament. I don’t believe for a second any court would have found McClain inelgible, however, a slavish devotion to originalism would probably lead to such conclusion. Fortunately, many of our jurists don’t have such slavish devotion.

  67. avatar
    Arthur May 2, 2010 at 3:02 pm #

    John:

    I won’t quibble with you about the inaccuracy of using “congressional” to describe the actions of the Senate. Rather, I’m hoping you’ll be able to provide some information for me.

    When you wrote that “no senator or Congressman has ever scene Obama’s BC,” you got me thinking about the seriousness of this problem. Since you’re connected to sources of information that I’m not, could you report back to me on which presidential candidates in the past hundred years who have presented their birth certificates to the House or Senate for inspection.

    I hope you will honor your obvious commitment to truth and the Constitution by bringing this information to the public.

    Thanks.

  68. avatar
    Whatever4 May 2, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    I seem to remember reading that freshman Reps and Senators have to report to a Congressional official (Secretary? Seargent at arms?) as part of their orientation. Just like every other employee in the US, they fill out the payroll paperwork and present their proof of citizenship and ID.

  69. avatar
    Vince Treacy May 2, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    First, I took the position in 2008 on the Turley blog that McCain was a natural born citizen. I do not challenge his right to be President.

    But Lakin has revived the issue.

    In his letter to the President, Lakin wrote “In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his “natural born” status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President.”

    Has anyone seen a link or citation to this Senate Judiciary Committee hearing? Has anyone here seen a copy of the original birth certificate that Lakin says McCain produced at that hearing? Has anyone seen a statement by a Senator or House Member who has seen it?

    The only lead I have is the Senate floor debate, two years ago on April 30, 2008, when it approved Senate Resolution 511. It was a simple resolution, not a joint resolution or concurrent resolution. It was a nonbinding expression of opinion, not a law. It passed by voice vote. See Congressional Record, page S3645-46, April 30, 2008.

    Only Senators Leahy and Brown spoke. No one mentioned a birth certificate. No one mentioned a hearing. Chairman Leahy only said that the Committee met the previous week and voted unanimously to report the resolution to the Senate. The memo by Tribe and Olson was entered into the Record.

    Here is the entire legislative history from Thomas at the Library of Congress:

    [quote] 110th CONGRESS, 2d Session
    S . RES . 511
    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
    April 10, 2008
    Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
    April 24, 2008
    Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
    April 30, 2008
    Considered and agreed to [unquote]

    Here it is again: [quote] S.RES.511
    Title: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
    Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 4/10/2008) Cosponsors (5)
    Latest Major Action: 4/30/2008 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.ALL ACTIONS:
    4/10/2008:
    Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2950)
    4/24/2008:
    Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
    4/24/2008:
    Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.
    4/24/2008:
    Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 715.
    4/30/2008:
    Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3645-3646; text of measure as passed Senate: CR S3646) [unquote]

    On April 23, 2008, Judiciary held a “business meeting,” not a hearing, to consider the resolution, among other matters: “Judiciary[:] Business meeting to consider … S . Res . 511 , recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen….”

    McCain’s Canal Zone birth certificate has never been posted on the web. (The image of a birth certificate showing McCain born in Colon City is a forgery). A Washington Post reporter saw it, but the McCain campaign did not let him copy or post it.

    The Post wrote that “…the McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator’s birth certificate. But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the family hospital’ in the Coco Solo submarine base. (McCain’s grandfather commanded the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in 1936; his father was the executive officer of a submarine based in Coco Solo.)”

    It continued, “The birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. Irvine. I have now checked that name against the Naval Register for 1936, and I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period. You can see the entry here. I think this effectively disposes of any remaining doubts that McCain was born inside the Canal Zone.” Link to source:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html

    So why is Lakin risking his career in part on his belief that McCain has actually shown his birth certificate? Can anyone here find a clue to that hearing or the production and examination of McCain’s birth certificate? Can anyone find an image of McCain’s Canal Zone birth certificate that Lakin so vividly remembers?

    I am asking because I have not been able to track it down.

  70. avatar
    Rickey May 2, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    Kathryn N says:

    I love that squirrely birther language. The inability to posit easily ascernable facts in simple declarative sentences is a certain symptom of the odd mental handicap known as birtherism.

    Yes, it’s a weasel phrase, along the lines of “some people say” or masking allegations within a question, such as “Was Obama’s book written by Bill Ayers?” Fox News does it all the time.

  71. avatar
    nemocapn May 2, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    That’s a very interesting article on the background of Western Journalism. I say that Caleb “runs” the site, because the contact email address starts with Caleb@. Numerous articles say “posted by Caleb,” and he’s listed as their “Director of Programs.”

    The author of “Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility” from the Western Journalism and Safeguard the Constitution web sites is anonymous. Supposedly the article is part of an “investigator’s report” that was commissioned by “a retired CIA officer.” After reading the article, I came away with the impression that it was written by someone who is either not an American or not a journalist. Why do I say that? According to American standards, commas and periods almost always appear inside the quotation marks. The unnamed author of “Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility” placed several commas and periods outside the quotation marks. Examples include:

    “Certification of Live Birth”.

    It is a computer-generated document that the state of Hawaii issues on request to indicate that a birth certificate of some type is “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”.

    A journalist would place the period inside the quotation marks in those examples. So much for the site being “Western Journalism.” Now, I’ve heard that lawyers quoting statutes will place the period outside the quotation marks if it’s not part of the original statute. I haven’t been able to confirm that’s true, but it is true that non-Americans place punctuation logically based on whether it’s part of the original quote or not. The anonymous author or his copy editor doesn’t know American journalistic rules of punctuation for some reason. I find that inexcusable for a site that has the word “journalism” in its name. (End rant.) ###

  72. avatar
    nemocapn May 2, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    I can think of one reason why Senate Resolution 511 was important for McCain. Any written objection to electoral votes cast for McCain must be signed by one senator and one representative. By passing a unanimous resolution, the senators were signaling to house members that no senator would sign an objection on the basis that McCain isn’t a Natural Born Citizen.

  73. avatar
    Scientist May 2, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    I don’t see the issue. Those born overseas to US citizen parents are citizens from birth; there is no naturalization process to go through-no background check, no test, no oath. They cannot be refused citizenship-even if they were convicted of murder-they are citizens by right. Their status is thus no different than those born in the US. They are natural born. Naturalized citizens (those born overseas to non-US parents do not have a right to citizenship. They can be refused based on having committed certain crimes or failing the test or not speaking sufficient English

    Originalism is really quite silly. Science spent some time in the Middle Ages practicing a form of originalism-the results sucked.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 8:45 pm #

    nemocapn: The unnamed author of “Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility” placed several commas and periods outside the quotation marks.

    If you look carefully you will see me doing the same thing. In my case it doesn’t come from being a foreigner, but from being a software developer. In any programming language, the statement punctuation always goes outside the quotation marks enclosing the literal text. Putting that period inside the quotes goes against the very fiber of my being. The period is sentence delimiter, and not part of the quoted material. It is ILLOGICAL to put the period inside. If you put the period inside you end the sentence before closing the quotation. ITS WRONG YOU HEAR ME, WRONG! I don’t care what Strunk and White says.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    I have never seen any authentic McCain birth certificate or credible assertion that one was shown to anybody except Dobbs.

  76. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 2, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    Dear Vince,

    You wrote:”… I do not challenge his (McCain’s) right to be President.”

    Presumptive Usurper McCain has NO Constitutional right to be President; he has not met the Constitution’s “elected” requirement.

    Benji Franklin

  77. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 2, 2010 at 9:11 pm #

    Dear John,

    I really liked the factualness of your poem, except you misspelled the words “trillions and trillions” once. That was probably the fault of whoever made up your mind.

    Benji Franklin

  78. avatar
    G May 2, 2010 at 9:37 pm #

    Vince asks:

    So why is Lakin risking his career in part on his belief that McCain has actually shown his birth certificate? Can anyone here find a clue to that hearing or the production and examination of McCain’s birth certificate? Can anyone find an image of McCain’s Canal Zone birth certificate that Lakin so vividly remembers?

    I am asking because I have not been able to track it down.

    Simply put, Lakin is a fool, flushing his career as a fools errand, based on a pack of lies.

    The folks that desperately want to hate Obama or discredit his presidency are not basing their reasons in facts or logic. They will gullibly believe any BS rumor out there as long as it reinforces their preconceived fears and prejudices.

    What you have already posted is most likely the full extent of congressional comments & actions on the matter. I doubt there is any more than that. The birther BS masters just try to make it into something more than it ever was.

    There is no evidence of an image of McCain’s actual BC. Other than a reporter mentioning that McCain had personally showed it to him, it was never publicly released or shown at all. The only image of a BC for him was a obvious forgery, which has been well covered and addressed on this site.

  79. avatar
    aarrgghh May 2, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    nemocapn, in quotes:

    “According to American standards, commas and periods almost always appear inside the quotation marks.”

    if you look at my comments, you’ll find i don’t follow the american standard. while i have been programming since college, my punctuation placement predates computers. dr. c might be speaking with tongue in cheek, but i too have always thought the strunk and white practice illogical and have long rebelled against it. i’d never make it as a journalist in my own country …

  80. avatar
    nemocapn May 2, 2010 at 9:56 pm #

    Ah, but you prove my point. Software developers and programmers write in computer languages that are foreign to standard American English.

    Perhaps I was hasty in my judgment, though. I didn’t consider the author could be writing in Fortran 77. The Fortran Standards Committee proposed that the letter “O” is harmful. That could explain the hatred for Obama.

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    I started with FORTRAN IV. Back then you had to enter all your numeric constants as Roman numerals.

  82. avatar
    Whatever4 May 2, 2010 at 10:47 pm #

    I punctuate outside the quotes ever since I read “Eats, Shoots and Leaves”. Cuz it really isn’t part of the quote.

  83. avatar
    Whatever4 May 2, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    Ugh, THAT was a painful flashback. Almost as painful as carrying a box of meticulously sorted punch cards and dropping them on the school staircase.

  84. avatar
    nemocapn May 2, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    Another programmer?! Why didn’t my geekdar go off?

    When I was in technical support, Israeli programmers were the bane of my existence. I’d have to translate their documentation from Hebrish to American English. I have to admit some of their misspellings in the troubleshooting logs were entertaining.

  85. avatar
    nemocapn May 2, 2010 at 11:15 pm #

    Ok, you got me. I just remembered that I stopped using the knife and fork the American way after reading “Cheaper by the Dozen.” The father in the book was an efficiency expert who got me to thinking about how inefficient it was to switch the fork back and forth from the left hand to the right hand to cut food. I decided that the Europeans were correct to eat and cut with the fork in the same hand. I keep my fork in my left hand. Since then I’ve heard, “Who are you trying to fool? You’re not European!” I’ve also been accused of posing as a leftie.

  86. avatar
    G May 2, 2010 at 11:40 pm #

    Oh man! Talking about punch cards & FORTRAN really takes me back too.

    Punch cards were still in use in a few places in business, but were pretty much otherwise obsolete by the time I was in college. (One of my degrees was in Computer Science, the other Math). Within my state, only CSU (Cleveland State) still had a punch card machine in use at the time. They had stopped teaching FORTRAN at the college I was at and the only punch card based language that we had to learn was COBOL. So outside of all the punch cards my dad would bring home from time to time, I never had to work with them directly, but I understood that they were the origin of why languages such as FORTRAN & COBOL had the specific columns & 80 char limit and why we would use those crazy column sheets to write our programs.

    The funny thing is, my college still had quite a few FORTRAN programs on the Administrative Prime mainframe. I worked my first summer of college for the college Administration area and I actually had to modify a few of those programs, so I can say that I have programmed FORTRAN and I did have to write one small FORTRAN program from scratch. Looking back, I think I wrote programs in 12 different languages total, before moving on to other areas of IT and business.

  87. avatar
    nemocapn May 2, 2010 at 11:55 pm #

    Fifty-two card pickup, huh? Since I wrote only one program in Fortran, I have more positive memories. Punch cards made festive Christmas wreaths. Still, punch cards and paper tape were the reason I gave up learning to program. One typo on the paper tape, and all it was good for was a party streamer.

  88. avatar
    nemocapn May 3, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    Here’s a link to the one Dr. C. says is forged. This particular version has the affidavit from Don Lamb:
    http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/McCain-SurreplyEx-7-21-08.pdf

    An order in the Hollander v. McCain case suggests it’s not McCain’s real birth certificate. It says:
    “Hollander has also provided a copy of McCain’s birth certificate, which lists his place of birth as Colón. The defendants dispute this theory, but it is irrelevant
    to the present motion in any event.”
    http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Order-7-24-08.pdf

    Here’s another version of McCain’s birth certificate, but the fonts on the right look funny:
    http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/mccain%20birth.html

    I could’ve sworn I saw a third version of McCain’s birth certificate online that could be authentic, but I can’t find it any more. Maybe you’ll like this one– http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2572961469_3d98d04db6.jpg

    It looks like a winner to me!

  89. avatar
    nBC May 3, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    haha papyrus…

  90. avatar
    Lupin May 3, 2010 at 1:40 am #

    According to quantum physics, if someone watched Obama being born, he may not have been born at all.

    Oh the irony!

  91. avatar
    Lupin May 3, 2010 at 1:42 am #

    To quote CNN, it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

    Or was it Stephen Colbert who said that?

  92. avatar
    aarrgghh May 3, 2010 at 4:05 am #

    lupin, irrespeculating:

    “To quote CNN, it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

    Or was it Stephen Colbert who said that”

    it was former reagan/bush speechwriter and wall street pseudojournalist peggy noonan who got her internet spurs for that.

    “The great unanswered question of course is: What was driving Mr. Clinton? What made him do such a thing? What accounts for his commitment in this case? Concern for the father? But such concern is wholly out of character for this president; he showed no such concern for parents at Waco or when he freed the Puerto Rican terrorists. Concern for his vision of the rule of law? But Mr. Clinton views the law as a thing to suit his purposes or a thing to get around.
    Why did he do this thing? He will no doubt never say, a pliant press will never push him on it, and in any case if they did who would expect him to speak with candor and honesty? Absent the knowledge of what happened in this great public policy question, the mind inevitably wonders.

    Was it fear of Fidel Castro–fear that the dictator will unleash another flood of refugees, like the Mariel boatlift of 1980? Mr. Clinton would take that seriously, because he lost his gubernatorial election that year after he agreed to house some of the Cubans. In Bill Clinton’s universe anything that ever hurt Bill Clinton is bad, and must not be repeated. But such a threat, if it was made, is not a child-custody matter but a national-security matter, and should be dealt with in national-security terms.

    Was it another threat from Havana? Was it normalization with Cuba–Mr. Clinton’s lust for a legacy, and Mr. Castro’s insistence that the gift come at a price? If the price was a child, well, that’s a price Mr. Clinton would likely pay. What is a mere child compared with this president’s need to be considered important by history?

    Was Mr. Clinton being blackmailed? The Starr report tells us of what the president said to Monica Lewinsky about their telephone sex: that there was reason to believe that they were monitored by a foreign intelligence service. Naturally the service would have taped the calls, to use in the blackmail of the president. Maybe it was Mr. Castro’s intelligence service, or that of a Castro friend.

    Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to. A great and searing tragedy has occurred, and none of us knows what drove it, or why the president did what he did. Maybe Congress will investigate. Maybe a few years from now we’ll find out what really happened.”

  93. avatar
    Keith May 3, 2010 at 4:08 am #

    Absolutely true. I am an absolute stickler for consistency of usage, and I’m so conflicted on this point that I can’t keep it straight from one sentence to another.

    And yes, its because I’m a programmer too.

    And Fortran IV didn’t use periods as end of statement markers, so if the author was writing his thing in Fortran, he was a lousy programmer.

    I can’t comment on his COBOL skills though, I’ve haven’t read the source article :)

  94. avatar
    Keith May 3, 2010 at 4:12 am #

    A friend of mine scarpered with a lifetime supply of unused punch card when he left his last job.

    He is never seen without a centimeter thick wad sticking out of his shirt pocket to take notes on.

  95. avatar
    Keith May 3, 2010 at 4:18 am #

    And oh yeah, one of the neatest tricks I ever did was to fix the ‘freebie’ Fortran IV compiler that IBM provided to its users back in the day (the City didn’t want to spring for the ‘proper’ one), to accept Format statements greater than 128 columns wide and to be able to read multi-tape files so we could read the census data tapes.

    You just made a file unit declaration is a particular way and my routine dug around in the IBM runtime code and put a couple of minor patches in place, and from then on it was 100% Fortran without the silly restrictions put on by the IBM compiler.

  96. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 8:58 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 was a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

  97. avatar
    Bovril May 3, 2010 at 9:10 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…..

  98. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 3, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    DCBilerJohn: 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

    You haven’t read the Constitution, it appears. You’re entitled to your opinions and you can express them here, but without an argument, authority or evidence, you would be wasting your time.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 3, 2010 at 9:46 am #

    CO BALL been berry good….to me.

  100. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 9:49 am #

    Dr. C

    It’s precisely because I’ve read ONLY the Constitution, the supreme law of our land without peer and without subordinance to any other commentary, opinion, or et c., that I arrive at my conclusion. The Constitution cannot be self-contradictory.

    The president must swear an oath to the government established by the Constitution. Like the oath, the natural born citizen is exclusive to the government established by the Constitution.

    Natural born citizen is a birth-related test, the oath is a forward-looking test. Both are completely within the government established by the Constitution.

    Natural born citizen, for the purposes of the Constitution, was a circumstance unavailable to those born before the adoption of the Constitution, because the Constitution requires allegiance to itself alone: via the president’s oath of office and via the requirement of natural born citizen.

  101. avatar
    Bovril May 3, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    Come on BigWheelJohn

    Show ONE, SINGLE, CREDIBLE source for your inanity, just one.

    You, can’t, you fail, that simple.

    The Constitution you so laud but plainly fail to comprehend states quite simply what the requirements are to run for and be sworn in as POTUS.

    A non naturalized citizen
    Be at least 35 years old
    Have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years

    Obama meets all the necessary criteria, was sworn in and is President.

    You being such a Constitutional expert and as you hate the man so much may I reccommend you work through the Constitutional means of redress.

    You remember, petition your Congress or Senate critter, support candidates with your point of view, vote etc.

    Not difficult and considerably more sentient than whining that the man doesn’t meet some imaginary point of view of yours.

  102. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 11:09 am #

    I’m not really understanding what your argument is here. Obama is NBC

  103. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 11:26 am #

    The theory is that you don’t have to seek secondary sources to understand what the Constitution intends by natural born citizen. You have to look at two things: (A) the president’s oath of office and (B) the language which exempts those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The Constitution is not self-contradictory.

    THE OATH OF OFFICE
    The president’s oath of office is prescribed in the Constitution. The Constitution requires the president to swear an oath to the government it established, NOT simply to the country in which the government was established. This very specific oath of allegiance to the government established by the Constitution must be consistent with the natural born citizen requirement, which is an allegiance test, too.

    THOSE EXEMPT FROM THE NBC REQUIREMENT
    The Constitution exempts many people who were born in the United States from having to satisfy the NBC requirement, namely those who were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. If these people were NBC, simply by virtue of being born in the US, the Constitution would not have exempted them, (and thereby exempting others who were born elsewhere but were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution).

    Zachary Taylor was born in the United States, yet the Constitution exempts him from the requirement. Why? Because he was born under the jurisdiction of the government established by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. It was impossible for Taylor to have been born under the jurisdiction of the Constitution because he was born before its adoption.

    We don’t need foreign philosophers who unilaterally wrote “laws” of nations – before our Constitution was written – to inform us of the Constitution’s intent of the natural born citizen requirement. If the Constitution is at odds wit the secondary sources, so be it. The Constitution has no peer for the purposes of the current government of the Untied States. But the Constitution cannot be at odds with itself.

  104. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 11:46 am #

    I think I get what John is saying. He voted for Zachary Taylor in 2008 and wants to know why he isn’t President. Nowhere in the Constitution is someone prohibited from serving as President for the mere technicality of being dead.

  105. avatar
    Arthur May 3, 2010 at 11:48 am #

    DCBikerJohn:

    Like Bob Ross, I can’t tell from your post the point you wish to make. Can you explain?

  106. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    The point is that the Constitution requires the president’s allegiance (both by birth and by oath) to the government established by the Constitution. Natural born citizen is a test of allegiance to that government established by the Constitution. The Oath is a promise of allegiance to that government established by the Constitution.

    Both Zachary Taylor and Barack Obama were born in the United States. Neither Zachary Taylor nor Barack Obama were NBC. Zachary Taylor was exempt because he was a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Barack Obama does not enjoy the exemption.

    We do not need to rely on secondary sources to comprehend the Constitution’s intent of natural born citizen. The Constitution cannot contradict itself, and the allegiances it demands through the oath, and the people it exempts from the NBC requirement, are congruent with the Constitution’s intent of the NBC requirement.

  107. avatar
    Greg May 3, 2010 at 11:57 am #

    The Constitution doesn’t mention Zachary Taylor. You can search the darn thing as much as you want, he’s not mentioned.

    Everyone knew who was a natural born citizen of the United States at the time, those who were born in…wait for it…

    THE COLONIES!

    George Washington was a natural born citizen. Thomas Jefferson was a natural born citizen.

    Alexander Hamilton was NOT a natural born citizen! He was born in the West Indies.

    The founders discussed putting in a natural born restriction for Congress but decided not to, because it would eliminate the service of people like, wait for it…

    ALEXANDER HAMILTON!

    People who were born OUTSIDE the colonies!

    Read the clause carefully. Did you notice the residency requirements? There is no grandfather clause there.

    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 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.

    Declaration of Independence = July 4, 1776
    Articles of Confederation Passed = November 15, 1777
    Articles of Confederation ratified by all 13 colonies as required = March 2, 1781
    Constitution Ratified = Sept. 17, 1787

    That’s eleven years from the declaration of independence, and only six from the complete ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

    Your interpretation of the Constitution breeds an absurdity – years before anyone could be eligible for the position of President by dint of the residency clause!

    That’s why for 231 years everyone who has looked at the grandfather clause has said it was put there for people who were born outside the colonies.

  108. avatar
    Greg May 3, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    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.

    The first thing you learn in law school is to read what things actually say, as opposed to what you want them to say. There is NOTHING in the eligibility clause that says EXCLUSIVELY!

    It is simply not there.

    You want it to be there, but wanting does not make it so!

  109. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 12:05 pm #

    It’s there in the exclusive oath to the government. It’s there in the terms of those who would be exempt from the NBC requirement, even if they were born in the US. The Constitution cannot contradict itself.

    Why does the Constitution exempt some people who were born in the United States? By accident? Perhaps because they, like Taylor, were not NBC.

  110. avatar
    Kathryn N May 3, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    You seem to be confused. Barack Obama was born in the United States AFTER the adoption of the Constitution. Therefore he is a natural born citizen and needs no “exception.”

  111. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 12:11 pm #

    So why did the Constitution exempt some people who were born in the United States (e.g. Zachary Taylor)?

    The Constitution knows its own intent. It intended that people born under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union did not fit the definition of natural born citizen any more than those born under George III. This is why it deliberately exempted them from the NBC requirement. Or is the Constitution simply sloppy?

  112. avatar
    Kathryn N May 3, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    The founding fathers simply saw the difficulty and unfairness of exempting from presidential eligibilty people who were born in the United States before the Constitution was adopted. They foresaw confusion, and sought to avoid it.

  113. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    You’re posting in the wrong topic. Unless you’re saying John McCain was born at the beginning of the founding of the country I don’t see the relevance here. So why are you posting the same thing over and over again in multiple topics? Who said the constitution was contradictory?

  114. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    I’m really sorry about old Zach. Perhaps you’ll be supporting Millard Fillmore in 2012, then?

  115. avatar
    Muhommad McLovin May 3, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    Barry Soetoro renounced his US citizenship to bcome an Indonesian National. Indonesia, a sovereign nation, would not have allowed Barry, his father, his mother or anyone else to identify Barry as an Indonesian National without first obtaining a Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the US Secretary of State.

    Barry incorrectly assumed an annulment of the Soetoro adoption automatically rescinded his Certificate of Loss of Nationality.

    Themz the facts! It’s okay to hate the message, but don’t be mean to the messenger.

  116. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    I don’t get the point you are making still. What relevance does Zachary Taylor have to do with a thread about John McCain?

    The constitution made an exception for those born before the adopting of the constitution. Obama is NBC because he was born in the US after the adoption of the constitution.

    How exactly do you figure Obama isn’t NBC?

  117. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 3, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    I tell you what, “Scott.” Let’s make a little deal here.

    If you want to continue to not tell us why you’re a woman posting as a man, and what state you were born in, that’s fine.

    However, until such time as you do, let it be understood that YOU HAVE NO STANDING TO ACCUSE ANYONE ELSE OF BEING DISHONEST ABOUT ANYTHING.

    That includes Obama, by the way.

    So – fess up or shut up. Your choice.

  118. avatar
    Bovril May 3, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    It appears that BigWheelJohn is arguing for the non existent “3rd type” of citizen who is neither NBC or Naturalized….

    God knows how he intends to get there from his discussion pastes…The good thing is at least he is in agreement that Vattel is an empty letter.

  119. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    The problem with BigWheelJohn is not possible under Minor v. Happersett. You can’t be neither natural born nor naturalized.

  120. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 3, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    I tried using punch cards, once. I got two black eyes and a busted lip.

    I quickly switched majors from computing to english.

  121. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 12:26 pm #

    According to quantum physics, if someone watched Obama being born, he may not have been born at all.Oh the irony!

    SCOTT BAKULA!!

  122. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    The Constitution knows its own intent

    The Constitution is a document, so with all due respect it has no will or intent. Those who wrote it may have had certain intentions. On the other hand, they were human and a long way from infallible so, yes, they could certainly have been sloppy at times.

    I don’t understand this deification of the Constitution. It’s a very fine 18th century document (showing its age a bit by now, in my opinion), but to try to make it out to be perfect is foolish.

  123. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 12:29 pm #

    I think he’s claiming the Constitution is self aware and was manufactured by Cyberdine Systems.

  124. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    Exactly! I could not agree more with those comments.

    It would have not only been unfair but impractical. They needed a president. They didn’t want to wait 35 years for the first NBC person to satisfy the age requirement.

    (They also thought it unfair to exclude anyone born before the Constitution was adopted no matter their place of birth. That is, the exemption from the NBC requirement opened presidential eligibility to people born, for example, in China, so long as they were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.)

  125. avatar
    SFJeff May 3, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    Its Sven with his latest chapter of “Barry and the Pirates”

    I so look forward to see what happens next.

  126. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    A kid cannot renounce his US Citizenship. You have no proof that Obama every legally changed his name or was adopted. Keep spinning your wheels though

  127. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    The constitution made an exception for those born before the adopting of the constitution.

    The Constitution made an exception to the NBC requirement for everyone born before the adoption of the Constitution because they could not have been NBC – no matter their place of birth.

  128. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Sorry I got ahead of myself. Let me restate:

    The Constitution made an exception to the NBC requirement for everyone born before the adoption of the Constitution (so long as they were citizens of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) because they could not have been NBC – no matter their place of birth.

  129. avatar
    Greg May 3, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Themz the facts!

    You have a strange definition of “facts.”

    In the reality-based universe, you need to prove your facts.

    Proof that Obama renounced his citizenship? Nothing.
    Proof that a CLN exists? Nothing.
    Proof that Obama became an Indonesian national? Nothing.
    Proof that the nation of Indonesia was ever told Obama was a national? Nothing.
    Proof that there was a Soetoro adoption? Nothing.
    Proof that there was an annulment of the imaginary adoption above? Nothing.

    In short, Dick, you’ve got nothing. A whole lot of nothing, but still, nothing!

  130. avatar
    SFJeff May 3, 2010 at 12:52 pm #

    “(They also thought it unfair to exclude anyone born before the Constitution was adopted no matter their place of birth.”

    Not also- that is the whole point of the exemption.

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

    To me, I don’t know how this can be any clearer- Natural Born Citizen- or anyone else who was a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution.

    So a person who was born in one of the colonies- someone who was born into citizenship- was a Natural born citizen. A person who was born outside the colonies but was a citizen at the time of adoption(not born into citizenship) was also eligible.

    Born vs not Born into citizenship. Simple.

  131. avatar
    Greg May 3, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Why does the Constitution exempt some people who were born in the United States?

    More BS from someone who wants to reinterpret the grandfather clause.

    Look, for more than 200 years, legal scholars and historians have all agreed that the grandfather clause was to allow those born outside the colonies to serve as President.

    Alexander Hamilton, for example, wouldn’t have been eligible except for the grandfather clause.

    The Constitution cannot contradict itself.

    Your reading of the clause in question contradicts itself!

    The eligibility clause has a residency requirement. It requires that only those who have lived within the United States for 14 years are eligible.

    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 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.

    Declaration of Independence = 7/4/1776
    Articles of Confederation ratified by last state = 3/1/1781
    Constitution Ratified = 9/17/1787

    That’s eleven years from the Declaration of Independence to the ratification of the Constitution. And there’s no grandfather clause for that part of the eligibility clause, just like there’s no grandfathering of those under 35!

    Your reading of the Constitution forbids anyone from serving as President until 7/4/1790 at the earliest.

    Everyone was clear at the Founding who were natural born and who weren’t. Those born in the colonies were natural born, while Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies, was not!

  132. avatar
    Greg May 3, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    The grandfather clause only applies to the Natural born citizens, not to the age or residency requirements. No one under age 35 was eligible to run.

    Because the grandfather clause, which appears before the residency and age requirements (and therefore cannot modify them), did not modify the residency requirement, your reading of Natural Born Citizen creates an absurdity.

    The Constitution was ratified 11 years after the Declaration of Independence, but the Clause requires residence within the United States for 14 years.

    Those born within the colonies were considered natural born citizens of the new nation, the United States. Those born, say, in the West Indies (Alexander Hamilton) were considered NOT natural born citizen.

    That’s what the grandfather clause refers to. There is NO evidence whatsoever that it was intended to apply to ALL founders!

  133. avatar
    Greg May 3, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    It’s there in the terms of those who would be exempt from the NBC requirement, even if they were born in the US.

    The words “even if they were born in the US” do not appear in the Constitution.

    The clause you are referring to does not make those born in the colonies eligible, it ONLY makes those born OUTSIDE of the colonies.

    Read what’s IN the Constitution, not what you WANT to be in the Constitution!

  134. avatar
    SFJeff May 3, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    Oh I get it- John thinks that after the Constitution that was a citizen prior to the Constitution was naturalized- they all applied to become citizens of the United States.

    Because there are only two ways to become citizens of the United States- either you are born a citizen or you are naturalized.

  135. avatar
    SFJeff May 3, 2010 at 1:11 pm #

    Let me also point out the one little issue with John’s theory- nobody else agrees with it.

    Remember, everyone knew that President Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen. The voters who voted for him, the Electoral College who cast their votes for him, the Congress which confirmed him and the Chief Justice which voted him in.

    Apparently all of those people interpret the Constitutional meaning of NBC differently from how you do.

    Of course you are welcome to your viewpoint- and you can even pursue your viewpoint and try to convince others that how NBC has been traditionally defined and understood by the majority of Americans is incorrect and truely Unconstitutional.

    But don’t expect that courts will suddenly slap their foreheads and go “Duh- how did we miss the obvious all of these year- Thanks DCBikerdude for setting us straight!”

  136. avatar
    richCares May 3, 2010 at 1:15 pm #

    Dear john and other Birthers,
    Target has a sale on for Birthers and right wingers (whiners), they have a sale on broad brushes, Thunderbird and Sterno.

    Right wing whiners are whinos, they favor drinking Thunderbird or Sterno, birthers perfer only Sterno as it helps alleviate pain from brain damage.

  137. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    So what exactly is your point? Obama is NBC

  138. avatar
    Bovril May 3, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    So,

    John has re-iterated that at the signing and ratification of the Constitution, a one off exemption, for a specific very limited group of persons, all of whom died over a century ago was inserted into the citizenship criteria for POTUS.

    What relevance does that have now…?

    Answer none, not even if you posit that Obama is in fact a Methusualah like figure from the signing of the Constitution.

    Repeating, there are, as of today, two categories of citizen, only two categories of citizen and the requirements to differentiate the two are well known and legally defined.

  139. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 3, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Assertion + (0 * evidence) = Assertion.

  140. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 3, 2010 at 1:59 pm #

    Then how come John Jay suggested natural born citizen without the exception. Look like there’s a fatal flaw in your theory.

  141. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 3, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    A brain the size of a planet and I have to entertain birthers.

  142. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 3, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

    DCBikerJohn: is the Constitution just sloppy.

    No, just your interpretation of it.

  143. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 3, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    Have you ANY historical reference to Taylor not qualifying as a natural born citizen? Did anyone comment at the time? If not, can you explain why you can’t find it?

    I think you are imagining things.

  144. avatar
    Greg May 3, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

    The Constitution made an exception to the NBC requirement for everyone born before the adoption of the Constitution (so long as they were citizens of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) because they could not have been NBC – no matter their place of birth.

    This part, that I’ve bolded, is NOT found in the Constitution. There is simply nothing in the Constitution that tells why the grandfather clause is there.

    Your interpretation, that no one was a natural born citizen because no one could be a citizen of a nation that did not exist, creates an absurdity, since the residency requirement requires 14 years residence in a nation that had only existed for 11 years (at most).

    Looking to the statements of the framers, it is clear that they believed one could be a natural born citizen of the United States, even if born before the Declaration of Independence. If you were born in Massachusetts, for example, and you didn’t align with the Crown, you were a natural born citizen of the United States.

    It is amazing that birthers can come into the debate in 2010, 200+ years after the Constitution was written and, without looking at a single sentence of previous scholarship, declare without a doubt that their entirely new, utterly unheard-of-before interpretation of the grandfather clause is right!

    It’s like the internet nutters who think they can disprove Einstein’s theory of special relativity without ever having taken a physics class.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 3, 2010 at 2:19 pm #

    Reading the Constitution outside of it’s historical context will inevitably lead to substitution of your own personal context and prejudices.

    But even allowing an imaginary context-free reading, your approach is flakey on it’s face.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 3, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    An oath is a forward promise, not a past requirement.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 3, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    I’m impressed.

  148. avatar
    Black Lion May 3, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    Sven, engaging in another session of mental masturbation, continues to try and push his ridiculous theory. He hasn’t figured out that his theory is so far out there that even Orly and Manning wouldn’t touch it….Imaginary adoptions, fictious CLN forms, imaginary multinational corporations that specialized in refugees from Asia in 1971, Sven’s book has it all. He hasn’t realized that we don’t hate him on this site, we actually look forward to his stories so that we can get a good laugh in the morning. The only “facts” that Sven has is that he has no evidence that anything he proposed ever happened….We are all looking forward to the next chapter however. I hope it involves the CIA and learning Farsi in a country that doesn’t even speak it….

  149. avatar
    Rickey May 3, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    DCBikerJohn says:

    They also thought it unfair to exclude anyone born before the Constitution was adopted no matter their place of birth. That is, the exemption from the NBC requirement opened presidential eligibility to people born, for example, in China, so long as they were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    Your entire argument is based upon the premise that there were no natural born citizens who were eligible to be president at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. But your premise is flawed. You have to read all of the eligibility requirements:

    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 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. [emphasis mine]

    The Constitution requires that any candidate for president – whether natural-born or “exempt” – be a resident within the United States for fourteen years. The first presidential election was held in 1788, meaning that George Washington had to have resided within the United States since at least 1774. But the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, just twelve years before the election of 1788. This means that the founders believed that anyone who resided in one of the colonies in 1774 was deemed to have been residing in the United States in 1774, even though the United State didn’t exist in 1774.

    If the founders considered a person who was living in the colonies prior to the Revolution to have been a resident of the United States at that time, the only logical conclusion one can make is that they also considered anyone born in the colonies prior to the Revolution to have been a natural born citizen of the United States.

    To argue otherwise would be a contradiction, and you have insisted that the Constitution cannot contradict itself.

  150. avatar
    G May 3, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    A brain the size of a planet and I have to entertain birthers.

    Nice! Love the Marvin the Paranoid Robot reference from Douglas Adams!

  151. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 3, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

    Dear John,

    You say that the Constitution “can not contradict itself”.

    When the Constitution is ambiguous it can reasonably and inevitably become subject to two or more MUTUALLY exclusive, and therefore contradictory, equally logically consistent, interpretations. You simply declare that the interpretation you favor has superior logical contextual consistency and dismiss the alternative resolution of the ambiguity, as “contradictory”, and therefore by your edict, forbidden.

    I was not aided in acquiring this insight into your fallacious reasoning by the experience I gained years ago while writing an entire word processor in PLM-86 (when that was a big deal and when they were just processing text) so I won’t mention it gratuitously here just yet.

    Benji Franklin

  152. avatar
    WTF? May 3, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    The natural-born citizen portion of the Naturalization Act of 1790 went away when that Act was repealed 5 years later. The new Act not only didn’t make the same declaration, the preamble to the 1795 Act stated that it carried the naturalization power as far as it could go.

    Naturalization is the act of making an alien a citizen. Congress only has the power to make an alien a citizen. If Congress is using their naturalization power to make someone a citizen from birth, without first recognizing that person was, at birth, an alien, Congress would have exceeded their power.

  153. avatar
    WTF? May 3, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    Congress could repeal the portion of the Act that makes the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens, citizens.

    There is nothing “natural” (meaning without the need of laws) about making a foreign-born child a citizen.

  154. avatar
    Rickey May 3, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    When I was in the Navy we used both paper tape (teletype) and punch cards to transmit messages, although the paper tape was far more prevalent. Both were fed into a Univac 1004 computer for transmittal. The body of a paper tape message could have corrections in it, but the header had to be perfect – make a mistake, start over.

  155. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 3:51 pm #

    If Congress did repeal that act, it would only affect those born after that repeal. There is no way to retroactively remove citizenship from those who acquired it at birth.

    You need to realize that there is nothing “natural” about citizenship or about nation states for that matter. They are purely human constructs. For most of our existence human lived in small bands made up of close relatives, as is the case with our close animal cousins, the apes. The entire idea of countries is a latter-day, artificial construct.

  156. avatar
    WTF? May 3, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Per scientist “There is no way to retroactively remove citizenship from those who acquired it at birth.”

    The foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are naturalized citizens. They may be exempted from any formal naturalization process, but they are naturalized nonetheless. All of those children are aliens at birth, and they become citizens by an Act of Congress. In fact, some of them can lose their citizenship by their failure to perform, or a failure to perform by one of their parents.

    Here’s a good recent case for you to review.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2071.ZO.html

  157. avatar
    nemocapn May 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    You’re absolutely right, SFJeff. It’s widely known that natural born citizenship is a requirement for the Presidency. Obama didn’t hide that his father wasn’t an American citizen. He presented himself as son of a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother. It was also highly publicized that McCain was born abroad while his father was serving in the Navy. Neither candidate met the strictest birther standard of natural born citizen–born on American soil to two citizen parents; and yet, people still voted for them.

    The popular vote for Obama was 69,498,215, and the popular vote for McCain was 59,948,240. That tells me that there are 129,446,455 people who don’t agree with the birther definition of NBC. The World Net Daily petition for Obama’s birth certificate has 503,627 signatures. That’s less than half of 1% of the people who voted for Obama and McCain. The number of people who believe Obama and McCain are natural born citizens far exceeds the number who don’t. Birthers are a minority and a fringe one at that. They seem to think when the press ignores them or ridicules them that it’s part of a massive conspiracy to cover up the truth. They don’t understand that they’re the political equivalent of the flat earthers.

  158. avatar
    BatGuano May 3, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    .Naturalization is the act of making an alien a citizen. Congress only has the power to make an alien a citizen.

    i have never seen a single person go before congress to become a naturalized citizen.

  159. avatar
    Arthur May 3, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    DCBikerJohn:

    Regarding your statements about the Constitution vis a vis presidential eligibility, I’m afraid I remain in the dark. Responding to me, you restated earlier comments about the Constitution. Then you made a claim that neither Zachery Taylor nor Barack Obama were natural born citizens, though you say both were born in the United States.

    What I need is the reasoning step that connects your comments on the Constitution to your statement that Taylor and Obama are not eligible to be president.

    Also, I get the sense that you believe your strict constructionist reading of the Constitution has revealed something important; however, I can’t figure out what it is. Could you sum up, as straightforwardly as possible, your thesis.

  160. avatar
    SFJeff May 3, 2010 at 5:09 pm #

    The case you put up for example is one where only one parent was a U.S. citizen, and the child was born out of wedlock.

    A child born of two citizen parents, born in wedlock, where one of parents met the residency requirements, acquires citizenship at birth.

  161. avatar
    WTF? May 3, 2010 at 5:20 pm #

    It doesn’t mean that people have to go before Congress to become a citizen. It means that Congress has been given the power to create uniform rules for naturalization.

  162. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 5:20 pm #

    I find the analysis of WTF quite compelling, namely that one is born the citizen of the soil at birth and while in the United States, per statute, some children, born outside the US are granted, retroactively, to become citizens of the US, it is hardly self evident that such statutory citizens are nothing more than naturalized citizens and cannot therefor be natural born.

    Remember that even in the Common Law practices of England, children born abroad to a citizen father, were not considered to be natural born and that a statute was needed to grant them such status.

    Similarly, in the early days, Congress passed such a statute, only to realize that under our Constitution they did not have the option to extend natural born status beyond the extent of the Common Law definition.

  163. avatar
    WTF? May 3, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    Jeff,

    It doesn’t make any difference. The child becomes a citizen because of an act of Congress. Knowing that Congress only has the power to create procedures for naturalization is all it take to know that if they are only a citizen because Congress created an act to make them one, they are naturalized.

  164. avatar
    Arthur May 3, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    Rickey, Dr. C., G, et al.:

    You guys are, like, total nerds! If I have to read one more post in which you eggheads wax poetic about punch cards, mainframes, FORTRAN, or any other computer language, I’m going back to watching funny cat videos on YouTube! I mean, really . . . it’s like homecoming for the A/V club or something. And please, no found memories of how challenging it was to synchronize a film strip to the audio track of a record player!

    (I need some kind of emoticon to indicate I’m just ribbing you.)

  165. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    That’s a bit of a silly comment. Congress passes laws which if signed become the statutory laws of our country. Under our Constitution only congress can naturalize people. That’s quite clear.
    Under our Constitution, Congress can also not exceed its powers to naturalize to extend a common law definition/practice to apply to a larger group of people. After all, what would prevent them to make any naturalized citizen, in addition to natural born citizens, a natural born citizen?

  166. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    Hear hear…

  167. avatar
    misha May 3, 2010 at 5:28 pm #

    “The World Net Daily petition for Obama’s birth certificate has 503,627 signatures.”

    Yeah, and a bunch of them were my pranks. So far, I’ve signed Ben Dover, Hugh Bris, Jor-El Cohen, Dewey, Cheatum & Howe, IP Daily, plus all of the other commenters here have signed pranks.

    So maybe they got 50K real names. And who cares what those malcontents think. Then the Repugs are going to run Romney and Jindal in ’12. And that crowd is already starting on Jindal – he’s an anchor baby, his parents weren’t citizens when he was born, etc, etc…

    Who’s their other choice? Palin, who cost McSame the election. No matter how much she says she loves Israel, Jews are terrified of her. Just google “Palin frightens Jews,” and look at the results. Huck is finished since he did a Willie Horton. If he ran, the Dems would pay him back for Dukakis with compound interest.

  168. avatar
    richCares May 3, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    one more anomily:
    us poor guys used discarded Teletype Machines as printers and as storage using the punched tape, slow but reliable (tape recorders also used but too unreliable – had to constantly reload)

    these teletypes were around $20, cheapest printers were over $250

  169. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    The child becomes a citizen because of an act of Congress

    So what? The child was a citizen at birth; that is what matters. The Nguyen case involved a matter of whether the person was in fact born a citizen, due to the parents not being married and the mother not being a citizen. You could similarly have a case where there was a dispute regarding whether someone was actually born on US soil.

    As for Common Law vs statute, one is not more “natural” than the other. Both are human constructs and both change with time.

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

    So what? The child was a citizen at birth; that is what matters.

    If things were only this simple. Since the child was granted citizenship by statute, there is good reason that such a child, under our present Constitution cannot be considered to be natural born

    The Nguyen case involved a matter of whether the person was in fact born a citizen, due to the parents not being married and the mother not being a citizen. You could similarly have a case where there was a dispute regarding whether someone was actually born on US soil.

    Not really, since when born on US soil, regardless of the parents’ status, the child is considered a (natural born) citizen.

    As for Common Law vs statute, one is not more “natural” than the other. Both are human constructs and both change with time.

    True but statutes can be changed by a simple majority while Constitutional changes have a higher standard.

    Simple.

  171. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    If you look through the voluminous codes of just about any jurisdiction you will find outdated laws that make no sense today.

    Which is why such laws can be repealed by a simple majority. However, due to our system of a Constitution, more is needed to change Constitutional provisions.

    This is not about you consider to be fair or equitable but about simple procedures of changing laws versus the Constitution.

    Do you want to abandon the Constitutional foundations of this country?

  172. avatar
    misha May 3, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

    “And please, no found memories of how challenging it was to synchronize a film strip to the audio track of a record player!”

    Which was my job at a film studio. I was the one who held the sound board, clapped it, and then synched the Nagra with the film on the flatbed editor. Whenever someone cries about film, I stop reading. Anyone who prefers film to digital has a screw loose.

    A Jewish woman is dying. Her husband says to her, “I’ve taken care of everything.” She looks up and says, “You mean you got a casket wholesale?”

    A man is dying, and asks for a slice of his wife’s pie. She says, “you can’t have any.” He cries out, “what do you mean, ‘can’t have any’?”

    She says, “I’m saving it for after the funeral.”

  173. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 5:49 pm #

    So nbc, let me ask you a question-Suppose McCain had won. He would unquestionably have been approved by Congress and would be in the White House. Would you then be a birther and call him illegitimate and a usurper? Or would you accept the verdict of the voters and their elected representatives?

  174. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 3, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

    DCBikerJohn:
    Regarding your statements about the Constitution vis a vis presidential eligibility, I’m afraid I remain in the dark. Responding to me, you restated earlier comments about the Constitution. Then you made a claim that neither Zachery Taylor nor Barack Obama were natural born citizens, though you say both were born in the United States.
    What I need is the reasoning step that connects your comments on the Constitution to your statement that Taylor and Obama are not eligible to be president.Also, I get the sense that you believe your strict constructionist reading of the Constitution has revealed something important; however, I can’t figure out what it is. Could you sum up, as straightforwardly as possible, your thesis.

    Dear Arty:

    Good line about the A.V. club reunion! John’s thesis is heading inexorably toward reminding us that no woman can ever be President because the Founders always used “he” when referring to the President in the Constitution. John parses the Constitution one self-serving preconceived hate-fueled ideological notion at a time.

    Benji Franklin

  175. avatar
    misha May 3, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    richCares: let me guess. Next, you’re going to tell us all about acoustic couplers.

    Puhleez.

    True story about Alfred Hitchcock: he used to have his EKG readings taken by computer terminal at his home. One day he hooked up his fax machine, as a fax came through, instead.

  176. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 5:58 pm #

    I understand your question and while I, under much similar circumstances, accepted George as my president I would accept McCain. Once a person is duly elected then the question has been resolved.

    This of course should not be confused with the issue as to whether children born abroad to US citizens are natural born citizens or not. It merely has to do with the continued functioning of our Country. The alternative would be total chaos.

  177. avatar
    WTF? May 3, 2010 at 6:03 pm #

    nbc said “Since the child was granted citizenship by statute, there is good reason that such a child, under our present Constitution cannot be considered to be natural born”.

    If the child became a citizen by statute, and Congress only has the express authority to create uniform rules to make an alien a citizen;and that is how this alien became a citizen; then how could someone who was at one time an alien be considered to have been a natural born citizen?

  178. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Could you sum up, as straightforwardly as possible, your thesis.

    Arthur, I appreciate your patience. Thank you for asking.

    Yes, something important: A theory of natural born citizen that rests solely upon the text of the Constitution, without secondary sources, which interject confusion and doubt.

    Here’s the thesis:
    NBC is birth in the sole jurisdiction of the government established by the Constitution of the Untied States, without inheriting rights or privileges from any other governments either as a result of place of birth or parentage.

    Here’s the justification:
    The Constitution is consistent with itself. With regard presidential eligibility, the Constitution did not “grandfather” anyone who did not need “grandfathering”. That is, the Constitution exempts certain people from the requirement of being NBC for the sole reason that they are not NBC. This includes people, such as Zachary Taylor, who were born in the United States.

    Why does the Constitution “grandfather” people like Zachary Taylor if the Constitution intended them to be NBC? Because they were not NBC.

    But why were they not NBC? What is it about Zachary Taylor that makes him not NBC. He was born in the US, right? Yes. Is NBC more than just birth in the United States to parents who are its citizens?

    YES

    The Constitution requires the president to swear an oath to the Constitution. It’s a requirement. The oath is itself a requirement of eligibility.

    The Oath is not simply to the Country, but rather to its second government, that one established by the Constitution. (The first government of the United States was that established by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Constitution as in essence a peaceful revolution, overthrowing the first government for the second one.)

    So, if the Oath is a test of allegiance to the government established by the Constitution, why would the requirement of natural born citizen be any different? Both are allegiance tests: one based upon the circumstances of birth which are incurable, the other is a promise for continued allegiance to the government established by the Constitution.

    Natural born citizen demands more than simply birth solely in the Untied States. It demands birth solely in the Constitution of the United States. This is why Zachary Taylor, who was born in the Untied States, was grandfathered – he was not NBC because he was born in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

    The Constitution may be at odds with Swiss philosophers who unilaterally expound “laws” of nature. Indeed the Constitution may defy Swiss philosophers, as is its right and privilege. But, the Constitution cannot be at odds with itself. Both the president’s oath and the terms upon which the grandfather clause expire point to one conclusion: the Constitution requires allegiance to more than just the Untied States – it requires undivided allegiance to the government which it established, both at birth and again upon inauguration.

    So, NBC is birth in the sole jurisdiction of the government established by the Constitution of the Untied States, without inheriting rights or privileges from any other governments either as a result of place of birth or parentage.

    I can be reached at DCBikerJohn at yahoo dot com if you’d like to reach me privately. Of course, I welcome public commentary and analysis too.

  179. avatar
    Bob Ross May 3, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    And what does this whole thesis cross posted on Mario Puzzo’s blog have anything to do with John McCain and Barack Obama? Could you post anymore off subject?

  180. avatar
    WTF? May 3, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    scientist asked nbc “would you accept the verdict of the voters and their elected representatives?”

    Verdict of the voters? Are the voters qualified to make such a decision? Either the Constitution was followed or it was not. We don’t live in a country where the results of a pupularity contest trump the Constitution. Many would like to have it that way, but it just isn’t so.

    The beeter question would be; Does Congress perfrom a ministerial act of ensuring that the President-elect meets the qualifications set forth in the Constitution, or does Congress perform a discretionary act when determining if the President-elect meet those qualifications?

    James Madison thought the qualifications of electors and elected were fundamental articles in a republican government, and ought to be fixed by the Constitution. If the legislature could regulate those of either, it can by degrees subvert the Constitution.

    I think the answer is; Congress performs a ministerial function. If Congress chooses to ignore the qualifications mandated by the Constitution, they perform an unlawful act.

  181. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 6:39 pm #

    I think the answer is; Congress performs a ministerial function. If Congress chooses to ignore the qualifications mandated by the Constitution, they perform an unlawful act.

    There are some problems here. If Congress indicates that it believes that McCain were a natural born citizen, then they have not performed an unlawful act, although they may still be wrong.
    The problem is that in these cases judicial review is prohibited by the Constitution and inadvisable due to its negative impacts. Once elected, the concept of Qua Warranto against a president no longer makes sense.

  182. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    Taylor didn’t have to be NBC because he was a citizen of the Untied States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

  183. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    That’s a circular argument

  184. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    Verdict of the voters? Are the voters qualified to make such a decision

    And who is? You? The Supreme Court of the Bush v Gore travesty? Give me a break. I’d sooner trust 150 million voters than some self-appointed group of nabobs.

    We don’t live in a country where the results of a pupularity contest trump the Constitution.

    An election IS a popularity contest, pure and simple. The ONLY reason to hold one is to determine the will of the people. Otherwise, why not save several billion $$ and just flip a coin? There is a difference between electing executive and legislative officers, where the goal is to reflect the najority and passing laws that might infringe on the rights of minorities. In the case of the latter, no, the majority does not always get its way. But when it comes to who holds office, it is majority rule.

    Congress is absolutely entitled to take a different view of whether a candidate meets the qualifications than you, nbc, DrC or me. The difference is their view counts and ours is just hot air. That isn’t unlawful. Rather, that is the law. If you don’t like it, run for Congress yourself.

  185. avatar
    SFJeff May 3, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    First of all, I do like that per WTF argument, there is no question that Obama being born in Hawaii is a NBC.

    As per WTF further quotes:

    “Verdict of the voters? Are the voters qualified to make such a decision? Either the Constitution was followed or it was not.”

    Ah but here’s the rub: The voters by their votes are asserting their belief that President McCain was eligible. The voters are indeed qualified to decide with their vote whether someone is eligible- if they do not believe that the candidate was eligible then they can chose not to vote. What you are asserting is that you- you and uniquely you- are more qualified than the voters. You are asserting that your interpretation of the Constitution is better than that of any other voter. And you don’t get that kind of veto power.

    “The better question would be; Does Congress perform a ministerial act of ensuring that the President-elect meets the qualifications set forth in the Constitution, or does Congress perform a discretionary act when determining if the President-elect meet those qualifications?”

    Per the Constitution, Congress has the final decision to approve the election of the President. Regardless of your questions- that is the answer.

    “I think the answer is; Congress performs a ministerial function. If Congress chooses to ignore the qualifications mandated by the Constitution, they perform an unlawful act.”

    But in the scenario you pose- the majority of voters, the congress, basically everyone but you believes that the President is qualified to be a Natural Born Citizen. Who then, if you don’t believe the voters or Congress is qualified to make that determination, is qualified to make that determination? You? Me? The RNC? The DNC? Ralph Nader?

    I kinda get the fine line you are trying to draw here, but the reality of the Constitution today is different than what you are arguing for. You may say the Constitution is being subverted, but I say that is solely your unsupported opinion.

  186. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 7:29 pm #

    A nice appeal to emotion rather than logic ;-)

  187. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm #

    Do you want to abandon the Constitutional foundations of this country?

    No. But the interpretation of particular terms has to evolve as the world changes.

    The US Constitution is a very old document now. Almost all of the countries that have written Constitutions have much more recent documents. At some point, in a globalized world, one has to ask whether one can win a Formula I race in a Model T, even if it’s a really good, souped-up Model T.

    Now, nbc, I know what you will say-amend it. Have you looked at how things are in Washington these days? Would you say that things are working well there? What do you think the chances are of getting sensible amendments through?

    A judge once said the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I’m afraid that a slavish devotion to the exact meaning that words had in 1787 is, if not suicidal, then at least unhealthy.

  188. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    No. But the interpretation of particular terms has to evolve as the world changes.

    Sure, new technologies, new circumstances require this. However the concept of natural born versus naturalized has not much evolved. To suggest that we need to reinterpret a clear Constitutional interpretation without a change to the Constitution virtually renders the meaning of the Constitution meaningless.

    Now, nbc, I know what you will say-amend it. Have you looked at how things are in Washington these days? Would you say that things are working well there? What do you think the chances are of getting sensible amendments through?

    That by itself is no excuse for attempting to circumvent the Constitution.I have yet to see a compelling reason.

  189. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    For the first time, the Untied States has elected a president, born after the adoption of the Constitution, who was widely known to have been born with protections and privileges granted by a government other than the one established by the Constitution. Aren’t these historic events worthy of analysis and open discussion?

  190. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    They make for interesting scholarly discussions but under precedent they have little relevance. Why you believe that the laws of other countries can affect US citizens and take away their rights then please present your argument.

    Legal Precedent sufficient lays to rest your ‘concerns’.

  191. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    After all, what would prevent them to make any naturalized citizen, in addition to natural born citizens, a natural born citizen?

    They can’t act retroactively (no ex post facto laws). Someone born in China to Chinese parents was not a US citizen at birth, so they are not natural born. Congress can’t retroactively change that. Someone born in China of American parents was a US citizen at birth and Congress can’t retroactively change that. They are natural born.

    As you said, “Simple” Natural born = citizen at birth.

  192. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    And you are wrong, there were others born with protections and privileges granted by a government other than the one established by the Constitution.
    So let’s not pretend that this is somehow unique… It may be unique in our lifetime to have to consider the historical relevance of President Obama. I see a far more important historical relevance than the claim that he may not be eligible due to the laws of foreign countries.
    The Founders would never have accepted such a proposition.

  193. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    What precedent? This is a unique situation. It’s historic!

  194. avatar
    DCBikerJohn May 3, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    Which others (presidents) were born with protections and privileges granted by another government and were NOT citizens of the Untied States at the adoption of the Constitution?

  195. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    They can’t act retroactively (no ex post facto laws).

    That’s mostly limited to criminal law. Citizenship law has not been so constrained.

    Someone born in China to Chinese parents was not a US citizen at birth, so they are not natural born. Congress can’t retroactively change that.

    Why not? You suggest that someone born in China to one or more US parents can have its status changed.

    Someone born in China of American parents was a US citizen at birth and Congress can’t retroactively change that. They are natural born.

    Nonsense. Congress can easily limit the status of such citizens, as it is done by statute. Congress naturalized them to be citizens at birth.

    As you said, “Simple” Natural born = citizen at birth.

    Close, it’s citizen by birth – Jus Soli.

    You do realize that Congress can change any law by simple majority and that the citizenship status of children born abroad to US citizen(s) is a statute?

  196. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    To suggest that we need to reinterpret a clear Constitutional interpretation

    If the interpretation were as clear as you claim, this site would not exist.

  197. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    If the interpretation were as clear as you claim, this site would not exist.

    Begging the question. From a legal perspective there is no doubt as to the meaning of naturalization (granted by statute) versus natural born (granted by Common Law/Constitution). To argue that Congress, which under the power to regulate naturalization can somehow affect a constitutional provision would be somewhat far-fetched.

  198. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    Chester Arthur I believe had a father who was a British citizen and was naturalized after Chester Arthur was born.

    And why are you changing the question? Did it occur to you that you may be slightly ‘wrong’?

    So it seems that you accept that there were indeed presidents who were born under foreign citizenship at birth.

  199. avatar
    WTF? May 3, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    nbc said “The problem is that in these cases judicial review is prohibited by the Constitution and inadvisable due to its negative impacts. Once elected, the concept of Qua Warranto against a president no longer makes sense.”

    Then how is it that quo warranto against a governor does make sense?

    What if historical records (found after the election) indicated that a certified president was only 33 years of age? What if you couldn’t prove that he knew about them?
    Can Congress ignore Constitutional mandates?

    In the current case, the political pressure (fear of being labeled a racist) prevented anyone in Congress from questioning anything about Obama’s qualifications.

  200. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    Not really. We already know that the legal ruling in Wong Kim Ark was interpreted by the dissenting judge as well as the concurring opinion that Wong Kim Ark could run for President.

    Furthermore, it is not clear to me if there were not additional President who could be considered dual citizens under the laws of other countries.

    But under US precedent, a child born with dual citizenship can elect at reaching the age of majority which birthright citizenship to continue. Barack’s choice is quite obvious. Why you want to punish US citizens by holding them accountable to the laws of foreign countries surprises me.

    So let’s not pretend that there exists no precedent that can guide us towards the same conclusion reached by the Ankeny Court.

  201. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    nbc said “The problem is that in these cases judicial review is prohibited by the Constitution and inadvisable due to its negative impacts. Once elected, the concept of Qua Warranto against a president no longer makes sense.”

    Then how is it that quo warranto against a governor does make sense?

    The eligibility of a President as well as the qualification process is described by our US Constitution. The Constitution remains silent on the issue of Governors. This is where State Law and State Constitutions come into play and Federal Law does not apply.

    What if historical records (found after the election) indicated that a certified president was only 33 years of age? What if you couldn’t prove that he knew about them?

    Tough luck, the cost of removal would outweigh the risks to our country. I can point you to several discussions in Congress that addressed such an issue. I believe even if one could show that some facts had remained hidden by the candidate, it would still be too late.

    Can Congress ignore Constitutional mandates?

    It didn’t. It followed their mandate to find the candidate qualified. They were wrong. However under the same Constitution, Congress can either attempt impeachment or accept that they were wrong.

    In the current case, the political pressure (fear of being labeled a racist) prevented anyone in Congress from questioning anything about Obama’s qualifications.

    That’s one possible interpretation. I see far more plausible ones.

  202. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    The Constitution nowhere says that those born to US citizens abroad are not natural born citizens. Nor does any court case. There are court cases that parse the meaning of the statutes in particular circumstances, but none that have ever denied citizenship to those covered by the statute in force at the time of their birth. You can postulate what might happen if Congress attempted to do so retroactively, but you would be doing nothing more than guessing.

  203. avatar
    nemocapn May 3, 2010 at 8:44 pm #

    Undoubtedly there are numerous prank signatures. I’m just saying that even if every signature on the petition is real, that’s still a small number of people. For the sake of argument, let’s say there are half a million people who think Obama isn’t a natural born citizen and should resign. Should the will of half a million people overrule 69 million votes for Obama, the 365 electoral college votes for Obama, the certification of those votes by Congress, and the swearing in of Obama by the Chief Supreme Court Justice? That would be a tyranny of the minority.

  204. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    The Constitution nowhere says that those born to US citizens abroad are not natural born citizens. Nor does any court case.

    The Constitution does not specify the meaning of the term natural born and thus its meaning has to be found in common law which was based on principles of English Common Law. Under English Common Law, jus soli guided the principle of natural born citizen. The British also enacted statutes to extend this status to children born abroad to citizen fathers but that was a statutory law.

    Wong Kim Ark did not miss this fact

    It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

    So in fact, children born abroad to US parents were for a while not even citizens…. Showing that Congress can giveth and taketh away these rights.

    WKA continues

    This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed — “born in the United States,” “naturalized in the United States,” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States. But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.

    The point was not lost on the dissenting judge

    If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 8, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were, and are, aliens, unless they have, or shall on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States, and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect.

    There are court cases that parse the meaning of the statutes in particular circumstances, but none that have ever denied citizenship to those covered by the statute in force at the time of their birth.

    Denied or expanded… Ex post facto works both ways. Remember how McCain got his citizenship?

  205. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    Canal Zone Citizenship

    This no man’s land with regard to U.S. citizenship was perpetuated until Congress passed legislation in 1937, which corrected this deficiency. The law is now codified under title 8 section 1403.[8] It not only grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904, with at least one U.S. citizen parent, but also did so retroactively for all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone before the law’s enactment.

  206. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 9:10 pm #

    So in fact, children born abroad to US parents were for a while not even citizens…. Showing that Congress can giveth and taketh away these rights.

    I don’t dispute that Congress could change the law to deny citizenship to those born abroad to citizens in the future. I dispute whether it could be changed to deny it to those who were considered citizens at the time they were born. Are you suggesting that anyone would permit a 50-year old born to US citizens in, say, Germany, who has lived in the US as a citizen for his whole life, to be stripped of his citizenship and deported to Germany? And Germany might not even consider him a citizen, so he could be stateless.

    Anyway, we can debate the esoteric fine points until the cows come home. Here is now the vast majority of average citizens see things and how it will affect their vote (which matters more than your opinion or mine):

    1. Born in the US-whatever the citizenship of the parents-eligible for the Presidency (Obama)
    2, Born abroad to US citizen parents-eligible for the Presidency (McCain)
    3. Born abroad to non- US citizen parents-not eligible for the Presidency (Schwarzenegger)

    That is the bottom line here. Good night.

  207. avatar
    misha May 3, 2010 at 9:16 pm #

    DCBikerJohn: Obama Is The Third U.S. President Born With Dual Nationality. The first was James Buchanan. His father was a citizen of Ireland. The second was Chester Arthur. Arthur, like Buchanan, was the son of an Irish immigrant (William Arthur).

    Also, George Romney ran for president. He was born in Mexico, to a polygamist father.

    You really should know more history, before making foolish comments. I lived in DC for 13 years. It is the worst place I have ever lived in. Maryland is 25th in prosecuting medical quacks, Virginia is 28th, and DC is 51st. My sister-in-law managed to find every quack in the metro area, and insisted my wife go to them. We had endless arguments, and we separated over her going to those predators.

    There was the “doctor” from Shanghai who told my wife and sister-in-law that he did not need a license to practice as long as he only “treated” Chinese nationals. I wanted to go to the police, and we separated for about three years. Then there was the “doctor” from Beijing in Chinatown who had a Maryland license, but not a DC license. I landed in an ambulance from his “treatment.” After getting out of Georgetown, I went to him and asked to see his DC license. That’s when I found out…

    Then there was the woman in Rockville who told my wife she would lose 20 pounds with her “miracle” neon tube. I could fill a book.

    Then there was the optometrist in Foxhall Square who kited on paychecks. Did you read about Sutton Place Foods selling “caviar” that was fish eggs from everything but sturgeon? Were you there when a DC rescue squad refused to treat a gay man, and he bled to death?

    Then there was the time I had an asthma attack, the DC rescue squad thought I was gay, so they started to leave. They walked into the room and started to laugh, and walk out the door. I fell to the floor, and they came back.

    You can have that filthy, corrupt place, with air pollution worse than LA. Maryland gave us Spiro Agnew, and Marvin Mandel. You should see Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Tobacco Road, every square mile.

  208. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    Yeah we all know what citizens want is always Constitutional :-)

    I showed you how ex post facto laws can grant citizenship status to people. I showed you how Court cases reject the idea that under the Constitution children born abroad to US citizens were considered to be (natural born) citizen, leaving the determination of citizenship of such children to statutory law. Which means that it can be taken away at any time, even accepting for the moment your argument that they could not do so retroactively. While the Congress attempted to use its naturalization powers to confer natural born status on children born abroad in 1790, uch provisions were quickly removed and never resurfaced.

    Under your ‘argument’ we should thus accept that since a significant number of citizens has doubts about Obama’s eligibility that if it reaches some ‘magical’ point that we should take it as evidence that he thus is…

    What people believe and what the law says is not always in line. Given the fact that the law making McCain a citizen was passed 11 months after his birth, one really has to wonder about whether or not these people realize that there are so many reasons why McCain would not have been eligible. Would the Courts find a way around this? Very likely but until then, the facts remain that his eligibility status is under significant doubt, especially given the precedent rulings by SCOTUS, albeit much of it in dicta.

  209. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 3, 2010 at 9:24 pm #

    REPLY TO:

    What if historical records (found after the election) indicated that a certified president was only 33 years of age? …
    Can Congress ignore Constitutional mandates?

    Several Senators and Congressmen have taken office and served their terms undisturbed despite being below the requisite age at the time they were elected. The first such case was Henry Clay (age 29 in 1806); he was followed by Armistead Thomson Mason (aged 28 in 1816) and John Eaton (aged 28 in 1818). Given that many of the founding fathers were alive at the time, its clear that that they were comfortable with a little wiggle room on qualifications or eligibility.

    There are provisions in law that are considered ironclad, and there are provisions in law that can be waived if no one objects. I think that a strong argument can be made that the qualifications for office set forth in the Constitution fall under the latter category.

  210. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    So your conclusion is that the voters can’t decide who is eligible and the courts will be wrong if they disagree with you (which they likely will). Sort of like the anti-birther Mario.

  211. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 9:35 pm #

    The voters can vote for whomever they want but they do not get to determine eligibility issues.

    Note also that voters decided that Gore should have been president and yet… What voters ‘decide’ is not always what they get.

    The rest is just pure strawman arguments. Not bad…

    I had higher hopes for someone with the moniker ‘scientist’.

  212. avatar
    nemocapn May 3, 2010 at 9:37 pm #

    Ha! Ha! Apuzzo isn’t the first person from NJ to try to overturn the election of a sitting President. I just found this:

    Gordon v. Secretary of State of NJ, 460 F. Supp. 1026 – Dist. Court, D. New Jersey 1978
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7032680580138849568&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

    J. John Gordon was arrested in NH while campaigning for the office of the Presidency of the United States. He demanded a new, “legal” election and challenged Jimmy Carter’s right to the office. The ruling said the case was “frivolous.” Jimmy Carter was “at least de facto President of the United States[.]”

    That’s what everyone has been trying to tell Apuzzo. Even if he were right that Obama’s not a NBC, the de facto officer doctrine would keep Obama in office.

  213. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 3, 2010 at 9:40 pm #

    REPLY TO:

    i have never seen a single person go before congress to become a naturalized citizen.

    Actually, Congress has from time to time passed a special law to grant citizenship to an individual.

    Citizenship can be conferred by special act of Congress, it can be conferred collectively either through congressional action, such as the naturalization of all residents of an annexed territory or of a territory made a State, or through treaty provision.

    Source: Justia article on Naturalization and Citizenship

  214. avatar
    Scientist May 3, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    As Expelliarmus noted several members of Congress have served who were below the minimum age specified in the Constitution. And there isn’t much controversy over the meaning of an age restriction. So perhaps, the voters don’t determine who is eligible, they just determine who serves. As one who looks at empirical results, that is what appears to be the case.

  215. avatar
    Arthur May 3, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    misha:

    I heard on NPR that the state of Maryland is trying to clean up its “Tobacco Road” image by declaring that it is no longer south of the Mason and Dixon Line. Apparently, Maryland still has few image problems to work out.

  216. avatar
    misha May 3, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

    “Maryland still has few image problems to work out.”

    Maryland has enough image problems to fill a library. You should see it. There was a time I was working in Fairfax, VA. A co-worker said to a black customer “the Civil War was about states rights. Slavery had nothing to do with it.” I thought that customer was going punch out his lights.

    I had an asthma attack in Fairfax, and went to a walk-in clinic. They finally called the rescue squad. The clinic doctor said they were giving me oxygen. The rescue squad leader said “no you’re not. This tank is empty.” Two days in the hospital. 6 PM that night, the telephone in my room rang. It was the optical store’s assistant manager. “When are you coming back to work?” she demanded.

  217. avatar
    Rickey May 3, 2010 at 10:23 pm #

    DCBikerJohn says:

    Natural born citizen demands more than simply birth solely in the Untied States. It demands birth solely in the Constitution of the United States.

    If that were the case, wouldn’t it logically follow that the residency requirement for eligibility would require 14 years of residence “in the Constitution” of the United States? You are arguing that no one born before the ratification of the Constitution could be a natural born citizen, yet the same Constitution says that no one who has not resided in the United States for 14 years can be president.

    Your argument means that George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were not eligible to be president, because they had not lived “in the Constitution” for 14 years when taking office.

    Your thesis requires us to believe that the Founders differentiated between the pre-Constitution United States and the post-Constitution United States. But there is no evidence that even a single Founder felt that way. Indeed, the fact that it was universally accepted that both Washington and Adams had satisfied the residency requirement is irrefutable evidence that the Founders believed that anyone who was born in one of the colonies, and who had lived for at least fourteen years in the colonies or states, was a natural born citizen who was eligible to be president.

    It makes no sense that there would have been one concept of the United States to satisfy the natural born citizen requirement but an entirely different concept of the United States to satisfy the residency requirement. In point of fact, the residency requirement means that the Founders considered even pre-Revolution America to be the United States – otherwise, George Washington would not have been eligible to be president.

  218. avatar
    nBC May 3, 2010 at 10:32 pm #

    Natural born citizen demands more than simply birth solely in the Untied States. It demands birth solely in the Constitution of the United States.

    Well, yes and the Constitution fails to define the term so we have to find its meaning in common law practices which are Jus Soli and born under jurisdiction/allegiance. For President Obama since he were born on US soil under full US jurisdiction and owing allegiance to the United States, the issue is quite straightforward.

  219. avatar
    SFJeff May 3, 2010 at 11:50 pm #

    WTF said: “In the current case, the political pressure (fear of being labeled a racist) prevented anyone in Congress from questioning anything about Obama’s qualifications”

    And the 69 million voters? In your opinion did they all vote for fear of being labelled racist? And the Electoral College? And every single Congressman thought like you did but was just too scared to say anything- but the entire Republican Congress has no problem with opposing President Obama in any program he proposes, without any such fear?

    And Chief Justice Roberts? He was too scared too?

    Or just maybe, just maybe…the 69 million voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all have a very different opinion on who a Natural Born Citizen is.

  220. avatar
    SFJeff May 3, 2010 at 11:59 pm #

    “For the first time, the Untied States has elected a president, born after the adoption of the Constitution, who was widely known to have been born with protections and privileges granted by a government other than the one established by the Constitution.”

    Chester Arthur

    “Aren’t these historic events worthy of analysis and open discussion?”

    Wouldn’t this have been more relevant to discuss prior to the election, rather than a year and a half later? Seriously, if you had wanted to influence a Presidential contest, you could have tried to convince voters prior to the election.

    Now? Now its more a Constitutional argument with no real current relevance. President Obama was considered eligible by the majority of voters, and met the standards of what a NBC was considered by the majority of Americans. If by some far stretch of the imagination the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, it would be a devastating precedent.

  221. avatar
    misha May 4, 2010 at 12:37 am #

    The first was James Buchanan. Chester Arthur was the second. And don’t forget George Romney: born in Mexico, to a polygamist father.

    Where was this crowd when he ran for president? He lost in the primaries. People thought he would run the country the way he ran American Motors. My father once owned a Rambler. I had to go out at 6 in the morning to feed the squirrels, before we could drive it anywhere. No joke: it had vacuum operated windshield wipers. We would be at a red light, and the wipers would make one swing a minute.

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 12:38 am #

    That’s what I like about this hobby: learning neat stuff.

  223. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 12:40 am #

    The Constitution is clear that the Congress is the SOLE JUDGE of the qualifications of its members.

  224. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 12:51 am #

    DCBikerJohn: Which others (presidents) were born with protections and privileges granted by another government and were NOT citizens of the Untied States at the adoption of the Constitution?

    Eisenhower

  225. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    DCBikerJohn: For the first time…

    Guess again.

  226. avatar
    misha May 4, 2010 at 12:55 am #

    “Perhaps you’ll be supporting Millard Fillmore in 2012, then?”

    No, I’m voting for Grover Cleveland.

  227. avatar
    misha May 4, 2010 at 12:59 am #

    I stand corrected: I forgot about Dwight; German citizenship at birth.

    So there have been four, not three.

  228. avatar
    nemocapn May 4, 2010 at 1:04 am #

    Don’t know if anyone has brought this up before, but Eisenhower’s birth certificate wasn’t issued until 1952, 62 years after his birth.
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jbMwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RU4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6769,300677&dq=eisenhower+birth+certificate&hl=en

  229. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 1:13 am #

    DCBikerJohn: the Constitution did not “grandfather” anyone who did not need “grandfathering”

    The point is that you never prove this, you just assume it. And once you assume it, then whatever follows is also an assumption. So you are basically nowhere in this section.

    DCBikerJohn: So, if the Oath is a test of allegiance to the government established by the Constitution, why would the requirement of natural born citizen be any different?

    The Constitution only gave the national government the power to naturalize citizens, not to make citizens of those born in the country; that was reserved to the states. So in fact there were no natural born citizens of the United States in the sense you are attempting to define it until the 14th amendment. Therefore, your argument is nonsense.

  230. avatar
    misha May 4, 2010 at 1:22 am #

    “That would be a tyranny of the minority.”

    That would be mob rule.

  231. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 1:35 am #

    WTF?: The foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are naturalized citizens.

    Not since 1971. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

  232. avatar
    nBC May 4, 2010 at 1:54 am #

    Huh? They ruled that such children are not 14th amendment citizens but they surely still were naturalized. What am I missing?

  233. avatar
    SvenMagnussen May 4, 2010 at 2:15 am #

    The de facto officer doctrine applies in this case because Gordon did not raise the issue of eligibility or voter fraud at his initial trial.

    nemocapn wrote … Ha! Ha!Apuzzo isn’t the first person from NJ to try to overturn the election of a sitting President.I just found this:

    Gordon v. Secretary of State of NJ, 460 F. Supp. 1026 – Dist. Court, D. New Jersey 1978
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7032680580138849568&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

    J. John Gordon was arrested in NH while campaigning for the office of the Presidency of the United States. He demanded a new, “legal” election and challenged Jimmy Carter’s right to the office.The ruling said the case was “frivolous.”Jimmy Carter was “at least de facto President of the United States[.]”That’s what everyone has been trying to tell Apuzzo.Even if he were right that Obama’s not a NBC, the de facto officer doctrine would keep Obama in office.

    When the eligibility of a Federal office holder is brought up as an afterthought or a “hail mary” to try and get a conviction overruled due to a technical problem with the commissioning of the Federal officer, the de facto officer doctrine applies.

    The defacto officer doctrine is not available to Obama because Apuzzo filed a complaint on Obama’s eligibility before he was sworn in. Obama cannot be rewarded and declared a de facto officer because he successfully ignored Apuzzo.

  234. avatar
    nBC May 4, 2010 at 2:35 am #

    The defacto officer doctrine is not available to Obama because Apuzzo filed a complaint on Obama’s eligibility before he was sworn in. Obama cannot be rewarded and declared a de facto officer because he successfully ignored Apuzzo.

    You seem to be missing the point about the de facto officer doctrine. It is not meant to award but rather to provide for continuity. In other words, it protects us from decisions made by a de facto officer from being retroactively rejected.

    Obama was elected by a majority, found qualified and sworn in. That by itself makes Obama a de facto officer.

    The de facto officer doctrine was developed to protect the public from the chaos and uncertainty that would ensue if actions taken by individuals apparently occupying government offices could later be invalidated by exposing defects in the officials’ titles. The doctrine has generally been applied to individuals who are in possession of an office, are performing the duties of the office, and who maintain an appearance of right to the office.

    Sorry Sven back to your myths..

  235. avatar
    nemocapn May 4, 2010 at 3:14 am #

    Furthermore, the de facto officer doctrine is really old. It’s supposedly over 500 years old. That’s before Vattel.

    In the 19th century there were attempts to overturn an election, because there was a requirement that the selectman signing the election returns had to be an American citizen.

    From “The year book of jurispurdence for 1880″ by Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, page 188:
    “A return cannot be rejected because of evidence that one of the persons signing it as a selectman was not at the time a citizen of the United States. Although not a citizen, he might be selectman de facto. And evidence outside the return, to impeach his citizenship, is not admissible.”

    Cases in Maine involving this doctrine include Hooper v. Goodwin, 48 Me., p. 79, and Dane v. Derby, 54 Me., p. 95.

    The doctrine has been invoked numerous times in multiple states since then. If judges are reluctant to overturn an election because a selectman doesn’t meet the citizenship requirements of his office in order to avoid chaos, why would they overturn the election of a president because he doesn’t meet the citizenship requirements? Greater chaos would result from removing a president compared to a selectman.

    The only hope anyone would have of removing a de facto president would be to prove that he’s a usurper and not de facto. The legal definition of a usurper according to “The American and English encyclopedia of law, Volume 19,” p. 396:
    “A usurper is one who assumes the right of government by force contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country, or one who intrudes himself into an office which is vacant, or ousts the incumbent without any color of title whatever.”

    Did Obama use force to obtain the presidency? No. Was the office vacant? No. Bush was president until the day of Obama’s inauguration. Did he oust Bush without any color of title? No, because color of title includes an election. Obama was elected.

  236. avatar
    Scientist May 4, 2010 at 8:53 am #

    But under US precedent, a child born with dual citizenship can elect at reaching the age of majority which birthright citizenship to continue

    This point needs clarification. Under US law, no election is made. A person born in the US with birthright citizenship in another country does NOT lose US citizenship simply by electing to accept the other country’s citizenship and going to live there. Only a formal renunciation causes loss of US citizenship. While some countries may require that renunciation in order to accept their citizenship (Kenya appears to), many others do not (eg. Canada). A US-born person with birthright Canadian citizenship remains a US citizen even if they go to Canada and accept citizenship there. The only possible exception would be if they fought for Canada in a war against the US.

    Could such a person return to the US later in life and run for President? Legally they could, though their accepting foreign citizenship as an adult would be a valid issue for an opponent to raise in a campaign. However, Jefferson’s having accepted French citizenship as an adult didn’t prevent him from being elected President twice.

    By the way, there is a very good reason why the US wants to make it difficult to lose US citizenship. Unlike most countries, the US taxes its citizens on their worldwide income, even if they leave the country with the intent of never returning. Some wealthy Americans have moved to tax havens and attempted to renounce US citizenship and been denied.

  237. avatar
    Whatever4 May 4, 2010 at 9:18 am #

    For very small values of “mob”.

  238. avatar
    nBC May 4, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    Election can be made in many forms and while in the past there may have been more direct forms, it was also stated that intent can be implicit. For instance by returning to the US before reaching adulthood or by remaining to live in the US.

  239. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    I don’t think the de facto officer doctrine operates to keep Obama in office. It operates to validate every action taken by Obama.

    This guts pretty much every particularized harm that Apuzzo alleges he suffers because of Obama’s continued presidency (no law is going to be declared illegal, no action overturned), so the effect is probably the same.

  240. avatar
    nBC May 4, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    You are correct. The de facto officer doctrine exists to ensure continuity in the office in question.

    This would mean in Obama’s case that, in the hypothetical case that he were found to be ineligible, the laws passed would remain passed as their constitutionality do not depend on his eligibility.

    No hopes there really. Lakin may found out that one cannot attack the legality of orders because of the de facto officer doctrine, and the same result would apply to those who want to have laws revoked because of the supposed ineligibility of our President.

  241. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    This includes people, such as Zachary Taylor, who were born in the United States.

    Here’s where your thesis breaks down. There is no evidence that the founders grandfathered in Taylor. There is no evidence that they thought he needed to be grandfathered. There is evidence that they thought that people like Hamilton, born in the West Indies, needed to be grandfathered.

    Why does the Constitution “grandfather” people like Zachary Taylor if the Constitution intended them to be NBC?

    If they didn’t think they needed to grandfather in Taylor, then do you have an argument? No.

    Because they were not NBC.

    But, if they thought that Taylor did NOT need to be grandfathered, then it was because they thought he WAS NBC.

    That’s the problem with your argument, what makes it flawed from jump-street. There is no historical evidence that Taylor needed to be grandfathered, and your argument relies on the founders grandfathering everyone. No proof = no argument!

    I’ve pointed out the problem with your argument, that it creates an absurdity simply reading to the end of the eligibility clause. It is also terrible writing to have constructed the eligibility clause that way if, in fact, they intended everyone to be covered by the eligibility clause.

    Here’s how they would have drafted it if they thought no one could be eligible except those grandfathered in:

    Those who are citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, and thereafter, only those who are natural born citizens…

    Instead, they write it the other way:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

    There’s a reason, Biker, that all historians who have looked at this in the past 200 years have said that the grandfather clause applies to those born outside the colonies. There’s a reason no historian has ever said it was required for anyone to be President!

  242. avatar
    MuhommadMcLovin May 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm #

    The complainant is assumed to waive objection to a procedural defect in the Federal officer’s execution of duties if they do not object prior to the assumption of the office.

    You are correct. The de facto officer doctrine exists to ensure continuity in the office in question. This would mean in Obama’s case that, in the hypothetical case that he were found to be ineligible, the laws passed would remain passed as their constitutionality do not depend on his eligibility.

    Leo ‘splains everything right here.

    Andrade v Lauer, the defacto officer doctrine does not prevent collateral attacks on direct actions of the usurp’n mo’fo, or something like that.

  243. avatar
    nbC May 4, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    Published in 1868.

    169 A Natural Born Citizen — Not made by law or other wise but born. And this class is the large majority; in fact the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they become citizens, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless by their own voluntary act they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenize a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth or the legal process of adoption. Attorney General Bates on Citizenship, 29th November, 1862 p 8.

    The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural home born and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien foreign born making the latter as far as nature will allow like the former. Id. We have no middle class or denizens (1 Sharswood’s Bl Com 374) Id. 9. But Attorney General Legare thought there might be (4 Opin 147) Id. The example of a Roman citizen and St Paul’s case and claim thereto cited. Id. Paul’s is a leading case of the Jus Romanum; it is analagous to our own; it establishes the great protective rights of the citizen but like our own national Constitution it is silent about his powers. Id 12

    Natural born citizen recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations and as old as political society that the people born in a country do constitute the nation and as individuals are natural members of the body politic .Bates on Citizenship p 12

    Every person born in the country is at the moment of birth prima facie a citizen. Id. Nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the government. (2 Kent’s Com Part 4 Lect 25; 1 BL Com. ch. 10, p. 365; 7 Coke’s Rep and (Calvin’s Case, 11 State Trials 70) Doe v Jones 4 Term. 300 ;Shanks v Dupont 3 Pet. 246; Horace Binney, 2 Am Law Reporter.), 193 Bates on Citizenship p. 12.

  244. avatar
    nbC May 4, 2010 at 1:41 pm #

    Andrade v Lauer, the defacto officer doctrine does not prevent collateral attacks on direct actions of the usurp’n mo’fo, or something like that.

    Or something like that… That surely sounds like Donofrio.
    Yes, Andrade v Lauer describes circumstances under which such an action may still proceed, in spite of the Quo Warranto.
    Of course, this presumes that the plaintiffs have managed to overcome subject matter standing.

    Lauer also does not indicate that the de facto officer doctrine, with respect to previous actions of the claimed ‘usurper’ render such actions invalid.

    In fact Andrade is limited to actions taken under the Appointments’ Clause which does not include the President.

    So what does mr D. propose? Quo Warranto or Collateral attack?

  245. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    Leo ’splains everything right here.

    There’s a reason why Leo has made more money as a poker player in the past decade than as a lawyer.

  246. avatar
    nemocapn May 4, 2010 at 1:53 pm #

    I did state that improperly. I went from point A to point C without describing point B. You’re right that the de facto officer doctrine simply gives his acts as president validity. I just believe that indirectly it would keep Obama in office until 2012 since Congress is the only body that can remove a sitting president prior to the election. I don’t see them doing that if the acts he performs in office still have validity. I can envision Congress removing a usurper president but not a de facto one who was elected by 69 million people.

    In theory, he could be removed if he were found to be ineligible. Senator James Shields was removed over citizenship issues. According to Wikipedia, “[h]is election was voided by the Senate on the grounds that he had not been a United States citizen for the nine years required by the United States Constitution; having been naturalized October 21, 1840. He returned to Illinois and campaigned for re-election, and won the special election to replace himself, and was then seated.”

    Would Obama be removed like Shields if found to be ineligible? In my opinion, most likely not. If greater chaos would ensue from removing Obama than keeping him, keeping him in office would logically be the best option. One of the reasons the de facto officer doctrine exists is to avoid chaos.

  247. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    Please quote the section of Rogers v. Bellei that leads you to believe that the foreign-born children of U.S. Citizens are natural-born citizens.

    Do you really think that one who is an alien at birth can be considered to be a natural-born citizen? And if you don’t think they were an alien at birth, how did Congress acquire the authority to naturalize them? Congress had no authority to determine who is a citizen, only to naturalize those who are born aliens.

    As I am sure you are familiar with Lynch v. Clark, let me quote a portion that make help to clarify the power of Congress;

    “But is it true that this is a national question in the United States ? Congress possesses no power except that which is expressly granted, or is necessary in the execution of the powers granted. To prove a matter national, does not give to the United States power over it. It would be a national matter to make uniform laws on the subject of slavery throughout all the United States; to make uniform laws as to inheritances of estates, or any other matter made to affect all the Union. Under such a definition, Congress might absorb all power. We must come back to the constitution, and place the finger on some clause, and show that it confers the power.”

  248. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 3:48 pm #

    I really get a kick out of all the Obama defenders who keep saying “you have no proof”.

    They never say there is no proof. They know better than that. Even they suspect that such proof may exist. Why can’t anyone get the proof? That would be because Obama (Mr. Transparency) keeps all his records from the public.

    When he allegedly released his COLB, did he release it to the mainstream media? Of course not. He released it to The Annenberg Foundation’s Factcheck.org. He didn’t release it to some place that would have asked questions.

    Remember that “blacked-out” certificate number? What top-secret information could have been incorporated with that number? The only thing I can think of, is that it would have potentially shown that it was not based on a birth report filed by a hospital. (If anybody can think of something else the certificate number would have disclosed, that was not already being disclosed by releasing the other portions of the COLB, I’m waiting to hear it. And why you think it was important to keep it from the public.)

  249. avatar
    G May 4, 2010 at 3:53 pm #

    WTF, seeing conspiracies in every shadow, says:

    They never say there is no proof. They know better than that. Even they suspect that such proof may exist. Why can’t anyone get the proof? That would be because Obama (Mr. Transparency) keeps all his records from the public.

    Keep dreaming, WTF. Sorry, those of us in reality DO NOT suspect there are any real issues with Obama’s HI BC or his NBC status whatsoever at all. It is sad that you need to twist basic privacy rights & laws into “fantasy conspiracies” in your own mind to justify your predisposed fears & prejudices, whatever they may be.

    The rest of us just think you folks are totally nuts and looking for things that do not exist.

  250. avatar
    G May 4, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    There’s a reason why Leo has made more money as a poker player in the past decade than as a lawyer.

    And also why his personal history is full of playing weird Andy Kaufmanesque fantasy stunts, such as calling himself Jet Schizo, etc.

    Leo basically makes up whatever he is in the mood for as he goes along and his ego loves to be stroked by anyone gullible enough to buy into his latest fantasy BS.

  251. avatar
    G May 4, 2010 at 4:09 pm #

    So Dr. C,

    What exactly in my comment here actually caused it to be put into moderation?

  252. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    Interesting conspiracies but lack of much of anything that could be considered evidence.
    And of course, now that certificates without the blacked out information has been provided and matched to be close to forms with numbers close to the one Obama submitted, what now?

    Facts, evidence, are so much more interesting than idle speculations.

    Fact: President Obama released a COLB which shows him born in Honolulu Hawaii

    Fact: The location of birth was confirmed by the Department of Health of Hawaii

  253. avatar
    aarrgghh May 4, 2010 at 4:18 pm #

    wtf, finding his ignorance bliss:

    “I really get a kick out of all the Obama defenders who keep saying “you have no proof”.

    i’m pleased that you’re so entertained and glad to hear that not every birfer is a cranky crybaby. just don’t spoil it for yourself by actually getting any proof. because if you did that, you’d probably have to take it to a judge, and if you have standing, you might win and throw the usurper out the white house, if not worse. and where’s the fun in that?

  254. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

    “I really get a kick out of all the Obama defenders who keep saying “you have no proof”.”

    Well we keep saying it because its true.

    “They never say there is no proof.”

    How can I possibly say there is no proof when I don’t even know the question. I will say there is no proof President Obama was born in Kenya because there isn’t. There is no proof he is not a natural born citizen. Was I clear about it enough.

    Now unlike Birthers, if any actual proof of legal wrongdoing by President Obama were to emerge, I would review the evidence and likely support further investigation, and if warrented impeachment. Just show me the proof.

    “When he allegedly released his COLB, did he release it to the mainstream media?”

    As I recall, President Obama sent out a notice to the media announcing that his original BC was at his campaign headquarters availible for inspection. Only Factcheck bothered to go look it up. Apparently Mario and all the Birthers were to busy to actually go look at what was availible for anyone to review.

    And frankly, releasing his BC is more than any previous President or Presidential candidate has done. All of the rest of the crap you want- his kindergarten records? his high school grades?- are all irrelevant to eligibility and frankly if I were the President I wouldn’t answer these personal questions either.

  255. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 4:33 pm #

    Ah, Lynch v Clarke… Isn’t that the one which would have declared President Obama a natural born citizen, given the facts of his birth in Hawaii?

  256. avatar
    Black Lion May 4, 2010 at 4:35 pm #

    So WTF, when the state of HI specifically confirms that “President Obama was BORN in Hawaii”, what exactly do you think they meant by that? When I stated that Sven had no proof, that is because no proof exists. There was no adoption by Lolo. There was no renounciation of Obama’s US citizenship. There was no Kenyan birth. For 69 million Americans, Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be as the state of HI said, “Born in HI’. He is eligible. Period. Your red herring about the stupid number being blacked out shows your lack of intelligence. Mainly because the certificate number was released and was shown to be close to the number of the infamous Nordyke twins….Sorry…epic fail there Brownie…

  257. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    As I read Rogers V Bellei, I came across the quote of Wong Kim Ark

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress”

    From my reading then, a child of two citizen parents borne abroad wouldn’t be a NBC- which I personally don’t agree with but it does appear to be the interpretation.

    If thats the case, then for McCain, it would come down to whether Panama Territory was considered born in the United States.

    Again personally, I would advocate an amendment changing NBC to mean anyone borne to two citizen parents or born in the U.S.- I don’t think our military should be forced to choose between being stationed overseas or denying their child the potential of being President. That seems truely un-American.

  258. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    You guys must really like to play games!

    Eisenhower was born in Denison, TX. Are you saying that, at the time of his birth, his father was not permanently domiciled in the United States?

  259. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 4:53 pm #

    “Eisenhower was born in Denison, TX.”
    and Obama was born in Hawaii.

    “his father was not permanently domiciled in the United States?”

    No, we are saying that according to German law, Dwight was born a German Citizen and according to U.S. law he was born a U.S. citizen, just as according to British(then Kenyan) law Obama was born with both British and U.S. Citizenship.

    Therefore, answering DCbiker, Dwight was born with “protections and privileges granted by another government”

  260. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 5:13 pm #

    nbc,

    Arguing with scientist is a fruitless venture. He doesn’t understand that the national election is nothing more than a popularity contest. To him, mandated qualifications are irrelevant, as long as the voters pick their favorite. To him, we are a nation of men, not of laws. He lives in a world where emotions rule.

    He doesn’t understand that the only reason Congress can deprive the foreign-born child of U.S. citizen; citizenship, is because the child is an alien at birth. That is not only a true statement, but one that is supported by the SCOTUS holding in Perkins v. Elg in that a natural-born citizen cannot lose his or her citizenship.

    Perhaps a review of the court’s analysis in Lynch v. Clark will enlighten him.

    “[T]he words of the law, (Story’s Laws U. S. p. 851, &c.) are too plain to admit of doubt, they are “the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States.” Chancellor Kent says, “The clause is certainly not prospective in its operation.” (2 Kent’s Com. 45.) Again: The very enacting of this clause, and especially in this limited way, shows that without this legislation, the children of citizens born abroad would be aliens ; and it shows what Congress understood to be aliens, by contrasting them with citizens by the word, though ; “though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.

  261. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 5:25 pm #

    You want a “clear” interpretation of the COnstitution? Here you go!;

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” -Minor v. Happersett (1875)

    If you think you have something closer to being on point, bring it on. However, before you start, you should know that even in Massachusetts, in 1785, naturalized citizens were as much a citizen as natural-born citizens. As such, any court who declares one to be as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen, could have just as well declared the person to be a naturalized citizen. Nothing more and nothing less.

  262. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    What court case describes who is a natural-born citizen? I can give you one; Minor v. Happersett (1875)

    Do you deny that according to the holding in Minor v. Happersett that the court acknowledged his status as a natural-born citizen to be in doubt?

  263. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    Expelliarmus,

    Are you not aware that Congress has the authority to determine the qualifications of their own? Do you also not know that no such authority to determine the qualifications of the President or Vice-President has ever been granted to Congress?

    When it comes to members of Congress, the determination of qualifications is left to the discretion of Congress. Therefore it is not reviewable by another branch. The same cannot be said when it comes to the ministerial act with regard to the Pres. and VP.

  264. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 4, 2010 at 5:40 pm #

    REPLY TO:

    Do you deny that according to the holding in Minor v. Happersett that the court acknowledged his status as a natural-born citizen to be in doubt?

    Said doubt was specifically RESOLVED in the LATER US Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark.

    If the timing were different, you might have a point — but LATER cases from a court of equal or greater jurisdiction ALWAYS control over EARLIER cases.

    It’s pretty simple. The holding of Minor was, “A is true. B is not so clear, but we don’t have to resolve B in this case, so we won’t address it.”

    The Wong Kim Ark case was: “The issue of B has come up and is now before us. We are going to resolve the question left open in Minor. We find that B is also true. Therefore B is no longer in doubt.”

  265. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 5:41 pm #

    You have to be careful how you quote the court ruling:

    At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    It did not state that his status was in doubt but rather that there were doubts about the status.

    Of course, the court decided not to address these doubts.

    In Wong Kim Ark, the Court picked up where the court in Minor v Happersett had left of and found that a child born to alien parents, on US soil, was indeed a natural born citizen.

    You also mentioned Lynch v Clarke. And I am sure you are familiar with Ankeny v Daniels.

    And there are a handful more which address the status of children born to aliens, on US soil.

  266. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 5:42 pm #

    The same cannot be said when it comes to the ministerial act with regard to the Pres. and VP.

    The authority to determine the qualifications of the president clearly is assigned by the Constitution to Congress.

  267. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    Why do you ignore Wong Kim Ark?

  268. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    nbc,

    Are you often distracted by shiny objects?

    I would agree that the holding in Lynch would imply that Obama is an NBC. That doesn’t mean that I agree with that holding, or that there is not law that would disagee with that conclusion.

    Do you agree or disagree with the section I quoted above in re the limited power of Congress?

  269. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    “The location of birth was confirmed by the Department of Health of Hawaii”

    The only thing Hawaii has to go on is the birth report that was filed. Who filed that birth report is more important than the fact that it was filed.

    Maybe someone should offer to donate $1 Million dollars to the charity of Obama’s choice if he would release his original vital records. I bet Obama would sooner let some charity lose out on that donation than release those records.

  270. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    Where does the holding in Ark say that Ark is a natural-born citizen, and that doubt has been relieved?

    Why don’t you quote the specific portion of Wong Kim Ark that you think supports your position? That would help a lot.

  271. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    Let’s pretend for a moment that Obama’s grandma submitted an affidavit that Obama was born at home.

    Now, you’ve got a great big…

    SO WHAT?

    You still have to prove that Obama’s grandma was lying!

    The “fact” that Obama’s birth was only witnessed by Grandma, plus $2.38 gets you a large Dunkin’ Donuts iced-coffee. It doesn’t, however, get you past square one!

    You birthers are, once again, tripped up by the rules of evidence – as in, evidence trumps no evidence!

  272. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 5:56 pm #

    So you don’t disagree that the DOH verified the location of birth of Obama and that he was therefor natural born? You just do not think it to be as relevant as to other details…

    Figures..

    So now we have two facts, even though you believe that there may be other relevant facts.

    Given these facts, the conclusion is quite straightforward:

    Obama is a natural born citizen.

    What now?
    Arguing that you are not convinced that there is sufficient evidence?

    So far, all the evidence point to a simple fact.

    Speculation galore…

  273. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    Where does the holding in Ark say that Ark is a natural-born citizen, and that doubt has been relieved?

    Read pages 658-666. It explains that natural born citizen is the same as natural born subject. Without this bit of the decision, Wong doesn’t get to be a citizen at all.

    The fact that the court doesn’t say that Wong is a natural born citizen is like complaining that after showing decisively that Agassi is a professional tennis player, I only say that Agassi is a tennis player!

  274. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    nbc said; “The authority to determine the qualifications of the president clearly is assigned by the Constitution to Congress.”

    Do you not understand the difference between a ministerial act and a discretionary act? Do I need to point out the Court’s holding as to the review of the two?

  275. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” -Minor v. Happersett (1875)”

    And Wong Kim Ark settled any such ‘doubts’

    Yet Birthers keep saying that the Constitution requires two citizen parents, contrary to understanding of 69 million voters. This is not to say that 69 million voters, the Electoral College and Congress can’t all be wrong. But those constituencies make it clear, that the common understanding of NBC is at a minimum, anyone born in the United States.

  276. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 6:01 pm #

    “Do you not understand the difference between a ministerial act and a discretionary act? Do I need to point out the Court’s holding as to the review of the two?”

    Show me a Court ruling where any body other than Congress is allowed to make such a determination about the Presidency?

  277. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    I’m not going to read squat while looking for the text to support your belief. If you want to claim that the tect supports your belief, present it for review.

  278. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    WTF? The only thing Hawaii has to go on is the birth report that was filed

    You make it sound as if no one in 1961 checked anything. The registrar had to be satisfied with the report before it was filed. The grandmother filing myth is virtually impossible–where’s the mother? is the obvious first question. There were only 14 non-hospital births all year in Honolulu.

    Vital event registration is serious legal business, and birthers intent on clear cutting any objections to their theories ignore that.

  279. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 6:09 pm #

    Let me walk you through this step by step.

    First of all let’s start with the Government briefs which outline the question before the Court

    Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen… (p.2)

    AND
    Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? (p. 34)

    The Government clearly understood that there exist only two kinds of Citizens: The first kind of citizens is created by Statute and are called naturalized citizens, the second kind of citizens come from Common Law principles and are called natural born or native born citizens.
    Since the immigration laws of those days precluded Chinese immigrants from being naturalized, there is but one conclusion why the Government thought that if the lower Court’s ruling would stand, Wong Kim Ark would be a natural born citizen, eligible for the office of the President.

    1. The Court observes that the term natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution.

    2. The Court observes that the meaning of terms not found in the Constitution are to be found in Common Law

    3. The Court finds that the Common Law practices of the early colonies was based on principles from the English Common Law

    4. The court then looked at English Common Law and found that

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

    Reminding us of the case

    In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

    It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.

    Culminating in

    The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    Not even the dissenting judge failed to understand the impact of the ruling

    Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

  280. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 6:10 pm #

    WTF: I’m not going to read squat…

    That’s why you are a loser.

  281. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 6:10 pm #

    So you have nothing?…

  282. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    “I’m not going to read squat while looking for the text to support your belief. If you want to claim that the tect supports your belief, present it for review.”

    And neither do we- frankly President Obama is the President, and the onus is upon the accusers- that would be you- to provide some evidence to establish that there is some reason to doubt any of the established and documented facts about President Obama’s eligibility. Absent such evidence, you are just blowing off steam.

  283. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Jeff says; “Show me a Court ruling where any body other than Congress is allowed to make such a determination about the Presidency?”

    Do you know what a case of first impression is? Are you suggesting that any case in which the court has not yet examined should be considered barred? That is what you are implying.

    First you should look at how many presidents have been elected whose fathers had not been premanently domiciled here at the time of their birth. You must also consider if that was a fact that the candidate had been open and honest about.

  284. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 6:16 pm #

    So you argue that there is no precedent. Fine, however there is significant precedent to the political question doctrine and several courts have indeed ruled that claims against President Obama are also barred by said doctrine because the Constitution assigns the task of both qualifying and removing a President to Congress.

    Hanging your hopes on the fact that so far SCOTUS has refused to hear these cases seems rather, well,…

  285. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 6:17 pm #

    SF Jeff,

    You are free to act like a child. I can’t stop you. Those who visit this site will learn that you can’t support your claim. They will know that nothing in the text of Ark can support your claim. They will read the text of Minor v. Happersett and see that there are still doubts about those who (like Obama) wer born on this soil without having two citizens as parents.

  286. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 6:18 pm #

    Perhaps you would be more inclined to agree with Lynch if you studied it and the cases it cites.

    Lynch commands considerable respect because of it’s citation by other courts.

  287. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 6:18 pm #

    My goodness sakes, this is just plain silly. It’s up to you to make your case.

    So far you seem to be doing rather poorly yourself.

    Romans 1:22…

  288. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 6:21 pm #

    Minor was a woman.

  289. avatar
    nemocapn May 4, 2010 at 6:22 pm #

    WTF says:
    You guys must really like to play games!

    Eisenhower was born in Denison, TX. Are you saying that, at the time of his birth, his father was not permanently domiciled in the United States?

    Who said that? I don’t know whether Dr. C is correct that Ike was also born a German citizen. I’d certainly be interested in learning the source of that claim. I just thought the Deseret News article was interesting, because Eisenhower lived for 62 years without having a need for his birth certificate.

  290. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    “The only thing Hawaii has to go on is the birth report that was filed. Who filed that birth report is more important than the fact that it was filed.”

    Really grasping at straws here now aren’t you? If the birth data held by the State repository is not sufficient proof, then what you are saying is that no birth certificate is sufficient proof of birth for anyone. What standard exactly do you propose for all future candidates?

    “Maybe someone should offer to donate $1 Million dollars to the charity of Obama’s choice if he would release his original vital records.”

    Step up to the plate and put your money in escrow. Really- if this is such a big deal why don’t you Birthers raise a million dollars, put it in escrow with someone that both parties can trust(do Birthers trust anyone?), throw out the challenge.

    Just don’t throw in wierd impossible conditions- make it straight forward- if the President shows his long form BC to a respected journalist(oh where is Walter Cronkite when we need him!) and that journalist says it shows he was born in the United States, that should be sufficient.

    Anything else isn’t relevant. I know birthers are hoping there might be some salacious dirt that will embarress the President, but all you are concerned about is eligiblity right?

  291. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    WTF, you can keep saying it over and over again, but it doesn’t change the fact that President Obama was overwhelmingly elected by voters who knew his father wasn’t a citizen and who therefore didn’t have your concerns about eligibility.

    You want to make this an argument about what the Constitution really says, when I am saying the current situation reflects what the vast majority of voters, and Congress believes the Constitution really says. Its up to you to prove your claim.

  292. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    Please do.

  293. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 6:30 pm #

    Even Wong Kim Ark’s lower Court referred to Lynch v Clarke…

  294. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    In response to WTF? “The only thing Hawaii has to go on is the birth report that was filed”

    Dr. COnspiracy says; “You make it sound as if no one in 1961 checked anything. The registrar had to be satisfied with the report before it was filed. The grandmother filing myth is virtually impossible–where’s the mother? is the obvious first question. There were only 14 non-hospital births all year in Honolulu.”

    It’s nice to see that Obama’s birth report was counted as one of those 14.

    Where does it say that the mother has to be there for a relative to file a birth report? That sure isn’t the way it is today. If you want to claim that the birth report could not be filed without the mother being their, all you need to do is demonstrate that it would have been a requirement for filing.

    “Vital event registration is serious legal business, and birthers intent on clear cutting any objections to their theories ignore that.”

    Oh, please. Tug at our emotions. The filing of fraudulent birth reports was a problem back then. In the late 50s Congress even acknowledged it to be a problem. Maybe you should look into the Congressional inquiry about soviets obtaining birth certificates by filing fraudulent birth reports in New York. Are you really going to claim that security was better in Hawaii than it was in New York?

    Since Dr. Conspiracy is such an expert on 1960s vital even registration, perhaps he can tell us what procedures were in place that prevented such a fraudulent filing. Hmmm? Does he not know that all births were required to be reported? And does he not know that any adult could have filed the report? Does he also know that Obama’s report was filed, but we have no indication that it ever met the the guidelines for acceptance? Oh yes Dr. C. The registrar, unless they have clear evidence of fraud MUST file the report, but the State Registrar does not have to accept it. It just remains filed.

  295. avatar
    misha May 4, 2010 at 6:35 pm #

    WTF?: do you know that Israel has a law, that Israel considers everyone Jewish, in the world, to be an Israeli citizen?

    My cousin, born in NY, went with her family to Tel Aviv. Her father, my maternal uncle, was invited to lecture for a year at the Technion. While there, she turned 17. The day after her 17th birthday, two recruiters from the IDF showed up at their home, and told her they expected her to volunteer for the IDF, the next morning. So she was drafted into the IDF, after being there less than 6 months.

  296. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    Again, no evidence, no argument, no facts, just the spinning together of issues.

    Until you can show us that there was evidence of fraud, the birth certificate will be accepted as valid.
    Why you intend to find the President guilty based on the whimsical of evidence is beyond me. Luckily our justice system places the burden with the plaintiff not the defendant.

  297. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 6:43 pm #

    SF Jeff says “If the birth data held by the State repository is not sufficient proof, then what you are saying is that no birth certificate is sufficient proof of birth for anyone. What standard exactly do you propose for all future candidates?”

    For President and Vice-President: A certified copy of the original vital record, or the portion thereof that demonstrates that it was reported by an institution. If the birth was extrainstitutional, the additional information obtained by witness statement or gynecological exam should be submitted.

    Those documents should be considered confidential, but should be made available to all members of Congress for review.

    Why the need to be so sure? I have no problem with making sure the guy who can launch nuclear weapons on his word alone is exactly who he claims to be. For some, I know they think it is only a polularity contest. For many of us, we realize the potential of the commander in chief.

  298. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 6:53 pm #

    nbc says “Again, no evidence, no argument, no facts, just the spinning together of issues.”

    And who holds the key to the evidence? Isn’t it your messiah (President Transparency) who holds the keys to that information?

    Prediction: Obama will not run for a second term. More than one state will require that he prove himself to be a natural-born citizen. That’s where Obama is screwed! No state is required to accept your silly interpretation of Wong Kim Ark. Obama will have to challenge the states determination of not being an NBC in court. We may not be able to get him in front of the court this time around, but he won’t be able to escape the second time around.

  299. avatar
    aarrgghh May 4, 2010 at 7:01 pm #

    wtf?, late to the party and cheap with the gifts again:

    “Maybe someone should offer to donate $1 Million dollars to the charity of Obama’s choice if he would release his original vital records.”

    this was announced a year ago:

    The owners of this website will pay $25,000,000 to Barack Hussein Obama
    if he will produce his “real” long-form birth certificate.

    Help spread the word about our $25 million reward to Barack Hussein Obama for him to produce his “real” long-form birth certificate…we will continue to increase the amount of the reward until it is so huge that the American people will begin to question why he has sealed all his background info to hide something… his nationality, his religion, his commie background…why is he trying so hard to destroy our country

    Barack Hussein Obama is a fraud on the American people! The lunatic left helped him get elected and is using him in a power grab to rapidly replace our capitalist system with far-left socialism that will ruin our country. We can stop this power grab because we are convinced that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the U.S. and therefore is not qualified to be President of the U.S.A.

    It is our intent to offer the kind of reward that will motivate someone to produce Barack Hussein Obama’s real birth certificate that can be proven to be valid! Over $3.5 million has been spent to keep his real birth certificate and other records of his citizenship hidden. If it takes a lot of effort to expose Obama’s fraud on the American people, we will do it.

    and you can tell that the site owners are serious about every cent, since they wasted none on web design.

  300. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 7:03 pm #

    nemocapn,

    Prior to the 1940s, institutional birth was not the norm. We have only had 4 Presidents who would have been likely to have a birth certificate. Like many other things, you don’t require that which did not exist at the time.

    There was a time when people drove cars, but did not have driver’s licenses. Now that they are required for everyone, it has become the norm to present them when they demonstrate your “qualification” to drive the car.

    Any President who was truly forthright would have released his documents and ended the suspicions. It’s not like his own wife didn’t say Kenya was his home country, or a Minister of the Kenyan Parliament didn’t say he wasn’t a native of the U.S. –The reasons for suspicion are numerous. The possibility of fraud exists. The question should be answered before he launches a nuke. Not after.

  301. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 7:17 pm #

    Again it seems that you want our President to prove his innocence.

    Sad…. In your hatred for the President you allow yourself to foolishly reject our Constitution.

    Prediction: Obama will run, show his COLB and the States have no choice under full faith and credit clause of the Constitution

    Simple.

  302. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 7:18 pm #

    nbc says; “First of all let’s start with the Government briefs which outline the question before the Court

    Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth?

    Remember that is what nbc presented.

    So let’s answer that question with regard to Obama. Was his father domiciled therein?

    we can’t answer that without knowing what “domiciled” is. Can we?

    Black’s Dictionary or Law (1st Edition) would have been the accepted authority for a definition that would have been closest to that period.

    “DOMICILE; That place In which a man
    bas voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and family, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with the present intention of making a permanent horne, until some unexpected event shall occur to induce to adopt some other permanent home.”

    As anyone can plainly see, Obama’s father was not “domiciled” here. In legal terms, that is what distinguishes Obama from Ark.

    Something tells me, the attorneys who have been telling you how to interpret Ark never told you about that.

    Did Dr. Conspiracy point that out to his readers?

  303. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    “For President and Vice-President: A certified copy of the original vital record, or the portion thereof that demonstrates that it was reported by an institution. If the birth was extrainstitutional, the additional information obtained by witness statement or gynecological exam should be submitted.”

    Okay, so on the face of it, the vast majority of our President’s could not have proven their eligibility, since the majority of them were born outside of hospitals, without any notation of gynecological exams and likely without any witnesses being noted. For instance, President Lincoln would not have qualified under your requirements.

    So the President/VP candidate must present this to whom? Congress? That would be after the election, and rather a stupid time to check eligibility. Or would you have Congress review the eligibility and certify each candidate in advance?

    And if you are saying that Congress should review- then you are also acknowledging that Congress is the one who would determine who is a NBC…which brings us back to…our current situation.

    And who would legislate this requirement? Yep Congress.

    “Why the need to be so sure? I have no problem with making sure the guy who can launch nuclear weapons on his word alone is exactly who he claims to be. For some, I know they think it is only a polularity contest. For many of us, we realize the potential of the commander in chief.”

    Great- I have always wondered whether Bush or Clinton were eligible- can you forward to me those documents for them? Since you realize the potential of the commander in chief, I can understand why you demanded these documents for Bush and Clinton- I just never thought to do so, so could you post them here for me to read?

  304. avatar
    Rickey May 4, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    WTF? says:

    I’m not going to read squat while looking for the text to support your belief. If you want to claim that the tect supports your belief, present it for review.

    I’ll make it easy for you.

    The full text of the decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark is here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

    The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

    In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

    The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

    It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born…The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

    All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

    I could go on, but the point is clear.

  305. avatar
    Whatever4 May 4, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    Do you deny that according to the holding in Minor v. Happersett that the court acknowledged his status as a natural-born citizen to be in doubt?

    I’d be a bit more inclined to listen to your argument had you actually read the case. There’s NO WAY you could have read Minor v. Happersett and come up with a masculine modifier. Minor was a female — that was the entire point of that case.

  306. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 7:27 pm #

    nbc said; “Sad…. In your hatred for the President you allow yourself to foolishly reject our Constitution.”

    What is truly sad is that nbc and his ilk cannot tell the difference between a national security concern and hatred of Obama.

    nbc implies that any who question HIS messiah, must hate him. That implication can only originate from someone who not only supports Obama (which I don’t have a problem with), but LOVES Obama (which I find abnormal).

    nbc is in favor of turning over the keys to the nukes without question. Those who question must hate. Therefore, all those who question Obama, must hate him.

    Did I get that right, Vince?

  307. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 7:30 pm #

    WTF,

    Yes, I have commented here that the facts of the Wong case describe his parents as domiciled in the US, although at the time of the Wong decision they had returned to China.

    However, the court’s logic in determining that Wong was a citizen did not rest on domicile.

  308. avatar
    Whatever4 May 4, 2010 at 7:32 pm #

    Hey, Doc C….

    Is there any way to split this into another topic? The threading is long gone on this one, and it’s difficult to follow.

  309. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 7:32 pm #

    Crocodile tears- with all this angst over President Obama’s birth certificate, tell me what did you do to confirm Bush’s or Clinton’s bonafides?

    We have more ‘evidence’- as in what could be used in Court- demonstrating that President Obama was born in Hawaii- than we do for any other president. Where was this huge concern about fraud then?

    The answer is because the Lee Atwater school of Politics pushed through this theory that there must be something suspicious about this guy with a Kenyan father, with the Muslim sounding name, born in Hawaii(not a real state like Kansas). Just keep repeating it until somebody goes- yeah we better demand proof.

    So candidate Obama provides proof- and the Lee Atwaters go “oh that must be a fraud” “he doesn’t have two citizen parents” “he must have been adopted in Indonesia” “He must have been born in Kenya” “American citizen’s couldn’t have travelled to Pakistan” etc.

    No the President shouldn’t give Birthers a piece of paper more. He doesn’t owe me or them anything more.

  310. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 7:33 pm #

    Prediction noted. I have a long memory.

  311. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy says “Lynch commands considerable respect because of it’s citation by other courts.”

    Well Doc, If you’re being completely honest, how can you say that you found John McCain to be a natural-born citizen, when that court concluded that Congress could only write citizenship laws that affected those who were born aliens?

    Isn’t it pretty clear that no one could be a natural-born citizen if it took a statute to make them a citizen?

  312. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    What is truly sad is that nbc and his ilk cannot tell the difference between a national security concern and hatred of Obama.

    Hilarious, hiding behind ‘national security’ concerns… Come on WTF..

    nbc implies that any who question HIS messiah, must hate him.

    Nope, I am suggesting that based on your own words you appear to show a distinct hatred for our President, causing you to foolishly ignore our Counstitution.

    That implication can only originate from someone who not only supports Obama (which I don’t have a problem with), but LOVES Obama (which I find abnormal).

    GIGO

    nbc is in favor of turning over the keys to the nukes without question.

    That’s a lie

    Those who question must hate. Therefore, all those who question Obama, must hate him.

    Spinning your own strawmen I notice. What’s the problem? Having a hard time dealing with the facts I presented?

  313. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    Isn’t it pretty clear that no one could be a natural-born citizen if it took a statute to make them a citizen?

    I find that a reasonable conclusion but I am open to reason and logic.

    I assume that you will take time to further familiarize yourself with Lynch v Clarke’s reasoning leading to the inevitable conclusion you want to avoid.

  314. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 7:39 pm #

    Oh, who am I kidding

  315. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    “And who holds the key to the evidence? Isn’t it your messiah (President Transparency) who holds the keys to that information?”

    Oh I see WTF- you must not be an American. You see here in the United States, the presumption is that the accusers have to provide evidence, and that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. President Obama has no obligation to prove anything to you.

    “Prediction: Obama will not run for a second term. More than one state will require that he prove himself to be a natural-born citizen.”

    My prediction: Obama will run for office, without even noticing birthers.

    “That’s where Obama is screwed! No state is required to accept your silly interpretation of Wong Kim Ark.”

    Oh lovely- you are advocating that every state establish its own determination of what a natural born citizen is?

    “Obama will have to challenge the states determination of not being an NBC in court. We may not be able to get him in front of the court this time around, but he won’t be able to escape the second time around.”

    And that shows your whole scheme doesn’t it? Just as all Birthers, you hope to get the President to court and have discovery so that you can find some dirt to embaress the President.

    Anyway- go for it- frankly I don’t care what states require as long as they do so uniformly for all candidates. The President’s BC records are clearly availible, and can be presented anytime a court wants it.

  316. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    SF Jeff said “Crocodile tears- with all this angst over President Obama’s birth certificate, tell me what did you do to confirm Bush’s or Clinton’s bonafides?”

    Why the need to change the subject? If I leave my house with the door unlocked, am I perpetually barred from locking it again?

    A little FYI: I questioned John McCain’s NBC status long before I did that of Barack Obama. I concluded that McCain was not a NBC, and did not vote for him.

    Clinton was adopted. I didn’t know that until after he left office. He sure didn’t make it well-known to the public. If I would have known that his parentage had not been verified, I likely would have had problems with that.

    You guys need ot remember that the internet was not accessable back then. The only information we received was that which the news provided. Can you point me to one mainstream news show that has pointed out that a stipulation of Wong Kim Ark was that his parents had benn permanently domiciled here, and that Obama’s father was not domicviled here? Of course you can’t. Don’t pretend that anybody made an “informed” decision, when the MSM wasn’t willing to inform them.

  317. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 7:46 pm #

    “Did Dr. Conspiracy point that out to his readers?”

    It has been discussed many times.

    “with the present intention of making a permanent horne, until some unexpected event shall occur to induce to adopt some other permanent home.””

    The burden will be to convince- who?- that Obama Senior did not have the intention of making the United States his permanent home. Who should be making that determination for each candidate?

    I think the voters did a great job of making that determination. I trust the voters, and their understanding of what a NBC is.

  318. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 7:46 pm #

    I love it how you are continuing to move the goalposts.

    I presume that you have accepted that children when born on US soil to alien parents are in fact natural born?

    Note also that the question of ‘domicile’ avoids the discussion of the real issue which is not as much domicile as it is allegiance.

    So let’s accept that the Court found indeed, that the answer to the issues presented: was WKA a natural born citizen was answered in the affirmative by the majority ruling in WKA and was affirmed although disagreed with by the dissenting judge.

    So the case was indeed whether or not WKA was a natural born citizen, which makes sense because the only alternative would be WKA to be a naturalized citizen. US Statutes prohibited the latter.

    And no, I have no lawyers speaking for me, I do my own research.

    So who speaks to you as we are quick to accuse others of our own foolishness?

  319. avatar
    Whatever4 May 4, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    Great- I have always wondered whether Bush or Clinton were eligible- can you forward to me those documents for them? Since you realize the potential of the commander in chief, I can understand why you demanded these documents for Bush and Clinton- I just never thought to do so, so could you post them here for me to read?

    And Cheney. To prove he wasn’t born on a Death Star. And Gore. I always wondered if he was a robot. And Poppy Bush, the adopted child of Tesla’s accountant.

  320. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm #

    REPLY to:

    Any President who was truly forthright would have released his documents and ended the suspicions.

    But he DID release his birth certificate. He posted it online and made it available for inspection on request during his campaign.

  321. avatar
    Rickey May 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm #

    WTF? says:

    So let’s answer that question with regard to Obama. Was his father domiciled therein?

    We have been over this before, ad nauseam.

    1. We have no idea what the intentions of Obama’s father were at the time of Obama’s birth. Did he intend to stay in Hawaii? Did he intend to stay in the United States? Who knows? Wouldn’t the fact that his marriage started to fall apart qualify as “an unexpected event?”

    What if he intended to stay in the United States but later changed his mind? Would your argument be that Obama was a natural born citizen during the time that his father intended to be a permanent resident, but lost natural born status when his father later changed his mind? That would be nonsensical.

    2. The court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was merely stating the facts as they were at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth. Did you not know that at the time of the Wong Kim Ark case, his parents had returned to live in China? Did you not know that the reason he had gone to China was to visit his parents? By your definition, they weren’t “domiciled” in the United States any more than Obama’s father was.

  322. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm #

    “What is truly sad is that nbc and his ilk cannot tell the difference between a national security concern and hatred of Obama.”

    Where was this deep rooted conviction about national security when Bush was elected? When Clinton was elected? What prompted you to suddenly realize that you needed to see a President’s birth certificate in order to feel safe?

    “nbc is in favor of turning over the keys to the nukes without question. Those who question must hate. Therefore, all those who question Obama, must hate him”

    I think that those who demand President Obama produce documentation that no previous President has produced have suspect motives. I think those that bring forward a definition of NBC that is different from what is commonly understood- and taught- in the United States should have their motives suspect. I think that anyone who embraces every theory that would disqualify President Obama, is clearly only interested in removing the President rather than any interest in truth.

    I don’t know whether you hate Obama or not, but your one sided arguments and unwillingness to accept any evidence that shows his eligiblity demonstrate to me that you have only one objective- removal of President Obama from office- regardless of the truth.

    I do not ‘love’ Obama, but I do respect him. If there ever was clear evidence of his wrong doing I wouldn’t be blind like you are to the clear evidence of his being born in Hawaii.

  323. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    As to the concept of domicile, it seems WTF needs to familiarize himself more with this concept

    For instance we read:

    The Supreme Court of Ohio quoting Story’s definition of Domicile adds “It is not however necessary that he should intend to remain there for all time. If he lives in a place with the intention of remaining for an indefinite period of time as a place of fixed present domicile and not as a place of temporary establishment or for more transient purposes it is to all intents and for all purposes his residence.” Sturgeon v Körte 34 Ohio St 525

    These issues are not as simplistic as you appear to believe they are.

  324. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 7:56 pm #

    De facto office doctrine.

    Unless the office was obtained by fraud. Fraud viciates all acts. Period!

    If it can be proven that Obama knew he did not meet the qualifications for Office, all laws created could be held invalid.

  325. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 8:00 pm #

    Was his father domiciled therein?

    Domicile has been defined by cases to mean a fixed current intention to stay permanently. It cannot be determined 45 years later by the fact that a person left the place.

    Here’s what’s on the side of domiciled:

    1. Married
    2. Had a kid
    3. Was going to school
    4. Had plans to go to graduate school

    Did he, in 1961, have an intention to quit the United States?

    Until you answer that question in the affirmative, you cannot prove he wasn’t domiciled in the United States!

    Don’t pretend to be a lawyer, WTF, without learning a little more about the law!

  326. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    I notice the absence of any reference to fact, case law etc.
    May I presume that you are working on this oversight?

    It will be extremely unlikely that any court would hold invalid the laws passed by a duly elected President and Congress.

  327. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    The foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are naturalized citizens

    No, they’re not. They’re citizens by birth, not entitled to 14th Amendment protections, but not naturalized citizens.

    There’s a whole court case about this, WTF, maybe you should read it!

  328. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy says; “However, the court’s logic in determining that Wong was a citizen did not rest on domicile.”

    Do you know what a stipulated fact is, Doc?

    The court need not determine that which has been stipulated.

  329. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 8:05 pm #

    Did he pay state taxes? Did he meet Hawaiian residence requirements?
    What about the mother>?
    The presumption of residence will be taken quite seriously and requires a bit more than handwaving

  330. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 8:06 pm #

    but they surely still were naturalized.

    No, if they were born here, OR naturalized, they would be entitled to 14th Amendment protections, since the 14th Amendment guarantees protection to everyone born here OR naturalized here!

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    The court said, specifically:

    He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. (401 US 827)

  331. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    No- I am questioning your sudden concern about security, when clearly that wasn’t a concern of yours when Bush or Clinton were elected. Actually, I am flat out saying that your sudden concern about Presidential Birth Certificates is prejudiced by your predetermined suspicion that President Obama was not eligible, and that there was no basis for that suspicion.

    “Clinton was adopted. I didn’t know that until after he left office. He sure didn’t make it well-known to the public.”

    I knew it- as I recall he was quite open about it.

    “If I would have known that his parentage had not been verified, I likely would have had problems with that.”

    Excuse me- who did you think had verified his parentage? Who did you think verfied Bush’s? Did you care so little then, but care so much now?

    “You guys need ot remember that the internet was not accessable back then.”

    You didn’t have a library? And I don’t know about you, but during the 2004 Election, I had plenty of access to the internet. Did you use it to research Bush’s birth documents? Why not?

    “and that Obama’s father was not domicviled here? Of course you can’t. Don’t pretend that anybody made an “informed” decision, when the MSM wasn’t willing to inform them.”

    Senator Obama published two books telling about his Kenyan father. Anyone who had any interest at all could have(and millions did) have read all about his father.

    If you are saying that the voters didn’t have your nuanced view as to what NBC meant, I would say that there is no reason to assume that your understanding of what NBC means than that of any voter- and has been pointed out- over 100 million voters voted for either Obama or McCain. You apparently think that all of them are wrong, and you are right.

  332. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    ROGERS V. BELLEI, 401 U. S. 815 (1971)

    Not that WTF will ever to read it.

  333. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    Do you really think that one who is an alien at birth can be considered to be a natural-born citizen?

    Ah, but he’s NOT an alien. If he were an alien, he could be naturalized, and then he would get 14th Amendment protection (it protects those born here AND those naturalized)!

    He was NOT naturalized!

  334. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    “Unless the office was obtained by fraud. Fraud viciates all acts. Period!”

    Show me the money- I mean show me the citation

  335. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    I thought that I had read the case quite accurately. So what am I missing?

  336. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 8:12 pm #

    WTF?: Fraud viciates [sic] all acts. Period!

    I should find some way to annotate comments like this: “commenter is not a lawyer and doesn’t know jack about law or spelling.”

    Even when properly spelled, the statement is more a general maxim than an immutable principle of law.

  337. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    Unless the office was obtained by fraud. Fraud viciates all acts. Period!

    If it can be proven that Obama knew he did not meet the qualifications for Office, all laws created could be held invalid.

    Wow! That’s terrible legal reasoning!

    1. There is nothing in the de facto officer doctrine that suggests that it is vitiated by fraud.
    2. If every legal scholar in the past 200 years except Donofrio, Apuzzo and Taitz thought that someone born here to one alien parent and one citizen parent, how do you intend to prove that Obama knew he did not meet the qualifications.
    3. What fact did Obama withhold? Everyone knew he was born to an alien. Withholding a legal opinion is not fraud. See, among other cases, Venable v. Bradbury, 111 Kan. 495 (1922).

  338. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    Rereading the case I believe that Dr C and Greg’s position could benefit from more data

  339. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 8:17 pm #

    “But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

  340. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 8:18 pm #

    Ah, but he’s NOT an alien. If he were an alien, he could be naturalized, and then he would get 14th Amendment protection (it protects those born here AND those naturalized)!

    Close but no cigar. It protects those born here and naturalized here.
    Bellei was naturalized outside the United States.

  341. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    “Until you answer that question in the affirmative, you cannot prove he wasn’t domiciled in the United States!”

    He was here on a grant provided to Kenyans. He was here on a student visa. He was a student. The burden would be on you to prove his intent to become a member of our society. When he was no longer a student, he left the country. I don’t think I’ll have any problem proving that he was not domiciled here.

    If you want to claim that he was domiciled here you must prove the intent by some positive act.

    Did he apply for U.S. Citizenship? That would be a good place to start if you want to prove his intent to become a member of our society.

  342. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    Remember the 14th

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States

    Naturalized in the US… Listen to the oral arguments on Oyez to understand this critical detail.

  343. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    He was here on a grant provided to Kenyans. He was here on a student visa. He was a student. The burden would be on you to prove his intent to become a member of our society. When he was no longer a student, he left the country. I don’t think I’ll have any problem proving that he was not domiciled here.

    I bet you would have quite a bit of trouble doing so as you are confusing domicile with the fact that his duration in the United States could be limited. Did Obama Sr intend to return to the US in 1961 when Obama was born? Or did he intend on finishing his school, continue with grad school? You cannot look at the history to claim that his intent was to leave Hawaii. On the contrary his enrollment in school, his continued enrollment in graduate school, his marriage to Ann Dunham all are prima facie evidence of his domicile.

    You would have to show a clear intent at the time of Obama’s birth that his father was not intending to stay for an indeterminate period of time in Hawaii.

  344. avatar
    nemocapn May 4, 2010 at 8:26 pm #

    nemocapn,Prior to the 1940s, institutional birth was not the norm. We have only had 4 Presidents who would have been likely to have a birth certificate. Like many other things, you don’t require that which did not exist at the time.

    What four Presidents are the only ones likely to have a birth certificate?

  345. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    The court need not determine that which has been stipulated.

    Not does it have to rely on a stipulated fact as being relevant either.

    Duh..

  346. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 4, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    WTF?: If I would have known that [Bill Clinton's] parentage had not been verified, I likely would have had problems with that.

    Barring a DNA test, nobody’s parentage has been verified. Let that sink in for a minute.

    James Madison was no slouch when he said: “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.” Nearly 40% of US children are born out of wedlock, and who knows for sure about those born to married women. Husband as father is a presumption, but not a certainly.

    I personally don’t think your extreme parentage verification idea is a worthy position, but by all means get to work on a mandatory DNA test requirement law for birth certificates.

  347. avatar
    Bob Ross May 4, 2010 at 8:42 pm #

    Yeah Chocolate Hamster

  348. avatar
    Bob Ross May 4, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL9wUtyucOs

    Dont make him do stuff!

  349. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    The burden would be on you to prove his intent to become a member of our society.

    That you still think this is the question to be answered in determining domicile illustrates just how completely FUBAR your side is on all issues regarding the law.

    Kinda stinks to be so completely uninformed about the law in a legal question.

    Here’s a clue: Domicile is NOT citizenship!

  350. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    I would just love to hear that argument in court. Really, birthers don’t get it- the only reason I don’t want a full court case is because it would be a waste of time, but other than that the opportunity to hear Orly explain to the courts that President Obama has to prove his father intended to be domiciled her or he is clearly not a natural born citizen would be a great You Tube moment.

  351. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 8:53 pm #

    Don’t forget Doc- the mandatory DNA test requirements would not only require blood tests from the candidate, but from both of his parents also.

    So any candidate could have his candidacy eliminated if an estranged parent refused to provide a DNA test. It would be lovely

  352. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    Greg,

    Rather than bother to point out how fraud would cause the de facto officer doctrine to be nugatory, therefore permitting all the laws to be recalled, I’ll just point out how ignorant you are.

    You said “2. If every legal scholar in the past 200 years except Donofrio, Apuzzo and Taitz thought that someone born here to one alien parent and one citizen parent, how do you intend to prove that Obama knew he did not meet the qualifications.”

    Have you ever read the opinion of Attorney General Bates?

    “A Natural Born Citizen — Not made by law or other wise but born. And this class is the large majority; in fact the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they become citizens, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless by their own voluntary act they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenize a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth or the legal process of adoption.”

    How about the U.S. Attorney’s position in the District Court case for Wong Kim Ark?

    How about the Attorney General’s position in Wong Kim Ark?

    Play pompous a$$ somewhere else. Get a little time on the boat before you declare yourself to be captain.

  353. avatar
    G May 4, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

    Delusional WTF says:

    Prediction: Obama will not run for a second term. More than one state will require that he prove himself to be a natural-born citizen. That’s where Obama is screwed! No state is required to accept your silly interpretation of Wong Kim Ark. Obama will have to challenge the states determination of not being an NBC in court. We may not be able to get him in front of the court this time around, but he won’t be able to escape the second time around.

    LMAO! Yeah, good luck with that prediction. You are entitled to all your petty little delusions & meaningless speculation that you want. That is your right.

    The rest of us are fully entitled to think that you birthers are nothing but a bunch of delusional sore-losers that don’t have a good grasp of reality nor how the law works.

    My prediction:

    Despite more ridiculous efforts by the birthers, Obama in 2012 continues to pay the birthers very little mind at all and stands a strong chance of re-election.

    Any state level requirements or court challenges during the primaries are met with the same piece of paper from HI that we saw scanned onto the internet & posted on fact check. The seal from HI & the signed statement on the back are found sufficient at every challenge, without any further documentation required beyond that.

    Birthers continue to be mocked, ostracized and derided. They waste their time pining their hopes & money on frivolous activities and chasing fake rumors and fictional speculation that goes nowhere.

    In the end, all the birthers achieve is an endless stream of shock and disappointment as they continue to fail at every turn. No one else in the reality based world is surprised by their failures, with the exception of those that wonder how the birthers can continue to remain so clueless & reality-challenged.

  354. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    WTF:”Rather than bother to point out how fraud would cause the de facto officer doctrine to be nugatory, therefore permitting all the laws to be recalled, I’ll just point out how ignorant you are.”

    In other words, rather than back up your claim, you address something else?

    You do a lot of that.

  355. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 8:59 pm #

    Greg says; “Here’s a clue: Domicile is NOT citizenship!”

    If it were only that simple. Courts across this country have used domicile in determining the privileges of citizenship. In many states you used to be able to vote upon establishing domicile (even if you had not met the requirements for naturalization). Aliens were permitted to own property before becoming naturalized, based on domicile.

    Of course you already knew that. Didn’t you, Ms. 1L?

  356. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 9:02 pm #

    Truly pathetic my dear friend.

    As to Bates, he appears to undermine your position

    “A Natural Born Citizen — Not made by law or other wise but born. And this class is the large majority; in fact the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they become citizens, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless by their own voluntary act they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenize a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth or the legal process of adoption.”

    Duh… And why should the opinions of the losing attorneys be of any relevance here?

  357. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 9:03 pm #

    Confusing citizenship and the right to vote… Wow…

    Logic…is… lacking

  358. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 9:12 pm #

    Are you saying domicile IS citizenship?

    I’m guessing you wish you were a 1L, right?

    Couldn’t get into any but the worst of the TTT schools? Thomas Cooley wouldn’t even take you?

  359. avatar
    SFJeff May 4, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    I want to make sure I understand WTF’s concerns correctly here.

    WTF is concerned that if someone does not meet the natural born citizen requirement, that this could threaten the security of the United States.

    Because of this concern, he is convinced that President Obama must prove to…somebody…that Obama Senior was domiciled in the United States…and that if Obama Senior was domiciled in the United States when President Obama was born, then that would eliminate the security threat. If Obama Sr= domiciled= safe. If Obama Sr. not=domiciled=country in danger.

    Its so simple. Why were we voters so ignorant? We forgot how important domicile of the father is when it comes to protecting the country we love.

    Good thing we have patriots checking the birth certificates of all of our presidents.

  360. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    Have you ever read the opinion of Attorney General Bates?

    Yes, and I’ve read all of the other legal “scholars” who agree with Leo, Mario and Orly.

    I think they can be counted on one hand.

    Have you read the dozens and dozens of scholars who disagree with you?

    Let’s grant that I over-generalized – how does agreeing with the vast majority of legal scholars equal fraud?

    Go pretend to be a lawyer somewhere else. You’re overmatched!

  361. avatar
    G May 4, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    WTF,

    What is with all this stupid “messiah” BS?

    The only people who seem to refer to Obama as such are hatriots, such as you. The only proper use of the term messiah I have heard is among the Abrahamic faiths. Do you hate Jesus & Christianity? Because you sure seem to use the term in a way that denigrates the faith.

    I never heard anyone here in support of Obama call him that term or say they were “in love” with him. Only you in your sad, silly delusions say dumb stuff like that.

    Simply put, we voted for who we thought was the best candidate for the election and we want our President to do well for the sake of the good of our country. We simply elected someone we felt best qualified to do that.

    To my eyes, folks like you seem to be so mired in your petty hatred of an individual (based on whatever personal prejudices you hold) that you would rather see this country fail than succeed. I consider folks like you to be more than just the pathetic sore losers that you are. You are an insult to our nation of laws and therefore to everything that makes this country great. At best, you are a bunch of petty malcontents on the wrong side of history. At worst, you are traitors.

  362. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    Read more on Bates here

  363. avatar
    Scientist May 4, 2010 at 9:27 pm #

    First of all you grossly misunderstand the military chain of command if you truly believe the President can launch nuclear weapons “on his word alone”. Only in the movies can a President wake up one morning and decide to launch nuclear missiles because his toast was cold. In the real world, missiles are getting launched either in response to a clear first strike by a hostile nation (after a long period of escalating tension) or after the most grave of deliberations involving the Sec Def, the Joint Chiefs and others. Tom Clancy writes fiction, my friend.

    And what does the passport held by someone’s father have to do with the anything? If foreign nations want to gain influence here, they aren’t going to send someone as a student to the US with instructions to marry a citizen on the 1/1,000,000 chance that their offspring will become President 50 years later. Money is far quicker and more likely to be successful.

    Your postulates are totally lacking in empirical data to support them. Even more lacking on support is the claim that your judgement is superior to that of your fellow citizens and must be heeded above theirs. The opposite appears more likely.

  364. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 9:29 pm #

    nbc,

    You have been arguing that Obama is a natural-born citizen because of the Fourteenth Amendment. Do you not know what is a law?

    Bates said “A Natural Born Citizen — Not made by law or other wise but born”.

    We’re talking about the United States here. If the law of the United States made Obama a citizen, he is not a natural-born citizen. He is a citizen because of that law.

    When you learn to understand what you read, and then understand what a law of the United States is, get back to me.

    If Bates would have said statute, you may have had something, but alas my friend, you remain confused.

    I’m a natural born citizen. Natural because my parents were citizens. Born, because I was born on the soil.

  365. avatar
    nemocapn May 4, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    WTF? says:
    nemocapn,Prior to the 1940s, institutional birth was not the norm. We have only had 4 Presidents who would have been likely to have a birth certificate. Like many other things, you don’t require that which did not exist at the time.

    As someone who’s by avocation a genealogist, I’m well aware of the history of vital records in this country. While the modern birth certificate dates back only to the late 19th to early 20th centuries (the timeframe depends on the state), the recording of births goes back as far as the 1600’s. This predates the writing of the US Constitution. And yet, did the founding fathers require presidential candidates to provide a birth record to prove natural born citizenship? Did they ask for a baptismal certificate or Bible record?

    In order to receive a Revolutionary War pension, applicants had to provide proof of identity with such things as affidavits, marriage records, and Bible records. Obviously, the government at that time was aware of the concept of proof of identity, but they didn’t create any law or official body to confirm the identity of potential presidential candidates. Why is that? It’s not because “you don’t require that which did not exist at the time.” Birth records did exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution. John Quincy Adams birth in 1767 was recorded.

    Mandatory recording of births began in 1903 in Texas, but Eisenhower didn’t bother to obtain a delayed birth certificate until 49 years later. No one questions Eisenhower’s natural born citizenship even though no birth certificate existed until one month before he was elected President. Obama’s was recorded within days of his birth, but his is suspect. Why is that?

  366. avatar
    WTF? May 4, 2010 at 9:42 pm #

    Greg said; “Have you read the dozens and dozens of scholars who disagree with you?”

    Then you will have no problem naming the dozens and dozens of scholars who think that a legitimate U.S. born child, of an alien father is a natural-born citizen.

    Give the name of the scholar, and the title of their work. (I’d ask for hyperlinks, but too many hyperlinks may cause your comment to be held for moderation)

  367. avatar
    Scientist May 4, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    By the way WTF, your notion that the role of Congress in the election of a President is simply misterial is belied by history. Twice (1800 and 1876) Congress (in particular the House) actually chose the President due to Electoral College deadlock. Such a role could have been called into play as recently as 2000. Had the Democrats controlled Congress they could have made their own investigation of the Florida vote and perhaps have concluded that Gore won. I don’t know if they would have, but they certainly could have.

    The vote count may appear ministerial when the result is clear and no serious person doubts that the President is qualified. This was the case in 2008, since Donofrio, Apuzzo and Taitz are slightly less serious than Larry, Curly and Moe, but when there are serious questions they are the referee. Just because a referee calls very few fouls doesn’t mean he isn’t doing his job; there may in fact be very few fouls in that particular game.

  368. avatar
    nbc May 4, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    You have been arguing that Obama is a natural-born citizen because of the Fourteenth Amendment. Do you not know what is a law?

    Bates said “A Natural Born Citizen — Not made by law or other wise but born”.

    You appear to be unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment which merely repeats that which was already known through common law. I assume you have not read much on the topic and thus I cannot blame you.

    Geez…

    You jump to the most foolish conclusions before doing the actual research.

    And of course, an Amendment can do anything it wants, including defining what the term natural born citizen should be under the new amendment.

    Oh boy…

  369. avatar
    Scientist May 4, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    Gabriel Chin (Michigan Law Review)-who thought McCain was not an NBC

    Laurence Tribe and Ted Olsen (Testimony before Congress)-they thought McCain was an NBC

    Senators Orrin Hatch and Don Nickles (statements in the Senate Judiciary Committee)

  370. avatar
    Scientist May 4, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

    And you know, Jeff, the really silly thing is that a President descended on both sides from people who came on the Mayflower could be a bought and paid for agent of a foreign government (or several foreign governments).

    There is not a shred of evidence to support the fact that naturalized citizens are less loyal in any way than natural born citizens. None. Zero.

  371. avatar
    Scientist May 4, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    Don’t forget Doc- the mandatory DNA test requirements would not only require blood tests from the candidate, but from both of his parents also. So any candidate could have his candidacy eliminated if an estranged parent refused to provide a DNA test. It would be lovely

    I think if you look at recent Presidents, with the exception of Bush Jr. and Kennedy, none had both parents alive when they took office.

  372. avatar
    nemocapn May 4, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    What’s funny is that Obama IS a Mayflower descendant.

  373. avatar
    G May 4, 2010 at 10:22 pm #

    LMAO!

    Yeah, and I loved WTF’s whole crazy needing of gynecological records or something stupid like that to prove the birth and “allegiance”.

    LOL! Yeah, because we all know that it is only in utero that one develops their true sense of nationality and patriotic allegiance! ROTFL! *face palm*

    I think there is good reason that WTF uses that moniker. Because the stuff he comes up with is so ridiculous, that the only valid response to it is WTF?…

  374. avatar
    nemocapn May 4, 2010 at 10:31 pm #

    If you’re going to require testing for national security purposes, why stop at DNA testing? How about pre-employment drug screening of all presidential candidates and a battery of psychological tests?

  375. avatar
    Scientist May 4, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    My dear birthers-I have greatly enjoyed whiling away the hours listening to your whacky theories and strange preoccupations. Even as a non-lawyer, I can tell that your legal reasoning leaves much to be desired. But what is truly lacking in your case is a scientific basis for your interpretation of the meaning of the natural born citizen clause. When you say that 2 citizen parents are required, you are implying Mendelian inheritance of a gene, here called nbc. The allele must be recessive, of course, since 2 copies, 1 maternal and 1 paternal are required to create the NBC phenotype. You are further implying a Lamarckian inheritance, since apparently a progenitor can acquire the nbc allele by an act of will (taking the oath of citizenship). Such a phenomenon is heretofore unknown in the annals of genetics and a better understanding of this could truly revolutionize science (and birtherism).

    Such an opportunity to put birtherism on a scientific footing cannot be squandered. I therefore will be sending to all of you my grant proposal entitled “Genetic mapping of the nbc allele” and respectfully requesting funding of this critical research. Why waste your hard earned money on attorneys who file doomed court cases when the powerful tools of genomic analysis may be just what you need to prove your case.

    Time is wasting folks. Any further delays in these critical studies could result in the usurper serving his full term and even being re-elected. I urge you to wire money ASAP. The evidence you need may be only a RFLP analysis away.

  376. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Warren Freedman, Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents, 35 Cornell L. Q. 1949-1950.

    Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States, (1904)

    Jill Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988). She wrote:

    It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.

    Jonathan Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The history, evolution, and application of birthright citizenship in the United States, 9 Georgetown Imm. L. J. 667 (1993)

    James Kettner, Development of American Citizenship 1608-1870 (1978)

    Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454 (1813)

    Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. at 645

    Leti Volpp, “Obnoxious to their very nature”: Asian Americans and Constitutional Citizenship, 8 Asian L. J. 71 (2001)

    Charles Gordon, Who can be President of the United STates: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968)

    Bernadette Meyler, The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868-1898 States’ Rights, the Law of nations and mutual Consent, 15 Georgetown Imm. L. J. 519 (2000).

    Henry Ide, Citizenship by Birth – Another View, 30 Am. L. Rev. 241 (1894).

    Earl Maltz, Citizenship and the Constitution: A History and Critique of the Supreme Court’s Alienage Jurisprudence, 28 Ariz. St. L.J. 1135 (1996)

    Prentiss Webster, A Treatise on the Law of Citizenship, 1891.

    Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (1803). (location of birth).

    Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829). (location of birth, even if parent is non-citizen).

    Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826-30). (location of birth).

    Story, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION (1833).

    Hurd, THE LAW OF FREEDOM AND BONDAGE IN THE UNITED STATES (1858-1862). (location of birth).

    Paschal, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED (1868)

    L. Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come–The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007) (location of birth).

    Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005). (location of birth).

    Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 359-63 (2000-01). (location of birth; discusses Wong Kim Ark’s rejection of citizenship by parentage).

    Smith, CIVIC IDEALS: CONFLICTING VISIONS OF CITIZENSHIP IN U.S. HISTORY (1999). (location of birth; expressly rejects citizenship by parentage was accepted by Founding Fathers).

    Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881(1988). (location of birth).

    Medina, The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement, 12 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 253, 258-261 (1987). (location of birth).

    McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 15,875 at 15,876 (1967).(location of birth).

    James C. Ho, Defining “American”: Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment, 9:4 The Green Bag, 366 (2006).

    John W. Dean, A Fresh, Powerful Case for Amending the U.S. Constitution to Remove the “Natural Born” Qualification For the Presidency, FindLaw (2005).

    Malinda L.Seymore, The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship, 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 917, at 934-94 (2005).

    John W. Dean, The Pernicious “Natural Born” Clause of the Constitution: Why Immigrants Like Governors Schwarzenegger and Granholm Ought to be Able to Become Presidents, FindLaw (2004).

    John Yinger, No Americans Should Be Second-Class Citizens: Prepared Statement by John Yinger (Professor of Economics and Public Administration, Center for Policy Research, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University) Before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 24, 2000.

    “Christopher L. Eisgruber, Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution, 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 54, at 177 (1997)] (acknowledging that everyone born in the United States receives citizenship automatically).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197] .

    “Peter H. Schuck, The Re-evaluation of American Citizenship, 12 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 1, 4 (1997) (confirming that citizenship is extended to essentially all individuals born on United States soil).” .

    “Robert J. Shulman, Children of a Lesser God: Should the Fourteenth Amendment be Altered or Repealed to Deny Automatic Citizenship Rights and Privileges to American Born Children of Illegal Aliens?, 22 Pepp. L. Rev. 669, 674 (1995)

    “Note, The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 1026, 1026 (1994) (stating that Fourteenth Amendment provides that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens).”

    “David S. Schwartz, The Amorality of Consent, 74 Cal. L. Rev. 2143 (1986).

    Those are just a sampling.

  377. avatar
    Greg May 4, 2010 at 11:04 pm #

    However the concept of natural born versus naturalized has not much evolved. To suggest that we need to reinterpret a clear Constitutional interpretation without a change to the Constitution virtually renders the meaning of the Constitution meaningless.

    The fact that there is bona fide debate about whether the children of U.S. citizens born abroad are natural born (as opposed to the mala fide debate about Obama’s birth) suggests that the clause is not clear.

    At times, I think the originalists have a point, that we should hew to the meaning of the Constitutional terms as they would have been interpreted by the readers of the day, however, I cannot help but return to the case of Loving v. Virginia. The writers of the 14th Amendment were crystal clear that the amendment would not apply to interracial marriage. But, can we think of anything more abhorrent to the Constitution we currently operate under than a ban on interracial marriage?

  378. avatar
    nbC May 4, 2010 at 11:27 pm #

    Wohahahaha

  379. avatar
    nbC May 4, 2010 at 11:32 pm #

    You have been arguing that Obama is a natural-born citizen because of the Fourteenth Amendment. Do you not know what is a law?

    You are also wrong, the 14th Amendment has far less relevance than the decisions before the 14th which were based on Common Law.

    WKA was just the icing on the cake

  380. avatar
    nbC May 5, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    Nicole Newman, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT’S CONTINUING PROTECTION AGAINST AN AMERICAN CASTE SYSTEM, Boston College Third World Law Journal Vol. 28:437, 2008

  381. avatar
    SFJeff May 5, 2010 at 12:12 am #

    That was oddly exciting.

    I want to also add my 8th grade conservative Republican civics teacher- may he rest in peace.

  382. avatar
    SFJeff May 5, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    Thank you G- you very elegantly stated what I have felt about how Birthers misuse the term Messiah

  383. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 1:03 am #

    Greg: At times, I think the originalists have a point, that we should hew to the meaning of the Constitutional terms as they would have been interpreted by the readers of the day

    And I think that the only road to consensus sometimes is creative ambiguity.

  384. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    One state example: Wisconsin. Earliest birth recorded 1814 with the state.

  385. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    WTF?: Then you [Greg] will have no problem naming the dozens and dozens of scholars who think that a legitimate U.S. born child, of an alien father is a natural-born citizen.

    And of course, he didn’t have any problem and you have shown up yet again. I’m afraid your opinions lack substance. What I don’t understand is why you don’t “get it.” You’re wrong.

  386. avatar
    G May 5, 2010 at 1:19 am #

    Thank you G- you very elegantly stated what I have felt about how Birthers misuse the term Messiah.

    You’re welcome, SFJeff! I’ve never understood that line of attack by the birthers and hatriots out there, particularly since so many of them claim to have “Christian values”. It has to be one of the most offensive displays of hypocrisy I’ve seen, at least from a religious aspect.

    Of course, most of their other statements are offensive hypocrisy from a national perspective. That is why I call them “hatriots”, as they are the opposite of patriots and it disgusts me that they try to wrap themselves in the flag and constantly talk about the Constitution when they clearly don’t understand the document or our laws at all. If anything, their words and actions are more akin to wiping their *ss with the document than respecting and following it.

  387. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 1:29 am #

    WTF?: [quoting Attorney General Bates] “A Natural Born Citizen — Not made by law or other wise but born.” … I’m a natural born citizen. Natural because my parents were citizens.

    You interpret Bates to say what you like, not what he meant. I know this because Bates also said:

    The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …

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

    If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …

    Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship (1852).

  388. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 1:36 am #

    WTF?: How about the U.S. Attorney’s position in the District Court case for Wong Kim Ark?

    He lost.

  389. avatar
    Greg May 5, 2010 at 1:43 am #

    Have you ever read the opinion of Attorney General Bates?

    Looking back at Bates, I have to add him to the list of people who agree with me. And, I ask you, WTF, have YOU read Bates?

    As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the “accident of birth” the fact that we happened to be born in the United States. And our Constitution, in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

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

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

  390. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 1:43 am #

    WTF?: Rather than bother to point out how fraud would cause the de facto officer doctrine to be nugatory, therefore permitting all the laws to be recalled

    So do you think that pointing it out by saying you are not pointing it out excuses you from supporting the assertion with facts or authority? You have been pointed out.

  391. avatar
    nBC May 5, 2010 at 1:44 am #

    I am sure WTF’s handlers failed to properly brief him. There will be repercussions :-)

  392. avatar
    nBC May 5, 2010 at 1:47 am #

    He has read the part he likes… The rest is of course to be ignored as nonsense…

    Lovely how that works.

  393. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2010 at 2:13 am #

    WTF?: Dr. Conspiracy says; “However, the court’s logic in determining that Wong was a citizen did not rest on domicile.” Do you know what a stipulated fact is, Doc? The court need not determine that which has been stipulated.

    The Wong decision says:

    Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, …

    The decision seems to draw no distinction between “domiciled” and “resident alien” in the paragraph immediately preceding.

    While the Wong decision mentions the word “domicile” in the decision, it does not mention domicile in its cases and authorities.

  394. avatar
    Mike May 5, 2010 at 2:32 am #

    @ Greg:
    So much win! Sir, I award you a gift certificate entitling you to 12 free internets!

  395. avatar
    misha May 5, 2010 at 2:42 am #

    nBC and G: When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. Sinclair Lewis

  396. avatar
    Ruth May 8, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    I’m a relatively simple person, but I figure when the primaries were being run, that Hillary’s people AND the Republicans were looking for anything and everything to shoot Obama down. If he wasn’t American born, that would have been the FIRST thing they’d say. Those people fine-tooth comb everything. Obama wouldn’t have become a candidate at all. That was a hard campaign for everyone, and they threw everything at him. Associations, etc. There was nothing to disqualify him. Birthers keep at it, but no one would have been more bent on discovering something wrong with Obama than his opponents on both sides of the aisle. Just my two cents.

  397. avatar
    G May 8, 2010 at 3:42 am #

    I fully agree.

    Spokespeople from McCain’s campaign mentioned that they looked into the issue of Obama’s eligibility and found no merit to it.

    I’m fairly confident that HRC’s campaign did the same.

  398. avatar
    John McQueeg May 20, 2010 at 3:10 pm #

    There’s an interesting and as of yet unexplored element of the Hollander lawsuit. Part of his case was based on the claim that the birth certificate he presented to the court was from the “Colon Hospital,” reportedly located outside of the Canal Zone and in Panama proper. Not that it would matter given McCain’s parents were both citizens, but Hollander is wrong about this.

    The “Colon Hospital” suggested on that document was the old hospital on 2nd Street in downtown Colon. Going by modern maps from before the 1999 transfer of the canal it would appear that this site was outside of the Canal Zone. But at McCain’s birth, that wasn’t the case at all. Part of downtown Colon (which itself was an American-built city for the pre-canal railroad that used to be called Aspinwall) was actually placed inside of the canal zone by the 1914 treaty that established American control. See here:

    http://tinyurl.com/2bk4hzw

    It included the first few blocks along the waterfront, where an artillery battery was located (called Fort DeLesseps) and where the American administrative buildings sat. This included the American-operated Hotel Washington, the American Cristobal High School for children of Canal Zone workers, and the U.S. Government-built old Colon Hospital on 2nd Street where the Hollander birth certificate allegedly came from.

    This portion of the Canal Zone was ceded back to Panama by treaty in 1955, but from 1914-1955 (including McCain’s birth in 1936) it was part of the Canal Zone. So even if we accept the Hollander certificate as genuine (personally I think it’s too bad of a scan to conclusively perform the analysis necessary to authenticate it), the point Hollander is making with it is moot because it too came from a hospital in what was part of the Canal Zone at the time.