Main Menu

Freepers score a “gotcha” on the Doc

Freepers do the Happy Dance

The Freepers have taken me to task for something I said that wasn’t quite right. Of course, like everything they disagree with, the language becomes quickly hyperbolic, and my mistake become a lie, and my whole body of work becomes propaganda. It’s somewhat vexing not to be permitted to post over there, to reply and set the record straight, leaving me to do it here.

I originally approached this Obama conspiracy theories business with an open mind, and I try to do the same with each new twist and turn of the birther movement. When Leo C. Donofrio publicized his theories that research into the sources of the US Constitution led him to believe that natural born citizens must have citizen parents, I read everything I could get on the subject. This meant many hours of Google searches and buying some books. One of the books I bought was James H. Kettner’s book, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608 – 1870, published by the University of North Carolina Press.

While Kettner’s 391-page book  covers the material in considerable detail, it never comes out and defines “natural born citizen.” However, it does provide extensive background into where American ideas on citizenship came from, and in particular gives considerable discussion to Lord Coke’s decision in Calvin’s Case.

I said in a comment here that Kettner’s book never mentions Emmerich de Vattel, and that is not true. There is one mention of a British loyalist, Peter van Schaack, who read Vattel and several other writers to help him decide whether he could legitimately participate in the American Revolution, concluding that he would not participate. That is the one and only mention of Vattel in the book.

While I believed that Kettner did not mention Vattel when I wrote it, I should have known better. Vattel is listed in the index, and my copy of Kettner even has the Vattel passage highlighted. All I can say as an excuse is that I read the book some months ago, since the Vattel reference was off topic, I forgot it.

All that said, nowhere in Kettner’s book is Vattel mentioned as a source of American ideas on citizenship. How do the historical revisionists explain a major scholarly work on the development of US Citizenship completely ignoring Vattel as a contributor to the topic of the book? They jump all over my tiny mistake, but ignore the substance of what I said.

The Freepers can do Snoopy’s “Happy Dance” because they got on on the old Doc, but they have lost the war. Kettner’s book is just one more proof that Vattel is irrelevant to the acquisition of American citizenship.

One birther, not to waste a citation, uses this quote from Kettner as proof that even “lowly farmers” read Vattel. Actually Peter van Schaack was not a “lowly farmer” but a prominent lawyer. Here is a picture of his lowly farm house, which still stands today in Kinderhook, NY.

Peter van Schaack house in New York

122 Responses to Freepers score a “gotcha” on the Doc

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 31, 2010 at 9:12 pm #

    Linda wrote:

    And once again, I never said that that reference had anything to do with Vattel & citizenship. I merely put it out there as proof that Vattel was common to the colonists, including lowly farmers.

    For someone who calls me a “bald faced liar”, that comment is a pretty foolhardy one.

    Also on Broad Street [Kinderhook, NY] is the Peter Van Schaack House, built in 1785, is reputed to be the State’s first law school. Van Schaack, a prominent attorney, hosted many distinguished guests here such as John Jay, Aaron Burr, Martin Van Buren and Washington Irving.

    http://www.kngg.org/strategy.shtml

    Peter van Schaack is anything but a “lowly farmer.”

    See also:

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70815F73C5C11738DDDAF0894D0405B8885F0D3

  2. avatar
    Ballantine October 31, 2010 at 9:22 pm #

    I never said that Congress used Vattel when discussing “natural born”. What I showed was that they used him in the discussions of who were the sovereigns & the rights of the states formed by individial sovereigns acting in consent not subjection in regards to power of the federal government. You will not find one refernce in Blackstone as to an individual’s right to be a free sovereign as he did not believe in it. Blackstone was a bold opposer to all things Republic and the individual as a sovereign. According to Kettner, Vattel became a mainstay in US colleges & homes by 1773. The easiest citizenship law to find after the decalration is VA & that law follows Vattel, Locke, Sidney in regards to citizenship by birth. Kettner also goes as far as to say that the only parts of Blackstone the founders considered regarding the individual was Blackstone’s section on natural law, which I agree, it is the best part of his works. But then when one reads well further into the works, Tucker takes Blackstone to task on the rest of it & even Tucker references Vattel to refute Blackstone, though Tucker does rely more on Locke, Sidney & Pufendorf, he is still very outspoken & against Blackstone’s reliance on feudal law of allegiance to a person, especially perpetual allegiance. He calls Blackstone, no friend of republicanism. No one new that more than Sidney who was beheaded for his belief in natural law & Locke who had to escape into exile because of his belief in it.

    Honestly, I don’t know what you are trying to argue. You obviosuly have not done much research. Virginia didn’t have pure jus soloi citizenship during the war when the state was full of disloyal people. Howver, within weeks of the treaty of Paris, they changed the law to make a citizen of anyone born in Virginia and such law remained in place until the Civil War. Please do some research before coming here. I really don’t understand the rest of your comments. You think St. George Tucker supports your interpretation? He said the president must be native born and cited authority that a natural born citizen was someone born in a state. Is English your first language? Oh right, are not you the one who tried to argue that Kent’s statement that anyone born in the United States was a native really meant soemthing else? Such was perhaps the most dishonest interpretation of language I have ever seen. And why do you keep citing Wilson? He never defined who was natural born. But, of course, you can’t cite any early authority actually defining natural born in accordance with de Vattel. Simply doesn’t exist. And you seem to have never read the actual debates from the Constitutional Convention where the only thing discussed was place of birth. Seems like you have a lot of work to do. By the way, Lord Coke based the English common law just soli rule of natural law. Why do you think the framers would have thought jus soli was not the rule of natural law?

  3. avatar
    richCares October 31, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

    “..becomes quickly hyperbolic”
    .
    of course, that’s their MO, they get excited easily, you can tell by the white spots on their bathroom walls

  4. avatar
    Ballantine October 31, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    Awww, & neither was the Constitution written in 1868 & for every Rawle, there is another James Wilson who actually wrote the document, or a Sen. Howard, Trumbell or Rep Bingham who actually wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1866 & the 14th that was ratified in 1868 as well as the Expatriation Act of 1868

    Again, you don’t know what you are talking about. Bingham had nothing to do with the citizenship clause of either the Civil Rights Act or the 14th Amendment. Trumbull, who wrote the Civil Rights Act, said about 6 times that he intended to make children of aliens citizens. He also said the president must be native born and that natural born citizen meant the same thing as natural born subject. No one in such Congress said they agreed with Bingham’s interpretaion. The Expatriation Act had nothing to do with who was a citizen at birth. Duh. Again, you cannot name any early authority to support you interpretation.

  5. avatar
    Majority Will October 31, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    Linda: “I never said that Congress used Vattel when discussing “natural born”. ”

    O.K. Thanks for the pointless sophistry. Loon.

  6. avatar
    Rickey October 31, 2010 at 9:36 pm #

    Linda: In 1885, US Secretary Of State under Grover Cleveland, Thomas Bayard…the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, is not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’Thomas Bayard was the fourth generation of his family to serve in the U.S. Senate and was considered a prominent Bourbon Democrat.http://www.scribd.com/doc/19579587/Nation-Article-Bayard

    From the same article:

    Secretary Fish [a Republican], in instructions written in 1873, said “So far as concerns our own local law, a child born in the United States to a British subject is a citizen of the United States.” That sounds a lot like Barack Obama’s status when he was born.

    The point of the article is that there were differing opinions about the citizenship of children who were born in the U.S. to parents who were not themselves American citizens. However, the article was published before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark, and that ruling resolved the issue.

  7. avatar
    Arthur October 31, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    Linda:
    The release of Algernon Sidney’s treatises on natural law directly resulted in the original uprising in England in the mid 1600′s that ended with the ousting of King James. Those writings & Sidney’s speeches got him sentenced as a traitor and in the end resulted in his beheading. Locke, while living at the same time, actually took part in the insurrection & he escaped to exile before he got caught. Locke didn’t return to England until after the overthrow of King James & the seating of the new King whom he had championed for.

    Linda:

    To my knowledge, until this evening I had never read a post by you on this site, so welcome. I enjoyed reading your comments, but I wish you were more precise in your reference to the kings of England. There were two James who ruled during the 1600s, James I and James II. It can be confusing to figure out who is who without those I’s and II’s. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “&amp.” Is this an abbreviation of some sort? I was also confused when you apparently referred to the Glorious Revolution as an event that took place during the mid 1600s. Maybe you were thinking of the English Civil War?

    I also found your reference to John Locke’s departure from England a bit confusing. You say that he fled because of an “insurrection,” by which I think you mean the Rye House Plot. However, no insurrection took place, as the plot fell apart before any action against Charles II occurred. Moreover, there’s no evidence that Locke participated in the Rye House Plot, although agents of King Charles II suspected he was sympathetic to the plotter’s cause.

    Regarding Sidney’s execution, he was not convicted through speeches (only one person could testify to Sidney’s call for insurrection) but through his written work, especially “Discourses Concerning Government.” Finally, I think it’s more accurate to characterize Sidney’s written work as a critique on the tyranny of monarchical rule (especially when the monarch was Catholic; Sidney was an ardent Protestant) rather than as “treatises on natural law.” While Sidney supported the principle of natural rights, he didn’t support the right of freedom of religion. For example, shortly before his execution, Sidney wrote that he was dedicated to upholding, “the Common rights of mankind, the lawes of this land, and the true Protestant religion, against corrupt principles, arbitrary power and Popery.”

  8. avatar
    Joey October 31, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    I wonder how many references to deVattel there have been in the legal briefs of either plaintiffs or defendants in actual Barack Obama eligibility lawsuits and appeals. By last count there have been more than eighty civil actions filed and adjudicated, counting appeals panels and the eight denials of Writs of Certiorari at the Supreme Court of the United States.
    I know of one reference to deVattel, in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana. That three judge panel mentions in their opinion that the plaintiffs relied on deVattel and other sources for their argument that Barack Obama was ineligible to receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes due to his father not being an American citizen.
    The Indiana Court of Appeals’ Opinion stated: “We conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes regardless of the birthplace of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009

  9. avatar
    Ballantine October 31, 2010 at 9:45 pm #

    Rickey: From the same article:Secretary Fish [a Republican], in instructions written in 1873, said “So far as concerns our own local law, a child born in the United States to a British subject is a citizen of the United States.” That sounds a lot like Barack Obama’s status when he was born.The point of the article is that there were differing opinions about the citizenship of children who were born in the U.S. to parents who were not themselves American citizens. However, the article was published before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark, and that ruling resolved the issue.

    Why cite Secretary Bayard? Why not Secretary Marcy much closer to the founding in 1854:

    “I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship.”

    How about Attorney Genral Black in 1859:

    “a free white person born in this country of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States”

    How about Attorney General Bates in 1862:

    “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.”

    Of course, are you not aware that the Supreme Court expressly rejected the de Vattel theory in 1898 and held that “natural born citizen” was defined by place of birth in accordance with the common law? It is astounding that the birthers don’t understand that this has been settled law for a century. Of course, it seems clear there are few people on your side who know how to read a legal opinion.

  10. avatar
    Ballantine October 31, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    Linda,

    As you clearly have not read or understood the debates from the Constitutional Convention, and you do not know that all they discussed was whether office holders needed to be native born, attached are the debates so you can educate yourself. Of course, I know you will try to claim they meant something other than what they actually said.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=bjEOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=elliot+debates++%22place+of+birth%22&hl=en&ei=PhzOTP6EIMGBlAf9_uHjCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

  11. avatar
    gorefan October 31, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    Linda : “Rawle is only mentioned one one other page & also in footnote only.”

    Ok. Linda, I gave DancingRabbit two challenges, both of which he was too scared to take up, are you braver?

    How many times are words or phrases in the Constitution mentioned in Blackstone or Vattel.

    For example, how many times does Blackstone mention ex post facto laws versus how many times does Vattel mention ex post facto laws?

    Use these items from the Constitution:

    Ex post facto,
    bills of attainder,
    habeas corpus,
    letters of Marque,
    impeachment,
    pardons,
    “Offenses against the Law of Nations”,
    piracy,
    felonies,
    high seas,
    “Corruption of Blood”,
    “natural born”

    And the second challenge, how many times is Vattel cited by the Supreme Court versus the number of times Blackstone is cited.

    So Linda are you up for the challenges?

  12. avatar
    Obsolete October 31, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    Again, birthers can come here and argue minute details and quotes, but will not find one conservative law scholar who agrees with them.
    What about Ted Olsen? Nope.
    Any others? Nope.

  13. avatar
    Rickey October 31, 2010 at 10:05 pm #

    Ballantine:
    Why cite Secretary Bayard?

    I assume that you intended to direct that to Linda!

    Of course, she cited Bayard because his quote seems to support the birther position.

  14. avatar
    Ballantine October 31, 2010 at 10:09 pm #

    gorefan: Linda : “Rawle is only mentioned one one other page & also in footnote only.”Ok. Linda, I gave DancingRabbit two challenges, both of which he was too scared to take up, are you braver?How many times are words or phrases in the Constitution mentioned in Blackstone or Vattel. For example, how many times does Blackstone mention ex post facto laws versus how many times does Vattel mention ex post facto laws?Use these items from the Constitution:Ex post facto,bills of attainder,habeas corpus,letters of Marque,impeachment,pardons,“Offenses against the Law of Nations”,piracy,felonies,high seas,“Corruption of Blood”,“natural born”And the second challenge, how many times is Vattel cited by the Supreme Court versus the number of times Blackstone is cited.So Linda are you up for the challenges?

    Here is a further challenge. Please cite anything in the Constitution based upon the Law of Nations. Not sure there is anything. On the other hand, much, if not most of the Constitution is expressly based upon the English common law and English bill of rights as defined by Blackstone. Where you think “due process of law,” “habits corpus,” “privilege and immunities,” “juries and grand juries,” “presentiment and indictments,” “impeachment,” “felonies,” “high crimes and misdemeanors,” “freedom of speech,” “the speech and debate clause,””right to bear arms.” “sovereign immunity,” “prohibition of excessive bail,” “cruel and unusual punishment,” “unreasonable searches” come from?

    According to Justice Scalia:

    “It is apparent from all this that the traditional English understanding of executive power, or, to be more precise, royal prerogatives, was fairly well known to the founding generation, since they appear repeatedly in the text of the Constitution in formulations very similar to those found in Blackstone.” Justice Antonin Scalia, Originalism, the Lessor Evil, 57 U. Cin. L. Rev. 849 (1989).

    More Scalia:

    JUSTICE SCALIA: I wouldn’t — I don’t use British law for everything. I use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase “the right to be confronted with witnesses against him” — what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time. And that isn’t so for every provision of the Constitution. The one you mentioned — what does sovereignty consist of? — that is probably one on which I would consult English law, because it was understood when the Constitution was framed that the states remained, at that time in 1789, separate sovereigns. Well, what were the prerogatives of a sovereign, as understood by the framers of the Constitution? The same as was understood by their English forebears. So that’s why I would use English law — not at all because I think we are still very much aligned legally, socially, philosophically with England. That’s not the reason. Cass Sunstein, A Constitution of many minds: why the founding document doesn’t mean what it meant before, pg. 200-01 (2009)

    Scalia is, of course, famous for citing Blackstone in pretty much every Constitutional case he writes on. That is because so much of the Constitution is expressly based upon English law. I suggest you actually read some Supreme Court cases.

  15. avatar
    Ballantine October 31, 2010 at 10:10 pm #

    Rickey: I assume that you intended to direct that to Linda!Of course, she cited Bayard because his quote seems to support the birther position.

    Of course. Been a long day.

  16. avatar
    Arthur October 31, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

    I came across this interview a couple of months ago and thought it might be useful to post it as we discuss the relative obscurity/influence of our old friend E. de Vattel. Spencer Kornhaber interviews Professor Ronald Rotunda, a well-know conservative scholar of constitutional law at Chapman University’s School of Law. My favorite part of the interview is when Kornhaber asks Rotunda to comment on Vattel’s “Law of Nations” and Rotunda, author of the six volume “Treatise on Constitutional Law” responds, “The what?”

    OC Weekly (Spencer Kornhaber): I want to ask you about Orly Taitz.

    Ronald Rotunda: Yeah, she’s the one who has been sanctioned by courts for filing frivolous motions and she and thinks that Obama was born in Indonesia or something like that?

    OC Weekly (Spencer Kornhaber):Yeah.

    Ronald Rotunda: Yeah, I’d heard of her. She asked me to recommend some lawyers, and I did that and now I guess we’re best buddies, or so she says. She’s made her argument, she’s lost one case after another. I think Obama’s a citizen of the United States, a natural born citizen of the United States. I don’t feel why I should undercut a birth certificate in Hawaii–I don’t know what else you need.

    There’s some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That’s never been the law…What they [the founders] were thinking about at the time was they were just concerned about foreigners coming in.

    OC Weekly (Spencer Kornhaber):I want to ask you about something the birthers talk about, they point at Emmerich De Vattel’s The Law of Nations–

    Ronald Rotunda: I’m sorry, the what?

    OC Weekly (Spencer Kornhaber):The name is D-e V-a-t-t-e-l–

    Ronald Rotunda: I’ve heard the title of the book, I can’t spell the name. Anyway, what about it?

    OC Weekly (Spencer Kornhaber):They argue that books like this mattered a lot to the founders when they were writing the Constitution. Does that ring true?

    Ronald Rotunda: I don’t remember, what is their argument?

    OC Weekly (Spencer Kornhaber):That to be natural-born citizens, your parents have to be citizens.

    Ronald Rotunda: Actually, I just did an op-ed about this for the Chicago Tribune… Chief Justice Marshall talks about this in early opinions. He basically had the view that Congress could grant citizenship but never take it away. Then Dredd Scott came down and the Supreme Court said over a bitter dissent that the freed man, they said negroes–we call them blacks now–but negroes, even freed, can in the nature of things never be a citizen of the United States. Well this surprised a lot of blacks, particularly those who fought in the Revolutionary War on the side of the United States. And so after the Civil War, Congress proposed the 14th Amendment, the first sentence of which says all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside. That was to make sure that these people, Congress could never take away their citizenship.

    In a series of cases, the court has said that if you’re born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction, you’re a citizen. And subject to the jurisdiction doesn’t mean subject to allegiance. It’s subject to jurisdiction–that is, you’re here, they can control you. Now the people that aren’t subject to our jurisdiction, the court said in the old cases, are foreign embassy personnel, they’ve got diplomatic immunity and so on. So that the wife of the Russian ambassador–her kid, even if it’s born in a New York hospital, or a DC hospital, isn’t a US citizen. And the other category they had was an invading army, a marauding army comes in and has babies, they’re not citizens, they’re not subject to our jurisdiction, they’re fighting us. And then also they talked about American Indians because they had treaties with them, they were called domestic dependent nations and we had treaties with them and then Congress gave them all citizenship by statute.

    And the court has said you just can’t take away citizenship unless you procured it by fraud. So it doesn’t matter that only one of the people is an American citizen, I guess the mother and not the father. In fact, if they’re born in the United States, like Hawaii, then it doesn’t matter that either one is not a citizen. So she makes her argument–the court’s rejected it.

    It was pretty clear what the framers wanted. They wanted to make sure that citizenship is not something that could ever be taken away if you’ve been born or naturalized in the United States. If you’ve been naturalized in the United States and then commit treason, they can prosecute you for treason, they can execute you for treason. Some people say they should take away your citizenship because of that. Well they can’t do that and they don’t realize that if they take away your citizenship it’s no longer treason so they can execute you for that, for being treasonous.

    So her argument–if the father is Indonesian or Kenyan or whatever he is, the mother is a US citizen–but whatever happened to the two of them, he was born in Hawaii, that’s what the birth certificate said. So, it’s a free country, birthers can do what they want, but there’s no squirrel in the tree they’re barking up, as best I can tell.

  17. avatar
    GeorgetownJD October 31, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    As typical of birthers, in their haste to “prove” you wrong they failed to read the reference to de Vattel in context. Peter van Schaak, a British loyalist and classical scholar who had studied law at Columbia, retired to his farm to reread the works of political philosophers looking for literary support for his opposition to the American Revolution. After the Declaration of Independence van Shaak refused to take an the oath of allegiance the new nation. (Those birthers sure know how to pick their heroes, huh?). Nothing in the passage relates to the debate about citizenship.

  18. avatar
    gorefan October 31, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    Ballantine: According to Justice Scalia:

    Justice Scalia also says that in interpeting the Constitution, he looks at the meanings of the words they use and not the intent of the drafters.

    There is also this from Justice Scalia in D.C. v. Heller:

    “The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931) ; see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

    I have yet to find a birther who can cite anyone that shows that “ordinary citizens” would know that the so-call Vattel definition of “natural born” was used in the Constitution.

  19. avatar
    Linda October 31, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    Arthur: Linda: To my knowledge, until this evening I had never read a post by you on this site, so welcome. I enjoyed reading your comments, but I wish you were more precise in your reference to the kings of England. There were two James who ruled during the 1600s, James I and James II. It can be confusing to figure out who is who without those I’s and II’s. Also, I don’t know what you mean by “&amp.” Is this an abbreviation of some sort? I was also confused when you apparently referred to the Glorious Revolution as an event that took place during the mid 1600s. Maybe you were thinking of the English Civil War?I also found your reference to John Locke’s departure from England a bit confusing. You say that he fled because of an “insurrection,” by which I think you mean the Rye House Plot. However, no insurrection took place, as the plot fell apart before any action against Charles II occurred. Moreover, there’s no evidence that Locke participated in the Rye House Plot, although agents of King Charles II suspected he was sympathetic to the plotter’s cause. Regarding Sidney’s execution, he was not convicted through speeches (only one person could testify to Sidney’s call for insurrection) but through his written work, especially “Discourses Concerning Government.” Finally, I think it’s more accurate to characterize Sidney’s written work as a critique on the tyranny of monarchical rule (especially when the monarch was Catholic; Sidney was an ardent Protestant) rather than as “treatises on natural law.” While Sidney supported the principle of natural rights, he didn’t support the right of freedom of religion. For example, shortly before his execution, Sidney wrote that he was dedicated to upholding, “the Common rights of mankind, the lawes of this land, and the true Protestant religion, against corrupt principles, arbitrary power and Popery.”

    Locke & the Earl of Shaftesbury, a leader in the revolt in England against James went into exile, fleeing to Holland. James II was sent packing in 1688 & William III took over along side his wife Mary in 1689. Locke didn’t return to England after William was seated. And Sidney was not executed for just his works, he was very outspoken as to his position against perpetual allegiance to a king as the only person that could possibly hold the right of sovereignty, an allegiance that was forced on the people not taken by them by consent. Yes Sidney’s works relied heavily on religion and is why I don’t count him in regards to the law of nations, but to the law of nature.(Character for life: an American heritage by Don Hawkinson & Seedtime of the Republic by Clinton Rossiter) Books.google has a plethera of English historical literature posted free for the reading, especially British books on British history that is so closely linked to us through those that came. The newest book I have, America & the Law of Nations by Janis does not reference Sidney. I think because of his extreme religious views in his works, but he does reference Locke and only in regards to the law of nature & of the individual as sovereign.

    One must keep in the forefront of our minds, as St George Tucker told us, we are a nation of immigrants and not all colonies were formed by Englishmen, the Dutch, French & Swedes were here well before the 1st English arrived. We are a federal union of states formed by sovereign citizens. Canada was originally French country and a good student through research will find that many if not most of the founders/framers were taught in French at an early age. This included Washington, Jay, Jefferson, Franklin, etc, etc. Have you ever asked yourself why was it the natives spoke french? Where did they learn to speak it if the English 1st settled America? If you are a freeper member, you can go through my posts at freepers to find the links to this information. http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/pings?tab=current

    The founders needed to form a government that was suited for all religions and also form one that was just as suited to non-religious moral persons that had settled in America prior to the Brits invading and shutting down already in place govts & replaceing them with ones suitable to the King & with people selected by the King, not the people. At that point, the English-Americans became denizens.

    Vattel’s works were, non-religious, even though Vattel himself was a religious man. The fact that Vattel kept religion out of his works gave great weight & validity to his works & to the worldwide adoption/acceptance of his works globally & almost instantly & is why you can also find the Brits quoting him in their records of the House of Commons, Parliament that can also be found on google books.

  20. avatar
    Linda October 31, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: As typical of birthers, in their haste to “prove” you wrong they failed to read the reference to de Vattel in context. Peter van Schaak, a British loyalist and classical scholar who had studied law at Columbia, retired to his farm to reread the works of political philosophers looking for literary support for his opposition to the American Revolution. After the Declaration of Independence van Shaak refused to take an the oath of allegiance the new nation. (Those birthers sure know how to pick their heroes, huh?). Nothing in the passage relates to the debate about citizenship.

    Who says I neglected, it wasn’t the point of the reason I even posted the reference. The same can be said for the Coxe & Camp cases. You want to expound on those too one who thinks a JD means you know it all, especially what “domicil” meant in the day and it didn’t mean “domicile” as you so forcefully tried to make it and then retreated and never came back to the debate.

  21. avatar
    Linda October 31, 2010 at 11:49 pm #

    Rickey: I assume that you intended to direct that to Linda!Of course, she cited Bayard because his quote seems to support the birther position.

    I cited US SOS Bayard because DrCon cited AG Bates, got a problem with that. The US SOS actually had authority to enforce the law in all things immigration & aliens, not Bates the AG who was merely the lawyer for the US SOS.

    You guys really don’t see how ignorant you look to the world you look do you?

  22. avatar
    Linda October 31, 2010 at 11:52 pm #

    Ballantine: Linda,As you clearly have not read or understood the debates from the Constitutional Convention, and you do not know that all they discussed was whether office holders needed to be native born, attached are the debates so you can educate yourself. Of course, I know you will try to claim they meant something other than what they actually said.http://books.google.com/books?id=bjEOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=elliot+debates++%22place+of+birth%22&hl=en&ei=PhzOTP6EIMGBlAf9_uHjCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

    The constitution doesn’t use the word native now does it? A concept you can’t seem to understand. Try reading a dictionary prior to the 19th century sometime, especially prior to 1787.

  23. avatar
    Majority Will November 1, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    Linda:
    The constitution doesn’t use the word native now does it? A concept you can’t seem to understand. Try reading a dictionary prior to the 19th century sometime, especially prior to 1787.

    The Constitution doesn’t say two citizen parents are necessary and it doesn’t prohibit dual citizenship for Presidential eligibility requirements either.

    Now does it?

    Again, you’re just making noise.

  24. avatar
    Majority Will November 1, 2010 at 12:19 am #

    Linda: You guys really don’t see how ignorant you look to the world you look do you?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! You’re an idiot.

  25. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 1, 2010 at 12:21 am #

    OMG, are you guys still answering the trolls’ argument to nowhere?

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 12:22 am #

    Arthur: Also, I don’t know what you mean by “&amp

    &amp (followed by semicolon) is HTML markup for an ampersand (&).

  27. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 1, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    The only place that Vatell is going to be given any credibility is by birthers on the internet. It will never be considered in any court or Congress. It’s a moot argument

  28. avatar
    Majority Will November 1, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    Linda: The fact that Vattel kept religion out of his works . . .

    Fact? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    § 129. Public establishment of religion.

    But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. § 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish. [The Bill of Rights in the U. S. Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion.]

    Excerpt from The Law of Nations, de Vattel.

    You really don’t see how ignorant you look to the world do you?

    😕

  29. avatar
    Majority Will November 1, 2010 at 12:27 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: OMG, are you guys still answering the trolls’ argument to nowhere?

    Yeah, it’s mean. Kind of like teasing a sick animal.

  30. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 1, 2010 at 12:28 am #

    Watch out, Will, Doc might fine you 20 for feeding the trolls. 🙂

  31. avatar
    Majority Will November 1, 2010 at 12:31 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Watch out, Will, Doc might fine you 20 for feeding the trolls.

    Well, that’s just fine! 😀

  32. avatar
    Arthur November 1, 2010 at 12:37 am #

    Linda:

    Regarding Sidney and other Enlightenment political theorists, I too often find their use of terms like “natural law” or “natural rights” to be hypocritical, self-serving B.S. When they wanted to dismiss or attack the legitimacy of an opponent’s interests, they claimed their own interests were superior because they reflected so-called natural laws. Apart from natural laws discovered by science, laws thought to emanate from some abstract, universal truth are usually nothing more than someone’s attempt to assert the supremacy of a claim without having to provide objective evidence to support it. Thus, aristocrats asserted the divine rights of kings, and reformers claimed a divine right for self rule. I have no faith in the notion that one law is more just than another simply because someones says it’s “natural.” That sort of thing wasn’t true in ancient Greece, it wasn’t true in 17th century Europe, and it isn’t true today. People decide what is natural and what is not and then rationalize their choice by saying it comes from outside their own desires, interests, or prejudices.

  33. avatar
    Arthur November 1, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    &amp (followed by semicolon) is HTML markup for an ampersand (&).

    Thanks for the clarification. I now note that when I quoted Linda,what had appeared originally in HTML was rendered as a regular old “&.”

  34. avatar
    Arthur November 1, 2010 at 12:45 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Watch out, Will, Doc might fine you 20 for feeding the trolls.

    Fine him 20 quatloos! You know, like on the planet Triskelion.

  35. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP November 1, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    Arthur:
    Fine him 20 quatloos! You know, like on the planet Triskelion.

    I think Doc will go for that, Arthur, as long as the exchange rate is one for one.

  36. avatar
    Arthur November 1, 2010 at 12:49 am #

    Majority Will:
    [The Bill of Rights in the U. S. Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion.]

    Guess you won’t be voting for Christine “That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 1:12 am #

    Linda: The constitution doesn’t use the word native now does it? A concept you can’t seem to understand. Try reading a dictionary prior to the 19th century sometime, especially prior to 1787.

    I must say you stepped right into that one. You need to spend some time back in the minors.

    Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1766,

    Native: 2) Natural, such as according to nature: original.

    Natural: 2) Native. Original inhabitant.

    http://www.archive.org/stream/dictionaryofengl02johnuoft#page/n175/mode/2up

    So why don’t you take your own advice. You also might try reading some early American court cases where natural born and native born are freely interchanged.

    What a maroon!

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 1:23 am #

    Linda: Vattel’s works were, non-religious, even though Vattel himself was a religious man. The fact that Vattel kept religion out of his works gave great weight & validity to his works & to the worldwide adoption/acceptance of his works globally & almost instantly

    What says Vattel?

    § 125. Of piety.

    PIETY and religion have an essential influence on the happiness of a nation, and, from their importance, deserve a particular chapter. Nothing is so proper as piety to strengthen virtue, and give it its due extent. By the word Piety, I mean a disposition of soul that leads us to direct all our actions towards the Deity, and to endeavour to please him in every thing we do. To the practice of this virtue all mankind are indispensably obliged: it is the purest source of their felicity; and those who unite in civil society are under still greater obligations to practise it. A nation ought then to be pious. The superiors intrusted with the public affairs should constantly endeavour to deserve the approbation of their divine Master; and whatever they do in the name of the state, ought to be regulated by this grand view. The care of forming pious dispositions in all the people should be constantly one of the principal objects of their vigilance, and from this the state will derive very great advantages. A serious attention to merit, in all our actions, the approbation of an infinitely wise Being, cannot fail of producing excellent citizens. Enlightened piety in the people is the firmest support of a lawful authority; and, in the sovereign’s heart, it is the pledge of the people’s safety, and excites their confidence. Ye lords of the earth, who acknowledge no superior here below, what security can we have for the purity of your intentions, if we do not conceive you to be deeply impressed with respect for the common Father and Lord of men, and animated with a desire to please him?

    The Law of Nations, Book 1

    This is not your day.

  39. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: What says Vattel? This is not your day.

    Everyone citing Vattel are just cutting and pasting. No one, myself included, ever heard of him until Donofrio dug his books out of the dustbin. Now, everyone is a constitutional expert, including mail order and DWI lawyers.

    I, for one, am fed up with the Denialists’ noise. Those banging the drum are trying to incite a lone wolf, especially Beck and Orly. Riding on their coattails are Sharron Angle, DeMint, Tancredo and the rest of their coterie.

    It’s the politics of resentment, which Hitler put to good use. O’Donnell: “I didn’t go to Yale, or have a trust fund.” Yeah, GW Bush did, and so did Buckley.

    I swear, if anything happens to Obama, I will emigrate. Beck has already incited two malcontents. Then there was the shooting in Pittsburgh:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pittsburgh_police_shootings

    “Edward Perkovic, a friend of Poplawski, said the gunman feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon”. Perkovic also stated that Poplawski “didn’t like the Zionists controlling the media and controlling, you know, our freedom of speech”

  40. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 1, 2010 at 6:40 am #

    http://www.mediadico.com/dictionnaire/definition/parent/1

    The first definition of French ‘parent” is “Personne qui est de la même famille”. Actually, in the 18th century it could also mean that in English. Oxford English Dictionary says it was under the Influence of French.

    Anyone who knows some French, should now re-read the three or four paragraphs Vattle devotes to the subject, and will notice that it all makes much more sense now.

    This in fact proves how idiotic Birthers are. They use an English translation, unavailable to the Founders, to prove a point that is not even in the original, And that Vattel could not possibly have meant, considering his viewpoint on the abduction of women from foreign nations to supply breeding stock for natural born citizens.

  41. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 1, 2010 at 6:50 am #

    Vattle, Wattel, Vatel, Vattel. De, von, van. Emer, Emmerich, Emerich.

    It is a bit difficult to google him nowadays.

    But it does not matter. If Vattel gets quoted nowadays it is for historical reasons. The Van Vattel quote from 1997 I gave in the preceding thread, shows Vattel condemning rape during war, but only because it is the natural status of women not to get involved in war. When women forget their status, they are no longer protected, says our avocate of female abduction and strict gun control. The 1997 book argues that by 1864 Vattel’s ideas had become irrelevant (Henri Dunant, first attempts at a Geneva convention). It may be interesting to know how often Vattel was quoted during discussions of the behaviour of soldiers during the Civil War.

  42. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 1, 2010 at 7:00 am #

    GeorgetownJD: As typical of birthers, in their haste to “prove” you wrong they failed to read the reference to de Vattel in context.Peter van Schaak, a British loyalist and classical scholar who had studied law at Columbia, retired to his farm to reread the works of political philosophers looking for literary support for his opposition to the American Revolution.After the Declaration of Independence van Shaak refused to take an the oath of allegiancethe new nation. (Those birthers sure know how to pick their heroes, huh?). Nothing in the passage relates to the debate about citizenship.

    Actually, it seems Peter Schaak (yes, like in Emmerich van Vattel, you may drop the “van”) relied on Vattel to change his mind and NO longer participate in the rebellion against the King. While Linda actually thinks it is the other way around.

    Basically, Dr C said A does not quote Vattel.

    Linda found A quotes B who quoted Vattel to object to rebellion. While Linda CLAIMS it proves Vattel as a source for the right to rebel.

    Who’s the bald-faced liar?

  43. avatar
    Ballantine November 1, 2010 at 7:22 am #

    Linda: The constitution doesn’t use the word native now does it? A concept you can’t seem to understand. Try reading a dictionary prior to the 19th century sometime, especially prior to 1787.

    Wow, what a reponse. The debates show that the framers were only concerned about native birth and never mentioned Vattel or parentage. If you don’t know that native and natural born were used interchangably under the commmon law, you are just ifnorant/. Try reading Blackstone. Of course, you pretend Blackstone wasn’t by far the most influential book on the bommon law to the founders. Finally, I am sure you are aware that the most influential scholars in the post-founding period, people who knew the founders, said the President must be native born, Tucker, Story, Kent, Bouivier, Justice Iredell and on and on. And, of course, native was always defined solely by place of biirth,. It is clear you cannot cite one framer or early authority defining citizenship according to Vattel because there are none.

  44. avatar
    Ballantine November 1, 2010 at 7:26 am #

    Linda: I cited US SOS Bayard because DrCon cited AG Bates, got a problem with that. The US SOS actually had authority to enforce the law in all things immigration & aliens, not Bates the AG who was merely the lawyer for the US SOS.You guys really don’t see how ignorant you look to the world you look do you?

    You cited it because you can only find authority to support you lonjg after the founding where there were a few people who questioned jus soli. YOu ignore SOS Marcy and fail to point out that a few years after Bayard, the Supreme Court, which has the authority to defined the Constitution, defined natural born citizen by the English common law. Funny how your ilk keep forgetting to mention that. Or are you one of the birthers who isn’t smart enough to understand what Wong Kim Ark said?

  45. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 7:33 am #

    Ballantine: Or are you one of the birthers who isn’t smart enough to understand what Wong Kim Ark said?

    Birthers always say that Ark was predicated on Ark’s parents being domiciled in the States, therefore it does not apply to Obama.

    Every time I ask a Denialist what are they going to do when Howdy Doody Piyush Bobby Jindal runs in ’12, there is never a response.

  46. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 1, 2010 at 7:34 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: http://www.mediadico.com/dictionnaire/definition/parent/1

    I draw Lupin’s attention to this, on that same page:
    Bouhours, Remarques, dit : ” Ce mot n’est pas noble, pour dire ceux de qui nous avons re§u la vie. Il ne signifie élégamment que les personnes qui nous sont unies par le sang. ”

    So, there was an argument at the end of the seventeenth century, ended much later, whether in good, noble French the word parent could actually refer to father and/or mother.

    Gotcha, birfers!

  47. avatar
    ellid November 1, 2010 at 7:36 am #

    Linda:
    Locke & the Earl of Shaftesbury, a leader in the revolt in England against James went into exile, fleeing to Holland. James II was sent packing in 1688 & William III took over along side his wife Mary in 1689. Locke didn’t return to England after William was seated. And Sidney was not executed for just his works, he was very outspoken as to his position against perpetual allegiance to a king as the only person that could possibly hold the right of sovereignty, an allegiance that was forced on the people not taken by them by consent. Yes Sidney’s works relied heavily on religion and is why I don’t count him in regards to the law of nations, but to the law of nature.(Character for life: an American heritage by Don Hawkinson & Seedtime of the Republic by Clinton Rossiter) Books.google has a plethera of English historical literature posted free for the reading, especially British books on British history that is so closely linked to us through those that came. The newest book I have, America & the Law of Nations by Janis does not reference Sidney. I think because of his extreme religious views in his works, but he does reference Locke and only in regards to the law of nature & of the individual as sovereign.One must keep in the forefront of our minds, as St George Tucker told us, we are a nation of immigrants and not all colonies were formed by Englishmen, the Dutch, French & Swedes were here well before the 1st English arrived. We are a federal union of states formed by sovereign citizens. Canada was originally French country and a good student through research will find that many if not most of the founders/framers were taught in French at an early age. This included Washington, Jay, Jefferson, Franklin, etc, etc. Have you ever asked yourself why was it the natives spoke french? Where did they learn to speak it if the English 1st settled America? If you are a freeper member, you can go through my posts at freepers to find the links to this information. http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/pings?tab=currentThe founders needed to form a government that was suited for all religions and also form one that was just as suited to non-religious moral persons that had settled in America prior to the Brits invading and shutting down already in place govts & replaceing them with ones suitable to the King & with people selected by the King, not the people. At that point, the English-Americans became denizens.Vattel’s works were, non-religious, even though Vattel himself was a religious man. The fact that Vattel kept religion out of his works gave great weight & validity to his works & to the worldwide adoption/acceptance of his works globally & almost instantly & is why you can also find the Brits quoting him in their records of the House of Commons, Parliament that can also be found on google books.

    Your incoherent attempt at punctuation makes it impossible to understand what you are getting at. Also, the correct term for referring to residents of Great Britain is “the British,” not “Brits.” Why are you so bigoted?

  48. avatar
    ellid November 1, 2010 at 7:42 am #

    Linda:
    You guys really don’t see how ignorant you look to the world you look do you?

    Belligerant, nasty, and ignorant. Quite the combination.

  49. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 7:42 am #

    ellid: Also, the correct term for referring to residents of Great Britain is “the British,” not “Brits.” Why are you so bigoted?

    Show me a denialist who is not a bigot, “Dr.” Manning included.

    I love how a convicted felon gave himself a Phd. Yeah, a piece of paper from the garbage cans in the basement.

  50. avatar
    Ballantine November 1, 2010 at 7:43 am #

    Linda: I cited US SOS Bayard because DrCon cited AG Bates, got a problem with that. The US SOS actually had authority to enforce the law in all things immigration & aliens, not Bates the AG who was merely the lawyer for the US SOS.You guys really don’t see how ignorant you look to the world you look do you?

    Oh, and you are wrong about the SOS. The SOS does not have authority to make law. If he has a legal question, he asks for an opinion from the AG. That is how it works. AG Bates paper like it or not was one of the most cited authorities on citizenship in the 19th century as it was a rebuttal to Dred Scott and was cited in pretty much every treatise and court case following it, including the majority of the Supreme Court.

  51. avatar
    Ballantine November 1, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    misha: Birthers always say that Ark was predicated on Ark’s parents being domiciled in the States, therefore it does not apply to Obama.Every time I ask a Denialist what are they going to do when Howdy Doody Piyush Bobby Jindal runs in ’12, there is never a response.

    The court says no such thing. The facts related to a domicled alien, but the reasoning for the case was the English common law which had no such limitation. It is not uncommon for a court to speak in terms of the facts before it, but either the law is based upon the common law or it isn’t and there is no doubt that children of aliens are natural born under the common law.

  52. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    misha: Birthers always say that Ark was predicated on Ark’s parents being domiciled in the States, therefore it does not apply to Obama.

    Ballantine: The court says no such thing.

    We know that, but birthers twist it. It happened here in an exchange I had, and so I gave up. What do you think Orly and her coterie are going to say when Issa is running the show? If you think they make noise now…

  53. avatar
    Ballantine November 1, 2010 at 8:04 am #

    Of, and on the idiot assertion that people born in the colonies were not natural born subjects let’s ask the majority of the supreme court in an opinion written by a Justice born before the revolution:

    ” 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 were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state and the acknowledgement of their independence.” Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor (1830)

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 8:07 am #

    Linda: good student through research will find that many if not most of the founders/framers were taught in French at an early age.

    Citation please.

    Jefferson, of course, was fluent in French. John Marshall did not speak French (even thought he was an envoy to France) according to his biography.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 8:08 am #

    ellid: Belligerent, nasty, and ignorant. Quite the combination.

    This, plus making up facts, makes a perfect troll.

  56. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Jefferson, of course, was fluent in French.

    Elitist.

  57. avatar
    DCH November 1, 2010 at 8:29 am #

    “The only place that Vatell is going to be given any credibility is by birthers on the internet. It will never be considered in any court or Congress. It’s a moot argument”

    Exacttly..birthers are deep denialists.
    Facts: Birthers have not prevailed in any court in at leasts 75 tries and have been 100% failures on appeal.
    Not a single real law scholar or conservative GOP lawyer (they’ve got an army of them) has come foward to support any of these failed theories or cases.
    It is just fun to watch cranks make idoits of themselves predictably.

    Birthers – every arguement has failed, your cases have all ended the same way. Dismissed or denied.

    Did it ever occur to you that you are simply wrong?

  58. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    DCH: Did it ever occur to you that you are simply wrong?

    No, the lord is on their side. Just ask Sharron Angle, or Christine O’Donnell:

    “God always provides a way out.”

  59. avatar
    kimba November 1, 2010 at 8:48 am #

    misha: It’s the politics of resentment

    Linda: You want to expound on those too one who thinks a JD means you know it all,

    Linda seems to show her resentment quite readily. A regular reader would be familiar with Georgetown JD’s reputation for adding knowledgeable, well-informed ideas to the discussions here. If Linda’s come here to slay Obots, from what I’ve read so far, she’s wayyyyy out of her league. I am reminded of the musical “Chicago” and a line from the song “Give them The Old Razzle Dazzle”. “Throw ’em a fake and a finagle. They’ll never know you’re just a bagel,” You don’t need a Georgetown JD, but you’ve got to have more than just “the old Hocus pocus” at Doc’s. “Schaak was a lowly farmer” might get past the birthers, but Linda’s got to step up her game here.

  60. avatar
    Black Lion November 1, 2010 at 9:18 am #

    kimba: Linda seems to show her resentment quite readily. A regular reader would be familiar with Georgetown JD’s reputation for adding knowledgeable, well-informed ideas to the discussions here. If Linda’s come here to slay Obots, from what I’ve read so far, she’s wayyyyy out of her league. I am reminded of the musical “Chicago” and a line from the song “Give them The Old Razzle Dazzle”. “Throw em a fake and a finagle. They’ll never know you’re just a bagel,” You don’t need a Georgetown JD, but you’ve got to have more than just “the old Hocus pocus” at Doc’s. “Schaak was a lowly farmer” might get past the birthers, but Linda’s got to step up her game here.

    Linda used the same arguments about a year ago over at tROSL….She is excellent at using obscure books and citations to attempt to support her position.

  61. avatar
    ellid November 1, 2010 at 9:37 am #

    A couple of interesting facts about Peter van Schaak:

    – He went to England for several years during and just after the Revolution. It is unknown if he took his copy of Vattel with him.

    – His large, fashionable house was clearly built in the 19th century, not the 18th, and shows that he did very well after his return to the United States.

    So much for the ” humble farmer” Linda is attempting to describe. Peter van Schaak was clearly a wealthy, well educated man who would find the ignorance and sloppiness of Linda and her ilk quite appalling.

  62. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 9:50 am #

    ellid: It is unknown if he took his copy of Vattel with him.

    No, but he did take his copy of Tropic of Cancer with him.

  63. avatar
    kimba November 1, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    Black Lion: Linda used the same arguments about a year ago over at tROSL….She is excellent at using obscure books and citations to attempt to support her position.

    Wasn’t she getting some “excellent” help at that?

  64. avatar
    Rickey November 1, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    Linda:
    I cited US SOS Bayard because DrCon cited AG Bates, got a problem with that. The US SOS actually had authority to enforce the law in all things immigration & aliens, not Bates the AG who was merely the lawyer for the US SOS.You guys really don’t see how ignorant you look to the world you look do you?

    Not so ignorant as to miss the point that the same article which you cited quotes three Secretaries of State – Fish, Blaine, and Marcy – who disagreed with Bayard. In fact, if you read the article in its entirely, it is clear that there was some confusion about what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment meant. That is why Secretary Frelinghuysen mistakenly believed that a child born to an alien in this country could lose his or her citizenship if later taken by the father to the country of the father’s allegiance.

    So yes, I do have a problem with people taking quotes out of context.

  65. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 11:30 am #

    Rickey: the same article which you cited quotes three Secretaries of State – Fish, Blaine, and Marcy – who disagreed with Bayard. So yes, I do have a problem with people taking quotes out of context.

    All that crowd does is cut and paste, from each other. Their ringleaders are felons and mail order lawyers. Beck is a recovered (so he says) alcoholic and heroin addict.

    A fine group to be proud of.

  66. avatar
    Lupin November 1, 2010 at 11:46 am #

    Linda: You guys really don’t see how ignorant you look to the world you look do you?

    Linda:

    Good afternoon. I am a 56 year old French attorney who was drawn to this site following a random google search on Vattel.

    I am well familiar with Vattel’s works, including Les Fourmis (1757), Voyages dans le Microcosme par un Disciple moderne de Pythagore (1757) et Les Boeufs, Une allégorie (1760), which are available on google books, in French, and which I recommend.

    I cannot comment on Vattel’s influence on the American founders as this is not my area of expertise.

    I can however comment on what Vattel wrote in Le Droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqués la conduite et aux affaires des Nations et des Souverains, which you commonly refer to as The Law of Nations.

    Will you accept that I am a more credible expert on Vattel than many, less informed American sources, who appear to have discovered him recently?

    (As I would accept that an American attorney is more knowledgeable about US law than I am.)

    To make things short, I will summarize a few findings which ought to be of interest to you:

    1) there are some real translation problems with Vattel: the term “indigene” which Vattel uses is not actually identical to your “natural-born citizen” or even simply “citizen”, and the word “parens” is also not identical to “parents” but is more like “relative” (as pointed by Paul here several times). So to try to adapt Vattel literally into modern & foreign concepts is difficult and can only produce arguable results.

    2) Vattel does recognize that other countries use the “jus solii” system to grant citizenship, which is totally acceptable to him, even though he understandably discusses jus sanguinis since that’s what applied to the parts of the world where he lived. There is nothing in Vattel against “jus soli”.

    3) There is no such thing as a “two citizen parents” notion in Vattel, this arising from the mistranslation of a group plural (as in “Only children whose parents are members of the club can use the swimming pool.”) That is the most egregious mistake I still see in many places.

    4) Le Droit des gens was an evolving work (like most law treatises) and the sentence where Vattel states that citizenship is transmitted via the father in jus sanguinis cases (this very sentence is itself rife with translation assumptions) was footnoted in the second edition to include transmission by the mother in cases of births out of wedlock.

    My point about all this is simple: I don’t know if Vattel was influential or not with respect to your founders, but I can tell you with certain authority that his writings do not at all bolster the case that President Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” (if one chooses to assume this is what Vattel wrote about).

    Therefore even if Vattel was influential, as you contend, you (or your attorneys) are deeply mistaken in your interpretation of his writings pertaining to citizenship.

    (So deeply and obviously mistaken in fact that it hard to believe in their sincerity.)

  67. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 11:58 am #

    Lupin: To make things short, I will summarize a few findings which ought to be of interest to you:

    That reminds me of XJ Kennedy singing “Somebody Stole My Myths.”

  68. avatar
    Rickey November 1, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Lupin:
    My point about all this is simple: I don’t know if Vattel was influential or not with respect to your founders, but I can tell you with certain authority that his writings do not at all bolster the case that President Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” (if one chooses to assume this is what Vattel wrote about).Therefore even if Vattel was influential, as you contend, you (or your attorneys) are deeply mistaken in your interpretation of his writings pertaining to citizenship.(So deeply and obviously mistaken in fact that it hard to believe in their sincerity.)

    Thank you, Lupin, for that clear and concise debunking of the claim that Vattel wrote that a natural-born citizen has to have two citizen parents.

  69. avatar
    Majority Will November 1, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    Arthur:
    Guess you won’t be voting for Christine “That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell.

    “There’s only truth and not truth. You’re either very good or evil.” — Christine O’Donnell, November 12, 2006, Wilmington News-Journal

  70. avatar
    Lupin November 1, 2010 at 12:18 pm #

    Rickey: Thank you, Lupin, for that clear and concise debunking of the claim that Vattel wrote that a natural-born citizen has to have two citizen parents.

    Ad I wrote in the earlier thread, it’s as if the birthers treat “Vattel” as a “Shazam”-like magic word which, once uttered, magically produces the desired result.

    It just isn’t so.

  71. avatar
    ballantine November 1, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    Well, it has to be frustrating for these people. All they can really do is argue that de Vattel was so, so influential that they must have defined citizenship by him even though they can’t find anyone in the period that actually says that. You see, it was a big secret that only they figured out.

    Let’s review:

    (1) The Supreme Court rejected the de Vattel theory more than a century ago and stare decisis dictates it is unlikely they will ever re-visit the issue.

    (2) They cannot find one statement by a framer supporting the de Vattel theory.

    (3) They cannot find any early legal authority supporting the de Vattel theory.

    (4) We can cite hundreds of authorities over the past 220 years supporting a jus soli interpretation. They can cite 5 or 6, most in the late 19th century before the Supreme Court settled the issue.

    Thus, this is what a court calls a frivolous argument.

  72. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 12:28 pm #

    ballantine: All they can really do is argue that de Vattel was so, so influential that they must have defined citizenship by him even though they can’t find anyone in the period that actually says that.

    I can do the Vattel waltz, too:

    Hitler had a moustache.
    Mother Theresa had a moustache.
    Mother Theresa is Hitler.

    See?

    Let’s try another:

    Humans have opposable thumbs.
    Lemurs have opposable thumbs.
    Birthers are lemurs.

    This is fun!

  73. avatar
    mystylplx November 1, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    Linda: The constitution doesn’t use the word native now does it? A concept you can’t seem to understand. Try reading a dictionary prior to the 19th century sometime, especially prior to 1787.

    Indeed. Like Samuel Johnsons ‘A Dictionary of the English Language’ , published 1755, which includes one definition of “natural” as “see native.”

    http://www.archive.org/details/dictionaryofengl02johnuoft

  74. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) November 1, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    Majority Will: “There’s only truth and not truth. You’re either very good or evil.” — Christine O’Donnell, November 12, 2006, Wilmington News-Journal

    Or a hypocrite who preaches about not mastubating and the truth while getting drunk and coming close to a one night stand with a guy much younger than you

  75. avatar
    gorefan November 1, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    Linda: The constitution doesn’t use the word native now does it?

    The founders knew the English language, they knew how to use synonyms.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    The van Schaack house pictured is from 1785.

  77. avatar
    Scott Brown November 1, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

    Arthur, I must commend you on your civility. It is an odd occurrence at this blog. Dr. C said he wasn’t going to tolerate the bashing anymore, yet I see it continues, even by the blog owner himself (although accusing someone of living on mountain tops isn’t too harsh I suppose). I appreciate that you do not stoop to that level and that you treat your fellow Americans with the respect we all deserve.

    Majority Will: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! You’re an idiot.

    Dr. Conspiracy: What a maroon!

    Paul Pieniezny: This in fact proves how idiotic Birthers are.

    ellid: Belligerant, nasty, and ignorant. Quite the combination.

    Surely you can come up with better than this:

    Majority Will: The Constitution doesn’t say two citizen parents are necessary and it doesn’t prohibit dual citizenship for Presidential eligibility requirements either.
    Now does it?

    And the Constitution doesn’t say it only takes one citizen parent or allow for dual citizenship for Presidential eligibility requirements either.

    Now does it?

    I’m guessing – but then I’m one of those ‘maroon’ non-believers – that you think the ‘natural’ part of NBC is hypocritical, self-serving B.S. and is thus the basis for this statement:
    Arthur: So her argument–if the father is Indonesian or Kenyan or whatever he is, the mother is a US citizen–but whatever happened to the two of them, he was born in Hawaii, that’s what the birth certificate said. So, it’s a free country, birthers can do what they want, but there’s no squirrel in the tree they’re barking up, as best I can tell.

    You make a nice neat argument for Obama being a US Citizen, which I don’t think anyone is disputing (I know I’m not), but you don’t make such a good argument for Obama being a Natural Born Citizen. I don’t have a squirrel in my tree either, nor is my dog barking up the tree, but as best I can tell you have presented a pretty empty argument.

    Again – same argument as above:
    Rickey: a child born in the United States to a British subject is a citizen of the United States.” That sounds a lot like Barack Obama’s status when he was born.

    Us ‘maroons’ are not arguing the fact that Obama is a US Citizen as you have made the case for here. We are arguing that he is not a NBC. Apples and Oranges here Rickey.

    DCH: Did it ever occur to you that you are simply wrong?

    Yes, as a matter of fact – it has occurred to me that I could be wrong. But I could ask you the exact same question.

    I guess I don’t understand why Vattel is so heavily discussed here. My belief is based on what I perceive as common sense. If you have one US Citizen parent and the other parent is a foreign national, how can their offspring then be a Natural Born Citizen of either country? Where would his loyalties and allegiances lay – with which country? If it is in question (and we do have to question Obama) – then by virtue of the question alone, that person couldn’t possibly have only one allegiance/loyalty.

    What I’m trying to say is that IN MY OPINION (which could very well be wrong) a Natural Born Citizen is a Citizen who would not have any possibility of competing loyalties or allegiances, which does not apply to Obama, again, IN MY OPINION.

    That said – Obama is the President. Obama is in the White House serving his term as POTUS, so my next question – why on Earth do you all protest and defend him to the point of calling fellow American citizens names and belittling anyone who happens to have a different opinion, no matter the basis is for that opinion? I don’t think any of you are ‘maroons’ for thinking Obama is a NBC. Quite the opposite. I respect the fact that you have an opinion and have taken a stand; although I question the lengths to which you go to defend that opinion.

    And Misha – Jindal is not qualified to run for POTUS since, like Obama, he is not a NBC. I would not support Jindal for POTUS; although I highly support him as Governor of Louisiana.

  78. avatar
    ellid November 1, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The van Schaack house pictured is from 1785.

    The original building may have been built then, but the architecture of the present structure is much more typical of the early 19th century. He lived there until 1835, so it wouldn’t be at all surprising if he had the house expanded and/or redone in a more fashionable style.

  79. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

    ellid: it wouldn’t be at all surprising if he had the house expanded and/or redone in a more fashionable style.

    The Addams family did it.

  80. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 1, 2010 at 2:14 pm #

    Birthers ultimately have one problem…

    They start from their conclusion, and work backwords. This is the crux of their argument on Vattel…

    Barack Obama is ineligible. (the ultimate conclusion that they want to reach)
    Vattel seems to make Barack Obama ineligible.
    Therefore, Vattel is what the constitution is based upon.

    Vattel is what the constitution is based upon.
    The founders wrote the constitution.
    Therefore, the Vattel was influential in citizenship issues with the founders…

    You get the idea.

    That is the essence of their argument, laid out to see how ridiculous it actually is.

    Same thing with a travel ban to Pakistan (which has been debunked thousands of times).

    Barack Obama is not American…
    Barack Obama traveled to Pakistan.
    Therefore, he must have done it on a foreign passport…

  81. avatar
    Majority Will November 1, 2010 at 3:15 pm #

    ellid:
    The original building may have been built then, but the architecture of the present structure is much more typical of the early 19th century.He lived there until 1835, so it wouldn’t be at all surprising if he had the house expanded and/or redone in a more fashionable style.

    Completely unrelated, but check out what the cat dragged in . . .
    http://bluearkansasblog.com/?p=4490

    Bloated raver found another corner of the internet to skulk around with those Cheetos stained stubs still stabbing away at the keys.

  82. avatar
    ballantine November 1, 2010 at 3:21 pm #

    This freeper thread is comedy gold. Must have some of the dumbest people around.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2618338/posts#comment

    Our friend Linda has risen to new heights. Of course, the fact that this lawyer we had never heard of consulted all the writers on international law before deciding where to place his allegiance in the war obviously means everyone defined citizenship at birth by de Vattel. I cannot imagine a more stupid argument. She then found that a delegate cited de Vattel and Locke and subjects unrelated to citizenship and eligiblity and hence therefore, of course, de Vattel controls everything. Duh. Too bad half the Constitution is expressly based upon english law and there is no evidence an particular provision was based upon de Vattel. My favorite part is this:

    “As far as scholars….well, lets see there’s Kent, Story, Tucker, Wilson, de Tocqueville; Pres. Wilson (law professor); Pres. F. D. Roosevelt; Pres. T. Roosevelt; B. Obama (adjunct law lecturer, see the NY Times, they posted his course study packet info & it included Vattel’s Law of Nations) & the latest hot off the press (2010 1st addition) & aqcquired from Oxford in GB…America & the Law of Nations 1776-1939 by Janis (Prof Law @ Mich & Fellow of Law @ Oxford)…want me to go on? ”

    So, you see, since Obama included Vattel in his course means that Vattel and all the Constitution is based upon de Vattel. Of course, none of these authorities defined citizenship or eligiblity by de Vattel. But they think if they mentioned de Vattel in any context it meant they defined everything be de Vattel. She knows very well, unless she really is an idiot, that Kent, Story and Tucker all defined citizenship and eligiblity by the common law and that Wilson never defined eligiblity and curiously defined citizenship by those entitled to vote. Clearly not relevant to the subject of citizenship at birth.

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

    “A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

    “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Citizens, under our constitutions nnd laws, mean free inlnbitants, born within the United States, or naturalized, under the laws of Congress.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1836)

    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States….” James Kent John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on American Law, Vol. 1, pg. 333 (1901)

    “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. ” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

    “Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 Juy, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.” Justice Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)

    “It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1840 ed.)

  83. avatar
    ballantine November 1, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    It is also funny that these people think that if they cite a few random authorites in any era praising de Vattel, it somehow is dispositive to what the framers thought. Do these people honestly have any idea on how many authorites we can cite to the contrary. Here is a link with around 400 authorities on google books defining natural born citizen over the past 2 centuries by native birth or the common law. There clearly are hundreds more that i have not gotten around to including. Of course, they are all wrong.

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html

  84. avatar
    ellid November 1, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Completely unrelated, but check out what the cat dragged in . . .
    http://bluearkansasblog.com/?p=4490Bloated raver found another corner of the internet to skulk around with those Cheetos stained stubs still stabbing away at the keys.

    And as usual, he’s lecturing people on things he knows nothing about. What a fatheaded fool, in every sense of the word.

  85. avatar
    ballantine November 1, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    ellid: And as usual, he’s lecturing people on things he knows nothing about. What a fatheaded fool, in every sense of the word.

    Are you kidding? He brings out the dredded Perkins v. Elg card where he slays the doubters with the claim that Elg said “A child born in the USA to immigrant parents, would be a Natural Born Citizen, if both parents had naturalized before the birth.” Of course, he either never read the case or he can;t understand english as such case never said anything remotely like that. The court only mentioned “natural born citizen” when it acknowledged the lower court had determined Elg was a natural born citizen and seemed to agree with such interpretation without explanation:

    “The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants, declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”

    Of course, a child would then look to the lower court to see what the supreme court appeared to be agreeing with:

    “The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States.” Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1938), modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

    I really boggles the mind how anyone can think Elg supports the de Vattel interpretation. these really are some of the world’s dumbest people.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    ellid: – His large, fashionable house was clearly built in the 19th century, not the 18th, and shows that he did very well after his return to the United States.

    The house was built in 1785. I can’t say what remodeling has been done over the years.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    Scott Brown: Arthur, I must commend you on your civility. It is an odd occurrence at this blog.

    One notes that you go on to selectively cite what you consider uncivil from one side, while ignoring incivility from the other side. I personally don’t respect misleading statements.

    The fact is that when presented with outrageous comments, some of us get outraged.

  88. avatar
    gorefan November 1, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    Scott Brown: What I’m trying to say is that IN MY OPINION (which could very well be wrong) a Natural Born Citizen is a Citizen who would not have any possibility of competing loyalties or allegiances, which does not apply to Obama, again, IN MY OPINION.

    Your opinion and my opinion don’t really matter do they Scott?

    How about James Madison’s opinion that place of birth determines allegiance,

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other.

    In the United States, place of birth deteremines allegiance, it is “unnecessary to investigate any other.”

  89. avatar
    misha November 1, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    Scott Brown: And Misha – Jindal is not qualified to run for POTUS since, like Obama, he is not a NBC. I would not support Jindal for POTUS; although I highly support him as Governor of Louisiana.

    Howdy Doody Piyush Bobby Jindal was born on US soil, and has lived here 14 years – ergo, he is NBC and qualified to run for potus.

    If you are born on US soil, and not the child of a diplomat, you are good to go. I don’t care what some third rate lawyer says. I believe in the ballot box, not the witness box.

    That’s the problem with liberals – we’re sooo rational.

  90. avatar
    ellid November 1, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    @Scott/Sally/whatever you’re calling yourself this week:

    Kindly explain how a child who was born on American soil, lived all but a few years of life in America, was raised in America by American parents, was educated in America, married an American wife and fathered American children, and met his non-American father all of twice, could possibly have allegiance to any country BUT America.

  91. avatar
    Rickey November 1, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    Scott Brown:
    Us maroons’ are not arguing the fact that Obama is a US Citizen as you have made the case for here. We are arguing that he is not a NBC. Apples and Oranges here Rickey.

    If you had taken the time to follow this thread, you would have seen that I was responding to a post by Linda about citizenship, not natural born citizenship.

    However, now that you mention it, I will point out that there are only two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen.

  92. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    ellid: @Scott/Sally/whatever you’re calling yourself this week:Kindly explain how a child who was born on American soil, lived all but a few years of life in America, was raised in America by American parents, was educated in America, married an American wife and fathered American children, and met his non-American father all of twice, could possibly have allegiance to any country BUT America.

    Because it neatly fits her bigoted, xenophobic derangement and fear based delusions.

    Just a guess.

    That and birthers are highly allergic to reason.

    😀

  93. avatar
    dunstvangeet November 2, 2010 at 12:43 am #

    ellid: @Scott/Sally/whatever you’re calling yourself this week:Kindly explain how a child who was born on American soil, lived all but a few years of life in America, was raised in America by American parents, was educated in America, married an American wife and fathered American children, and met his non-American father all of twice, could possibly have allegiance to any country BUT America.

    Easy…

    Barack Obama is ineligible to be President, therefore, he must have hidden loyalties… These people work back from the conclusion. Their entire premise is that Barack Obama is ineligible to be President. Therefore, he must have these things such as divided loyalties. Nobody quite explains what loyalty he has to Britian, or Kenya (especially since he doesn’t hold citizenship to either currently), but he must have divided loyalties, because he is ineligible.

    And Scott Brown…

    Let me ask you this one question…

    Italy determines that anybody who is the child of a citizen is a citizen of Italy…

    So, you have a family where the grandfather immigrated from Italy. He married an American woman, and had a child. The child was born before he was Naturalized as a U.S. Citizen. Since this is a child of a citizen of Italy, that makes this child also a citizen of Italy. He is also, from birth, a U.S. Citizen.

    Now, this child grows up, and marries an American Citizen, and has a child. This child, by being born to a Citizen of Italy is a Citizen of Italy. He is also a Citizen of the U.S., by virtue of being born in the United States. Tell me, does this person meet your definition of Natural Born Citizen? After all, the person is at birth, a dual citizen (of Italy and the United States). However, this person is also born to 2 U.S. Citizen Parents. And if this person has “no possible alliegance to Italy” than why does Italy determine him to be a citizen. I can guarentee that you’d get absolutely no support for your position in the Supreme Court, Scott Brown. It’d be a 9-0 decision, saying that anybody born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen. Now, there’s some sub-issues that might not get a 9-0 decision, but the fact that anybody born in the United States (or even a territory that later became a state) would be eligible for the President would be a 9-0 decision. Not even Antonin Scalia would accept your definition (he’d probably take the word back to the Blackstone definition if he wrote an opinion on it). You’re arguing that “Natural Born Citizen” has some sort of Secret Meaning that the founders knew about but told nobody else. Justice Scalia directly went against that theory.

    Now, there’s some more technical meanings that might not get a 9-0 vote. 1Whether a Native American (given citizenship under statute rather than under the constitution) would be eligible for the Presidency. Whether someone born outside the United States, but a citizen at birth (8 USC 1401) would be a Natural Born Citizen, or whether that would be restricted to people who fit the 14th Amendment definition.

    However, there is no doubt that anybody “born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a Natural Born Citizen.

    Also, you’ve never explained how letting every other nation determine who can and cannot be eligible for our Presidency isn’t giving up National Sovereignty.

  94. avatar
    Lupin November 2, 2010 at 3:13 am #

    Scott Brown:

    If you disqualify every child born of one parent who is either not a citizen or a dual citizen, then you’re automatically disqualifying millions of Americans. I don’t see how that can be practical.

    You’re also introducing a new class of “super-citizens” if you will.

    Let me remind you that what you are advocating was (still is?) the founding platform of the Ku Klux Klan.

    Doesn’t all that give you pause?

    (Unless of course you’re simpatico with the KKK agenda.)

  95. avatar
    Sef November 2, 2010 at 3:55 am #

    Scott Brown: And Misha – Jindal is not qualified to run for POTUS since, like Obama, he is not a NBC. I would not support Jindal for POTUS; although I highly support him as Governor of Louisiana.

    Question: Are there any states which require their governors to be NBC? Or anything other than U.S. citizens & state citizens?

  96. avatar
    sfjeff November 2, 2010 at 4:01 am #

    I also want to point out to Scott Brown that if parentage determines NBC status, then DNA testing clearly needs to be required of Presidential candidates.

    One of the nice things about the unequivocal statement of the 14th Amendment is that we don’t have messy arguments about who a candidates real father was. Born in America is all thats necessary.

    I am just looking forward to the Conservatives trying to figure out how to mesh requiring DNA testing of Presidential candidates- and their parents- with Conservative values.

  97. avatar
    Rickey November 2, 2010 at 4:04 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    Nobody quite explains what loyalty he has to Britian

    Yes, and it’s odd that Obama’s supposed allegiance to Britain hasn’t resulted in him letting BP off the hook for the damage done to the Gulf by the Deepwater Horizon explosion. He has been accused of “shaking down” BP, of “blackmailing” BP, and of forcing BP to contribute to a “slush fund.”

  98. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2010 at 8:02 am #

    Lupin: (Unless of course you’re simpatico with the KKK agenda.)

    Of course she is. I’d say more like Stormfront though.

  99. avatar
    Mike November 2, 2010 at 8:25 am #

    Rickey: Yes, and it’s odd that Obama’s supposed allegiance to Britain hasn’t resulted in him letting BP off the hook for the damage done to the Gulf by the Deepwater Horizon explosion. He has been accused of “shaking down” BP, of “blackmailing” BP, and of forcing BP to contribute to a “slush fund.”

    That might be a more convincing argument if it were still British Petroleum… Or not almost majority non-British ownership.

  100. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett November 2, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    Nice to see “Scott Brown” is back to scold us on civility once again. Maybe s/he can teach us something about honesty over the internet while s/he’s at it.

  101. avatar
    Greg November 2, 2010 at 11:48 am #

    Mike: That might be a more convincing argument if it were still British Petroleum

    International Headquarters = 1 St. James Place, London, SW1Y 4PD.

    They’re not “British” Petroleum, the same way KFC isn’t about “fried” chicken. (And isn’t headquartered in Louisville, KY!)

  102. avatar
    JoZeppy November 2, 2010 at 12:00 pm #

    Scott Brown: Yes, as a matter of fact – it has occurred to me that I could be wrong. But I could ask you the exact same question.

    Not very seriousy. I figured if I managed a BA of political science, and a JD, and he merited only one sentance in one book from an undergrad international law book, out of all my classes, the odds of him being the force behind everything in the constitution was rather slim.

    Scott Brown: I guess I don’t understand why Vattel is so heavily discussed here. My belief is based on what I perceive as common sense. If you have one US Citizen parent and the other parent is a foreign national, how can their offspring then be a Natural Born Citizen of either country? Where would his loyalties and allegiances lay – with which country? If it is in question (and we do have to question Obama) – then by virtue of the question alone, that person couldn’t possibly have only one allegiance/loyalty.

    I find that in most cases, when people try to argue “common sense” it has very little to do with what can actually be called common sense, and more that they have no authority to stand on….and besides, “common sense” is a very relative term. I see your appeal to “common sense” rather silly. I know many more immigrants who are far more loyal to this country than people who have been here for generations. I think your broad sweeping generalizations are like most broad generalizations – an excuse to not actually have to produce facts.

    Scott Brown: What I’m trying to say is that IN MY OPINION (which could very well be wrong) a Natural Born Citizen is a Citizen who would not have any possibility of competing loyalties or allegiances, which does not apply to Obama, again, IN MY OPINION.

    And no one cares about your opinion. I don’t know what touchy feely b.s. your parents fed you, but your opinion is utterly meaningless in this conversation. We are discussing a legal term of art. The only opinions that matter are those published by the Supreme Court on the subject. And there is not a single one of their opinions that place your requirements on Natural Born Citizens. Your opinions is wholly unsupported by the law.

    Scott Brown: That said – Obama is the President. Obama is in the White House serving his term as POTUS, so my next question – why on Earth do you all protest and defend him to the point of calling fellow American citizens names and belittling anyone who happens to have a different opinion, no matter the basis is for that opinion? I don’t think any of you are maroons’ for thinking Obama is a NBC. Quite the opposite. I respect the fact that you have an opinion and have taken a stand; although I question the lengths to which you go to defend that opinion.

    Because I take the law very seriously. I have devoted my life to the law. I have as much debt from going to a top tier law school as many people have on their mortgage. I find it utterly offensive when a cadre of ambulance chasers file utterly frivolous suits to create some kind of celebrity for themselves and try to generate paypal cash. I find it beyond comprehension when rank amateurs try to pontificate about the law when they clearly don’t have the first clue about how to read a court opinion (and with some of their interpretations, I question their ability to read in general), and really don’t have the first clue of what they’re talking about. Why wouldn’t I react strongly after being lectured about the law, by an army of hacks and wannabess, who claim that the real meaning of the law went unnoticed for over 200 years, ignored by real constitutional scholars, and law students just looking for a subject for a law journal article that had a chance of publication, only to be discovered by an “attorney” who spent more time playing professional poker than practicing law, and to have the banner carried by a DUI attorney, and a mail order attorney, and is still ignored by every real constitutional law scholar?

    Perhaps now you can see why some of us might have nothing but scorn for your types?

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 2, 2010 at 1:37 pm #

    Scott Brown asks: “If you have one US Citizen parent and the other parent is a foreign national, how can their offspring then be a Natural Born Citizen of either country?”

    Let me change the question from natural to native: “If you have one US Citizen parent and the other parent is a foreign national, how can their offspring then be a Native Born Citizen of either country?”

    You might reply: “Yes, but ‘native born citizen’ just means a citizen born in the country, and it doesn’t refer at all to anything else.”

    And that’s correct. However, if you read the authorities on the Constitution, Civics books and the court cases, that’s exactly what they say about “natural born citizen” — it just means a citizen born in the country, and has nothing to do with who their parents are.”

    The word “natural” refers to a characteristic at birth, and not acquired later. So one born a citizen in the country is naturally a citizen, and does not have to be made a citizen (naturalized). It is not a question of what some 2nd country might allow or disallow in terms of its own citizenship. The authorities are clear. As Attorney General Bates said in 1862:

    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 …

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 2, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    Scott Brown asks: I guess I don’t understand why Vattel is so heavily discussed here.

    I wonder that myself. Of course I bring it up from time to time because a major faction of the birther movement argue that Barack Obama was not a citizen because of his British father and this group for the most part base their argument on de Vattel. De Vattel is central to the theories of Obama ineligibility. The current articles sprang from a spate of comments for which I wanted to provide a home.

    What I do not understand is why there is so much more commentary on this subject than on most others. I suppose that some of the volume of commentary comes from the birthers use of third-rate and out of context sources demanding refutation coupled with the mass of primary sources with which to refute.

  105. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    “If you have one US Citizen parent and the other parent is a foreign national, how can their offspring then be a Natural Born Citizen of either country? Where would his loyalties and allegiances lay – with which country? If it is in question (and we do have to question Obama) – then by virtue of the question alone, that person couldn’t possibly have only one allegiance/loyalty.”

    Therein lies the basis for her paranoid bigotry and xenophobia. Pretty disgusting.

    By that reasoning are all immigrants and naturalized citizens to be feared and mistrusted?

    A birther’s American melting pot is one that is constantly scoured, boiled, repeatedly filtered and closely examined for those “other” (read: dark skinned, foreign) people.

    I guess Ellis Island was an anti-American disgrace in the closed mind of a birther.

    “and we do have to question Obama”

    On eligibility, NO, WE don’t. Unless by we you are referring to the voices in your head.

    “that person couldn’t possibly have only one allegiance/loyalty”

    You have no idea what you’re babbling about.

    Pathetic.

  106. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Scott Brown asks: “If you have one US Citizen parent and the other parent is a foreign national, how can their offspring then be a Natural Born Citizen of either country?”Let me change the question from natural to native: “If you have one US Citizen parent and the other parent is a foreignnational, how can their offspring then be a Native Born Citizen of either country?”You might reply: “Yes, but native born citizen’ just means a citizen born in the country, and it doesn’t refer at all to anything else.”And that’s correct. However, if you read the authorities on the Constitution, Civics books and the court cases, that’s exactly what they say about “natural born citizen” — it just means a citizen born in the country, and has nothing to do with who their parents are.”The word “natural” refers to a characteristic at birth, and not acquired later. So one born in the citizen is naturally a citizen, and does not have to be made a citizen (naturalized). It is not a question of what some 2nd country might allow or disallow in terms of its own citizenship. The authorities are clear. As Attorney General Bates said in 1862:

    It seems more like a thinly disguised argument for eugenics mixed with chauvinism to me.

  107. avatar
    Majority Will November 2, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    JoZeppy: Scott Brown: That said – Obama is the President. Obama is in the White House serving his term as POTUS, so my next question – why on Earth do you all protest and defend him to the point of calling fellow American citizens names and belittling anyone who happens to have a different opinion, no matter the basis is for that opinion? I don’t think any of you are maroons’ for thinking Obama is a NBC. Quite the opposite. I respect the fact that you have an opinion and have taken a stand; although I question the lengths to which you go to defend that opinion.

    Because I take the law very seriously. I have devoted my life to the law. I have as much debt from going to a top tier law school as many people have on their mortgage. I find it utterly offensive when a cadre of ambulance chasers file utterly frivolous suits to create some kind of celebrity for themselves and try to generate paypal cash. I find it beyond comprehension when rank amateurs try to pontificate about the law when they clearly don’t have the first clue about how to read a court opinion (and with some of their interpretations, I question their ability to read in general), and really don’t have the first clue of what they’re talking about. Why wouldn’t I react strongly after being lectured about the law, by an army of hacks and wannabess, who claim that the real meaning of the law went unnoticed for over 200 years, ignored by real constitutional scholars, and law students just looking for a subject for a law journal article that had a chance of publication, only to be discovered by an “attorney” who spent more time playing professional poker than practicing law, and to have the banner carried by a DUI attorney, and a mail order attorney, and is still ignored by every real constitutional law scholar?

    Perhaps now you can see why some of us might have nothing but scorn for your types?

    Hear, hear!

  108. avatar
    Greg November 2, 2010 at 5:12 pm #

    Scott Brown: My belief is based on what I perceive as common sense. If you have one US Citizen parent and the other parent is a foreign national, how can their offspring then be a Natural Born Citizen of either country? Where would his loyalties and allegiances lay – with which country? If it is in question (and we do have to question Obama) – then by virtue of the question alone, that person couldn’t possibly have only one allegiance/loyalty.

    1. What does common sense have to do with the law? Is it common sense that putting a single foot on my property, even without damages, is a trespass? When the law and common sense intersect, that’s great. When they don’t, that’s law.
    2. Does common sense REALLY tell you that the children of an immigrant who hasn’t naturalized has some tie to that parent’s homeland? Even if that parent naturalizes the week after the kid is born? And your common sense tells you that the child of a naturalized-citizen has NO tie to the parent’s homeland, even if they only naturalized the week before that child was born? (And promptly moves back to the homeland?) I guess Obama has ties to Kenya/England through a dad he didn’t know, but no ties to Indonesia.
    3. It seems pretty clear to me, when I look at my 2-year old daughter, that she has no ties to ANY country. It seems pretty obvious that both the soil and blood theories of citizenship are contrary to common sense.
    4. My sense and your sense aren’t the issue if we’re trying to figure out what the founders thought was common sense. They believed slavery was common sense, so I’m pretty sure that there are several places where their sense and mine differ.

  109. avatar
    Rickey November 2, 2010 at 6:12 pm #

    Mike:
    That might be a more convincing argument if it were still British Petroleum… Or not almost majority non-British ownership.

    Although BP officially dropped the name British Petroleum in 1998, the company remains such an integral part of the U.K. economy that British officials defend BP against the harsh treatment it’s received on the American side of the Atlantic.

    “The (U.K.) government must put down a marker with the US administration that the survival and long-term prosperity of BP is a vital British interest,” Sir Christopher Meyer, a former British ambassador to the United States, told the British Broadcasting Corp. last week.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20007918-503983.html

    t is estimated that about 18 million people in the UK either own BP shares or pay into a pension fund that holds BP shares.

    BP paid 930m in UK tax on its profits in 2009, which was well down on the 1.7bn it had paid in each of the previous three years.

    The company employs 10,105 people in the UK. The employees paid 490m in income tax and National Insurance on their earnings, while BP paid 110m in employer’s National Insurance contributions.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10282777

  110. avatar
    Jules November 3, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    Scott Brown’s argues that “common sense” would hold that no person who owes allegiance to a foreign nation can be a natural born citizen. However, whether or not someone owes allegiance to a foreign country is a function of the foreign country’s nationality law. Is it common sense to hold that every other foreign country is able to render anyone and everyone ineligible for the Presidency of the United States?

    I have been trying to get Scott Brown to answer the following question for some time now: What constitutes a foreign country for the purposes of regarding someone as holding a foreign nationality and disqualifying them from the Presidency of the United States? Do we care if someone is considered a citizen by the laws of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Republic of South Ossetia, or Sovereign Military Order of Malta?

  111. avatar
    Majority Will November 3, 2010 at 4:10 pm #

    Jules: Scott Brown’s argues that “common sense” would hold that . . .

    Too bad common sense isn’t common enough.

  112. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 3, 2010 at 6:10 pm #

    Lupin: 1) there are some real translation problems with Vattel: the term “indigene” which Vattel uses is not actually identical to your “natural-born citizen” or even simply “citizen”, and the word “parens” is also not identical to “parents” but is more like “relative” (as pointed by Paul here several times). So to try to adapt Vattel literally into modern & foreign concepts is difficult and can only produce arguable results.

    Arguable is quite a euphemism. The proof is of course in the pudding. Did Vattel use “parens” for “relatives” elsewhere in his Law of Nations?

    The answer is of course: yes, he did. When he desribed androlepsy, for instance:

    http://books.google.be/books?id=nbYWAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA537&lpg=PA537&dq=Vattel+la+loi+permettoit+parens+saisir&source=bl&ots=m1he1wH8_E&sig=DpAGyRo3RiqcBbIt4X3qc7zi4v8&hl=nl&ei=ENvRTNvcE8us4AaS1v3-DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

    “A Athènes, la loi permettoit aux parens de celui qui avoit été assassiné dans un pays étranger, de saisir jusqu’ trois personnes de ce pays-l, & de les détenir , jusqu’-ce que le meurtrier eût été puni ou livré”

    “In Athens, the law allowed the relatives of someone who had been assassinated in another country to arrest up to three citizens of that country and to hold them hostage until the murderer had been punished or extradited.”

    Obviously, parens means relatives – if only the parents were allowed to do this, that would have meant the murder of old people or orphans would have gone unpunished.

    By the way, Wikipedia agrees with me:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androlepsy

  113. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny November 3, 2010 at 6:25 pm #

    Scott Brown: Paul Pieniezny: This in fact proves how idiotic Birthers are.

    So that is a personal insult now?

    I love it when birthers are trying to prove how good the Founders were at French. Only, if they were indeed so good at French that part of the constitution would be taken straight from a French text not yet translated into English, they would probably have known the intricacies of French grammar – like that little rule about complements and objects taking the plural form if referring to a plural subject. And they would have been taught to write genteel, and not dirty (do not use parens to refer to “father and mother”).

    Which proves how idiotic birthers are.

  114. avatar
    Lupin November 4, 2010 at 2:40 am #

    JoZeppy: Because I take the law very seriously. I have devoted my life to the law. I have as much debt from going to a top tier law school as many people have on their mortgage. I find it utterly offensive when a cadre of ambulance chasers file utterly frivolous suits to create some kind of celebrity for themselves and try to generate paypal cash. I find it beyond comprehension when rank amateurs try to pontificate about the law when they clearly don’t have the first clue about how to read a court opinion (and with some of their interpretations, I question their ability to read in general), and really don’t have the first clue of what they’re talking about. Why wouldn’t I react strongly after being lectured about the law, by an army of hacks and wannabess, who claim that the real meaning of the law went unnoticed for over 200 years, ignored by real constitutional scholars, and law students just looking for a subject for a law journal article that had a chance of publication, only to be discovered by an “attorney” who spent more time playing professional poker than practicing law, and to have the banner carried by a DUI attorney, and a mail order attorney, and is still ignored by every real constitutional law scholar?

    Ditto here — and bravo!

    (Except the Sorbonne’s fees are very low, so I didn’t need any student loans.)

  115. avatar
    Sef November 4, 2010 at 9:51 am #

    Brownie, here’s a scenario for you to evaluate in light of your “common sense”. Suppose we have a U.S. citizen woman married to a U.S. citizen man living in NYC. This woman just happens to be hyper-promiscuous & one of her liaisons is with a U.N. foreign diplomat. She becomes pregnant & the child is born in NYC. She doesn’t know who the father of the child really is. The husband acknowledges the child, so there is no need for a paternity test. What does your “common sense” say about the child’s NBC status?

  116. avatar
    Majority Will November 4, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    Sef: Brownie, here’s a scenario for you to evaluate in light of your “common sense”.Suppose we have a U.S. citizen woman married to a U.S. citizen man living in NYC.This woman just happens to be hyper-promiscuous & one of her liaisons is with a U.N. foreign diplomat.She becomes pregnant & the child is born in NYC.She doesn’t know who the father of the child really is.The husband acknowledges the child, so there is no need for a paternity test.What does your “common sense” say about the child’s NBC status?

    Good one!

    Birthers think there are super secret molecules coded for national allegiance embedded in our strands of DNA.

    Bigotry on the loose.

  117. avatar
    Rickey November 4, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    I love it when birthers are trying to prove how good the Founders were at French.

    Lawrence M. Friedman, “A History of American Law” (Simon & Schuster, 1973)

    “To some small extent, French scholars influenced American legal thought. Compared to civil law, common law seemed, to some, to be feudal, barbaric, uncouth. In hindsight, the common law had little to fear. It was as little threatened as the English language. The courts continued to operate, continued to do business; they used the only law that they knew. Few lawyers had any knowledge of French. French lawbooks were rare and inaccessible; English authorities flooded the country.” p. 95

  118. avatar
    Sef November 6, 2010 at 5:05 pm #

    Brownie, I have another scenario for you. An unmarried U.S. citizen woman goes to a sperm bank & retrieves a “deposit” by an unnamed donor. The resulting child is born in a hospital in an American city. What does your “common sense” say about the NBC status of the child?

  119. avatar
    obsolete November 7, 2010 at 11:39 pm #

    Sef: Brownie, I have another scenario for you.An unmarried U.S. citizen woman goes to a sperm bank & retrieves a “deposit” by an unnamed donor. The resulting child is born in a hospital in an American city.What does your “common sense” say about the NBC status of the child?

    Well, Birthers would ask if the child is white…. If so, then everything is okee-dokee!

  120. avatar
    The Magic M November 8, 2010 at 6:03 am #

    The entire “allegiance” argument (that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” really means “not owing allegiance to any other country) is fatally flawed because it mixes clear legal definitions (“subject to the jurisdiction”) with interpretable laymen’s terms (“owing allegiance”).

    Allegiance is something that is within the mind of a person – which country he really feels (!) obliged to. It is like religion, nothing that you can fix in writing or test reliably in any way.

    That is another example of the birthers argumenting backwards:
    Obama is probably a Muslim, therefore he has no allegiance to the US but probably Kenya or Iran or whatnot, therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” must really mean “not owing allegiance to another country”.

    You can even find some birther sites departing from the citizenship issue alone and stating things to the effect of “how can someone who was not raised in the US but in Indonesia have any allegiance to the US” and ending up with “conclusions” to the effect of “only people who were born *and raised* in the US are eligible for POTUS”.
    Yes, and probably those who have sworn under lie detector tests and torture that they love the Constitution and would never so much as talk to a Muslim…

  121. avatar
    Jules November 10, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    The Magic M: The entire “allegiance” argument (that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” really means “not owing allegiance to any other country) is fatally flawed because it mixes clear legal definitions (“subject to the jurisdiction”) with interpretable laymen’s terms (“owing allegiance”).

    Allegiance does have a precise legal meaning. Any person who is a national of a country owes permanent allegiance to that country. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22). Under the 14th Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), someone born within the jurisdiction of the US is unquestionably a US citizen who owes permanent allegiance to the US.

    The layperson’s use of the term allegiance as a state of mind is completely irrelevant as a matter of nationality law and whether someone is a natural-born citizen.

    The Magic M: You can even find some birther sites departing from the citizenship issue alone and stating things to the effect of “how can someone who was not raised in the US but in Indonesia have any allegiance to the US” and ending up with “conclusions” to the effect of “only people who were born *and raised* in the US are eligible for POTUS”.

    Someone who is eligible for the Presidency must have lived in the US for at least 14 years. As this is less than half the minimum period of thirty-five years for which a President must have been alive, it is entirely clear that it was within the founding fathers’ contemplation that a President may have spent quite a lot of time outside the United States. In any case, Obama only lived abroad for a few years.

  122. avatar
    Sef November 11, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    Jules: Someone who is eligible for the Presidency must have lived in the US for at least 14 years. As this is less than half the minimum period of thirty-five years for which a President must have been alive, it is entirely clear that it was within the founding fathers’ contemplation that a President may have spent quite a lot of time outside the United States. In any case, Obama only lived abroad for a few years.

    And it’s not even clear that those 14 years must be contiguous or even the most recent 14 years prior to serving as POTUS.