It’s been the conventional wisdom that should the right case come along, perhaps with a presidential candidate as plaintiff, that the Supreme Court might be induced to define the constitutional term “natural born citizen.” Is that really the case?
I’ve read court decisions that point out that the only effect that phrase has in all of law, and the only distinction that it gives someone who is otherwise a citizen, is eligibility for President of the United States (and since the 12th amendment, the Vice President).
The 20th Amendment uses the phrase “failed to qualify” in connection with the Congress’s role in presidential elections, saying:
If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Given that it is the Congress who certifies presidential elections, and it is the Congress that deals with a President elect who fails to qualify, it would appear that the Congress is the sole arbiter of presidential qualifications. When the Constitution grants authority solely to one branch of government (in this case the Congress), the courts cannot insert themselves. See United States v. Nixon (1993).
I am suggesting that the definition of “natural born citizen” may be an inherently nonjusticiable political question.
Doctor C,
Are cases like Wong Kim Ark different (since the Supreme Court did ultimately decide that Mr. Wong was, in fact, a United States citizen), since those cases weren’t deciding a presidential race?
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey agrees. From Kerchner v. Obama:
I’ve pointed out a rationale that is very close to that many times — however, I do think that there is a possible situation where the Supreme Court could be called on to decide.
Here’s the hypothetical:
Bobby Jindal is elected President (born in US, son of 2 immigrant parents).
Congress refuses to certify him, on the rationale that the son of immigrants cannot be “natural born”.
Jindal goes to the Supreme Court, arguing that he is legally qualified and entitled to be inaugurated as President.
The relevant precedent is Powell v. McCormick, United States v. Nixon (1993).
The legal argument would be while Congress has sole authority to determine if a candidate is qualified when there is a bona fide dispute of fact or law, Congress does not have the authority to deny a duly elected, qualified candidate on spurious legal grounds. If they did — then the party that controlled Congress would always have the power to prevent the seating of an elected candidate from the opposing party.. In such a case I would expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the candidate.
On the other hand, if I substitute McCain in the above hypothetical — (son of US citizens, born abroad, apparently naturalized by retroactive legislation enacted after the time of birth). – I think that while the Supreme Court might rule either that it was a political question (and hence no authority to decide), or that it because there was a bona fide uncertainty about McCain’s citizenship at the time of birth, Congress had authority to make the determination.
In any case, I think the ONLY person with standing to raise the issue is the displaced candidate.
I think the courts will step in if one of the “Birther bills” passes and prevents ballot access to a legitimate candidate based on a phony interpretation of the meaning of natural born citizen. In that case I believe the courts might opine on the meaning of natural born citizen. They still might be able to use other grounds, however, like the Full Faith and Credit clause or equal protection arguments without ruling based directly on the citizenship quesion.
How about this scenario:
A birther SoS leaves the President (or another candidate) off the ballot because they determine he is not eligible under existing law. I think that could also cause the courts to settle this. In either case I think the Birthers would soon be sorry the got what the wanted.
The courts have been very clear that once the Electoral College has voted only the Congress has a say.
Wong was a decision about citizenship and in particular the right of one particular citizen of Chinese ancestry to enter the country. While citizenship carries myriad implications under law, natural born citizenship only affects candidates for President and Vice President. So no, my comments wouldn’t apply to that case.
> In that case I believe the courts might opine on the meaning of natural born citizen.
It’s just as possible/probable that the courts will simply rule “this is an issue for Congress” and not opine on the meaning of NBC at all.
Note that Lakin’s court-martial also did not “opine” on the eligiblity of the CiC but declared that it’s not up to the (military) courts to decide a political question (thus already essentially conceding that Congress alone gets to decide whether a President is “illegitimate” or not).
The funny thing is that what the birters want is essentially an end-run around the Constitution which clearly states that it’s Congress that has sole jurisdiction on this issue. (Birthers somehow believe there are ways to remove a President without agreement by Congress if just one judge rules “he’s not eligible”, completely ignoring the fact that such a procedure would grant any judge in the country the authority to remove a President from office, completely overturning the checks and balances system.)
And if Congress, arguendo, “fails to do its duty”, there simply is no constitutional remedy other than voting them out in the next elections.
Would you similarly argue that an impeachment of the president for jaywalking was subject to judicial review where the court could ultimately define “high crimes and misdemeanors?”
Taitz said she had some worries asking the question.
“I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama’s stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks,” she said. “I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama’s strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.
“Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side,” Taitz said.
“He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that Quo Warranto is antiquated or not appropriate. No, just get four,” she said.
She then bought Scalia’s book and waited in line to get it autographed. March 11 2009 WMD
–some chuckling fodder for those with passwords
Interesting question Doc. Where does Ankeny fit in to this argument – could the SCOTUS (if it wanted to) do something similar?
The Court in Ankeny said that the question in Obama’s case was already settled by US v Wong.
Isn’t that defining NBC in part? That all persons born under US jurisdiction are natural born? Could the SCOTUS do something similar?
That’s not actually what the court said. The Court said that President Obama’s legitimacy was not an issue in the case because even if Obama was illegitimate, the order would still be valid. They used the de facto officer doctorine and applied it to this case.
If they had the question of, for instance, someone being denied ballot access because of one of the birther bills, the court, in it’s decision, would define what a Natural Born Citizen is, and argue whether or not it put additional requirements upon the office of the Presidency.
Of course, I also do not think that this case would get to the Supreme Court. The District Court would declare it unconstitutional, the Circuit Court would uphold the rule of the District Court, and the Supreme Court would deny cert.
Mention of the of the “failed to qualify” phrase in the XX Amendment reminds be that I did some research a few weeks ago, trawling through the Congress and Committee transcripts leading up to the passing of the amendement.
I’ve more work to do on it but what’s striking so far that when they referred to “failed to qualify” they don’t seem to have ever mentioned age, residency or NBC status!
They seem to be using it to cover circumstances that might stop the President elect from being inaugarated – death is covered seperately but the committee specifically mentions sickness, inability to travel, and kidnapping in context of “failed to qualify”.
Thanks for that brygenon, very helpful information from the Kerchner court.
That’s fascinating. One of the birther arguments is that Barack Hussein Obama STILL hasn’t “qualified” because they haven’t seen his long form birth certificate and because his father wasn’t an American citizen.
From US District Cout Judge David O. Carter’s opinion in Barnett, et. al. v Obama, et. al.:
“There may well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the constitution’s mechanisms for removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs [Orly] attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the Constitutional mechanisms in place to the removal of a sitting President. The process for removal of a sitting president–REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON–is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”–October 29, 2009
Yes, because the argument would be that Congress had exceeded its authority given the spurious nature of the charge.
This is analogous to the situation of the wide latitude given a lower court or an administrative agency for exercise of its discretion, whereas at the same time precluding the court or agency from an abuse of discretion or acting in excess of its jurisdiction.
So the jaywalking President wouldn’t be able to appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds that he didn’t jaywalk, but rather on the grounds that jaywalking is not a “high crime and misdemeanor” and cannot reasonably be construed as such.
Expelliarmus: This is analogous to the situation of the wide latitude given a lower court or an administrative agency for exercise of its discretion, whereas at the same time precluding the court or agency from an abuse of discretion or acting in excess of its jurisdiction.
Reminds me of U.S. v Low Hong
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22903646/U-S-v-Low-Hong-1919-Natural-Born-Citizen-22855052-United-States-v-Low-Hong-Fed-Rep-Vol-261-Jan-Mar-1920-Pp-73-4
More and more, I have noticed there seems to be a lack of real concern by various governmental levels over whether a Presidential candidate or President-elect meets the Constitutional qualifications. It would appear that, for the last 200+ years, we have been content, as the Federal Papers points out, with an electoral process designed to prevent an unqualified candidate from assuming the office.
If I recall (and, I apologize if I am recalling this incorrectly), the real concern for the Constitutional Convention was the children of foreign princes being sent to this country and lead us into foreign machinations. This concern were of those children, close to the high levels of foreign dynasties, coming here later, after having been “born and raised” in the foreign country (born and raised is a term used in the Federalist Papers).
The child born and raised here with very little contact with his father does not fall under the above concern. I will say, most founders would very likely not have felt the current President should be elected, but that was for other reasons that have since been overcome (Ms. Palin would fall under this for different but similar reasons).
You assert;
“…I am suggesting that the definition of “natural born citizen” may be an inherently nonjusticiable political question.”
Well, doesn’t that put an end to all of the case citations that reference natural born Citizen in Citizenship question cases….?
But what that envisions is that any alien with the most tenuous jus sanguinis attachment to a U.S.Citizen relative can petition for acknowledgment but that a Constitutionally acknowledged natural born Citizen can not….?
I assume you’ve looked at lots of those citations, as have I.
My impression that the phrase “natural born citizen” is thrown around rather carelessly in some. In others, the Constitution’s use of the phrase, along with the power of the Congress to establish a uniform system of naturalization, is used to determine that there are precisely two types of citizen, natural born and naturalized.
That said, the phrase “natural born citizen” cited from those cases is without effect because in none of them was a party to the case running for President or Vice President.
Now, explain to me how it is that you claim to be a “natural born citizen” (complaint in Craig v United States) when the term isn’t, according to you, defined?
I thought that Doc was simply addressing alternative constitutional methods of dealing with the issue.
Any political party can refuse to nominate a person who isn’t a natural born citizen; the American electorate can refuse to elect a person who isn’t a natural born citizen; the members of the Electoral College can also refuse to vote for a person who isn’t a natural born citizen; the Vice President of the United States in their role as President of the Senate can refuse to count the votes of a person who isn’t a natural born citizen; any two members of Congress can submit written objections to the certification of the Electoral College votes of a person who isn’t a natural born citizen; a legitimate official authority can refuse to administer the Oath of Office to a person who isn’t a natural born citizen and Congress can impeach and remove from office a person who isn’t a natural born citizen. Finally, so much political pressure can be put on a person who isn’t a natural born citizen that they are forced to resign the presidency if all of the steps above fail.
I think a notary public could administer the oath.
The Constitution ‘anticipates’ and requires that there be natural born Citizens among the Citizenry at large with that portion that are natural born Citizen’s, by whatever circumstances define that condition, are eligible for the Executive Office, (and Post the 20th (Offices).
First allow me to disagree and assert that the Constitution speaks of Three (3) ‘citizenships;
1] Those who were then Citizens of the various States and upon adoption immediatly became Citizens also of the United States.
2] Those envisioned by the continuation of immigration under an uniform RULE of Naturalization.
3] The anticipated natural born Citizens of A2S1C5 and also spoken of in the Preamble, the ‘posterity’ anticipated by the Establishment of the Constitution.
As to MY OPINION of what the Framers intended is of little consequence given that the venue mandated to make the CONTROLLING LEGAL decision will, hopefully, follow the Rule of Law in making their determination leaving me, and everyone else, to deal with the consequences as the situation demands.
But, for breivities sake, I will acknowledge that I inform my understanding by the 1st Congressional Naturalization Act that ‘enlarged’ the then understood definition to include a child of Citizen parents that may be born beyond the sea and or in foreign lands.
Leaving me to wonder how anyone can question the wisdom of that given that ONLY men were citizens and women and children followed in the Citizenship of their fathers/husbands within the jurisdiction of the various States and under the Rule of Law of the Constitution.
But people do and that is what has lead me to to seek an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.
Which is why I have as yet responded to those who assert that those they call birthers continually move the goal post.
Given that the goal post is not anchored I suppose that is the case.
As for me, I have been as consistent as possible in the cacophony of hyperbol in seeking ONLY an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom.
That’s all I want:
1) Definition of NBC
2) Federal agency that is transparent and shows 1
The point is this, as much mudslinging as goes on at this site obscures:
Obama has done nothing to legally show he is NBC, even given the erroneous 14th Amendment interpretation (which says citizen and NOT natural born citizen, just as the congressmen in article 1 are citizens and qualify, but in article 2 pres/vice pres have to be natural born citizens)
Those are clearly distinctive terms. Going with Bingham, who wrote the 14th amendment, and his letters, it is VERY CLEAR. You can’t just be born here.
Obama won’t show because he can’t prove he was born here. That’s why he lied about Kapi’olani, why they won’t verify anything, and why he looks guilty.
Yet you guys on this site still blame us for not believing someone who won’t disclose any document in a legal fashion. You still probably think Joe Miller and Jess Hennig, the only people to see the COLB, are legit verifiers/authorities on legal documents.
And we’re delusional? Your logic is a joke. I would laugh if it weren’t so sad.
You can certainly divide citizens that way, but it is clear from contemporary writing that those in class [1] were also considered natural born citizens. For example, John Jay in writing to George Washington suggested that only a natural born citizen be commander in chief. Where do you think he was going to get a commander in chief if there were no natural born citizens available of military age upon ratification of the Constitution? This point has been discussed here at length in the past.
The Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett determined that even prior to the 14th amendment, women were citizens. One of the findings in that case was that Virginia Minor was herself a citizen.
Citizenship was NOT at issue in Minor. Her assertion was that suffrage attached to Citizenship which the Court found as NOT to be the case.
So tell me, did she acquire her citizenship at birth via the 14th or was it from her father prior to the 14th…?
The fact is that women were often considered as citizens, seemingly by some grant not owing to a father or husband but that would be, if one was so found to be of that situation, an exception to the Rule that was most probably assumed or determined JUDICIALLY and not by Statute or common law practice.
From Minor V;
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.
and to emphasis;
“The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.”
and to add further emphasis to the continuing doubts as to who is a Constitutional natural born Citizen and who are now, by the virtue of ‘status quo’ ‘deemed as if’ natural-born citizens.
“Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
And too, since there were no words that said so and no words that required it Ms. Minor did not acquire suffrage Rights from the 14th.
Actually what you really want is
1) Definition of NBC that precludes Obama b y any means
2) Federal agency that will ignore the rule of law and cater to birther delusions to oust a president they hate.
The Continental Congress first referred to “natural born Citizens” in a draft of the Articles of Confederation in 1777. So they must have been talking about somebody who actually existed at the time.
“the Inhabitants of every State [Paupers Vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted] * going to reside in another State shall be entitled to all the rights and priviledges of the natural born free Citizens of the State to which they go to reside”
Was Justice Antonin Scalia a dual citizen at birth? If so, how would he rule if a case reached the court that in which President Obama’s eligibility to serve in his office hinged on whether the president was a dual citizen at birth?
Scalia was the son of an immigrant Italiian father and immigrant Italian grandparents on his mother’s side. If his father had not renounced Italian citizenship by the time the son was born in 1936, then by Italian citizenship law (as I understand it),
the future Supreeme Court justice was born a dual citizen.
If this is so, would he rule that anyone so sitiuated as himself would have been automatically disqualified from becoming president at birth despite being born on U.S. soil?
Scalia is a little long in the tooth to himnself be considered for the presidency, but he has shown himself to be a very sympathetic voice for (legal) immigrants and their offspring. It seems doubtful to me that he would rule that the U.S.- born child of immigrants who worked hard and played by the rules should be subject to discrimination merely because of their ancestry — no matter how much he disdains Obama.
Now it’s quite doubtful that the four most liberal justices would adopt what the Vatellists (not Vattel himself) consider the qualifications for natural-born citizenship. Add the immigrant sympathizer Scalia to the equation and you have at least five likely Supreme Court votes to dash this particular birther dream.
I want a Shetland pony.
J.D. Reed…
The birthers have a significantly thing at the Supreme Court…
On their no-dual citizenship thing…
Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito are both born to Immigrants from Italy. Scalia has an immigrant father, and immigrant grandparents on his mother’s side. Alito was born to an immigrant as well.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan are claimed as citizens by Israel, being Jewish.
Don’t forget Justice Sonya Sotomayor, who was born to 2 Puerto Ricans, so who knows there…
John Roberts’s mother is Czechoslovakian by descent (All of her grandparents came from Czechoslovakia)…
Then of course, you’ve got Justice Clarence Thomas. I doubt that even he’ll agree with a ruling that declared every member of his race inferior to ever hold citizenship (Scott v. Sandford)…
I never formally applied for Israeli citizenship, and the IDF came to me and said ‘see you at the recruiting office tomorrow morning.’
I replied, “×©×œ×•× ×¢×œ×™×›×”
According to birther logic, that would mean all these judges would have to recuse themselves because otherwise they’d rule on their own presidential eligibility. I can already imagine Orly’s next headline… *sigh*
> You still probably think Joe Miller and Jess Hennig, the only people to see the COLB, are legit verifiers/authorities on legal documents.
If that really were such a big problem, why do you birthers keep making up all the other stuff? That the COLB is a forgery, that the COLB is not a (certified copy of a) birth certificate, that anyone could get such a COLB regardless where he was born, that he is not a natural born citizen anyway etc.?
If just the “he never proved it sufficiently” was enough, why do you have to invent more lies?
Let me give you an analogy: when OJ was acquitted of murder, it was obviously not proven “beyond reasonable doubt” that he was guilty. If I support the notion that he really was innocent, that is enough. I don’t have to make up stories that the judge was an imposter, that the Pope called the D.A. and personally requested OJ to be found guilty, that the Chinese mafia rigged the jury against him and that the highway chase was actually a computer-generated Hollywood production.
So it would seem that many here have the view that there is a great deal of ‘foreign influence’ within the SCOTUS, at least, and by extrapolation, true adherence to the Original Intent of the Constitution suffers across all aspects of the Governing bodies and population as a whole, leaving the words, meanings and intents of the Establishing document of this Nation at odds with those persons who would be expected to support, protect and defend it.
Perhaps it is too late, that too needs to be known.
I will continue to hold fast to the idea that TRUTH and WISDOM will out.
“…..[I]t is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted…”
and;
“[I]t is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised[sic] as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [p407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States…”
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
I assume it’s because if the argument is “He didn’t prove it!” it leaves open the possibility of him proving it at some point. Now of course, whatever he showed they’d say didn’t prove it sufficiently, but they always want to leave an out.
The thing I don’t understand is that the prevailing birther view right now is “He’s not an NBC because his father wasn’t a citizen.”
If THAT is their argument, why say the COLB is forged, the hospital lied, his grandparents were frauds, the State Department is covering for him, his passport records are wrong, he uses 37 (the number they claim seems to go up every week) Social Security numbers, the former and current Governors of Hawaii are in on it, etc. etc. The COLB BACKS UP their assertion! Why bother trying to refute evidence in your favor?
My belief there is simply that the majority of current birthers, before the “Vattel theory” came to light, were True Believers in the “Born in Kenya” theory, and to hold that position one must assert that every document the man’s ever produced must be fraudulent (rather than the logical view that instead of forging hundreds of documents one could just take them all as overwhelming evidence he was born here). As the “Born in Kenya” birthers started to be taken as whackjobs by mainstream people, they needed another approach, and the Vattel theory gave them an “out” – still oppose the guy, still say he isn’t qualified, still claim he isn’t NBC, but now it sounds like a “legal gray area”. Cite a dozen Supreme Court cases and 99% of people’s eyes glaze over. So then they might not think you’re crazy.
However, they don’t feel like they can “go back” on the time they spent claiming all those documents were forgeries, because if they now claim they’re real, they are “Giving a point” to Obama, and they can’t accept that. So despite the fact that all the documentation ever shown them actually supports their claim, they insist that documentation is at the same time somehow fraudulent.
“That’s all I want:
1) Definition of NBC
2) Federal agency that is transparent and shows 1
The point is this, as much mudslinging as goes on at this site obscures:”
Nonsense. Obama showed the world his COLB provided by Hawaii.
What evidence do YOU have of a birth outside Hawaii?
To answer the question: Yes you are delusional.
> Cite a dozen Supreme Court cases and 99% of people’s eyes glaze over. So then they might not think you’re crazy.
However I’ve always said that the Vattelists will have a harder time convincing anyone of their ideas. Because people tend to be not interested in details of the law, besides the Vattelist theory assumes that just about everyone is “in on the conspiracy” which you can’t sell to the general public. The “he was born somewhere else and cleverly concealed this fact” sounds much more credible in the overall picture. No need to believe Congress and the courts and the military and all constitutional experts are part of a huge conspiracy. Just need to believe one person managed to “fool the system”. Has happened before, sounds credible enough to get some people hooked.
> because if they now claim they’re real, they are “Giving a point” to Obama, and they can’t accept that
That’s the most obvious point when someone is delusional and highly prejudiced – they can’t even admit to the most obvious errors in logic or fact. Because heaven forbid someone proves them wrong when they’re actually infallible like the pope.
> The thing I don’t understand is that the prevailing birther view right now is “He’s not an NBC because his father wasn’t a citizen.”
Because, as all birther memes, gospel has replaced argument. Today, most “new” birthers quickly believe the “to be NBC you need two citizen parents” story simply because other birthers treat it as fact.
(The same thing happens in the sane community as well – think of how many people unequivocally parroted “spinach is good because it contains so much iron” simply because they’ve told that time and again.)
So the entire “we need to pull some quotes from here, misinterpret SCOTUS rulings there and claim that some Swiss essayist was explicitly referred to in the Constitution” construction is no longer necessary for them to believe it. They believe it because other birthers say it’s true.
slcraig:
Not sure who are what you are referring to. I don’t recall anyone here talking about foreign influence with the SCOTUS.
This confused me. Usually when someone says something, the citation that follows supports it, rather than refutes it (as in this case). I have seen a pattern of appeal to principles of justice in birther lawsuits, but not to principles of law. …
If you agree with this decision, then you would say that descendants of slaves born in the United States in all generations slave or free were not citizens of the United States and that that Congress didn’t even have the power to naturalize them. Scott v. Sandford lies about colonial history (saying that free blacks were not citizens) and is widely regarded as one of the worst decisions in the Court’s history. One historian wrote of Taney:
In order to decide whether Minor was entitled to vote or not, the court first examined whether she was a citizen or not. If you think this was not an issue, how do you explain the extensive discussion of citizenship in the decision?
Neither. She acquired citizenship at birth by virtue of being born in the United States (and MAYBE due to the additional factor of one or more citizen parents). The court wrote:
The case of one Julia Lynch comes to mind.
This is a common misconception about the Law of Return. Diaspora Jews are not Israeli citizens under the Law of Return or any other law by virtue of being Jewish. The Law of Return states that Jews may apply for and receive an Oleh’s visa. The acquisition of Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return only occurs after one has resided in Israel on an Oleh’s visa for a a few months.
Of course, there would be nothing to stop the Knesset from declaring all Jews anywhere in the world to be Israeli citizens. However, this would eliminate the flexibility given by the current law in which an Oleh’s visa can be denied to someone with a serious criminal record. Additionally, making all Jews Israeli citizens automatically would also create a burden for Jewish tourists to Israel, as it would make an application for an Israeli passport a pre-condition to visiting Israel; Israeli citizens are required by israeli law to enter Israel on their Israeli passports, even if they are dual nationals.
Puerto Rico is a territory of the US and those born there are US citizens by statute. The only notion of Puerto Rican citizenship that exists under Puerto Rican law is the status of a US citizen who is a permanent resident of Puerto Rico, which would not amount to dual citizenship more than dual citizenship of the US and New York.
Regardless of whether any given individual does have dual citizenship, I have to repeat a point that I and others have made countless times: If dual nationality were a bar to Presidential eligibility, then every foreign government would have veto power over the eligibility for the Presidency of the United States. Every nation-state has the sovereign right to decide who its nationals are and any one of them could, subject only to its own constitution and laws, make any or every US citizen one of its own citizens.
Like Meyer Lansky.
To answer your original query, Doc, “natural born citizen” could be (and likely will be) defined by the courts in 2012, in a pre-election eligibility challenge.
And the courts will rule President Obama is eligible, and SCOTUS will decline to weigh in further.
And absolutely nothing will change.
True, I would include notaries under “legitimate authority,” but there might be a situation where the ineligibility of the president as not being a natural born citizen, that NO notary would be willing to admininster the oath.
I agree that nothing will change.
However I doubt that SCOTUS will weigh in at all, since….
1) I cannot conceive of a case where a birther will be able to establish standing.
2) The question of NBC has been answered as much as is necessary for judicial purposes, and
3) SCOTUS will not address an issue of presidential eligibility, since that is the sole purview of Congress
Standing for pre-election candidate challenges is not that difficult to obtain. Without discussing specifics, I predict some birthers will be able to figure it out, and file a few suits.
I further predict courts will find President Obama is a natural-born citizen, and thus rule he is eligible to be on the ballot. Appeals from those decisions will affirm his eligibility, and SCOTUS will not grant cert. to hear these cases.
And nothing will change.
I believe that the courts will, in fact, weigh in on the issue in the run-up to the 2012 elections. All it will take is for one birther candidate to get on the primary ballot in one state – then they will have standing to challenge the the president’s inclusion on the ballot. A court will hear the case, issue a ruling along the lines of Ankeny, it will be appealed up to the SCOTUS who will deny cert without comment – that’s what I think will happen, anyway…
Well, the Supreme Court could be spared involvement altogether, if the federal circuit courts of appeal without exception shoot down any birther bills that pass muster with legislatures and governors — perhaps with the sole surviving provision a requirement that could be satisfied by the Hawaiian COLB, under the Full Faith and Credit provision of the Constitution..
I believe under the law in some states any interested voter can challenge a candidate’s placement on the ballot during a short window after their declaration of candidacy form is submitted – often five or so days. To my knowledge there are a few states that may not guarantee standing but at least require the Secretary of State to make a formal declaration dismissing or upholding such a challenge.
I believe birthers are hoping to contest Obama’s ballot access in one of those states, then go to court when the SoS in question allows him on the ballot.
Whether it is myopia, derangement, obstinacies or obtuseness I see not ONE sensible argument that there is NO need for an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, apparently accepting the ‘status quo’ of WHATEVER.
The LACK of an uniform Rule to said citizenship condition flies in the face of Constitutional rationality when weighed against a need for an uniform Rule of naturalization.
In ‘precise language’ the Congress has been way off base promulgating LAWS of naturalization RATHER than an uniform Rule in the 1st instance.
A personal peeve but not insignificant to the ‘scheme’ of things.
But until SOMEONE here comes up with an argument against having an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen for Constitutional purposes for its implementation in respect of the needs of the Clause of its usage I’ll leave you to your juvenile mental masturbations to NO end because all that I have read would surely rise to the proscription of admissibility expressed in Marbury v.
Excuse me. I do not take liberties with animals, ulike Joseph Farah allegedly does.
What harm has that lack ever done? (except to birthers’ sanity – and there is reason to believe that the mental illness of the birthers caused their (and your) imagined Constitutional Crisis rather than the reverse…) Why should any serious person waste their time trying to address an issue on which there is no problem, there never has been a problem, and on which every credible authority agrees? (that jus soli implies natural born) Do you really think that the problems in our country will be in any way helped by the waste of effort known as the eligibility movement that will at best lead to a court official acknowledging the COLB or a denial of cert without comment from the SCOTUS?
“slcraig”
What part of this is hard to understand?
Now lets be simple for you.
1. How many types of citizen are mentioned in the sentence above?
Next
2. What is the singular criteria of the Act to define citizenship…hint it’s BORN
Next
So we have Constituational PROOF that there are 2 and only two types of US citizen AND the primary criteria is BIRTH and the case has been asked and answered SPECIFICALLY about President Obama.
So do tell, what else is there required as proof that is not a pathetic, legally value free whine of yours?
Never have I seen someone, besides Chris Strunk, use so many words and yet not make a coherant point. The only bit that made any actual sense was where you cried and took your toys out of the sandbox. The courts don’t take you seriously, we don’t take you seriously especially after quoting from the Dred Scott case.
Would you at least consider the possibllity that the undefined term of art in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution “natural born citizen” is synonomous with the post 14th Amendment statuatory term “Citizen of the United States at Birth?” The term “Citizen of the United States at Birth” is thoroughly defined in the US Code.
If you would like a court to verify that the terms “natural born citizen” and “citizen of the United States at birth” are synonomous, I’d have no objection to that.
“Based on Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens,” regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels
Why is it that whenever the entire world refuses to dance to the delusions of birthers, somehow it’s the entire world’s fault.
In WKA Judge Gray CLEARLY stated that his OPINION dealt ONLY with the TWO FORMS of citizenship spoken of in the 14th Amendment its-self and in so stating he ACKNOWLEDGED that he was not speaking to the Constitution in whole. Meaning that, since the 14th did not say so in words nor were there words that would require he was NOT adjudicating the definition, meaning and intent of the A@2S1C5 idiom of natural born Citizen.
Short answer is NO given that his opinion was to determine the singular question of Statutory and or naturalization Citizenship.
He also did not mention that the little Ark was the product of persons covered under a Treaty that PROSCRIBED naturalization of those that were covered by said Treaty which means that the little Ark was JUDICIALLY NATURALIZED and NOT citizen by birth and could be viewed as an act of kidnapping by the Judge.(Humor intended)
But that’s an argument for another place and time.
Ahh good old misreading of WKA by Craig. According to the Minor ruling there are only two types of citizenship naturalized or natural born. If you bothered to read the appellate briefs you would understand that the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling that WKA was a Natural Born Citizen
This has got to be at least the 40th + time that this has been explained to birtther after birther on here. Maybe this will be the first time that one of them acknowledges it instead of either disappearing or ignoring it and continuing to woffle.
I’ve brought it up 3 times to Craig so far and each time it has been ignored
You’re wrong – again. You can’t fully understand a Supreme Court decision just by reading the decision. You have to know what the District Court ruling said, and you have to know the arguments which were made to the Supreme Court.
You really should take the time to read the briefs in Wong Kim Ark.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
In point of fact, the government acknowledged that the District Court ruling said that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen:
The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen… (p.2)
The government went on to ask:
Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? (p. 34)
The government would have had no reason to ask that question but for the fact that a ruling in favor of Wong Kim Ark meant that he would eligible to be president. The question also shows that the government understood that the only requirement for natural-born citizenship is citizenship by birth.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-2, upheld the District Court ruling without exception. The District Court said that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Just a quick question here Craig, for background…. you know to let us get a handle on just how seriously we should take your dubious ramblings.
Just what is your record of success in court dealing with this subject?
Really? 0%?
No success at all? Complete and utter failure to date with no chance at all of prevailing in the future, according to every legal expert who has commented on the subject?
Wow…
OK, well that gives me a bit more relevant information to draw a conclusion from. I will certainly encourage all my peers her and elsewhere to give your baseless ramblings all the consideration they deserve.
Hey slcraig- Can you actually type the words “President Obama”, or is it still too painful to refer to a black man as “President”?
Do you refer to him as “0” to suppress the mental pain? Why does anyone even give you the time of day when you are so disrespectful?
Well, letting all of the denigration that sprue’s from your thoughts rather than from the normal biological process remain as your own messes to clean up I will remind whichever it was that is the designated score keeper that only 1 case has EVER moved to have the question for an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, insofar as citizenship is concerned.
You may feel enheartened by counting the various TIMES I’ve been to the Courts, nevertheless, it is in FACT the same cause and case.
“The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only, birth and naturalization.” Judge Gray WKA
You may feel free to parse and turn that into confirmation of your ‘feelings’ on the subject as you will.
I take it as Judge Gray’s acknowledgment that with the lack of words that say so or the words that require it, his OPINION, regardless of whatever else may be said, does not extend to, enlarge, abridge and or otherwise modify the form of Citizenship expressed in Article II Sec.I Clause V of the Constitution, that being the THIRD form of Citizenship enumerated in the Constitution.
I acknowledge that misunderstandings have been perpetuated in the Courts, in policies and in general collective conscious of a great many, nevertheless it remains that as of this moment there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.
If you’re going to use a word like sprue at least show that you know the meaning of it and can use it properly in a sentence. Your usage up above makes no sense. Do all crazy people such as yourself type in such long run-on sentences?
There have been no misunderstandings perpetuated by the court but rather your inability to actually comprehend the court briefs you read from. Do you think that if you write in such long winded sentences it makes you sound like you have any authority? Thus far it only proves that, like most birthers, you are full of yourself.
Ohhhhhhhh I see…… It’s only one case… Ok that’s fair.
And of the many decisions and orders that have been handed down regarding this ONE case…. how many have gone your way?
Oh….. zero…. again?
I’m sorry slcraig, I’m still failing to find any reason whatsoever why any reasonable person should pay you any mind whatsoever. The fact that you fail utterly in court, and the fact that every recognized constitutional expert disagrees with you, would lead any reasonable person to conclude that listening to you would be ridiculous.
But please do keep on entertaining us.
The 14th Amendment is not a statute.
Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States, under its Jurisdiction and so was born a citizen by the 14th Amendment, a part of the Constitution. He was not naturalized. Naturalization is something done by statute passed by Congress, and the case you cited, Dred Scott, said that someone born in the United States could not be naturalized. There is no such thing as “judicial naturalization.”
If you are going to make stuff up, you’ll never get anywhere, not here and certainly not in court. Also if you don’t understand the precedents, you are likewise doomed to lose.
Until someone with standing takes issue with the status quo, you’ll just have to be patient.
We have an example from Robinson v. Bowen. Markham Robinson petitioned the the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for a preliminary injunction to remove John McCain from the ballot. To rule on the motion, the Court assessed the likelihood of Robinson winning on the merits. The Court wrote:
The Congressional Research Service quoted that section, and noted:
See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/11/congressional-research-service-punctures-birther-balloon/
“sprue’s”
Another semi-literate rant.
He doesn’t do any better when he writes his court filings.
“Although the allegations of the Complaint are less than lucid, […]” — U.S. District Court for the District of Oklahoma, Craig v. U.S.
“Though it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig’s arguments on appeal, […]” — U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Craig v. U.S.
So I must also be misinterpreting what and where 8 USC finds its authority from…..mmmm mmmmmm mmmm
As for ‘sprue’……apologies for introducing a ‘term of art’ without a citation. Just that most any person that has every spent any time around machinery has a common understanding of the value of material that gets ‘sprued’ from an operating piece of equipment.
“In casting, a sprue is the passage through which a molten material is introduced into a mold, and the term also refers to the excess material which solidifies in the sprue passage.
That you find no value, under the Rule of Law, in having a ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom speaks volumes of not only your agenda but also of your character, preferring to reside in the confines of a ‘legal loop-hole’ than in the light of truth.
“…. for the true idea of a republic is ‘an empire of laws, and not of men.’….or in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics.” –John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
Yes we know you know how to use a dictionary but it doesn’t excuse your misuse of the term.. You’ve been given legal definitions of the term you just don’t accept them.
Actually Craigy poo
Yet another example of more of your desperate flailing when caught out….again
You see words having MEANING in the CONTEXT of the sentence or else they are NONSENSICAL.
Your sentence reads,
(As an aside, do please remember that punctuation is rather useful, a full stop or period at the end would have useful in seperating this sentence from a run on to the next.)
You meant to use the word SPEW.
Definition of SPEW.
Intransitive verb
1: vomit
2: to come forth in a flood or gush
3: to ooze out as if under pressure : exude
Transitive verb
1: Vomit
2: To send or cast forth with vigor or violence or in great quantity
Example
1: The dog spewed vomit on the rug.
2: “slcraig” continues to spew nonsensical inane drivel
The word SPEW would be correct (albeit inaccurate) in the CONSTRUCTION and CONTEXT of your sentence.
A SPRUE would be used, badly, in your sentence if someone was either injecting material into a conversation or using a literary artifact as a conduit for said material for injection into a conversation.
Since the CONTEXT of your diatribe would, if using said word, be wholly nonsensical, it is plain to the simplest of readers that you did not intend to use SPRUE, unless of course you contend your babbling is intentionally simple moronic street theater?
You made a mistake so either you should simply have ignored it or said “Oops”.
Desperate attempts at rewriting simply demonstrate the intellectual paucity and irrelevance you bring to the table.
p.s SPRUE
1: Sprue (manufacturing), a feature in molding and casting molds
2: Coeliac disease, also known as sprue, a disease of the small intestine
3: Tropical sprue, disease
4: Sprue Asparagus, first pickings of asparagus
In your case, I believe the issue of disease is probably closer to your ramblings.
Craig reminds me of something you see in cartoons or the like.
Craig: “Won’t somebody, please, define NBC so we can end this! Even if said definition makes Obama eligible, we just need a definition!”
The World: “Here it is. Obama is eligible.”
Craig: “Please, I haven’t found one. No one has ever given one! Why won’t courts address this!”
The World: “Here, again, is that definition you wanted, same as before, and here’s numerous court decisions backing it up.”
Craig: “No one can give me one single definition! I just soooooo confused, there must be corruptio because no one defines this simple term!”
No matter what official, backed by government documentation and legal history, definition is given him, since it isn’t the definition he wants (I.e. One that makes Obama ineligible), he pretends he didn’t see it and continues to complain that no one is giving a definition.
Quite sad, really.
OK, I stand corrected of confusing the ‘common usage’ I learned working in ‘Injection mold and sand casting’ years ago with the correct spelling of its more common understanding.
In the industries sprue’ is a common occurrence in many processes and is most generally accounted for and controllable. But often when equipment operates other than intended the sprue’ is ejected or otherwise found in places that are not useful.
So, now we’ve both learned something new today.
Now, does anyone, as of yet, have a meaningful reason not to have an acknowledged legal’ definition for the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen…?
Ask my veterinarian.
Several people have already pointed you to legal and historical definitions as well as caselaw and instead you cover your eyes and plug your ears. Good luck not getting laughed out of court
Well, there is a consensus in the legal community about the definition of “natural born citizen.” Hell, Lynch v. Clarke wrote about it bein UNIVERSALLY understood that anyone born here was a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency, regardless of parentage. That was in 1848. So, there is, and there always has been a “legal” definition of natural born citizen.
The important question is why YOU don’t accept the legal definition. I would guess that it has to do with your desperate quest to invalidate the Obama presidency.
Well, I suspect that is an unanimous NO, you have NO meaningful reason to oppose having a Constitutionally recognized ‘definition’ of the Constitutional idiom being made in the form of a Declaratory Judgment responding to the SPECIFIC QUESTION and replete with its Constitutional meaning and intent.
It does strike me that it is also seemingly unanimous among you that you hold concerns that any such Judgment might somehow be contrary to YOUR interpretations of its historical understanding.
If that were not the case it would seem that you would jump on board and support the effort just so you could say, ‘I told you so’ if and when the Judgment came out supporting your ‘opinions’.
Either way, the benchmark, standard, the RULE, which the Congress may well have used to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization would be known to the Citizenry and other nations so there would be fewer misunderstandings than presently exists.
Again with the pathetic failure Craigy poo
Quote
To quote from the USCIS
As such bugger all squared to do with the POTUS or NBC’s
Next……..
Craig:
No misunderstandings presently exist. The last landmark cases on this issue were almost a hundred years ago.
Nobody opposes there being a definition, in fact they support there being one, because there already is one. You just don’t like that definition, so you pretend there isn’t, you pretend there’s a controversy when, legally, there isn’t. No one is afraid a court will rule a different way because none has in a hundred years. It is long settled law.
As an aside, federal courts are barred from issuing advisory judgments. One cannot just say “Hey, Supreme Court, define this for us.” The violates Article III of the Constitution. So your request that the Supreme Court just issue a declaration defining the term would be ignored. In any case, you would likely be pointed toward Wong Kim Ark and politely shown the door.
Slcraig strikes me as someone who might appreciate, possibly even enjoy, regular injections of pedantry, so perhaps it may be timely to also point out that even had the verb to sprue been appropriate in the first place, he should have said sprues and not sprue’s…..unless there’s been another fire sale of apostrophes.
This.
I’m absolutely certain that if I jumped off a 700 foot cliff onto jagged rocks, I would die and leave a horrible mess. I’m not going to try it just so my ghost could say “I told you so” when it happened.
I believe almost everyone here is certain that the Supreme Court would say NBC means what we’ve discussed, and cite the same citations. But given the current understanding of “standing”, the chance that any case will actually get to the court for that ruling is remote.
For one thing, the process has worked fine as is for the past 222 years. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
However, I can see where having a clear-cut definition of “natural-born citizen” could help to resolve some of the ambiguities, such as in the case of McCain. However, the only way I can see that happening is through a Constitutional amendment. Your chosen path of filing frivolous litigation is going nowhere and is a waste of time and money.
By the way, since birthers seem to have a problem understanding the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” why aren’t you asking the Supreme Court to define that?
There are myriad practical reasons why it would not happen, but the following scenario is possible:
1. The House of Representatives begins the day with a motion to suspend the rules and clear the legislative agenda. Motion is seconded, question is called, a vote is held and the motion carries. (I’m skipping some details of procedure.)
2. The next motion is to suspend the procedural rules that put specific restrictions on things like reprographics and distribution of bills. This measure is also voted and carries.
3. A question is brought to the floor for something like “impeachment of the President for high crimes and misdemeanors.” (There is no actual reason for the question to have anything as specific as “jaywalking”.) Everyone in the chamber passes on the debate, the measure is put to a vote, and carries.
4. Now because of #2, all that must happen is that a member or designated person walks over to the Senate chamber, recites the text of this act of the House.
5. Senate does something similar, suspending some of its procedural rules and calling the question immediately to a vote.
6. President is impeached and removed from office with hours to spare before lunchtime.
Obviously nothing resembling this fast track would ever actually happen, not for the least of bills, let alone for impeachment. But there’s no judicial involvement in the process, whatsoever. There aren’t even many rules, except what the House and the Senate place on themselves.
I believe the only wrinkle there is that the Constituion requires that during any impeachment proceeding, the Chief Justice must preside over the Senate. So just make sure he’s there and concurring during Step 5 and you’re good to go.
Actually, it’s impossible to get there because of the following…
Supreme Court tends to take two types of cases:
Cases that they clearly want to overturn, and cases where there are opposing rulings from the various circuits (for instance, defense of marriage act might get a different ruling in the 9th circuit than in the 5th circuit). This case would not qualify under any of those, because both of them actually require a circuit court to rule contrary to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
The work-flow would look like this…
1. Judge rules on Standing, passes onto discovery.
2. Judge rules on Discovery (which would produce the COLB that has been on the Internet for the last 2.5 years).
3. Judge rules that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen based upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (clear legal precedent).
4. Plaintiffs appeal based upon ruling.
5. Circuit court upholds ruling.
6. Plaintiffs appeal to Supreme Court.
7. Supreme Court denies cert.
There are no issues of standing at the Supreme Court. They can and do take any appeal that four justices agree is worth consideration. Now that might involve ruling on standing from a lower court and overturning a ruling and sending a case back to be heard on its merits.
All anyone need do to be granted standing to sue is find and present the correct plaintiffs who meet the requirements of standing. In my humble opinion, in an Obama eligibility lawsuit, John McCain, as the only other person to receive electoral college votes would have been the “right” plaintiff since he could show direct injury from Obama’s election. Sarah Palin and the Republican National Committee also MIGHT be granted standing to sue on ineligibility grounds if a judge who was predisposed to rule on this issue was presented with a civil suit.
Also, there are no issues of standing on the criminal side of the justice system and it is possible that a grand jury investigation in any jurisdication where the name Barack Hussein Obama II was on the ballot might (and I repeat MIGHT) uncover evidence of a crime such as fraud, forgery, or election fraud. Grand Juries go on “fishing expeditions” all the time, looking for enough evidence to issue an indictment.
So from what I read here is the lack of thinking things through and a failure to communicate.
Rickey;
Status Quo is NO LONGER POSSIBLE, given that MULTIPLE States are writing Bills that will run headlong into challenge of existing Statutes which REQUIRE that Executive Candidates be ‘eligible’ under the Constitution.
Those States that are writing Bills that are asking simply for documentation will have no means of interpreting that documentation which will lead to additional challenges.
Those States that write in their own State definition’ of NBC will also be challenged by ‘someone’.
Status Quo is dead and a Constitutionally interpreted definition is in the future.< Period
To those who are already looking at the prospect of 'impeachment' would seem to validate the suggestion I observe that you may have some doubts that the eventual Constitutional definition may end up being contrary to that which you are so adamantly supporting.
Be that as it may.
Should the SCOTUS Declaratory Judgment make it plain that any given occupant of the Executive Office is NOT 'eligible' to occupy that Office the Congress would need ONLY write up Articles of Removal, as opposed to an impeachment proceeding, given that a Senate Trial would be MOOT by virtue of the 'evidence' of the Declaratory Judgment and that the Chief Justice presides over it, even though a perfunctory Vote would be taken in the Senate.
THERE IS NO DISCRETIONARY wiggle room in the construction of the pertinent portion of the subject Clause. It is BOTH 'prerequisite and imperative' and written with specificity lacking ONLY intellectual honesty to understand it plainly.
I have spent a lot of time reading the various cases cited by one side and the other and have come away wit an understanding how the 'confusion' had begun and how it has been perpetuated.
Fair enough, all things being fair in love and war often the fields of battle are are picked and cultivated long before a a war is declared and often with the proper preparations the battlefield is displayed as a weapon made insurmountable that no battle is necessary.
But also, in love and war, often things do not unfold as planned for; a nail, a horseshoe, a horse, my kingdom for a horse.
One of the most amusing and yet frustrating things about birthers is evidenced by Craig’s most recent post – the ability to essentially restate his earlier points while completely ignoring any and all information given in responses to his previous one.
He now states, again, that:
1. Soon courts will have to make a definition NBC because states are defining it because one doesn’t exist.
And
2. The Supreme Court will be forced to give an advisory opinion on this subject.
Despite intervening posts clearly giving a definition of NBC that he continually states doesn’t exist as he puts his fingers in his ears going “LALALA” and pointing out that federal courts – including the Supreme Court – don’t make advisory opinions.
It’s really fascinating to me. I wonder if his eyes actually pass over posts that give a definition of NBC that he dislikes now, as if he’s trained himself, or does he see them and just assume those people – and >100 years of jurisprudence – are wrong?
Not true under the Constitution, but perhaps true from a pragmatic standpoint. That is, if the Supreme Court exceeds its own jurisdiction to rule on a case…. there’s nothing to stop them. And I think that is exactly what was done in Bush v. Gore.
But the hurdle for birthers is that part requiring four justices to agree the case is worth consideration. And it’s not going to happen in the case of a US President, born in a US state, who won a decisive electoral victory, whose election was confirmed without objection or debate by Congress, and who was inaugurated more then two years ago.
.
Do let us know when one of these bills receives a first reading in any legislative body with a quorum.
Yes lack of critical thinking on your part.
Many of those state bills have already been thrown out of the legislature. Only the bills that simply call for a birth certificate of any kind are going anywhere. At that point the only thing that would have to be done is Obama present the COLB and he’s on the ballot. See now we get to the crux of your position which has nothing to do with you wanting natural born citizen to be defined but rather what you can do to try to make Obama inelligible. None of the state bills actually deal with Natural Born Citizenship. Several of the states deal with their lack of understanding on the qualifications of President. If those bills ever get out of the legislature they will most likely get struck down in the district court as they are in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution.
Those states aren’t making their own definitions of what being NBC is but rather what they think the qualifications to be President is, wrong as they are.
The courts do not have the power to remove a sitting president that is left up to congress.
In spite of the fact that there is no such thing as “Articles of Removal,” where are the sixty cloture invoking votes going to come from in the 112th US Senate?
The barely coherent ramblings above are simply pointing to what has been the history of modern American political elections for a generation or more now. That’s why national candidates hire law firms to negotiate the 51 jurisdictional differences in election laws the states and the federal District and that’s why Barack Hussein Obama spent as much money as he did in 2008 in pre-election legal fees which were intentionally misinterpreted by “birthers” as “spending a million dollars to hide his long form birth certificate.”
Whatever the states require as proof of eligibility will be met by the major political parties. Who will suffer is independent and third party candidates who have to spend fortunes on legal fees. Democrats and Republicans will always have the funds to pursue legal challenges.
So now you are a Shakespeare scholar?
“The quotation is sometimes now repeated ironically when someone is is need of some unimportant item.” http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/186700.html
Misha,
I don’t think he can tell a hawk from a handsaw no matter which direction the wind is from…
Look, (denigration with held), I have spent 2 1/2 yrs PROVING that NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen is in EXISTENCE insofar as Citizenship and/or the ‘transient Political aspects’ are concerned.
So step down off your high horse and face the situation at eye level.
It IS NOT an advisory Opinion that will be Petitioned for and when that point in time comes you are free to find fault with the spelling, style and form as well as the Motions and arguments presented, which will ALL be presented in a Bona Fide Petition under the RULE OF LAW.
I agree and at the same time applaud and welcome the States taking up the effort.
But as in all things, your Predictions and mine will most probably diverge in some instances.
The FACT that “Articles of Removal” are unknown to you is not surprising but they have occurred in the Senate in the past.
I suspect you need to go back and read Marbury v. when you finally get situated in your thoughts that there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and that there is NO surviving Legislation regarding it nor has it been Amended nor has it EVER been specifically litigated to conclusion.
Read the 1st line of , well, I’ll wait. You guy’s need to give the situation a little more thought.
I’d say you’ve wasted 2 and a half years of ignoring every time someone points out what the term means, historical definition, and caselaw. You haven’t spent time proving that no definition exists. I’m sorry to tell you this, but the courts ignoring you doesn’t amount to there being no definition it’s just that they think you’re a waste of time. You’ve multiple times ignored many posters here when it is pointed out to you. At this point you have proven yourself nothing more than a troll. Many people on this site are real lawyers. The courts do not have the power to remove a sitting president. No matter how much you think it doesn’t make it so, this isn’t Alice in Wonderland
More nonsense.
If any of the birther bills make it out of committee and actually get passed, which is far from clear, they will be struck down as unconstitutional on several grounds, but they will never get to the definition of “natural-born citizen.”
The states have the authority to establish reasonable rules about ballot access, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that the states have no authority to make determinations about eligibility for Federal offices. In other words, states can prevent a candidate who has insufficient petition signatures from getting on the ballot, but they do not have the right to refuse a ballot spot because they are not convinced that the candidate for Federal office is eligible.
I believe that states can pass laws which require candidates for Federal office to provide proof of age, citizenship and residency, but that’s all they can do. They have to accept whatever birth certificate is issued by the state where the candidate was born. But I see no role under the Constitution for states to rule on a Federal candidate’s eligibility. That is the province of the voters and (if the candidate is elected) Congress.
Whether any of these laws will pass constitutional muster depends upon the wording. Laws which simply require a birth certificate and an affidavit of residence as part of the process of getting on the ballot would, in my estimation, pose no constitutional issues. However, giving a state’s Secretary of State the authority to deny ballot access because of his or her interpretation of “natural-born citizen” would clearly be unconstitutional. Also, laws which require a candidate to provide proof of being born in a hospital would be unconstitutional on their face, because that is adding a requirement for eligibility which does not appear in the Constitution. The same is true for any requirement which requires the candidate to prove that he or she is not and never has been a dual citizen.
Simply put, the states do not need a definition of “natural-born citizen” because the states have no authority to rule on who is or is not a natural-born citizen.
I realize that the California Secretary of State refused to allow Eldridge Cleaver to be on the ballot for President in 1968 because he was only 33 years old. However, most legal scholars now agree that California had no authority to do that and that Cleaver should have been on the ballot. If he had somehow managed to be elected, it would have been up to the electoral college to vote for someone else, or up to the Congress to refuse to certify the election because Cleaver was not eligible.
So, Constitutional Rule of Law is not your strong suit….?
Case Law…? Show me an example of case Law that remains ruling absent legislation codifying and/or conforming to the premise of the Ruling.
Acknowledging that there are exceptions to every Rule.
Nevertheless, there is NO CASE LAW on the specific subject rendering ANY dicta that may be found as merely informative as to the depth of thinking of any particular jurist reflecting on the specific subject of the case at hand, but CAN NOT be taken as RULING on a subject which was NOT subject of that case.
If it were as you would have it a spotted owl could not be protected because it was a bird and ALL birds can not be protected.
As for your protectiveness of the Office of POTUS I do not see anywhere in my arguments contesting any given persons rights to any given office.
Insofar as the ‘transient Political aspects’ of the Constitutional idiom is concerned I leave to the Courts and those that watch the Court what may or may not need to be done once a correct and proper ‘legal’ definition is determined.
That I often find myself contemplating whether any President can be truly considered ‘eligible’ by the ‘whatever’ and undefined standard is a musing that inevitably returns me to the conviction that an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitution idiom of natural born Citizen IS Constitutionally necessary for the continued perpetuation of the office.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that courts are required or empowered to render exact definitions of all legal terminology whenever someone finds the language in any way ambiguous.
But that’s not what courts do– their job isn’t to function as an ultimate legal dictionary.
Many words and phrases used in the Constitution and in statutes is potentially ambiguous or susceptible of more than one interpretation. The only time the courts get involved in parsing out the terms is when an actual issue arises where it is necessary to clarify the meaning in order to resolve whatever dispute is brought before the court.
That’s where the whole “standing” and “case or controversy” thing comes in.
The courts will weigh in on the precise meaning of “natural born citizen” if an when a dispute arises as to whether a given individual meets the qualifications to be President. “Dispute” doesn’t mean that a bunch of citizens are upset — “dispute” means that an appropriate legal challenge is brought at an appropriate time in an appropriate forum.
Because Obama’s election was confirmed by Congress and he was sworn in as President, there is no such dispute in his case. He is a “natural born citizen” because Congress implicitly decided that he was, and no challenge was raised by the people empowered to do so within the window of time allowed.
If theres was a dispute, then the courts would intervene only to the extent necessary to resolve that particular dispute. So it is conceivable that had John McCain been elected, and a challenge raised on grounds that he was not born on US soil — a court might have determined the question on very narrow grounds — that is, you could have court holding that the son of a US citizen serving in the military, born abroad in the locale where the military father has been deployed, whose citizenship is specifically ratified by statute, is “natural born” … but still have an open question as to whether the European-born child of US citizens vacationing in France would be considered “natural born”.
The problem is simply one of context — just about any word or phrase is subject to dispute or alternative interpretations — which is why the courts don’t get into the business of issuing definitions except as needed to explain their decisions on real-world facts.
The only fact that is clear is that you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about. I mean, serious, “Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen?” Who the heck talks like that? You realize every real lawyer that reads your stuff is laughing his but off when he reads your stuff? Heck, most sane people who have never studied law can figure out that all you’re trying to do is throw phrases around that you think make you sound lawyerly with a firm grasp of the law, but in reality, it is as convincing as when a child play acts.
But more to the point, the core of the “Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen” (I can’t even type that, even less say it out loud without a chuckle) is beyond doubt. Born on the soil, not to a diplomat or soldier of an invading army (do we really need to say that one?) and you’re a natural born citizen. There is no question of that in the legal community. There is no question of that in the reality based community either. There is some genuine scholarly debate once you go beyond our national borders, but the odds of someone with standing actually challenging it in court are pretty slim (see John McCain).
Please, share with us your thoughts on which 13 Democrats are going to join with the 47 Republican Senators (assuming all the RINOs and moderate Republicans go along) to invoke cloture on any “Articles of Removal?”
Pffft…
pffft…..
You need to think that through a bit and come up with a REAL question.
Err, yeah, I was being “pragmatic!” 😉
I am not a lawyer but I play one on the internet!
I still maintain that John Sidney McCain might (repeat MIGHT) meet the Article III requirements for standing:
(1) injury in fact: He was injured IF Obama was ineligible;
(2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct: there is a causal relationship between Obama being on the ballot and McCain not being the 44th President of the United States and
(3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision: this one is pushing the envelope, admitedly but the Supreme Court might render a decision on justiciablity/redressability.
I’ll take the above as meaning: “I don’t have a clue.”
So NOW NBC are DEEMED after the fact by some controlling legal authority…?
Hail Britannia………..or is that the arrogant howling of someone drunk with power………they both sound a bit Imperialistic to me,,,,,,,,
I’ll take “real questions” for $500, Alex.
“Who is president of the United States?”
That sounds like the air escaping from your balloon.
How do you expect to successfully respond to DOJ attorneys when you can’t even make cogent arguments here?
By the way, is it true that you live on government checks?
I am NOT challenging any given persons ‘eligibility’ under Article II, I am challenging anyone’s and everyone’s in that there is NO ‘legal’ standard by which to determine who may or may not be ‘eligible’ for Constitutional purposes.
There is NO Federal Department or sub-division thereof that has the statutory authority to certify anyone as being a NBC at birth.
THAT makes the Clause without effect and THAT is unconstitutional.
Translation: I am a crack pot asking a court to make an advisory judgment, defining a legal term, showing no standing whatsoever, in clear violation of the Constitution.
And why, pray tell, do we need “a Federal Department or sub-division thereof that has the statutory authority to certify anyone as beig a NBC at birth?” We don’t have a “Federal Department or sub-division thereof that has the statutory authority to certify anyone” as being male or female at birth, and somehow we manage to get by. And like NBC, contrary to your protestations, we know it 9 times out of 10. Sure, there are some fuzzy instances where someone is born with both sets of reproductive organs, or have some chromosonal defects, or in the case of NBC, some fuzzy edges like John McCain. But you don’t get to show up at the court and demand they solve those fuzzy edges. You see the Constitution has a requirement the federal courts only resolve “cases and controversies.” So even in the case where there is something clearly unconstitutional, if it doesn’t directly impact you, you don’t have the right to chime in and demand the courts do something about it.
Wouldn’t be the first birther who put cases through while on government cheese. Remember Chris Strunk? He railed against the government while accepting money from it.
Oh my, such a well thought out response.
Are you aware, if you case ever got beyond the quick dismissal stage, these are the very questions you might need to be able to answer? If a group of lawyers and other interested parties can toss out such responses and questions as part of blog comments, what do you think a group of high priced government lawyers and judges/justices will ask? I would think you would want to be able to respond to whatever they may throw your way?
I fear, with your responses here, that your case will not work out like you would prefer (apparently you were right, I do have fear, only in the wrong place).
If you are considering Veterans Benefits, (Both natural father and Step-Father dieing from service related causes), and Social Security, (after a combined total of 83 yrs of payments into the system), as tantamount to Guv’mnt welfare, well, shame on you PUNK.
If the quality of questioning emanating from SCOTUS, or the Lower Courts for that matter, are on the level I find here then this Nation truly may be lost due to the inability to achieve cogent intellectual honesty on a fundamental subject as pertinent to any societies perpetuation as who are its own citizens and what are the needs insofar as national security and citizenship is concerned.
Still, NO rational reasoning as to WHY an acknowledged ‘legal definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen should NOT be pursued by any and every responsible citizen.
“Still, NO rational reasoning as to WHY an acknowledged legal definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen should NOT be pursued by any and every responsible citizen.”
Every American I know learned what a natural born citizen is while in school- anyone born in the United States is eligible to be President of the United States.
Why would we need a legal definition on something that is so well understood that every single school child in America knows what it is?
That’s your personal opinion. Courts have ruled on the issue. You don’t like their rulings so you discount them.
However, I don’t think that anything could be more clearly stated than: “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, AND ONLY TWO: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established BY THE MERE FACT OF BIRTH under circumstances described in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes AT ONCE a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”–Supreme Court of the United States, US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) decided 6-2 for Wong Kim Ark.
A “citizen of the United States at birth” is a natural born citizen and the specifications for being a Citizen of the United States at birth are spelled out in excruciating detail in the US Code: “the law of the land.”
“Natural born citizen”=pre-14th Amendment term of art. “Citizen of the United States at birth”=post 14th Amendment constitutional and statuatory definition.
Since US presidential elections are conducted on a state by state plus the federal District basis, it is left to each state to determine whether any particular candidate qualifies for the ballot as a natural born citizen. Disputes on that issue regarding any candidate can be heard all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, which has thus far entertained 12 such appeals regarding the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama but the High Court has not seen fit to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to any of them.
This Friday, the Supreme Court will have another chance to grant a hearing to a challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility when they conference on Hollister v Soetoro et. al. for a second time.
Hey if you’re totally against getting money from the government then you should just avoid getting money from it. It kind of makes you sound hypocritical
You are a PUNK useful idiot ‘spewing’ regurgitated talking points to someone that has been immunized by rational and critical thinking.
So take YOUR opinion of who is and what constitutes hypocrisy and suck it or shove it.
You continue to OBFUSCATE when asserting that Court Opinions NOT ON SUBJECT are somehow CONTROLLING upon a separate subject.
As for the 14th, show me the words or the words that would require your suggested Amendment of the Article II idiom of natural born Citizen ANYWHERE in the 14th or ANYWHERE else.
Get on the same page at least.
I am discussing RULE OF LAW emanating from the Constitution and not upward from the Bench.
The subject has only ONE instance of Statutory history that was relatively quickly repealed by a subsequent Congress.
Nevertheless that singular instance MUST necessarily be considered as the most relative expression of the nature of the idiom and any attempt to enlarge, abridge and or otherwise modify THAT expression must be considered as an attempt to make the Clause without effect.
Do you kiss the judge with that mouth?
Maybe that’s why you keep losing in court?
Naw…. you keep losing because you’re wrong.
> to someone that has been immunized by rational and critical thinking
Oh, you misspoke. You meant to say “to”, not “by”, I suppose.
Why, thank you. I will.
OK, we agree that the presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution must have an effect, which means that it must be able to include some candidates and exclude others.
I think what you are looking for is some kind of a definition of “natural born citizen” that could, in theory, be distilled into a computer program, which fed the relevant facts could flag a list of candidates as “eligible” or “ineligible” — something that works like an Income tax form where if you checked any of the boxes, you can’t take the deduction.
Now consider another phrase in the Constitution, which the Constitution doesn’t define but I’m sure you agree must have effect: “high crimes and misdemeanors.” I doubt any court has “defined” that term either, nor could I imagine someone distilling the concept into a set of deterministic rules that any consensus would agree upon.
Now my question to you is: how would the Congress using its discretion in the first case be fundamentally different from the Congress using its discretion in the second? Would you argue that a lack of definition in the second case renders the clause without effect?
Man, you really are dumb as a brick, aren’t you? How are cases about the very difition of citizenship (and in Wong Kim Ark, the issue on appeal was whether he was a Natural Born Citizen) on a different subject? Every time you post, you just reinforce the fact that you don’t have the first clue how the law works. Here’s a clue for you. You generally don’t look to statutes (particularly statutes that were never examined by a court) to answer Constitutional questions. Statutes can be found unconstitutional by the courts. You know, those things set up by the Constitution to review cases and controversies, including whether something is constitutional. A simple act of the legislature does not get to change the accepted meanings of terms used in the Constitution. And particularly since the one act of Congress you point to didn’t even attempt to define the term, but expand it to include births overseas. The very thing you point to was an attempt to enlarge, abridge or otherwise modify the term.
Take a refresher civics class. Short of amending the Constitution, the courts decide the meaning of terms in the Constitution, not the legislature.
Speaking of standing, what’s with these useful idiots that only ‘attack’ and offer NO useful or constructive thought.
I know that this issue is contentious, but it is made so by those that RESIST efforts to understand the issue at its fundamental level.
That a circuitous path is traveled to arrive at an understanding and a circuitous path must be taken to reach resolution causes cross paths that tend to confuse the weaker minds has become obvious.
I accept that EVERYTHING I have to say on the subject and my interpretations are mine and subject to rebuttal but I see no need for the personal attacks some here would make to my abilities or any other attribute of my person or personal position.
Where is the person that has a rational reason to object to the effort of obtaining an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen beyond regurgitating ‘status quo’ irrelevant Case Law and 14th Amendment opinions…?
Is there NO one that has thought this through besides the White House advisors…?
Just a thought…
I do not know whether John McCain is eligible to be President or not; there’s a legitimate debate on the subject. However, the Senate passed a resolution unanimously stating that he was and if McCain had won the election, I believe that the Congress would have certified that election and McCain would be President.
An event like that is a powerful political precedent and I find it difficult to imagine a Supreme Court in a subsequent case overruling both the expressed approval of Congress and the expressed will of the people in electing McCain, and coming up with a more restrictive definition of eligibility that would have excluded McCain — no matter what they might have found in the law and in historical authorities.
O God and Heavenly Father,
Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
Reinhold Niebuhr
I don’t know, that White House advisers have thought about this but the issue has been given some thought.
We do know the court’s interpretation at least insofar as President Obama’s eligibility goes.
The US Supreme Court expressed its view in 1898 in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark. An Indiana appeals court (in Ankeny v. Daniels) recently made this clear when it said:
The US Constitution does not allow the federal courts to give advisory opinions, but the executive branch relies on official opinions issued by the United States Attorney General. AG Bates in 1862 wrote again that natural born citizens where those born in the country without regard to the status of their parents. He said:
This is not a matter of controversy or debate. Gabriel Chin, Professor of Law at Arizona State University, writing in the Michigan Law Review, opened his article on the eligibility of John McCain by saying (as do many law review articles on presidential eligibility):
Or Professor Charles Gordon of the Georgetown Law Center writing in the Who Can Be President Of The United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD L. Rev. 1,1 (1968) in 1968:
So, there is no controversy except in the minds of the uninformed.
There is really nothing controversial or contentious about the subject. Just because you don’t like the answer, does not make all the case law that defines what a natural born citizenship irrelevant. Funny, you whine about personal attacks, but don’t seem to mind using them yourself. Any why shouldn’t you be mocked? You display a fundamental lack of knowledge about the law, Constitution, and workings of our legal system, refuse to accept what 99.99% of the legal community (and before a black democrat was elected, 99.99% of the population), try to speak what you perceive to be “legalese” and only make yourself look more foolish, and you are suprised that people mock you? WKA went to great lenghts examining the history of Natural Born, and yet that’s not good enough or not on point? Every law book on the subject, and even Dept. of State publications say the US is primarily a jus soli nation, expanded to add some people aspects of jus sanguines by statute (which could be the subject of debate). The big hint that there really is no debate about the core definition of Natural Born Citizen is that no one in the legal community has written about the jus soli side of it in 100 years. There is no controversy. There is no doubt. The people who have devoted their lives to the study of law aren’t even wasting there time looking into it. If there was even a little bit of doubt, someone would be looking to make a name for themselves by publishing a series or articles or a book on the subject…but guess what…no one is. And if it’s good enough for Lawrence Tribe, and every other Constitutional scholar, do you really think you have anything to add to the discussion?
Amen.
I read a joural article a while back (it may have been part of the Mich law symposium), that touched on that idea. Not only is it unlikely that the courts would touch a situation like McCain, but what politician would want to challenge the idea that a person born to citizens overseas while serving their country could not be President of the United States. You’re basically poking a stick in the eye of the most patriotic group of people saying your child can’t be president because of your sacrifice to that very same country. I think you might have better luck if the person was just born to ex-pat parents living in Prague because they hate US corporatism and commericalism…but who knows.
Consensus is ONLY relevant when the question requiring consensus has been stated in unambiguous terms and put to a vote, as in a SCOTUS Decision, House and Senate Bills and Acts and an Amendment circulated among the various States, UNDER the Rule of Law.
You are describing the anarchy of a pure democracy. We’re not there, yet.
There has been No Amendment to A2S1C5, there is NO surviving legislation relating to the idiom within A2S1C5, there has NEVER been an adjudicated Federal case, or State case that I am aware of, that was litigated on the subject idiom of A2S1C5.
Therefore it IS a legitimate Constitutional question of Constitutional interpretation in spite of protestations to the contrary.
Odd, that Scott v Sanford is reviled and yet was merely acknowledging the LAWS as they existed at the time.
Here is what was said in regard to following the Rule of Law in that case;
“[I]t is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted…”
And on the subject of citizenship as it related to the case;
“[I]t is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised[sic] as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [p407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States…”
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
Your problems are two-fold.
1. You didn’t give a hoot about the definition of “natural-born citizen” until Obama was elected. This is your back-door attempt to gain standing where Taitz, Apuzzo, Berg and the others have failed.
2. Your approach is doomed to failure and is a waste of time, money and judicial resources.
The only way you are going to get your definition of “natural-born citizen” is if you can persuade 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution to include a definition. It’s a long shot, but your current strategy has no shot.
Great point, Doc- no wonder slcraig ignored it.
Maybe he wants a new cabinet position, the Dept. of Citizenship, where the Secretary of Citizenship could act like the Queen of England knighting people. You would bend of one knee before him and he would touch your shoulder with a rolled-up copy of the Constitution and say “I hereby dub thee “Natural-Born”!”
Sounds like a great use of taxpayer money.
Oh, and the question about taking Social Security and Veteran’s payments? I suppose the test is whether or not you look down upon others who do the same. I’m no longer surprised by the number of teabagger-types who believe that they are a special-snowflake when it comes to taking gov. money, but anyone else who does it is a lazy, commie mooch. (See Ayn Rand)
But they can not without an Amendment to ‘abridge, enlarge and or otherwise modify’ the subject idiom from ‘whatever’ the SCOTUS might determine that it was on the day of Adoption of the Constitution.
Again, the ONLY relevant ‘legal’ acknowledgment of the nature of the idiom was the 1790 Law, which S.R.511 felt safe in restating.
But aside from the fact that S.R.s carry NO legal weight and their value, once adopted, extends only so far as a recipient might make use of it.
Nevertheless, the 1790 law was REPEALED making the S.R. less than worthless but also UNCONSTITUTIONAL when one gathers up the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.
The irony is that the very act of going through the process of ‘designing’ the S.R. PROVES the point that there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.
The very words of the Clause is proscriptive insofar as any other ‘conditions’ of citizenship is concerned so the ‘opinion’ that it can by ‘abridged, enlarged and or otherwise modified’ by the weight of a S.R. or a multi-year collective consensus of common MISUNDERSTANDINGS and MISINTERPRETATIONS flies in the face of Constitutional Rule of Law, doesn’t it…?
That said I too would support an Amendment that would reinstate the 1790 Law with conditions of proper documentations duly acknowledged and the timly return to territorial jurisdiction of children born to the U.S. citizen natural parents who are abroad in the SERVICE of the U.S.
What a surprise…you’re wrong again. If there is a consensus, it will never reach the Supreme Court. The Supremes have much more important things to occupy their times. And the real kicker is the reason why there is a consensus is because the core defintion was decided by SCOTUS a century ago in Wong Kim Ark. There may be some question in terms of folks like Sen. McCain, who claim NBC based on a statute, but until someone with standing challenges him in court, there is it won’t be decided. Federal courts don’t give advisory opinions.
And nice job citing Dred Scott. Only problem is that the reason it was reviled is because it did exactly the opposite of what you claim. It ignored the law as it existed to reach the outcome they wanted. It was condemned at the time, and modern scholars universally agree that Justice Curtis’ dissent is properly stated the law.
Where is this rational and critically thinking person you speak of? Obviously you’re not talking about yourself, because rational, critical thinkers do not file frivolous cases in court because they don’t bother doing research and accept the answer to their questions. You are pretty hypocritical just like most birthers.
You are making absolutely no sense here. You do realize you are contradicting yourself in this statement. You are saying that Congress cannot expand the definition of NBC, but then go back to the 1790 statute doing just that as being significant somehow. And why would you need a Constitutional amendment to reinstate the 1790 law, unless it was unconstitutional back in 1790, which would make all your ranting about it irrelevant?
I do agree with you there is debate as to whether the 1790 law (and the Senate Resolution declaring McCain a NBC) were constitutional. And that may be a subject for SCOTUS review should another McCain run again, and a person with standing challenge him in court. However, the 1790 law did not define NBC. It was an attempt to expand it (unless you are arguing that only people born overseas to citizen parents are NBC…which means we’ve never had a NBC president). As for people born on the soil. That is established by common law, and has been since the time of the writing of the Constitution (and the courts have ruled on it).
As for my thoughts on the 1790 Law, lacking any record of debates as to the thoughts of repealing it I can only ‘assume’ as I might.
So I conclude that it may have been the realization that the Congress had no ‘jurisdiction’ over the prerequisites, imperatives and enumerated powers of the Executive Articles except by AMENDMENT.
In acknowledging the Separation of Powers I find that conclusion to be plausibly correct and made evident by the necessity of utilizing the Amendment process to effect the needs of the 7th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 25th Amendments.
As for the jus soli grant since the founding you are confused by ‘birthright prerogative of citizens’.
Were you to be correct it would need to be the case that there was no need for the Civil War or the 14th Amendment and note that the Native Indians were granted the ‘grant of citizenship’ by a legislative act.
But, you believe what you believe by consensus while ignoring Constitutional Law.
The Courts litigate conflicts of legislated law. Please show me the legislated law that has expressed the character, condition and or circumstances requisite to be considered an American natural born Citizen.
You can not and I can not.
I’ll wait for a ruling on the Rule of Law and if it so happens to agree with your consensus I’ll accept it and move on.
But not before.
P.S.,
Before continuing to assert that ‘everyone’ knows what it is and that its settled Law, please take note That I provided not only my own Birth Certificate but those of both my natural parents and STILL there is no Federal Department or sub-division thereof that will acknowledge anymore than that I am a ‘native-born U.S. Citizen’.
I am aware that you will argue that as ‘proof’ that the terms are synonymous, which I will argue puts that and all of your other arguments to rest, for if they were synonymous then why the REFUSAL to acknowledge that I am an American natural born Citizen…?
Because no one cares.
What about my cat?
Doesn’t really matter why. It’s all irrelevant. It was merely a statute, and one that was quickly ditched. It is pretty meaningless.
No…No confusion. I am fully aware of the common law history of the term “natural born” and the place jus soli has played. The Supreme Court has been very kind in sharing that with us in Wong Kim Ark, unlike imaginary prhases like “birthright prerogative of citizens” which, big surprise, is a phrase never used by any court as far as I can tell. So if there is any confusion on my part, it would come from the fact that you make up pseudo-legal concepts that have no place in American jurisprudence.
Only the most intellectually dishonest person would even think to oversimplify the causes of the civil war to this level. The 14th Amendment was a reafirmation of the common law, and the Supreme Court has said as much. Native American had to be granted citizenship because they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US. The US government made treaties with them. They are legally a separate nation.
Says the person making up legal concepts. Thank you, but I studied Constitutional law (have you?), and read a few Supreme Court opinions on the subject of citizenship. I also know the SCOTUS does not take up cases on matters of law that there is a consensus on, particularly when the opposing option is merely junk law.
Wonk Kim Ark for starters.
I just did
Keep waiting. It’s not going to happen. The courts don’t waste their time on matters of settled law.
What you accept is of no consequence. It has no impact on the state of the law, and your suits will continue to be dismissed.
I could not find any Federal Department or sub-division thereof that will acknowledge that I am a male. I was even willing to expose my genitals in public. Why the REFUSAL to acknowledge that I am a male?
Oh yeah….that’s because there’s no Department of Stupid Questions in the Federal Government….although at times I feel it could be a cabinet level position.
What is sad is that if the supreme court re-visited the issue, the birthers wouldn’t understand it anyway. If they can’t understand Wong Kim Ark, Minor or Dred Scott, what makes you think they would understand a new decision. It really is pathetic. They want the court to consider the Vattel argument blissfully unaware that the court already did and rejected it a century ago. And their rejection was not dicta, but even birther lawyers don’t understand what dicta means or what is binding in a court case. The fact is that Wong’s definition is binding law unless and until the court re-visits the issue and, as of yet, they have presented no argument for a contrary argument that wouldn’t be laughed out of court. Anyone citing Res. 511 or the 1790 naturalization act as evidence of a contrary definition simply has no understanding of law.
So keep filing suits and claiming the court are corrupt for following their long-standing rules on standing and dismissing suits that don’t even try to comply with such rules. I guess some people don’t understand what “rule of law” means.
I didn’t mean to speak for your cat and I will certainly correct myself and apologize once (s)he provides documentation to prove that (s)he is both your cat and a natural born American signed by both the vet that delivered her/him and her/his mother and father. Either that or if the SOCUTS acknowledges your cat’s ancestry (with their entire descent detailed from the original single celled organism).
What we really need is a Stupid Question Czar…
What exactly is the difference between you “moving on” and you “not moving on?”
There is no obfuscation on my part.
There is no difference in law between a born citizen and a natural born citizen. As the US Supreme Court ruled in 1898, there are only TWO classifications of citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. If you’re a citizen and you ain’t one, then you’re the other.
With specific regard to Barack Hussein Obama II, “We conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels
That’s one reasonable approach. The other is that in the redrafting the legislation, “natural born” was just dropped due to the belief on the part of the drafter that natural born was redundant to describe someone who was a citizen at birth.
I think that is important that no subsequent legislation used the phrase “natural born citizen.” Even if no law could define it, a law could have used the term for something — but none ever did.
I do not think that is accurate.
Looking at the debate over the 14th Amendment, and the decision in Wong, it seemed the general view that the 14th Amendment was simply declarative of what existed at the founding of the country and that was not how Dred Scott saw it. Dred Scott is criticized for misstating the law in northern states regarding the citizenship of free blacks. Dred Scott declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Dred Scott even removed citizenship from free blacks in states where slavery was illegal if their ancestors had been slaves.
Dred Scott butchered the law.
OK, here’s how to get an acknowledgement. First, you have to get yourself arrested and held for deportation by immigration authorities. Then, in the deportation hearing, you will have a chance to prove up your status as an American citizen, via a birth certificate. When the immigration judge orders you released, that will be the acknowledgement you are looking for.
Yes. Dred Scott was reviled for it was contrary to our history. The majority opinion really didn’t touch on the subject of birthright citizenship for persons other than freed slaves and nevertheless pretty much made no sense no matter how you slice it. In addition, with the Justices writing 9 separate opinions, it is pretty much impossible to figure out what a majority of the court agreed upon in such case as a young Horace Gray, who would later decide Wong Kim Ark, wrote at the time.
In the 14th Amendment Congress, Dred Scott was called political speech, not a court decision. Why? Before publishing the opinion, one southern Justice contacted President Buchanan and suggested that if he could lobby some of the northern Justices to come on board, they could make a more sweeping ruling. Buchanan did lobby at least one such Justice. Can you imagine if such happened today? For the only time in American history, a Justice, Justice Curtis, resigned from the court in protest to the decision. Funny that Justice Curtis’ dissent was viewed as the dispositive opinion by the 14th Amendment Congress, the court in Wong Kim Ark and pretty much every opinion on the subject in the past century, including Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. Sometimes, the dissenting opinion turns out to be the prevailing law.
Well, come on and be intellectually honest as a leader.
You know as well as others that it was not an appropriate use of legislative power to use the naturalization authority to ‘deem’ a person ‘as if’ a natural born Citizen and was repealed for cause of the infringement into the enumerated requisites of the Executive over which they had no expressed enumerated authority.
But then all that I see in response is one form of bastardization of the Rule of Law in one form or another closely resembling an Anarchist orgy of ‘whatever’ justifies the assertions.
A quick response to ‘no one cares’. Brings to mind episodes like Dredd Scott, Rosa Parks, Love v , Jane Roe, Larry Flynt, Lawrence v, and myriad of others that ‘no one’ cared about but those that did.
Still, NOT one single reasoned response in opposition of having an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition for the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.
I wonder if the USCA 10th is having the same problem…?
What does “intellectually honest” mean that “honest” does not?
I wonder if you will allow the next President to take office without precisely the same amount of questioning as to his or her citizenship status.
Well, it is clear you have not done research on this. In enacting the 1790 statute, they actually said they were copying English law. English statutes said children of subjects born oversees were natural born subjects. There is no legislative history at all why later Congresses changed the language. To claim you know the answer or such was a mistake is simply making stuff up. Of course, such statute does not define “natural born citizen” generally as it only applies to the foreign born. Duh! Again, it simply mirrors English law. Finally, if you can’t understand that the Supreme Court has already considered and rejected these arguments a century ago, well perhaps you do more research or perhaps go to law school.
Of course, it may have been changed because of the reasons for the 1795 law in the first place.
The 1790 law was viewed as too lax on requirements for naturalization. With upheavals going on in Europe, there was a call for a more stringent law. Congressman Sedgwick of Massachusetts said during the debates on the 1795 bill “that he had always been opposed to the policy of the Government on this subject [naturalization]; that his opposition had not been abated by reflection, but increased by the existing state of things in Europe.”
So dropping the “natural born” term from the new act may have been seen as a safeguard to keeping people who had birth-place allegiances from becoming President. Just as naturalized citizens with foreign birth-place allegiances could not be President.
And as we know from James Madison, the founders believed that place of birth was the most certain criteria for allegiance.
Dred Scott was criticized from the day it came out. Part of the reason is that Scott’s case could have been dismissed without reaching the merits of the case. Also, it completely misstates history, and law, and was recognized as such from the start. It was known at the time that Taney was on a mission to strike down any law restricting a slave owner’s right to move with “his property” even striking Northern states legislation prohibiting moving slaves into their states (and there was a case working up to the Supreme Court when the civil war broke out). Taney was an activist judge on a mission. The Dred Scott opinion was so bad that Curtis (who wrote the dissent that is universally accepted as properly stating the law) resigned because of it. Because of that opinion, Congress would not authorize money to add his bust to the capital to join the busts of the prior 4 chief justices. Dred Scott wasn’t like Plessey where it took a few of decades to realize how wrong it was. It was seen from day 1 as a bad decision.
Oh lordy!
MichaelN is going to post the same cut-n-paste arguments here hundreds of times like he did at the Fogbow. Get ready, soon you will be able to recite his crap by memory because you will see it so much.
Save us Jeebus!
Question is …….
What did Coke mean by mentioning the TWO qualities required to make a ‘natural born subject’?
What did Coke mean by ‘nature and birthright’?
What did Coke mean by ‘procreation and birthright’?
What did Coke mean when he excluded a child ‘not born under the ligeance of a subject’ from being a ‘natural born subject’ although the child was born soli?
Well?
It has nothing to do with changing ‘nationality’.
Coke speaks of a Frenchman, when he gives an example of an alien Frenchman visiting in friendship who by local ligeance is deemed a ‘subject’ & because of the Frenchman’s status as a ‘subject’, his child is a ‘natural born subject’ of England.
Had the Frenchman come as an enemy, then he would not have been a ‘subject’ & his child would not be a ‘natural born subject’ even if born soli, because of the father’s status as a non-subject.
It makes no difference WHY the (enemy) alien is not a ‘subject’, it’s the fact that he is not a ‘subject’ that causes the child to not be a ‘natural born subject’.
Coke has made it clear that the ‘subject’ status of the parent father is essential to the making of a ‘natural born subject’.
Ergo: it is not only soli that makes a ‘natural born subject’.
@ Ballantine
The child follows the ligeance of the father, it is inherited by nature and procreation.
‘Nationality’ is a separate matter, as you should be aware that one can be a US national and yet not a US citizen.
It seems like it will take a long time before the ‘knowledgeable folks’ will even dare have a crack at it.
When confronted with the truth of the matter, it usually results in desperate, thread-spoiling, diversionary, denial, pack-attack, shoot the messenger tactic, then when they can’t find any more childish insults & derailing in their arsenal, they wimp-out from addressing the point at hand.
All that is needed is for someone from the ‘knowledgeable folks’ to address what Coke said.
If I am not interpreting what Coke said correctly, then what is the ‘correct’ interpretation?
Oh lookie…MichaelN, after being banned from Fogbow for egregious stupidity, pausing by Mad Ole Orly and being roundly ignored is desperately trying the same cack here.
Michael, never hear the definition of insanity…?
The President’s father came to the US in friendship, therefore, like the frenchman, by local allegiance, he became a citizen of the united States and his son became a “natural born Citizen”.
You mean like Martin, Rubio, Jendal…?
Absolutly.
So you basically said you wouldn’t question Martin, Rubio and Jindal like you question Obama… I wonder why that is?
Leaving the ‘interpretation of NBC’s definition to SCOTUS for now, I see NOTHING that would indicate any ‘discretionary’ authority in its application as being written into the Clause.
“…NO person EXCEPT….SHALL be eligible….”
I too have searched through the Constitution and find only a few instances where ‘words’ are of such circumstance that they been ‘modified’ in interpretations over the years which lead me to wonder if the intent of their usage is not being adhered to.
High crimes and misdemeanors could be said to be such an instance in that they are of ‘Statutory’ construction that are subject to change over time. In Original usage a Quo Warranto WAS of the Criminal Nature but under D.C. Codes it is a Civil Offense. Anyway, as the episode of Clinton proves that particular passage IS discretionary usage in application.
One that has stuck out to me is the words used in A1S8 “…an uniform RULE of naturalization, and LAWS of Bankruptcy…..”.
When you consider the precise language usage the Congress has failed miserably and missed the one chance it had to express the nature of the idiom of natural born Citizen by establishing that form of Citizenship as the RULE to which the process of and subsequent laws and regulations of naturalization was intended to lead the individuals and families to attain toward, and in time obtaining with their ‘posterity’.
Given that the human mind is said to operate as if a computer is some functions it is difficult to suggest another method of discriminating among candidates eligibility against any given standard.
Once an unambiguous definition is made the ‘vetting’, insofar as the application of A2S1C5 is concerned, is a simple matter of FACTual findings.
Although some would have it that a person is ‘deemed as if’ at the Ballot Box, that flies in the face of the entire Clause. Were that to be intended in the 1st instant the ‘Grandfather Exemption’ would not have been written.
Descrestionary…?….the only discretion I find available regarding the Executive qualification Clause is ONLY found in the section outlining the Amendment process to the exclusion of ALL THREE BRANCHES discretion of ‘abridging, enlarging and or otherwise modifying the Constitutional prerequisite imperative.
Apparently, a person’s gender is left to a state to decide, since it is listed on your BC.
The places where the term natural born citizen is of legal import are in defining who can be POTUS or VPOTUS and in cases discriminating between NBC & naturalized citizens. The courts only respond where there is a case or controversy, so you need to place yourself in a position where there is a case or controversy before a court will make a decision. Are you going to run for POTUS in ’12?
So we are NOT a Representative Republic of the People, BY THE PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE….?
We ‘deem’ a person ‘as if’ subject to the outcome of the Ballot Box and ignore the Rule of Law …?
The idiom of natural born Citizen implies AT BIRTH and to continue as such from birth to a point of time that the ‘transient Political aspects’ may be of concern to one so situated and to the needs of the Constitution.
Well, I can not locate your original question, but as I recall you questioned if I would question other candidates that had questionable eligibility issues and I pointed to several that I already have questions about.
So basically, you’re incorrect in your basic premise that basically I am only concerned with only one persons basic eligibility.
We are, but the Federal Courts are empowered by the Constitution to hear only cases and controversies. The Rule of Law, therefore, says that the Courts cannot entertain your theoretical questions. Don’t like it, the Rule of Law says you can amend the Constitution.
Word salad.
Umm no nice try but lets try this again. You answered a question someone else asked. Here is what you replied to:
James M: I wonder if you will allow the next President to take office without precisely the same amount of questioning as to his or her citizenship status.
Slcraig said:
You mean like Martin, Rubio, Jendal…?
Absolutly.
To which I replied that you’re basically saying you would allow Martin, Rubio, Jindal to assume office without the same questioning you have of Obama. I asked you why is that? So would you like to try this again?
I would like to know why he didn’t raise equally vociferous arguments against the eligibility of either President Bush, President Clinton, President Reagan, President Carter, or any other President. He has seen even *less* corroborating evidence of eligibility for any of them than he has for President Obama, so why all the special concern for President Obama?
I do not expect him to raise this much concern over the next president, which will make it even more obvious that this is about, and only about President Obama.
No, I mean like Gingrich, Thune, Crist, Romney, Huckabee, or Palin.
You had better go to *at least* as much effort seeking their “original long form whatever” as you do for Obama.
Article II Section II
“[T]he judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,…”
Article VI Section II
“[T]his Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding…”
Artice II Section I Clause V
“[N]o person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; …”
1st Amendment
“[C]ongress shall make no law … or abridging … or the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances…”
5 USC TITLE 5 § 702
“[A] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party…”
28a USC Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
(a) Scope of Rule. This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts.
(b) Kinds of Facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either
(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or
(2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
(c) When Discretionary. A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.
(d) When Mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.
(e) Opportunity to be Heard. A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken.
(f) Time of Taking Notice. Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.
Rule 17. Procedure in an Original Action
1.This Rule applies only to an action invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution of the United States. See also 28 U. S. C. § 1251 and U. S. Const., Amdt. 11. A petition for an extraordinary writ in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction shall be filed as provided
in Rule 20.
Rule 19. Procedure on a Certified Question
1.A United States court of appeals may certify to this Court a question or proposition of law on which it seeks instruction for the proper decision of a case. The certificate shall contain a statement of the nature of the case and the facts on which the question or proposition of law arises. Only questions or propositions of law may be certified, and they shall be stated separately and with precision. The certificate
shall be prepared as required by Rule 33.2 and shall be signed by the clerk of the court of appeals.
Rule 20. Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ
1. Issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ authorized by 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a) is not a matter of right,(*) but of discretion sparingly exercised. To justify the granting of any such writ, the petition must show that the writ will be in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court.
(*) In an instance when ONLY one Branch of the Federal Guv’mnt possess the ability to provide ‘relief and remedy’ the denial of Right is disputable and may be unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment.
The ‘Adujudicative Fact’ being undisputable insofar as ‘statutory Law’ emanating beyond the Constitution is concerned it MUST be taken that the instance of the usage of the idiom is its-self the ‘Statutory Law’ in the 1st instant.
Deconstruct as you will while I continue forward.
I see the birther klan is getting all worked up about Hollister. This always happens when there’s a case pending. They always think that every case is going to succeed; that is, until it ultimately fails. It’s been three years, and every one of these cases has been denied, yet they still haven’t figured it out.
For those without a clue – Hollister will be denied tomorrow. See you when the next case is pending
Wait… there’s another “case” to come?
I’m sure it will last as long as his divorce
Well, I admitt I misread the construction of your question and answered in the positive when it should have been in the negative.
I pointed to some specific individuals with some obvious needs to look closely at their ‘eligibility’ before ‘coming out’.
As for the others I believe that the various States adjusting their Ballot qualification process making the documents ‘public info’ will solve most of the problems.
But, no, I have no intention of being less than vigilant on this subject in the future.
Normally, I don’t respond to drivel. The GOP candidate will be
Robert NewmanMitt Romney, and his VP will bePiyushBobby Jindal. Jinda’s mother was pregnant when they left India, and gave birth 7 months after arriving in Louisiana. You and your ilk will have a field day.Extra points if you know who Robert Newman is.
Well, as I understand it the cause of the rescheduling was over the procedural concern of how the Motions for Recusal was handled.
I, too, have doubts that the SCOTUS would ever take up the question of a sitting POTUS’ eligibility in that any and all considerations in order to make such a determination is in the CONTEXT of a Political Question clouded by the Separation of Powers.
The Question of who is or is not a natural born Citizen is NOT a Political Question, it IS a Citizenship Question and MUST be asked in that CONTEXT leaving the ‘transient Political aspects’ to the machinations of the Political process based upon the Courts findings.
So why do you waste taxpayer money if you know your case won’t go anywhere?
“Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues.” MINNESOTA BOARD. FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES v. KNIGHT, 465 U.S. 271 (1984)
My “question” to the Court is of the definition of natural born Citizen insofar as citizenship is concerned.
The turn and or term of words was MADE an idiom by its insertion into the Constitution within the Executive qualification Clause multiplying the meanings it possessed, being both insofar as citizenship is concerned and specific Constitutional prerequisite imperatives of a ‘transient Political nature’.
However, in the 1st instant it MUST be considered as a condition of citizenship described by a combination of circumstances.
The Political aspects are only relevant within the Political cycles and at such time as any given person attains to an Executive Office.
Just as 14 years resident is calculated from times specific as with 35 years of age, so to in natural born Citizen calculated from the time of birth, ergo, NBC’s must exist AT LEAST 35 years before an election occurring 35 years later, ERGO, NBC’s MUST exist within the citizenry population in general and MUST be distinguishable.
Naturally, James. Why expect anything less from the clueless? It’s been three long years and every case denied, yet they still don’t get it.
Are you suggesting that some people need to provide information that others do not?
I want to know specifically what makes those needs “obvious”.
In particular, I need to know what makes it “obvious” that President Obama needed to be subjected to such scrutiny that he even needed to put a Hawaii COLB on a web site.
I still don’t understand what made Obama special in this regard, since there was never any legitimate claim that he was not eligible for office to begin with.
The situation of dual citizenship at birth is what brought the fact of there being NO acknowledged definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen to my attention.
Before you go unhinged saying that there is NO evidence, other than his own words, that he had divided allegiance at birth I would only ask you to acknowledge that his parents, if they had so chosen, could have taken actions to secure foreign citizenship on his behalf and that by virtue of his fathers citizenship that was made available, at the very least.
Anyway, it was in the investigating and considering the FACTS that it was made evident to me that there is no acknowledged ‘legal definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.
So there is NO point in forming opinions about ANYONE else’s eligibility because ‘whatever’ it is eventually determined to be at the moment there is no acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.
As far as looking at BC’s or COLB or any other documents goes, well, just as I have encountered the best ANY Guv’mnt Department or sub-division thereof can determine is whether someone is a native citizen at birth which falls short of the needs of the Constitution, IMO.
> The idiom of natural born Citizen implies AT BIRTH
Then why are you birthers arguing that Wong Kim Ark, which was about “citizen at birth”, was not about “natural born citizen”? Why do you claim that “citizen at birth” is something entirely different than “natural born citizen”, creating a previously unknown 3rd kind of citizen? (Especially given the fact that SCOTUS cannot “create” a new kind of citizen when the Constitution only knows two.)
Well, I contend that I have developed a Bona Fide case and controversy under the Article III jurisdiction and have shown that it belongs to SCOTUS under Original Jurisdiction in that there is NO surviving Legislation or codified statutes addressing the subject making the Clause its-self the ONLY Statutory construction.
The relief and remedy, therefore, is only within and through the SCOTUS’ exercise of its Jurisdiction, to the exception of the other two Branches and given that it is ONLY the SCOTUS who can make the interpretation in the 1st instant they MAY not be in a position to deny certain writs as if they are not a RIGHT protected under the 1st Amendment.
Bare in mind that Rule 19 is a RULE, which it is widely admitted that there are often exceptions to RULE’s. I suggest that the circumstance that after 222 years it is found that there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen falls into the ‘extraordinary’ class of circumstance that rises to the level of requiring ‘exceptional’ consideration.
Dual citizenship is not a new thing among US Presidents. The first one I know about is Thomas Jefferson who held French citizenship while he was President of the United States. A number of others are cited since some foreign states say that grandchildren of their nationals are citizens, and some foreign states to not recognize US naturalization.
The United States follows the tradition of English Common Law that states that the allegiance of one born under the protection of a Monarch (or translated to our federal government) is absolute. Barack Obama was born in the United States and from the point of view of US Law, his allegiance was absolute and undivided. British law does not control who is eligible to be President of the United States.
So is it your contention that no President has legitimately held the office since Martin van Buren? Because by your reasoning, the “Constitutional idiom” was never defined with regard to any of them, and Obama is not a special case!
Sorry, incorrect in pointing to Rule 19, meaning to point to Rule 20.
See, that’s your problem. The court cannot grant you relief until you allege a concrete injury, which they say you haven’t done. The court has already said that you have no constitutional “right” to the declaration you are asking for.
The Constitution identifies THREE (3) conditions of Citizenship.
Those who were Citizens of the various States at the time of adoption became Citizens of the United States.
Those that were anticipated through continued naturalization.
Those that were contemplated as being natural born Citizens by function of natural law and the laws of nature that suggest that men and women produce children.
Being ‘native-born’ is ONLY one of the various circumstances requisite to being a NBC.
But, as we have all witnessed there is no end to the ‘convincing’ arguments from one side and the other over the past 2 1/2 years. However, the millions to billions of words, thoughts, ideas, citations, proclamations and pronouncements amount to dogs howling at the moon.
Only the SCOTUS has the Constitutional mandate to interpret the words of the Constitution and then only when properly exercising its Jurisdiction upon a bona Fide case and controversy.
I believe I have sufficiently proved that there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and as I quired of the USCA 10th, if a person of the citizenship condition such as mine can NOT be acknowledged as an American natural born Citizen then how can ANY person be said to be occupying the Office of POTUS ‘legally’ under the Constitution.
Well, you’re wrong, in that determining Jurisdiction is still pending, so the Court has said nothing insofar as the merits of the right of Review is concerned.
Obviously you have not bothered to read anything other than the posts that support you predetermined opinion.
You really are saying that there hasn’t been a legitimate President since Martin van Buren!
If I understand you correctly, the fact that there is no definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen” that meets your definition of “definition”, means that the office of the President is itself illegitimate because the only person who can possibly qualify for it would have to be over 222 years old!
Now, you might be trying to suggest that the lack of a definition is only a problem in the case of President Obama, but I am not willing to accept that until you explain what makes President Obama so special, while all the other Presidents get a pass on there being “no definition.”
Who am “I” giving a pass to…?
The FACT that there is NO acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen gives a PASS to EVERYONE, or at least to anyone with the audacity to take advantage of the ‘legal loop-hole’.
Look, the Founding Generation was SPECIFICALLY exempted from the NBC requisit.
It IS that FACT which you should allow to inform you that they did NOT ascribe to the Statutory Construction of the English Common Laws on subject-hood in that they were wont to ‘deem as if’ willy-nilly anywhere and everywhere they planted their flag.
“Colonize” today and tommorow all that are within rifle shot are “deemed as if'” from birth in the Protection of the King and OWE allegiance “as if ” from birth.
But the lines have already been drawn and I am no longer concerned WHATEVER the acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen is determined by SCOTUS to be, just that a determination is made under the RULE OF LAW and NOT by extra-Constitutional means.
Coke didn’t say the Frenchman was deemed a subject. The text says:
“Natural subject” in the phrase “strong enough to make a natural subject” could not refer to the Frenchman, since even naturalized subjects were not natural subjects, much less aliens in amity (i.e. aliens not at war). It refers to the child. If one takes the text out of context, I see where confusion might arise, but in the larger context of English Common Law, such a mistake would never be made.
You were talking about allegiance, a phrase not present in the constitutional qualifications. However, modern presidents have had dual citizenship too, e.g. Eisenhower.
Here are the cold, hard facts that the birther folks, and I use that term loosely, just don’t want to accept but will eventually have to accept.
President Obama will finish out every term he’s elected to. No court is going to accept any birther case, and Congress is not going to buy into your fantasies. In addition, the incumbent president will be on the ballots of every state come 2012.
You have the right to babble incessantly about your fantasies all you want on the internet, but the “issue” you have raised cannot and will not be decided by internet bloggers. Those responsible for deciding this “issue” have already soundly rejected your claims repeatedly. You can babble about it on the internet until the day the sun burns out and the Earth becomes an ice cold rock, and it will never change anything.
You are not by any chance autistic, are you?
Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow.
What about Pat Paulsen?
He did run, but unfortunately is now dead. How about Harold Stassen? Yes, I know he’s dead.
Actually, there’s not that much difference between those two and Dan Quayle.
In the text I cited previously, the alien Frenchman, because he was under local and temporary allegiance to the king by virtue of him being in the country combined with jus soli to make the child a natural born subject.
The exception occurs when the King cannot provide protection, such as in the case of a child born to an invading soldier in occupied territory, or in the case of the common law exception of a child born to a foreign head of state or ambassador.
Lord Coke delineated four types of allegiance: natural, acquired, local and legal, the first being the focus of his argument. Coke defined this allegiance as “true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject: for as soon as he is born, he oweth by birth-right ligeance and obedience.” Kettner follows: “The object of natural allegiance was the sovereign who protected a person at the time of his birth” or as Coke said: “power and protection draweth ligeance.” This is “birthright” subjectship.
If he wants to engage in dialog, he’s welcome here. If he just wants to dump text over and over, while refusing to answer questions, he’s history. If he just wants to publish, he should get his own blog.
Really? So the Governator gets a pass then does he?
Swarzenegger / Jindal 2012! Sounds like a winner to me!
I voted for him, actually.
No there are only two. The natural born Citizens of the States became the natural born Citizens of the United States and the naturalized Citizens of the States became the Citizens at the adoption of the Constitution.
Pierce Butler, William R. Davie, Thomas Fitzsimons, Alexander Hamilton, James McHenry, Robert Morris, William Paterson, James Wilson, all attended the Constitutional Convention and all except William Davie signed it, and all were not natural born. So the grandfather clause was for their benefit as well as the rest of the citizenry who were not natural born.
Wrong again. How many times can one person be wrong before his head explodes?
Even if you are correct that the Constitution identifies three conditions of citizenship, one of your conditions (being a citizen at the time of ratification) can no longer be met – which means that today there are only two conditions of citizenship, natural-born and naturalized.
If you are a U.S. citizen, and you were never naturalized, you are a natural-born citizen. See? It’s not so complicated after all.
As it is, there are two types of born citizens.
i.e. 14th Amendment citizens of the born variety (born soli – native born) & natural born Citizens (sanguinis & soli – native born of Citizen parents)
> “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”
And again you are deliberately leaving out the first part of the sentence you quote (in order to make it appear to apply to a context where it doesn’t), after you’ve been called out on it on this blog before.
So you are a pathological liar and deliberate obfuscator of the truth. Or, short, birther.
It goes to show again why birthers tried to claim the term “intellectual dishonesty” for themselves before someone else you bestow it upon them.
Oops, make that “could” instead of “you” in the last sentence. Not awake yet…
So, under your construction the children of illegal aliens born within the territoral limits of any of the various Constitutionally admitted States is in fact a natural born Citizen of the U.S….?
Ya, that’s exactly what John Jay, the Framers and the various State assemblies agreed at the adoption of the Constitution.
You’ve convinced me, the Constitution is a suicide pact after all.
It doesn’t matter WHY the father is not a ‘subject’.
It’s the fact that if the father is not a ‘subject’ that causes the child not to be a ‘natural born subject’.
Your silly labels like ‘birther’, etc mean nothing, except expose your desperate use of fallacy when you have no argument of any worth.
Here, have a read about fallacies ……
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Hope you learned something.
Correction.
Two conditions of US citizenship born and naturalized.
Of the born variety, there are those who are native born and those who are natural born.
Good lord this again. The high court has used the terms terms native born and natural born interchangeably as well as the founders. There is no difference between the terms.
Well, is what you are saying that the adoption of the Constitution did not ‘naturalize’ or ‘make’ or ‘deem’ those that were citizens of the various States as ‘being’ citizens of the U.S. and that the Constitution does not have the ability to ‘make’ a person a citizen absent an uniform Rule promulgated by the Congress…?
Citizenship under the Rule of Law is subject to conditions and circumstances.
An example is that a ‘naturalized citizen’ is in the circumstance of being a ‘conditional citizen’ in that there are specific circumstances wherein a person that had been naturalized can loose the citizenship grant and be ‘removed’.
The Founding generation was of a condition of citizenship that in the history of the nation was a singular occurrence due to circumstances.
But I have seen so many juvenile expressions of who, what, why, how, and wherefore’s regarding the nature of citizenship over the past couple of years and among posters here that I realize that discussing it either leads to speaking to the choir or singing to the tone deaf.
So I’ll let it go and continue to pursue the determination by a ‘controlling legal authority’ under the Rule of Law.
The other five justices that voted with Gray in WKA understood it to mean what everyone has always said it meant.
The dissent in WKA understood it to mean what everyone has always said it meant.
The government, arguing that Wong wasn’t a citizen, understood it to mean what everyone has always said it meant.
Wong’s attorneys, arguing that Wong was a citizen, understood it to mean what everyone has always said it meant.
Every party in Lynch v. Clarke, the oft-cited case that said that it was universally understood that the child born in America to an alien was a natural born citizen and eligible for the Presidency – ditto.
Every mention of Calvin’s Case in America has read it this way, Michael. Our laws were written based on this interpretation of Calvin’s Case. Cases were decided based on this interpretation of Calvin’s Case. No laws were written based on your interpretation. No cases were decided based on it.
The horse has left the barn. Arguing that Calvin’s Case has some NEW interpretation doesn’t change the fact that the OLD interpretation is the one that influenced everyone before now.
Oh, and if the Frenchman is a subject, why can’t he own property?
I have a question – did the founders consider themselves to be natural born citizens? I think that President Washington et al. believed themselves to be eligible for the Presidency due to their status as natural born citizens of the several states (and hence natural born citizens of the United States once it was created). I don’t have any references to support this, but I do remember learning (possibly incorrectly) in school that the grandfather clause was put in for people like Alexander Hamilton who weren’t born in the US. I find it inconceivable to think that President Washington and President Jefferson DIDN’T consider themselves to be natural born citizens. Is there any reason not to think that the natural born subjects of the several states became natural born citizens of the United States at its inception? I would really like to know if there is anything in the law or the writings of the founders that supports or refutes this theory.
In November, 1777, in early drafts of the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress used the term “natural born free Citizens of the States” (the final draft replaced this term with inhabitants). But clearly they considered the fact that such a class of people existed. And as Dr. C has pointed out Jay’s letter to Washington uses the term “natural born Citizen”. This was before the term was added to the Constitution. So Jay must have been considering a class of people who already existed. Otherwise his suggestion makes on sense.
See what I mean about the juvenile understanding of the conditions and circumstances that surround the occurrences of any given ‘citizenship’ claim.
The Founders DID NOT and COULD NOT have considered their selves natural born U.S. Citizens inasmuch as there was NO U.S. when they were born.
That, in its self should lead those willing to be intellectually honest to a fuller understanding of the distinctions and distinguishments the Framers intended by the Founders with the usage of natural born Citizen in the construction of the Executive qualification Clause.
However I understand that such a contemplation is contrary to the purpose of the dissembling and deconstruction of the truth surrounding the subject so I will NOT hold my breath.
Suffice it to say I know you know and know I know you know I know.
The constitution does not say Natural Born US Citizens. The way it is written you can be a citizen of the united states at the time it was written or a natural born citizen. The term natural born citizen had been around for a long time and yes they did consider themselves NBC. That’s why that little provision was put in there about being a citizen at the time of adoption so that those born overseas but yet were rather ingrained in the society of the United States were eligible
It’s not my construction. It’s the Constitution’s construction.
To answer your question, yes – anyone born in the United States, other than the children of foreign diplomats or occupying soldiers, is a natural-born citizen and is eligible to be President. If such a person were to run for President, it would up to the voters to decide if being the child of illegal immigrants is a factor in deciding how to vote.
The beauty of our system is that the voters get to decide. But you birthers can’t accept the fact that nearly 70 million Americans voted for a black man with a foreign-sounding name.
And what is this reference to “Constitutionally admitted states?” Are you suggesting that we have two categories of states?
What, they couldn’t have believed that their natural born status shifted from natural born Englishmen to natural born Americans when the nation of America came into existence? And that people like Hamiton, who was not a natural born Englishman, didn’t become a natural born American?
If I can describe it in words, why could the Founders not have thought it?
Dr. C has suggested you read a book by James Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship. It’s copyrighted 2005, long before the Obama Conspiracies came into existence. It is only $26.12 from Amazon. You can get it easily from interlibrary loan.
In it, Kettner describes a long-running debate about the nature of American citizenship, that dated back prior to the Revolution, based on their understanding of Calvin’s Case, and how a natural born citizen of Massachusetts, say, despite being a subject of England, became a natural born citizen of the United States upon the Revolution.
So, you can quit whining about the intellectual juvenality of this website and educate yourself, for less than the price of a dinner for two at a reasonably priced restaurant.
Or, you could read what we write here more carefully. At least some people WERE making the argument that people transformed from natural born Englishmen into natural born Americans. Here’s Ainslee v. Martin, a Massachusetts case from 1813:
I know I won’t be holding my breath that you’ll take this opportunity to read James Kettner’s well sourced book, or look at the sources I cite. It’s much easier to just argue from incredulity and insult.
You continue to make my point.
Maybe he’s saying that states like Hawaii weren’t constitutionally admitted into the union and aren’t really apart of the united states
Another one that validates my point.
Yes I continue to make your point that you have no idea what you’re talking about and you think the length of your replies beats substance.
I find it funny when you can’t refute something your replies get shorter.
And yet another.
Are you telling me that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn’t consider themselves to be natural born citizens of Virginia? Calvin’s case seems directly on point here and says that they were (at least that’s the way I see it). Since we can reasonably assume that the founders considered themselves natural born citizens of the states where they were born, are you trying to say that the founders didn’t think that citizens of the several states became citizens of the United States at its inception? Or do you think that a natural born citizen of Virginia became a naturalized citizen of the United States? I sincerely doubt that the founders saw it that way.
What does “intellectual honesty” mean that “honesty” does not?
Wrong again.
Before Obama was elected, even the far right agreed that “native born” and “natural born” are interchangeable. From “The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution.” published by the right-wing think tank The National Center for Constitutional Studies in 1985:
To be a candidate for President of the United States, a person must be a natural-born citizen, or a citzen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This provision gave the American people the right to have a President who would always be one of their own native-born fellow citizens. (p. 528)
Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:
Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth, one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.
Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Theophilus Parsons was a strong supporter of the US Constitution. He was a delegate to the 1788 Massachusetts Constitutional Convention that adopted it. From 1787 to 1791, he served in the Massachusetts legislature. He trained John Quincy Adams in the law. He was appointed to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1806. He wrote the Ainslee v. Martin decision I quoted above, which said that those born in Massachusetts became, at the revolution, natural born citizens of the new sovereign.
Did he have a juvenile understanding of the conditions and circumstances of any given “citizenship” claim?
I take your short reply as proof of your illiteracy and that you couldn’t read and comprehend what was written.
And you prove my point that you’d rather call names than to take an opportunity to educate yourself with a book that describes, at length, the development of American citizenship, or to engage with the specific example I give of the Founders thinking exactly what was claimed.
There is a distiction between being ‘deemed as if’ and being ‘actual’ natural born Citizens.
But then, even I am howling at the moon until SCOTUS joins in the howling.
Currently, there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen for ANY legal Constitutional purposes. <period
Word salad again. But, I agree, you are howling at the moon.
There is an acknowledged legal definition of natural born citizen. You fail to recognize that acknowledged legal definition.
You seem to think that if something isn’t defined by the Supreme Court, it’s not law. Sorry, bub, but that juvenile understanding of our system is deeply flawed. There are things that have not, and there are things that cannot, be defined by the Supreme Court, but there is still an acknowledged legal definition of those things.
You don’t like that acknowledged legal definition. Tough. It’s your right to be wrong.
But, I see you are committed to name calling, word salad, and strenuously avoiding dealing with any of the issues that are brought to you in good faith.
You claim that no founder could have thought of himself as a natural born US citizen, and when I show you that they not only did so, (Kettner points to examples that predate the Revolution – it was a revolution of the United States, the concept of the United States predated the Revolution, as did the understanding of citizenship within those United States) you fall back to name calling and this nonsense about “deemed as if” and “idiom.”
Greg,
Thank you for the words of Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Theophilus Parsons (that’s quite a mouthful) – I feel very comforted by the fact that what I think agrees with what Theo said and not with what slcraig has said…
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot’s Debates, Volume 4]
Seamen’s Bill.–For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
House of Representatives, February, 1813.
Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.” Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution. If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen, citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.
Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power–the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.
In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.
I post the entire exchange and posit that any ‘honest’ person, whether that honesty is intellectual, intuitive or of any other nature, must come away with the understanding that Congress has ‘near limited’ plenary power over ‘naturalization’ with the exception being that it may not infringe upon those that ARE natural born Citizens.
Then it too must follow, with that form of honesty remaining true, that the 14th Amendment ‘born Clause’ must be acknowledged as a ‘collective naturalization act’; (which, BTW, has long since served its purpose and should be allowed to expire as has its need.)
So you are saying that in Jay’s letter to Washington, Jay is referring to the children born after July 4th, 1776. And he is suggesting that one of them (11 year old at the oldest) should be made Commander-in-Chief. Or do you believe that Jay was expecting the country to wait 15 or 20 years for a CIC and for one of those children to grow up?
That’s not juvenile , that’s idiotic.
Damn spellcheck…ha ha…should have been “…Congress has near UN-limited’….”
They knew what they were talking about when they talked about natural born citizens.
Proof there was an acknowledged legal’ definition. If there weren’t, how would they have known whose rights they couldn’t infringe upon.
Say it with me
Amendment
It CHANGED the Constitution.
Have you actually READ the 14th Amendment? It was not a collective naturalization act. It said that states could not infringe on the rights of citizens.
Even if the 14th Amendment had stopped at “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” this wouldn’t be a naturalization bill, since people born here aren’t naturalized! This fact was recognized by the Congress as they were debating the 14th Amendment. It was recognized by Dred Scott. It was recognized by the quote you cited above, when they said: “ The alien is thus made a NATIVE…”
Don’t like it? AMEND the Constitution. Constitutional amendments don’t “expire.”
Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it any less false.
Have you tried looking in Black’s Law dictionary….they seem to have no problem defining it
“A person born within the jurisdiction of a national goverment”
Again, my point proven beyond a shadow of doubt;
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Is that Jay’s letter to Washington? It looks like the Constitution.
If your point is that you are intellectually unfit to engage in debate with adults, then, yes, you’ve proven it beyond any doubt.
Well, I would have to assume that you recognize the FACT that citizen parents possess a “birthright prerogative” over the citizenship prospects of their own children, i.e., under the the same natural law concept that jus soli found expression we also find jus sanguinis.
Under your conception the ‘State’ KIDNAPS ALL persons at birth and MAKES them be citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
I won’t bother to to try and set you straight but in stead just accept you as I find you.
P.S., I will ask regarding WKA.
How is it that the little Wongs citizenship grant, contrary to the proscription of Article VI of the Burlingame Treaty that his parents were LEGALLY ADMITTED within the terriotorial jurisdiction has extented to persons born to parents that were NOT legally admitted…?
Just more acts of judicial KIDNAPPING…?
It seems to me that this argument could be made in good faith (I’m not sure that it could be won, but it certainly wouldn’t be frivolous like all of the birhter theories) – but in order to do so one would have to admit that President Obama is a natural born citizen since his father was in the country legally…
All bunk. There is no such thing as a “birthright prerogative.” If you consider the granting of citizenship “kindnapping” then all states do it (even more so under jus sanguenis). How about citing a single legal authority on the subject?
Actually all it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is that you don’t know the history behind that phrase.
No, you don’t get it.
Jay wrote to Washington suggesting to him the a “natural born Citizen” be Commander-in-Chief. He didn’t say anything about a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. He wasn’t at the Convention. He wrote the letter before there was a finished draft.
So, who was Jay talking about? You say he was talking about a class of citizen that didn’t exist.
Does this mean something? As far as I can tell it is a stringing together of legal-sounding words.
Why don’t you skip the legalisms, guy, you aren’t any good at them and they are obscuring more than explaining,
So President Obama should be disqualified because he was kidnapped by the State of Hawaii? I think you’ve gone far enough over the edge that you’re coming back up on the other edge.
Well, that’s getting into the specifics of the conditions and circumstances requisite to be determined if any given person is in fact in conformity with the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.
Since I have provided MUCH more documentation than has been publicly released on the person you refer to and been unable to get any Federal Department or sub-division to confirm that I am a natural born Citizen I must return to my oft repeated DECLARATORY ADJUDICATIVE FACT that there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.
That repeated, I am left to ask how is it that jus sanguinis ‘BIRTHRIGHT PREROGATIVE’ is considered only when a citizen is abroad but it somehow is not relevant and taken away, (in the minds of some), when within the jurisdiction…?
While you are most amusing and I’m sure that the regulars here enjoy playing cat and mouse with you, do you really think that there is any possibility whatsoever that the SCOTUS could rule on the definition of NBC absent a case or controversy raised by a person with standing and even if that happened do you think that there is any chance that they would do any more than to implicitly agree with a lower court’s decision (which, if such a thing ever happens, I think you will find looks a lot like Ankeny…) by denying cert without comment? You can keep tilting at windmills if you like, but, in the end, your story will be a “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
<
It seems you read treaties as well as you read judicial opinions. It is not in violation of the treaty, because there was no naturalization (nor did the court grant him anything, they acknowledge what he was). The treaty says that citizens of the other country will enjoy the same privileges and immunities as people traveling from the most favored nations, but it will not be seen to confer naturalization up them. KWA’s parents came to the US, but were not natualized by the treaty. KWA was born here, thus a NBC, and thus not naturalized.
WKA spent some time discussing how treaties cannot trump the Constitution. Do you disagree, sl?
If there’s no accepted legal definition of MBC, sl, what were the Congressmen talking about? They can’t infringe on the rights of natural born citizens – but, that phrase is a legal nullity. So, they can infringe on anyone’s right, right?
Since all you have done is howl at the moon incoherently, I must return to my oft repeated DECLARATORY ADJUDCATIVE FACT that you have no bloody clue what the heck you’re taking about.
There is no such thing as a jus sanguinis birthright prerogative. Like much of the “legalize” you throw around here, you made it up.
Nothing is being taken away.
We are a jus soli nation
We have statutorially expanded that to cover children of citizens abroad.
It is not relevant to those born within the borders of the US, because they were not born abroad thus don’t need the expanded coverage that was granted by statute.
It also should be pointed out that Craig’s kidnapping analogy is fallacious. A child born in the U.S. of foreign national parents is a natural-born U.S. citizen (other than the well-known exceptions). However, that child likely also is a citizen of the country of which its parents are citizens.
The child is not required to go through life as a U.S. citizen. When reaching an appropriate age, the child can renounce U.S. citizenship. Or, as some people do, the child could move to the native country of the parents and simply live as a citzen of that country while ignoring the dual American citizenship.
So how does this amount to kidnapping? If anything, the dual citizen at birth has more options than those of us who were born only as American citizens. There are times when I wish that one of my parents had been Canadian.
OK, let me ask you to bend your minds for a few moments and explain to me the outcome of a hypothetical;
Strip jus soli as an ‘automatic’ grant of citizenship and consider it ONLY as one of the circumstances requisite to being a natural born Citizen, but in ALL grants of Citizenship only jus sanguinis is considered for those within or without the Jurisdiction. Legally admitted immigrants being treated as now, a naturalization process, oath, etc.
Now, who does the removal of jus soli affect…?
If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. If the US were a jus sanguinis nation it would be a jus sanguinis nation. And if you’d invented Facebook you would have invented Facebook.
Does that answer your hypothetical?
If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a trolley. If my dog had one more chromosome, she would be a wolf. If my cat had one more chromosome, he would be a serval.
If birthers had brains, they would not have gotten in the line that said “trains.”
Could someone call me a taxi?
I read it twice, and I don’t understand what you’re saying.
You’re a taxi.
Imagine pre 14th Statutory collective naturalization, i.e., no automatic jus soli birthright.
Just simply forget naturalization of legally admitted aliens for the moment.
Jus sanguinis being the operative mechanism of obtaining citizenship at bith, both within and outside the ‘jurisdiction’.
Now, who would be affected, sans jus soli.
Imagine that my aunt had balls. Would she be, in fact, my uncle?
Imagine that you had invented Facebook. Would you not have invented Facebook?
Imagine that the United States was a purely jus sanguinis nation, would we, then, be a purely jus sanguinis nation?
Beat me to it.
I walked into a hotel lobby. I had reservations, but I stayed there anyway.
Once again the 14th Amendment is not a statute it is an amendment to the constitution. You remind me of someone i used to debate with who claimed that censuring Joe Wilson for shouting You Lie was unconstitutional and a violation of his 1st amendment rights. I explained to the person that his 1st amedment rights weren’t violated he got to say what he said but he also broke the decorum of the chamber and the constitution says each chamber of congress gets to determine their own rules. To which he tried to claim parts of the constitution invalidate other parts of the constitution.
That’s OK. You can make me a margarita.
POOF!! You’re a margarita.
Thank you. I’ll be here all week.
8 USC § 1401
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Statutory construction of the ‘declaratory born statement of the 14th.
Now, you will either prove that my assertion of the lack of intellectual honesty among the posters here of you will make an attempt at answering the question as succinctly as I posed it.
The guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark was based on error on the part of the WKA judiciary & Indiana court was misguided by same.
English common law actually requires a parent father to be a ‘subject’ for the child to be a ‘natural born subject.
“Meaning”, not “meeting”
Its been asked of you before how is intellectual honesty different from regular honesty? The question you asked has been answered repeatedly using caselaw, historical references, legal opinions and yet you still show intellectual dishonesty by completely ignoring it. Please stop wasting my taxpayer money to file frivolous lawsuits.
slcraig March 4, 2011 at 3:40 pm slcraig(Quote) #
OK, let me ask you to bend your minds for a few moments and explain to me the outcome of a hypothetical;
Strip jus soli as an automatic’ grant of citizenship and consider it ONLY as one of the circumstances requisite to being a natural born Citizen, but in ALL grants of Citizenship only jus sanguinis is considered for those within or without the Jurisdiction. Legally admitted immigrants being treated as now, a naturalization process, oath, etc.
Now, who does the removal of jus soli affect…?
slcraig March 4, 2011 at 4:31 pm slcraig(Quote) #
Imagine pre 14th Statutory collective naturalization, i.e., no automatic jus soli birthright.
Just simply forget naturalization of legally admitted aliens for the moment.
Jus sanguinis being the operative mechanism of obtaining citizenship at bith, both within and outside the jurisdiction’.
Now, who would be affected, sans jus soli.
So, along with not being able to come up with an ‘educated’ response when asked for a RATIONAL reason to oppose the Petition for a ‘legal’ definition of NBC you are also not willing to engage with a hypothetical of what effects would be encountered were jus sanguinis considered as the operative form of obtaining citizenship.
Like Mel Gibson said when acting as Carter; (set up, antagonist has no light);
“Then what good are you…?”
Since your hypothetical is not much more than a tautology and assumes counter-factual premises (assuming 400 years of jurisprudence is correct), the rational course of action is to ignore it (ridiculing it is another reasonable response). Rather than irrationally trying to answer your hypothetical, I’ll answer Greg’s equivalent hypotheticals…
Are you feeling anything yet, Mr. Craig?
How do you know Obama is not a hologram, like Gorillaz?
Dr C.
Is there a reason that the latest comments don’t show?
Did you use some bad words? Shame on you. You couldn’t have used too many links since you have no links to credible sources which support your interpretation… That provides some more evidence for the ‘Michael is an ignorant idiot’ theory (although it’s also consistent with the ‘Michael is an ignorant idiot AND a liar’ theory as well…) What’s the matter, did you just realize that your arguments are completely bogus and you have no response to the overwhelming evidence that’s been presented against you?
Yes. I’m preventing them.
With your mind? 😉
So, you are saying that a person born in a foreign land comes to the US and naturalizes then goes abroad and gets married and has a child abroad does NOT have any birthright prerogative by which to expect citizenship for his foreign born bride and child…?
That odd, I thought I saw that in Title 8 somewhere.
Oh look – another misinterpretation by a liar and willfully ignorant idiot. No one here is fooled by your straw man…
Date filed by registrar Vs dated accepted by state registrar.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1lGFYYNkw_o/S-sSyKzUG1I/AAAAAAAAA9o/CU5J5GaC8MQ/s1600/!!COLBNotAccepted.jpg
I am singing.
I’m not sure what you mean to show by those images, except that some Hawaiian COLB’s say “Date Filed” and some say “Date Accepted.” There are multiple examples of each, and this has been talked to death here.
I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t post off-topic material on an article. Click on the “Open Mike” topic on the right side to find the current open thread.
So, the US A.G. Eric H. Holder Jr. is at least partly correct when he said that the US is a Country of COWARDS.
Do you also have all the mirrors in your homes covered so you do not have to look yourselves in the face…?
Unwilling to look at the parallel universe known as REALITY and describe what you see because your world of tangled webs so fragile that the weight of facts are too unbearable to accept…?
slcraig March 4, 2011 at 3:40 pm slcraig(Quote) #
OK, let me ask you to bend your minds for a few moments and explain to me the outcome of a hypothetical;
Strip jus soli as an automatic’ grant of citizenship and consider it ONLY as one of the circumstances requisite to being a natural born Citizen, but in ALL grants of Citizenship only jus sanguinis is considered for those within or without the Jurisdiction. Legally admitted immigrants being treated as now, a naturalization process, oath, etc.
Now, who does the removal of jus soli affect…?
slcraig March 4, 2011 at 4:31 pm slcraig(Quote) #
Imagine pre 14th Statutory collective naturalization, i.e., no automatic jus soli birthright.
Just simply forget naturalization of legally admitted aliens for the moment.
Jus sanguinis being the operative mechanism of obtaining citizenship at bith, both within and outside the jurisdiction’.
Now, who would be affected, sans jus soli.
So, along with not being able to come up with an educated’ response when asked for a RATIONAL reason to oppose the Petition for a legal’ definition of NBC you are also not willing to engage with a hypothetical of what effects would be encountered were jus sanguinis, which was the case in the Civil Society from which the very word “citizen” originates, considered as the operative form of obtaining citizenship.
Like Mel Gibson said when acting as Carter; (set up, antagonist has no light); “Then what good are you…?”
So, the US Codes are NOT Statutory Law…?
Who is being ‘willfully ignorant’…?
What ‘Straw man’…? Naturalized citizens are ‘straw men’…?
Are all of your thoughts locked up in you mind so tightly that you are unable to untangle them into a cogent response…?
Mr. Craig,
Here is your comment:
This was in response to my pointing out that your hypothetical was basically a tautology (it was also a transparent attempt to get someone to agree with your tautology – which was not relevant to the matter under discussion – in what I can only assume was your pathetic attempt at a ‘gotcha’.
The situation above is disingenuous (i.e. a ‘straw man’) because no one here has alleged anything regarding a foreign-born child of a naturalized citizen (the only thing I will mention regarding this scenario is that whether the person is naturalized or natural born is irrelevant…). I have never said anything to the effect that US codes are not statutory law (I will point out that you don’t seem to understand that Amendments are a part of the Constitution and, in fact, SUPERSEDE anything in the Constitution prior to the amendment where there is a conflict. In my eyes, that definitely qualifies as ‘willful ignorance’. And while I make no particular claim to eloquence, the reaction of other posters here to my comments makes it clear that my arguments are easily understood by rational people. But keep tilting at your windmills if you want, just remember that ignorant, dishonest, and stupid is no way to go through life – and I truly pity you if you cannot see what petty, pathetic, small-minded individual you are…
So, show me in the 14th the words that ‘Amended’ the A2S1C5 idiom of natural born Citizen, the words that say so or the words that requires it…!
They are NOT there.
Justice Gray confirms that the 14th does NOT consider but two conditions of Citizenship and that the Amendment does not Amend the whole of Citizenships found in the Constitution.
The fact that you choose to ignore that the Constitution expresses three (3) conditions of Citizenship is flawed.
The 14th addresses ONLY citizens and naturalized citizens, the latter correctly characterized as ‘conditional citizenship’ in that there are a myriad of process violation that ‘may and or shall’ cause the revoking of citizenship and possible ‘Removal’.
Citizen rightfully characterized as 1st generation citizens as were the Founders and as are ALL naturalized Citizens since.
In spite of your adherence to the Statutory English Common Law as codified and defined by Blackpebble, Hail Britannia, it can not and does not explain away the usage of Jus sanguinis prior to the 14th and the combination usage of both jus sanguinis and jus soli since.
Your obstinacy and trivialization of the questions I pose only hi-lites the the weakness of your arguments when applied to the reality of the statutes that exist and the LACK of statutes, Amendments or dicta on the specific question of the subject idiom.
How much time did you waste on that legal word salad?
I said:
It doesn’t have to say that it amends a specific part of the Constitution – any conflicts are automatically decided in favor of the most recent Amendment (if you don’t comprehend this then you are an idiot for participating in a discussion about a topic you are completely ignorant of…). The citizenship clause of the 14th, however, doesn’t conflict with the Constitution – it merely states explicitly what was already implicit so that foolish, partisan judges couldn’t make odious rulings like Dred Scott ever again. The rest of your ignorant spew is so full of lies, distortions, and misinformation that it is beyond correcting (although it’s a great target for ridicule…) but your understanding of the law is so clearly lacking that the only possible effect of any legal action you take (besides bringing possible sanction upon yourself) will be to further discredit the birthers (and that’s not an easy thing to do!). So please take these arguments to court and see what real lawyers and judges think of them – I think you’ll find that they (like most of the people here) will view your interpretations as the vile effluvia of a diseased mind desperately clutching for anything that might justify your bigoted hatred of President Obama – but maybe that’s just me…
Racist, Racist, Racist, Birther, Brither, Birther, Bigot, Bigot Bigot, Hatred, Hatred, Hatred;
This is what is considered the enlightened progressive approach to forming a consensus on subjects in dispute.
That and assuming things not in evidence.
Currently, there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen. <Period
Every Federal Department and sub-division thereof have confirmed that FACT and even the USCA confirmed that in the distorted 'dismissal in part, remand in part' of the 2009 action.
The fact that you and others refuse to acknowledge that FACT puts you in the ranks of the anarchists that deny the authority of the Rule of Law emanating from a Representative Republic bound to and guaranteed by the Constitution.
Do you want French, Russian or Italian dressing with THAT salad…?
Well if it quacks like a duck…..
Never met a racist yet who admitted to being a racist. Like you, they all want people to think that they have good reasons for what is, in the end, racism.
One thing I’ve learned in all my years….
The people who write the word “fact” in all caps, almost never have any actual facts.
Still, unresponsive.
It seems you take it all very personal, or are you get’n some of that stimulus $ for all your hard work and deep thinking….?
No – not personal. Just having fun. And I’m still waiting for my first Soros check… ðŸ™
As for me being unresponsive, I think you’re suffering from projection again – I responded to your entire post. It’s not my fault that you’re trying to pretend that I didn’t respond because you didn’t like the answers I gave. Not that I expected anything different – you’ve done exactly the same thing regarding President Obama’s eligibility. Just a little more evidence of what a closed-minded bigot you are (as if we needed any more…).
I’m on direct deposit. Get with the program.
Here’s page #2.
http://i569.photobucket.com/albums/ss133/thebiggesthyperbole/rove-plato.jpg
Thanks Wile E. – you’re a (supra-)genius!
For all your attempted debating and obfuscation, you forget the challenge for you will be to make a coherent case to the court. That would be coherent to them, not just to you. I think you might want to remember the reason for the dismissal:
For all your arguing, I still fail to see where you have identified harm. If we do not see it, how will the 10th?
Thus far we’ve established you’re the only one here collecting checks from the government.
I own a Treasury Bond, and so I get a little interest check.
MichaelN
My other post in the matter of inheritable blood’ appears top have been scrubbed.
Slartibartfast
Yeah, right – Doc doesn’t moderate. Even if he did, the other regulars here would protest if you were censored – your posts are very amusing…
Well, my post are being censored.
Typical nasty Obot tactic, when an argument comes that threatens the foundation of your ‘intellectual honesty’.
Here is a summary of Coke’s statements ………..
NBS by nature, procreation and birthright, TWO qualities, one of which, i.e. must born under the ligeance of a subject, which is essential in making a NBS, otherwise NOT a NBS even if born soli.
No evidence that Robert Calvin inherited the property from his father, so whether the father was an alien ante nati is irrelevant, but the father must have been much like the Frenchman’s, who was a subject & whose child was a NBS, in that Robert Calvin was adjudged a NBS, so therefore he must have been born under the ligeance of a subject.
Even an NBS can be legally disqualified from inheritance, i.e. in the instance where the subject father may commit treason, whereby the ‘inheritable blood’ doctrine kicks-in & the NBS can’t inherit, but yet still maintains NBS status for all other intents and purpose.
Regardless of how inheritance is due per the variety of situations that affect inheritance, the sanguinis principle still prevails as regards one of the two essential qualifications for NBS.
The link to you comment didn’t work, but I assume you mean this one:
You can find it at:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/calvins-case/
which is where you should reply to this and any other comments on Calvin’s case – but don’t worry, if you aren’t smart enough to figure it out, I’ll keep insulting you on this thread…
How many birthers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Only one, but they replace working bulbs with bulbs that are burnt out…
Michael,
By the way, your ‘censored post’ is every bit as stupid as everything else you’ve said here…