Main Menu

Craig v Holder

Steven Craig has filed lawsuit attempting to force the courts, the government, or somebody to define the “idiom” natural born citizen. He is particularly concerned by a government publication that uses the phrase “native-born” in describing the requirements for US president. He is also trying to have himself declared a “natural born citizen.”

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is ready to dismiss the case “for want of legal cause and / or Jurisdiction” and Craig has been ordered to show cause why the appeal should not be so dismissed. That reply follows:

Sorry, the document is no longer available at Scribd.

, , ,

227 Responses to Craig v Holder

  1. avatar
    Rickey February 9, 2011 at 9:01 pm #

    I’m trying to figure out how he has been damaged by virtue of the fact that the government won’t certify that he is a natural-born citizen. There is no injury to him that I can discern.

    And even the court agreed to hear it, it would only address the circumstances of Craig’s citizenship. If he believes that the court is going to hand down an all-encompassing definition of natural-born citizen, he is seriously mistaken.

  2. avatar
    gorefan February 9, 2011 at 9:26 pm #

    Rickey: he is seriously mistaken.

    He won’t be the first to be “seriously mistaken”. And sadly, I suspect, he won’t be the last.

  3. avatar
    US Citizen February 9, 2011 at 10:00 pm #

    I think it might be wiser to author a bill that requires both politicians and voters to pass a basic sanity / intelligence test.
    And also to fine politicians that quit in the middle of their tenure, the same amount as what it costs to hold a special election.
    The film industry uses completion guaranties.
    So should politicians.

  4. avatar
    Tarrant February 9, 2011 at 10:19 pm #

    Is he aware that Federal courts are not allowed to give advisory opinions, a category this would certainly fall under? Much like all the people that want a court to just “declare Obama ineligible” so he can be marched out of the White House. Federal courts cannot remove him (that’s Congress’ domain and theirs exclusively), so they therefore don’t get involved at all.

    Now, they COULD get involved if necessary come ballot placement in 2012, because they do have the ability to allow or deny ballot access (and IMO birthers are going to be very upset come that day when every secretary of state and court rules him eligible). But until then, birthers will have to live with dismissal after dismissal.

  5. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 9, 2011 at 10:22 pm #

    Anyone hazard a guess WTF “Title USCA 11-9501, and related Title, USCA 11-6017” refer to? Title 11 of the United States Code is the Bankruptcy Code. He couldn’t be referring ….. could he?

    Oh wait. This is a birther pseudo-lawyer. He’s freakin’ citing the Bankruptcy Code!

  6. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 9, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    Never mind. I think those are supposed to be case cites. Weird.

  7. avatar
    misha February 9, 2011 at 11:04 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: He’s freakin’ citing the Bankruptcy Code!

    Because he is intellectually bankrupt. Well, in all areas.

  8. avatar
    Keith February 10, 2011 at 3:13 am #

    GeorgetownJD: Anyone hazard a guess WTF “Title USCA 11-9501, and related Title, USCA 11-6017‘ refer to?Title 11 of the United States Code is the Bankruptcy Code.He couldn’t be referring ….. could he?Oh wait.This is a birther pseudo-lawyer.He’s freakin’ citing the Bankruptcy Code!

    Could be he is a ‘sovereignist’?

  9. avatar
    Lupin February 10, 2011 at 3:32 am #

    For a country settled by immigrants, many of your citizens seem to be awfully scared of immigrants and unhealthily obsessed with definitions of citizenship.

  10. avatar
    nc1 February 10, 2011 at 4:10 am #

    Lupin: For a country settled by immigrants, many of your citizens seem to be awfully scared of immigrants and unhealthily obsessed with definitions of citizenship.

    What are the citizenship rules in your home country in case when child’s parents are illegal aliens? Is such a child considered a citizen of your country?

  11. avatar
    The Magic M February 10, 2011 at 4:51 am #

    nc1:
    What are the citizenship rules in your home country in case when child’s parents are illegal aliens? Is such a child considered a citizen of your country?

    “Children born on or after 1 January 2000 to non-German parents acquire German citizenship at birth if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and has had this status for at least three years) and has been residing in Germany for at least eight years.” (German citizenship according to Wikipedia)

    On the other hand, Germany does not distinguish between “natural/native born” and naturalized; none of these groups has any limitations compared to the other.

    As to the alleged discrepancy between “natural born” and “native born”, I think I can point the birthers straight to their beloved Vattel who, in his much-quoted sentence, says “Les naturels, ou indigènes[…]” which would translate to “The naturals, or natives, …”.
    I think birthers will have a hard time arguing that “les indigènes” has been or is being translated to anything but “natives” (as in “native Americans”).
    So native-born = natural born. Birthers may still argue whether either term requires one or two citizen parents, but not about the identity of the terms.

  12. avatar
    nc1 February 10, 2011 at 4:59 am #

    The Magic M: “Children born on or after 1 January 2000 to non-German parents acquire German citizenship at birth if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and has had this status for at least three years) and has been residing in Germany for at least eight years.” (German citizenship according to Wikipedia)On the other hand, Germany does not distinguish between “natural/native born” and naturalized; none of these groups has any limitations compared to the other.As to the alleged discrepancy between “natural born” and “native born”, I think I can point the birthers straight to their beloved Vattel who, in his much-quoted sentence, says “Les naturels, ou indigènes[…]” which would translate to “The naturals, or natives, …”.I think birthers will have a hard time arguing that “les indigènes” has been or is being translated to anything but “natives” (as in “native Americans”).So native-born = natural born. Birthers may still argue whether either term requires one or two citizen parents, but not about the identity of the terms.

    I did not ask about children of legal residents – I asked about the citizenship status in case when both parents are illegal aliens.

  13. avatar
    Scientist February 10, 2011 at 6:43 am #

    nc1-I have researched the citizenship laws in a variety of countries. You are quite correct that most countries require at least one parent to be a legal resident in order for the chid to be a citizen. Only the US and Canada grant automatic citizenship to anyone born in the country, regardless of the parents’ status.

    It is good to see that you are open to using other countries as models. Those countries also have universal health care, super fast trains and no distinction between natural born and naturalized citizens. I would happily take those in exchange for requiring one parent to be a legal resident for birthright citizenship. And you?

  14. avatar
    Scientist February 10, 2011 at 7:09 am #

    There is a way for Craig to be certified as a natural born citizen-he can run for President or Vice President and win. Those who hold those offices are, in fact, certified as natural born citizens.

  15. avatar
    The Magic M February 10, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    > I did not ask about children of legal residents – I asked about the citizenship status in case when both parents are illegal aliens.

    The above quote is answering both questions. If both parents are illegal aliens, the child is not a German citizen at birth.

  16. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 10, 2011 at 8:56 am #

    Scientist: Only the US and Canada grant automatic citizenship to anyone born in the country, regardless of the parents’ status.

    Belgium does not distinguish between births “from” legal residents, illegal aliens or even people passing through.

    CASE 1
    Born in Belgium, none of the parents hold a foreign citizenship = automatic Belgian citizenship

    CASE 2
    Born in Belgium, one parent holds a foreign citizenship, the other one is a Belgian = automatic Belgian citizenship

    CASE 3
    Born in Belgium, both parents hold a foreign citizenship but the child inherits neither, due to the citizenship laws of this country or these countries = automatic Belgian citizenship

    CASE 4
    Born in Belgium, at least one parent hold a foreign citizenship, none are Belgian, and the child inherits at least one foreign citizenship = the child can elect to become a Belgian between the ages of 18 and 21, but will have to prove a number of years of linkage to Belgium.

    If born abroad, the child will receive automatic Belgian citizenship when both parents are Belgian, and will be able to elect Belgian nationality like in case 4, if one parent was a Belgian at the birth of the child and him/herself born in Belgium. Exception here: like in case 1, if neither the country of birth, nor the country of the spouse, nor the alternative country of the Belgian spouse confers its citizenship, the child does obtain automatic Belgian citizenship anyway.

    So, a child of illegal aliens does not normally get Belgian citizenship AUTOMATICALLY, but …

    Linkage to Belgium can be proven by years gone to school and by living together with a Belgian even abroad. Schooling in Belgium is compulsory and the police are not allowed to use school attendance lists to track down illegal immigrants (though they may be consulted to track down suspected terrorists).

    Quite a mouthful, but part of the language of these rules is phrased so as to ensure that no child born in Belgium and/or to a Belgian remains stateless at birth. It was not mentioned in the earlier post about Germany, bur Germany has a similar rule. So, a child of illegal immigrants if born in Germany will obtain German nationality automatically, at birth or later, if the child would otherwise be stateless.

    Think about a child of Indian parents. We all know whom we are thinking of, right?

    I guess there may be more countries in the world who do not take residence rights into account when deciding citizenship at birth. Lupin?

  17. avatar
    Sef February 10, 2011 at 9:11 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Linkage to Belgium can be proven by years gone to school and by living together with a Belgian even abroad.

    Does watching Poirot movies count?

  18. avatar
    Sef February 10, 2011 at 9:12 am #

    Sef:
    Does watching Poirot movies count?

    Or how about drinking Belgian beer?

  19. avatar
    Mary Brown February 10, 2011 at 10:31 am #

    How would a child born to illegal alien parents then aquire citizenship? Or would this child be sentenced to a life as a man without a country-kind of like Phillip Nolan- in the American short story. I know people here would like to do this very thing.

  20. avatar
    The Magic M February 10, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    > If both parents are illegal aliens, the child is not a German citizen at birth.

    However Germany does have a provision like US law stating that foundlings are presumed to be German citizens unless proven otherwise.

    We’ve had some strange cases here as well, e.g. the case of a child whose biological parents were Germans but which was born abroad to a non-German surrogate mother. But German law states clearly that legally, the mother is the person giving birth, thus in this case the surrogate mother.

  21. avatar
    Judge Mental February 10, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    I had it in my mind that Lupin was French so the introduction of German information in answer to a reference to him has thrown me. Maybe I’m just getting old and dottled and he is indeed German lol.

    Anyway, if anyone is interested in the rules as appertaining to USA’s oldest special relationship, Uk……they are such that since 1983 it has been law that children born to illegal immigrants on British soil are definitely not entitled to British citizenship.

  22. avatar
    Sean February 10, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    Off subject, I thought this was cute.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxj3iO3Nmi4

    This guy says he did an internet search for Obama’s Hawaiian birth records and determined they don’t exist.

    He further states he’s ready to testify in court about his findings (or non-findings) that Obama was not born in Hawaii (based on what he didn’t find in an internet search.)

    Comical.

  23. avatar
    Black Lion February 10, 2011 at 12:58 pm #

    Sean, that link was beyond comical….It was hilarious….But look at the comments…

    Actually, if you look at Lolo’s paperwork, there is a 1967 memo from the State Dept clearifying that Obama is the son from a previous marriage and is an American citizen.

    It would simply be impossible for Lolo to legally adopt a 6 year old Barack Obama.

    billthecat666 22 hours ago billthecat666 22 hours ago
    @billthecat666 You are wrong. Indonesian Islamic Law has empowered the Muslim father Lolo Soetoro to adopt  Barack Obama within the sovereignty of Indonesia as a country recognised by the United Nations. Lolo Soetoro’s marriage with Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham was registered in Hawaii. As the marriage certificate is recognised in US, the marriage certificate could be used to apply for Child Adoption in Hawaii. If it was not done in US, Lolo Soetoro could still adopt him under Islamic Law.

    investigatebarry 4 hours ago investigatebarry 4 hours ago
    @investigatebarry

    No. I’m right. Indonesian law is very clear that you have to be 5 or younger to be adopted. Obama was 6 at the time. And he couldn’t lose his US citizenship because he was too young to renounce it himself and his parents can’t legally renounce his citizenship for him. Losing US citizenship is a serious thing. Once you lose it, you can’t get it back. It also leaves quite a paper trail.

    It’s very clear Obama always had his US citizenship.

    billthecat666 4 hours ago billthecat666 4 hours ago
    @billthecat666 You are wrong as Obama was born in Kenya and never registered in Honolulu, Hawaii. I have made an Online Search and showed Barack Hussein Obama’s record does not EXIST. You can see the video clip in the responses section which is 7:54 minutes only. I can testify in Court against him any time and any where that Barry Obama aka BaracK Hussein Obama is never BORN in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    investigatebarry 2 hours ago

    No. he was born in Hawaii and his records exist. The evidence shows this and the State of Hawaii backs him up. Obama’s parents went to school, met, got married and had a child in Hawaii. No real credible evidence it happened any other way.
    You can testify, but who are you and how would you know? You Googled something. Wow. What weight would it carry in court?

    If SCOTUS can rule POTUS violated no laws, then can SCOTUS rule if the President was an ineligible candidate?
    DYNES V. HOOVER, 61 U. S. 65 (1857)
    “that the President of the United States, as constitutional commander-in-chief of the army and navy, and in virtue of his
    Page 61 U. S. 84
    constitutional obligation that “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” violated no law ”
    borderraven 2 hours ago

    He was either born a UK citizen in Kenya or a native-born dual-citizen in Hawaii.
    He was born with foreign allegiance.
    Removing him to Indonesia, has no effect on his US citizenship per the Supreme Court decision in Perkins v Elg (1939). Elg (1939) also prevents him from being a US natural born citizen.
    He is but a US Citizen eligible to be a US Senator.
    borderraven 2 hours ago

  24. avatar
    Majority Will February 10, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

    Black Lion: Sean, that link was beyond comical….It was hilarious….But look at the comments…Actually, if you look at Lolo’s paperwork, there is a 1967 memo from the State Dept clearifying that Obama is the son from a previous marriage and is an American citizen.It would simply be impossible for Lolo to legally adopt a 6 year old Barack Obama.billthecat666 22 hours ago billthecat666 22 hours ago
    @billthecat666 You are wrong. Indonesian Islamic Law has empowered the Muslim father Lolo Soetoro to adopt  Barack Obama within the sovereignty of Indonesia as a country recognised by the United Nations. Lolo Soetoro’s marriage with Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham was registered in Hawaii. As the marriage certificate is recognised in US, the marriage certificate could be used to apply for Child Adoption in Hawaii. If it was not done in US, Lolo Soetoro could still adopt him under Islamic Law.investigatebarry 4 hours ago investigatebarry 4 hours ago
    @investigatebarryNo. I’m right. Indonesian law is very clear that you have to be 5 or younger to be adopted. Obama was 6 at the time. And he couldn’t lose his US citizenship because he was too young to renounce it himself and his parents can’t legally renounce his citizenship for him. Losing US citizenship is a serious thing. Once you lose it, you can’t get it back. It also leaves quite a paper trail.It’s very clear Obama always had his US citizenship.billthecat666 4 hours ago billthecat666 4 hours ago
    @billthecat666 You are wrong as Obama was born in Kenya and never registered in Honolulu, Hawaii. I have made an Online Search and showed Barack Hussein Obama’s record does not EXIST. You can see the video clip in the responses section which is 7:54 minutes only. I can testify in Court against him any time and any where that Barry Obama aka BaracK Hussein Obama is never BORN in Honolulu, Hawaii.investigatebarry 2 hours ago
    No. he was born in Hawaii and his records exist. The evidence shows this and the State of Hawaii backs him up. Obama’s parents went to school, met, got married and had a child in Hawaii. No real credible evidence it happened any other way.
    You can testify, but who are you and how would you know? You Googled something. Wow. What weight would it carry in court?If SCOTUS can rule POTUS violated no laws, then can SCOTUS rule if the President was an ineligible candidate?
    DYNES V. HOOVER, 61 U. S. 65 (1857)
    “that the President of the United States, as constitutional commander-in-chief of the army and navy, and in virtue of his
    Page 61 U. S. 84
    constitutional obligation that “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” violated no law ”
    borderraven 2 hours ago
    He was either born a UK citizen in Kenya or a native-born dual-citizen in Hawaii.
    He was born with foreign allegiance.
    Removing him to Indonesia, has no effect on his US citizenship per the Supreme Court decision in Perkins v Elg (1939). Elg (1939) also prevents him from being a US natural born citizen.
    He is but a US Citizen eligible to be a US Senator.
    borderraven 2 hours ago

    Since Bored Raving Lunatic is living off a government pension, he evidently can afford to laze about like Jabba the Hutt with a 2 ton bag of Cheetos while scouring the net for birther comments section to infect in order to prop up an extremely fragile ego and attempt to justify his wasted life.

  25. avatar
    Black Lion February 10, 2011 at 1:13 pm #

    Majority Will: Since Bored Raving Lunatic is living off a government pension, he evidently can afford to laze about like Jabba the Hutt with a 2 ton bag of Cheetos while scouring the net for birther comments section to infect in order to prop up an extremely fragile ego and attempt to justify his wasted life.

    Will, you profiled Gerry, BZ, and all of the other birther nonsense spewers in a nutshell….

  26. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 10, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

    Mary Brown: How would a child born to illegal alien parents then aquire citizenship?Or would this child be sentenced to a life as a man without a country-kind of like Phillip Nolan- in the American short story. I know people here would like to do this very thing.

    One of the basic human rights is having a nationality. That is why most states in the world have provisions to stop children from being stateless at birth.

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

    Article 15. Note part two, which in my view precluded Obama from losing US nationality when he was supposedly (did not really happen) adopted.

  27. avatar
    ellid February 10, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Since Bored Raving Lunatic is living off a government pension, he evidently can afford to laze about like Jabba the Hutt with a 2 ton bag of Cheetos while scouring the net for birther comments section to infect in order to prop up an extremely fragile ego and attempt to justify his wasted life.

    I will never understand how a man who manifestly hates the government and does his best to undermine American law can accept a government pension and free military healthcare for life. But such is the life of our worthy Dessert Storm veteran, photographer of underage girls, and harasser of little old ladies on their way to church….

  28. avatar
    Tarrant February 10, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    The same way people can demand that the government not interfere with their Medicare or Social Security and not feel like there’s a giant paradox in there.

    I’m sure this gentleman would be all in favor of privatizing Social Security but equally aghast at the possibility of privatizing his military pension.

  29. avatar
    Daniel February 10, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    nc1:
    What are the citizenship rules in your home country in case when child’s parents are illegal aliens? Is such a child considered a citizen of your country?

    The effect of other country’s citizenship rules on the citizenship rules of the US are exactly….

    zero

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2011 at 6:33 pm #

    Judge Mental: I had it in my mind that Lupin was French so the introduction of German information in answer to a reference to him has thrown me. Maybe I’m just getting old and dottled and he is indeed German lol.

    Lupin is French, but his knowledge is wide.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Scientist: There is a way for Craig to be certified as a natural born citizen-he can run for President or Vice President and win. Those who hold those offices are, in fact, certified as natural born citizens.

    Brilliant!

  32. avatar
    Lupin February 11, 2011 at 3:21 am #

    Because of the time difference I’m responding a little late to NC1’s question.

    It is correct that a child born in France can only acquire French citizenship if one of his parents was him/herself born in France (a subtle difference with saying that one of his parents must be French).

    There are exceptions: if the child is born of unknown parents, parents who are stateless (“apatrides”), or parents whose county(ies) of citizenship would prevent their own nationality to be transmitted to the child.

    There are also some complicated rules for cases where parents come from a former French colony, such as Algeria.

    That said, my point — which NC1 hijacked — was that none of that stuff is ever discussed or debated in France. It is not a hot button issue.

    What i said was that I found it odd that in a country settled by immigrants, the finer points of citizenship are such an emotional topic.

    In fact, I don’t think it is either in the US. In my opinion it is merely a cover to express racism.

  33. avatar
    nc1 February 11, 2011 at 3:54 am #

    Lupin: Because of the time difference I’m responding a little late to NC1′s question.It is correct that a child born in France can only acquire French citizenship if one of his parents was him/herself born in France (a subtle difference with saying that one of his parents must be French).There are exceptions: if the child is born of unknown parents, parents who are stateless (“apatrides”), or parents whose county(ies) of citizenship would prevent their own nationality to be transmitted to the child.There are also some complicated rules for cases where parents come from a former French colony, such as Algeria.That said, my point — which NC1 hijacked — was that none of that stuff is ever discussed or debated in France. It is not a hot button issue.What i said was that I found it odd that in a country settled by immigrants, the finer points of citizenship are such an emotional topic.In fact, I don’t think it is either in the US. In my opinion it is merely a cover to express racism.

    When I made my comment I thought that you would stop lecturing us. No such luck.

    If France gave citizenship to babies of illegals – the citizensip issue would become a hot topic there.

    I have to give you credit though – you are not writing in French on this blog.

  34. avatar
    Lupin February 11, 2011 at 5:16 am #

    nc1:
    When I made my comment I thought that you would stop lecturing us. No such luck.If France gave citizenship to babies of illegals – the citizenship issue would become a hot topic there.I have to give you credit though – you are not writing in French on this blog.

    At the risk of “lecturing” again, we in France don’t handle what you call “illegal immigration” as you do.

    In fact, and this is important, the term commonly used here is equivalent to your “undocumented aliens” (“sans papiers”). There are of course those foreigners who came here without papers, or with forged papers, and those who had proper papers but overstayed.

    Like in the US, there is an active debate regarding the rights and services that such undocumented aliens are entitled to and/or should receive.

    I might note that the United Nations also prefer the term “undocumented migrants” as opposed to “illegal aliens” in order to decriminalize what many see primarily as a societal and/or a political issue.

    If you read French, I would advise a look at the French wiki page on the topic which I think is both thorough and fair:

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tranger_en_situation_irr%C3%A9guli%C3%A8re

    As you will see, there is no evidence whatsoever that citizenship per se is an issue at all in connection with undocumented aliens, either pro- or con-.

    So in conclusion, I restate my original argument: the recent concern over citizenship (esp. “native-born citizenship”) in the US strikes me mostly as a bogus issue, used to cover up racism, triggered by the election of an African-American in the White House.

  35. avatar
    Lupin February 11, 2011 at 5:20 am #

    nc1: If France gave citizenship to babies of illegals

    On a purely technical point, if you read my earlier post carefully, you will note that there could be several hypothetical scenarios under which someone is an “undocumented alien” in France, have a child, and still have that child become a French citizen, proving that the parent’s legal status is in fact irrelevant to the grant of citizenship. So you actually are factually wrong on this account.

  36. avatar
    Scientist February 11, 2011 at 6:06 am #

    nc1: If France gave citizenship to babies of illegals – the citizensip issue would become a hot topic there

    Canada gives citizenship to anyone born there, regardless of their parents’ status. It has not been much of “a hot topic” in Canada.

  37. avatar
    Majority Will February 11, 2011 at 8:26 am #

    “When I made my comment I thought that you would stop lecturing us.”

    The arrogant, xenophobic birther POS is referencing the ugly, bigoted voices in her damaged pinhead again.

    She would be better off in a theocratic dictatorship like Iran. I’ll pitch in for airfare.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2011 at 8:32 am #

    Lupin: What i said was that I found it odd that in a country settled by immigrants, the finer points of citizenship are such an emotional topic.

    One need go no further than the works of your own French writer, René Girard: in times of stress people look for a scapegoat.

  39. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 9:38 am #

    nc1: If France gave citizenship to babies of illegals – the citizensip issue would become a hot topic there.

    nc1: I agree with you. You raise valid points. Here’s my question: a baby is born in Germany. Neither parent is a German citizen, but both parents are citizens of the Galactic Federation.

  40. avatar
    Majority Will February 11, 2011 at 9:46 am #

    misha: nc1: I agree with you. You raise valid points. Here’s my question: a baby is born in Germany. Neither parent is a German citizen, but both parents are citizens of the Galactic Federation.

    What if both parents are Serbian war criminals who flee to the U.S. for asylum?

  41. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 11, 2011 at 9:51 am #

    misha: nc1: I agree with you. You raise valid points. Here’s my question: a baby is born in Germany. Neither parent is a German citizen, but both parents are citizens of the Galactic Federation.

    Then they are Klingons!

  42. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 11, 2011 at 9:54 am #

    nc1: When I made my comment I thought that you would stop lecturing us. No such luck.If France gave citizenship to babies of illegals – the citizensip issue would become a hot topic there. I have to give you credit though – you are not writing in French on this blog.

    You said “lecturing us” are you hearing voices again? As Lupin said France does give citizenship to babies of those without papers.

  43. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 10:02 am #

    Majority Will: What if both parents are Serbian war criminals who flee to the U.S. for asylum?

    Here’s the Conservative standard:

    – pre-1989: If they are strong anti-communists, they can have asylum.
    – post-1989: If they are part of the war on terror, they can have asylum.

    If they are anti-semites, conservatives would overlook it. Just ask Pat Buchanan.

  44. avatar
    Sef February 11, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    nc1: If France gave citizenship to babies of illegals – the citizensip issue would become a hot topic there.

    What France does stays in France. Their laws and procedures, while of interest, have zero relevance to the issue of what the U.S. does.

  45. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    Sef: What France does stays in France.

    What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

  46. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 10:32 am #

    Scientist:
    Canada gives citizenship to anyone born there, regardless of their parents’ status.It has not been much of “a hot topic” in Canada.

    House of Commons, Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Canadian Citizenship: A Sense of Belonging, June 1994

    Under the current Citizenship Act, any person born in Canada after the Act came into force is a Canadian citizen, with limited exceptions. Children born in Canada are not entitled to citizenship if either of their parents is a diplomatic officer1 and neither parent is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. A child born in Canada to a parent with any other status (a visitor, refugee claimant or temporary worker for example), or a child born to a parent with no legal status in Canada at all, is a Canadian citizen.

    The Committee discussed this issue at some length. Some members favour maintaining the current provision that anyone (except the child of a diplomat) who is born here should be automatically entitled to citizenship. Some argued that placing a requirement of attachment to Canada would be appropriate. Other members found it difficult to make a determination one way or another given the lack of statistical information regarding so-called “births of convenience.” We heard anecdotal evidence of visitors giving birth in Canada so that their child would gain citizenship. It has also been suggested that people facing deportation may have children so that they can enhance their humanitarian application to stay in the country. There are several cases of deportation from Canada that have been bitterly contested because they involved a mother who had given birth in Canada and whose child was therefore a Canadian citizen. In these situations, the government must either separate the mother and her child upon deporting her or else, in effect, deport a Canadian citizen. Unfortunately, we have not been able to determine the full extent of the alleged problem.

    The few witnesses who addressed this issue opposed introducing limits on the jus soli principle, with one witness arguing that it would be improper for citizenship laws to be used to address the issue of refugee flows. We also note that in the government’s previous attempts to pass a new citizenship act, no change to the status quo was proposed.

    The Committee is aware that some countries have restricted the jus soli principle by requiring that at least one of the child’s parents be a national or legal permanent resident of the state in question at the child’s birth. The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child.

    In Ireland, for example, a citizenship referendum was held in June 2004 on this issue. In a government document regarding the proposal to restrict jus soli it was stated:

    Maternity hospitals in particular in Dublin are experiencing a high incidence of the unannounced arrival in their facilities of non-national women in late pregnancy, or in the early stages of labour and have expressed concern that as a result the lives of the mothers and children are put at risk. This phenomenon is directly related to the fact that Irish law at present gives to children the entitlement to Irish citizenship and thus to citizenship of the European Union.

    The people of Ireland voted to change the law on Irish citizenship, with 79.17% in favour of permitting the Oireachtas (the national parliament) to impose limits. In September 2004, the Irish Government published the proposed new legislation on citizenship and the new law came into effect on 1 January 2005. Under the new Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, children born on or after 1 January 2005 of non-national parents are not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. Non-national parents of children born in Ireland must now prove that they have a genuine link to Ireland. This may be demonstrated by being resident legally in Ireland for three out of the previous four years immediately before the birth of the child. Time spent in Ireland as a student or asylum-seeker will not be included in calculating a non-national parent’s period of residence in Ireland.

    The Committee has determined that we have inadequate evidence at this time to properly assess whether the problems identified in other jurisdictions, such as Ireland, exist here. As such, we will reserve judgment pending our hearings on the citizenship bill the government is expected to table this fall.

    A little more recently:

    http://www.immigrationreform.ca/doc/2010/Has%20It%20Become%20Too%20Easy_.pdf

    Birth citizenship

    Canadian law provides for a child born in Canada of non-Canadian parents to be automatically eligible for Canadian citizenship. This provision has resulted in foreign women traveling to Canada for the purpose of giving birth so their child can acquire Canadian citizenship. This is done for a variety of purposes including using the child’s status as a Canadian to have access the health care system as a Canadian, so the child can attend Canadian educational institutions without having to pay the fees required of foreigners and, when old enough, being able to sponsor other family members as immigrants to Canada (in which case the child is usually referred to as an “anchor baby”)

    Britain passed legislation ending birth citizenship in 1981, Australia passed it in 1986 and New Zealand in 2006. Ireland was the last member of the European Union to allow acquisition ofcitizenship by this means and terminated the provision to do so in 2005.
    There is no reason why Canada should not follow suit.

    ***
    The links aren’t good at the end- I only looked at the first two and had to google them myself. If the money runs out, you may see policy changes in Canada. I have skimmed several articles by Martin Collacott on the subject of immigration, but I don’t know anything about his stature in Canada. From the link above, some anecdotal hearsay evidence concerning terrorism:

    Even some who feel a genuine attachment to Canada may do so because their conception of what it is to be a Canadian differs in significant ways from what most other Canadians would consider appropriate. The author recalls talking with one young man who expressed great pride and pleasure in his adopted country and was highly appreciative of the educational and economic opportunities it had given him, our free society, generous welfare system, friendly and welcoming people, etc. However, one of the things he valued most about the generosity of his new homeland was that it did not place obstacles in the way of him using Canada as a base for the provision of material support to a terrorist group in his country of origin.

  47. avatar
    G February 11, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    charo: However, one of the things he valued most about the generosity of his new homeland was that it did not place obstacles in the way of him using Canada as a base for the provision of material support to a terrorist group in his country of origin.

    Ugh! What a ominous and terrible thing to be grateful for… *shudder* That person definitely needs to be on a watch list somewhere…

  48. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 11:07 am #

    G: Ugh!What a ominous and terrible thing to be grateful for… *shudder*That person definitely needs to be on a watch list somewhere…

    I thought the same. I expect the author reported it; he seems at first glance to be a legitimate source.

  49. avatar
    Scientist February 11, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    charo-Canada passed a major reform of its citizenship laws in 2009, which actually broadened the definition of citizenship, especially for the descendants of Canadian citizens born abroad. There is little appetite in Canada to make any changes in the law at this time.

    I don’t know Martin Collacott as an individual but I am familiar with the think tank he is associated with, the Fraser Institute. They are at the far right end of the Canadian spectrum, which is quite different from the US spectrum. The current Conservative government of Canada is more or less where moderate Democrats are in the US. The Canadian Liberal party would be at the liberal end of the US Democratic party. The 3rd national party, the New Democrats is equivalent to European socialist parties. Then there is the Bloc Quebecois, which is supports Quebec independence, and the Greens (who get around 10% of the national vote), who are, well, Green.

    Keep in mind that foreign-born Canadian citizens are almost twice as numerous in the population as foreign-born US citizens (18% in Canada vs 11% in the US). No one is going risk losing that many votes by adopting anti-immigrant policies. Bottom line-Don’t expect Canadian citizenship laws to change. The issue of evacuating Canadian citiizens from trouble spots has been addressed. Canadians who were flown out of Egypt have had to pay their fare (and they have complained that they have been gouged).

  50. avatar
    Daniel February 11, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    Lupin: if you read my earlier post carefully, you will note

    You’re asking a birther to both read AND comprehend?

    Isn’t that asking a bit much?

  51. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 12:55 pm #

    Scientist:
    charo-Canada passed a major reform of its citizenship laws in 2009, which actually broadened the definition of citizenship, especially for the descendants of Canadian citizens born abroad.There is little appetite in Canada to make any changes in the law at this time.

    I don’t know Martin Collacott as an individual but I am familiar with the think tank he is associated with, the Fraser Institute.They are at the far right end of the Canadian spectrum, which is quite different from the US spectrum.The current Conservative government of Canada is more or less where moderate Democrats are in the US.The Canadian Liberal party would be at the liberal end of the US Democratic party.The 3rd national party, the New Democrats is equivalent to European socialist parties. Thenthere is the Bloc Quebecois, which is supports Quebec independence, and the Greens (who get around 10% of the national vote), who are, well, Green.

    Keep in mind that foreign-born Canadian citizens are almost twice as numerous in the population as foreign-born US citizens (18% in Canada vs 11% in the US).No one is going risk losing that many votes by adopting anti-immigrant policies.Bottom line-Don’t expect Canadian citizenship laws to change.The issue of evacuating Canadian citiizens from trouble spots has been addressed.Canadians who were flown out of Egypt have had to pay their fare (and they have complained that they have been gouged).

    IMO, it all depends on the mindset of who is in power; money does become an issue at some point.

  52. avatar
    Scientist February 11, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    charo: IMO, it all depends on the mindset of who is in power; money does become an issue at some point

    The financial implications of granting people citiizenship are overall positive. The wealth of a nation in the modern world is largely the talents of its citizens, whose productivity has little to do with how they acquired citizenship. Go visit any major city in Canada and you will see how vibrant the immigrant communities are. Calgary, Canada’s most conservative city, just elected as mayor a Muslim whose parents arrived in Canada from Tanzania with him in utero.

    One thing to keep in mind regarding birthright citizenship in both the US and Canada is that even though the child is a citizen, the parents do not gain citizenship or even legal residency. If caught, the parents will be deported, and will generally take the child with them. When the child reaches adulthood, they can return and then sponsor the parents, but they must have a job that earns enough to support their parents so they don’t become public charges.

  53. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    Scientist: When the child reaches adulthood, they can return and then sponsor the parents, but they must have a job that earns enough to support their parents so they don’t become public charges.

    The crowd screaming ‘anchor babies,’ either does not know this, or ignores it. Then there is Gomert screaming “terror babies.” Gomert sets a new standard for nativists.

    Michelle Malkin, who is married to a Jewish neocon, and Piyush Bobby Jindal, are both anchor babies.

  54. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    Scientist: The financial implications of granting people citiizenship are overall positive.The wealth of a nation in the modern world is largely the talents of its citizens, whose productivity has little to do with how they acquired citizenship.Go visit any major city in Canada and you will see how vibrant the immigrant communities are. Calgary, Canada’s most conservative city, just elected as mayor a Muslim whose parents arrived in Canada from Tanzania with him in utero.

    One thing to keep in mind regarding birthright citizenship in both the US and Canada is that even though the child is a citizen, the parents do not gain citizenship or even legal residency.If caught, the parents will be deported, and will generally take the child with them.When the child reaches adulthood, they can return and then sponsor the parents, but they musthave a job that earns enough to support their parents so they don’t become public charges.

    From what I have read, there is a problem with citizens not really living in the country and then retiring there for the benefits.

  55. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 3:31 pm #

    Also, from what I read from the link I posted, the legislators chose to open up their country to purposefully gain more citizens, in order to increase the population and reap benefits that you suggest. Enough voters elected enough people with that mindset. There was a dissenting view, but it was not popular enough to override that vision. The United States does not have the same history.

  56. avatar
    Scientist February 11, 2011 at 3:42 pm #

    charo: Also, from what I read from the link I posted, the legislators chose to open up their country to purposefully gain more citizens, in order to increase the population and reap benefits that you suggest. Enough voters elected enough people with that mindset. There was a dissenting view, but it was not popular enough to override that vision. The United States does not have the same history.

    You’re joking, right? The US became a superpower because it attracted people from all over the world.

    Why do you automatically accept things that come out of a far-right (by Canadian standards certainly) think tank? The article you quote is not even representative of the Conservative government, let alone Canada as a whole. You really ought to go for a visit. Canada is probably in the best shape of any G-8 country today, so whatever they are doing seems to work quite well, thank you.

  57. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    Scientist: Canada is probably in the best shape of any G-8 country today

    Perky “Canada,” has own government, laws:

    http://www.discospock.com/humor/perkycanda.html

  58. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 4:52 pm #

    Scientist: You’re joking, right?The US became a superpower because it attracted people from all over the world.

    Why do you automatically accept things that come out of a far-right (by Canadian standards certainly) think tank?The article you quote is not even representative of the Conservative government, let alone Canada as a whole. You really ought to go for avisit.Canada is probably in the best shape of any G-8 country today, so whatever they are doing seems to work quite well, thank you.

    The part about the legislation was from the first link, not the second. I’ll have to get back to you.

  59. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    I wasn’t referring to NO immigration whatsoever. Canada has a liberal immigration policy. I quoted a report from The House of Commons that discussed some opposition, including the recognition of some of the problems Ireland had.

    I have obligations now and can’t continue the issue until further notice.

  60. avatar
    Keith February 11, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    charo: Also, from what I read from the link I posted, the legislators chose to open up their country to purposefully gain more citizens, in order to increase the population and reap benefits that you suggest. Enough voters elected enough people with that mindset. There was a dissenting view, but it was not popular enough to override that vision. The United States does not have the same history.

    It doesn’t?

    Ever read this? It is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty:

    The New Colossus

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    Emma Lazarus, 1883

  61. avatar
    Majority Will February 11, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Keith: It doesn’t?

    Ever read this? It is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty . . .

    My grandparents, many other relatives and 20+ millions of others came through here:

    http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/ellis_island.asp

    “Ellis Island, now a 27.5-acre site located just minutes off the southern tip of Manhattan Island, New York, is likely to connect with more of the American population than any other spot in the country. It has been estimated that nearly half of all Americans today can trace their family history to at least one person who passed through the Port of New York at Ellis Island. Now, nearly a century since the peak years of immigration, Ellis Island is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the National Park Service. Browse the sections of this site below to locate additional information about Ellis Island.”

    (emphasis added)

  62. avatar
    Majority Will February 11, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    “It has been estimated that nearly half of all Americans today can trace their family history to at least one person who passed through the Port of New York at Ellis Island.”

    According to the birther bigots and xenophobic blowers who insist you must be a descendant of the Founders, this means very few people would ever qualify as natural born citizens and thus ineligible to run for the Presidency. But wait. Weren’t the Founding Fathers immigrants? Hmmm.

  63. avatar
    Scientist February 11, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    charo: Canada has a liberal immigration policy

    I don’t know if Canada’s immigration policy is more liberal or more conservative than the US. They use a point system which favors highly educated, highly skilled immigrants more than the US does. Remember, they have a larger area than the US with 1/10 the population, so there has been a desire to grow the population. Of course, immigrants, like native-born Canadians tend to end up mostly in large cities and northern Canada remains empty. But for that youu have to blame climate, not policy.

    charo: I quoted a report from The House of Commons that discussed some opposition, including the recognition of some of the problems Ireland had.

    The report (from 1996) noted that only a few witnesses spoke and all were against modifying jus soli. So it’s hardly a “hot button issue”. The citizenship law was revised in 2009 and made more inclusive, not less. The previous revision was in 1977, so it’s unlikely the current law will be changed in the next 20 years.

    Canadians like to settle questions and move on. They did that with same sex marriage. Once it passed, it became a settled matter and there is little or no discussion on the topic now. I find the endless debate on matters like abortion, gay marriage and other such issues in the US quite absurd. Not to mention debates 2 years after an election on where someone was born. Look around at what’s happening in the world and tell me it matters. America used to be a forward-looking country. Why is it now so backward-looking?

  64. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

    Scientist: America used to be a forward-looking country. Why is it now so backward-looking?

    Evangelicals/fundies given a platform by Reagan.

  65. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 9:04 pm #

    Scientist: The report (from 1996) noted that only a few witnesses spoke and all were against modifying jus soli. So it’s hardly a “hot button issue”.

    The opposition came from some of the members, which was what I was talking about; there wasn’t a strong enough voice to overcome the vision of the more liberal viewpoint.

    Scientist: Canadians like to settle questions and move on.

    Are you a dual citizen? If not, maybe you should consider it.

  66. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    misha: Evangelicals/fundies given a platform by Reagan.

    I mention this not to get into an opening for character assassination, but just for what I observed. A few months ago, Palin went with Franklin Graham to Haiti. Greta VS shot footage for her program. I caught some of it. Large pockets of the population are living under blue tents. You could clearly see them from an aerial view that was shown in one segment, to emphasize the complete devastation of the island. Those blue tents were provided by Franklin Graham’s organization. You could see the logos (the tents were mentioned prior). He distributed Christmas gifts to children.

    When people pray at abortion centers, they don’t say to the young women of minority races, “You go on in. We only pray for white babies.”

  67. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 9:14 pm #

    I am not an evangelical.

  68. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    charo: Are you a dual citizen?

    I am. US/Israel.

    charo: Palin went with Franklin Graham to Haiti.

    Graham is a bigot and anti-semite. So is Palin, but she is smart enough not to let it slip out in public, like one AoG minister said to me.

    Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Jews will either convert to Christianity or perish in the end times. Hence the Middle East peace plan suggested by Rev Franklin Graham, Billy’s son: Muslims and Jews alike should try “surrendering their lives to the Lord Jesus Christ and having their hearts changed by the Holy Spirit.”

    Would that have helped my maternal grandmother? My mother told me her mother was saved by being hidden in a trunk in the attic. Perhaps those Christians merely wanted to tell her how wonderful their faith was. My mother and grandfather told me the pogroms on Easter Sunday were the worst of the year. Most Crusades ended in pogroms.

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/palin-getting-middle-east-policy-advice-from-billy-and-franklin-graham/

    charo: When people pray at abortion centers, they don’t say to the young women of minority races, “You go on in. We only pray for white babies.”

    Google “christian abortion violence.” Like James Kopp, a Catholic and anti-semite, who stalked and murdered Dr. Slepian, whom I knew from my synagogue.

  69. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 9:56 pm #

    charo: When people pray at abortion centers

    They don’t pray. They intimidate and terrorize.

  70. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 9:56 pm #

    misha: I am. US/Israel.

    Graham is a bigot and anti-semite. So is Palin, but she is smart enough not to let it slip out in public, like one AoG minister said to me.

    Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Jews will either convert to Christianity or perish in the end times. Hence the Middle East peace plan suggested by Rev Franklin Graham, Billy’s son: Muslims and Jews alike should try “surrendering their lives to the Lord Jesus Christ and having their hearts changed by the Holy Spirit.”

    Would that have helped my maternal grandmother? My mother told me her mother was saved by being hidden in a trunk in the attic. Perhaps those Christians merely wanted to tell her how wonderful their faith was. My mother and grandfather told me the pogroms on Easter Sunday were the worst of the year. Most Crusades ended in pogroms.

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/palin-getting-middle-east-policy-advice-from-billy-and-franklin-graham/

    Google “christian abortion violence.” Like James Kopp, a Catholic and anti-semite, who stalked and murdered Dr. Slepian, whom I knew from my synagogue.

    You ignored the whole point about the tents to engage in character assasination.

    People who are strictly present to pray at abortion centers all over the country, daily, pray for babies of all color.

  71. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 9:57 pm #

    misha: They don’t pray. They intimidate and terrorize.

    I have prayed with others at abortion centers. Terrorism was not an event.

  72. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 9:58 pm #

    So using your logic, all Muslims are terrorists.

  73. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 10:00 pm #

    charo: You ignored the whole point about the tents to engage in character assasination.

    I learned it from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

  74. avatar
    charo February 11, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    You mean Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole?

  75. avatar
    Majority Will February 11, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    charo: I have prayed with others at abortion centers.Terrorism was not an event.

    So, if you pray for an aborted fetus and by a miracle it lives, it’s not a natural born citizen?

    Just trying to see how this all ties in to the topic.

  76. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 10:46 pm #

    charo: I have prayed with others at abortion centers. Terrorism was not an event.

    On this, I am a libertarian. I do not inject myself into the affairs of strangers. I suggest you do the same.

  77. avatar
    G February 11, 2011 at 10:52 pm #

    charo: So using your logic, all Muslims are terrorists.

    Charo – I’m completely with you on this one. I can’t stand such binary black/white over-generalized stereotypical character assassinations, wherever it occurs. Yes, there are “bad” people amongst many different groups that do “bad” things…

    It is when people take those “bad” situations and blame much, much broader groups for all the acts of those extremists – well…that is when they themselves become no better than those they are maligning…just from an opposite side of the coin. I don’t like religious intolerance in any form or to paint all people of a certain faith under the same extremist brush. Sorry to rant…just a personal pet peeve of mine.

  78. avatar
    Sef February 11, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    G: Charo –I’m completely with you on this one.I can’t stand such binary black/white over-generalized stereotypical character assassinations, wherever it occurs.Yes, there are “bad” people amongst many different groups that do “bad” things…

    It is when people take those “bad” situations and blame much, much broader groups for all the acts of those extremists – well…that is when they themselves become no better than those they are maligning…just from an opposite side of the coin.I don’t like religious intolerance in any form or to paint all people of a certain faith under the same extremist brush.Sorry to rant…just a personal pet peeve of mine.

    All generalizations are false.

  79. avatar
    Keith February 12, 2011 at 12:43 am #

    Sef: All generalizations are false.

    I see what you did there. 😉

  80. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2011 at 1:00 am #

    Sef: All generalizations are false.

    But hypothetically, what would we do without rhetorical questions?

  81. avatar
    nc1 February 12, 2011 at 4:16 am #

    Lupin: On a purely technical point, if you read my earlier post carefully, you will note that there could be several hypothetical scenarios under which someone is an “undocumented alien” in France, have a child, and still have that child become a French citizen, proving that the parent’s legal status is in fact irrelevant to the grant of citizenship. So you actually are factually wrong on this account.

    Both of us know that it is a token example – number of people with such status (stateless person) is very small. You are not talking about several hundred thousand children born to illegals every year.

    If suddenly thousands of Turks arrived to France – your government would not make their children French citizens just because they were born in the country.

    If I followed your logic, the reason for enforcing such policy must be racism, what else could it be?

    What is the immigration policy towards former French colonies? Do you have open borders for their citizens?

  82. avatar
    e.vattel February 12, 2011 at 4:55 am #

    If you are not a descendant of the original citizens created after the ratification of the Constitution you are not a natural born citizen.

    Hope this clears it up for everyone.

  83. avatar
    Lupin February 12, 2011 at 6:15 am #

    nc1: Both of us know that it is a token example – number of people with such status (stateless person) is very small. You are not talking about several hundred thousand children born to illegals every year.

    If suddenly thousands of Turks arrived to France – your government would not make their children French citizens just because they were born in the country.

    If I followed your logic, the reason for enforcing such policy must be racism, what else could it be?

    What is the immigration policy towards former French colonies? Do you have open borders for their citizens?

    To answer the last question first, the children of Algerians who were born in Algeria (the parents, not the children) before it became independent (and therefore was a part of France) can become French citizens if they so choose at age 18.

    That said, your response does not address at all what I said.

    I commented upon the (to me) strange obsession with defining the finer issues of citizenship, specifically the “natural born citizenship”, which has nothing to do with immigration, legal or illegal.

    I said, and I still believe, that the people obsessed with the definition of “natural-born citizen”are driven by racism. As i have often pointed out, this notion was part of the founding documents of the KKK.

    Secondly, I admitted that there is a debate in France, as there is in your country, about how many rights and/or services “illegal” (or “undocumented”) aliens are entitled to. That is certainly an issue where reasonable people can agree to disagree.

    But in France that issue has not spilled over (if I could use that term) into the more legalistic domain of “citizenship” — and it is far less a “token” issue than you think — a found baby presumably born of Turkish parents (to reuse your example) but found at a Church will become de facto French if his birth parents cannot be located.

    In plainer words, our National Front right-wing folks do argue about the costs of services, subsidies, etc. spent on “undocumented aliens” just as much I presume as some citizens of Arizona or California, but I haven’t seen citizenship becomes an issue. Actually, if anything, the French Right wants to “integrate” said “undocumented” and want them to be “more French”.

  84. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2011 at 7:48 am #

    nc1: What is the immigration policy towards former French colonies? Do you have open borders for their citizens?

    You are completely missing Lupin’s initial point. France’s immigration policies are not relevant. France is not a nation made up of primarily immigrants. France does not have a statue (ironically, made them by), with a plaque stating, “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Lupin is not talking of immigration policies of all nations but the oddity that a country that prides itself on being made of immigrants has many citizens who seem to hate immigrants.

    What I may need to disagree with on Lupin’s statement is that this is a strictly racist attitude now. One of the America’s annoying traditions is that there are many who dislike the immigrants that come after them. Starting with the Irish in the early 19th century (and possibly before), it is the same complaining each time. It is like the old joke we had up near Traverse City. People would move up north and then automatically start complaining of too much development from people moving north. In short, they were saying, “I’m here, now close the door.”

    NC has an issue with birthright citizenship (which, of course, demonstrates the President’s eligibility), yet, myself, whose ancestors’ most recent arrival was 1805 (with the majority being over 100 years earlier) has no problem with birthright citizenship.

  85. avatar
    charo February 12, 2011 at 8:09 am #

    Lupin: I commented upon the (to me) strange obsession with defining the finer issues of citizenship, specifically the “natural born citizenship”, which has nothing to do with immigration, legal or illegal.

    Pregnant undocumented, illegal (whatever term used) women have their children here. Those children becoming natural born citizens (or not depending on the view) under the 14th Amendment has been at issue here and elsewhere.

  86. avatar
    charo February 12, 2011 at 8:15 am #

    Majority Will: Just trying to see how this all ties in to the topic.

    Lupin’s view from France is that the birther movement is founded upon racism. Birthers are called RWNJ. RWNJ’s are said to be the conservative fringe. That fringe is said to be made up of religious nuts. Religious nuts are said to be against abortion. You can interchange birther, RWNJ, conservative right wing… and the religious right, the anti-abortion crowd. Most anti-abortion crowds peacefully protest at centers where a significant number of minority children are aborted. Someone called them terrorists, and well, there we are…. or were. Just trying to follow the logic of the comments with my own.

  87. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 12, 2011 at 9:13 am #

    Keith: I see what you did there.

    All sentences starting with ”All” should be regarded with distrust.

  88. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 12, 2011 at 9:17 am #

    charo: Lupin’s view from France is that the birther movement is founded upon racism.Birthers are called RWNJ.RWNJ’s are said to be the conservative fringe.That fringe is said to be made up of religious nuts.Religious nuts are said to be against abortion.You can interchange birther, RWNJ, conservative right wing… and the religious right, the anti-abortion crowd.Most anti-abortion crowds peacefully protest at centers where a significant number of minority children are aborted. Someone called them terrorists, and well, there we are…. or were.Just trying to follow the logic of the comments with my own.

    They abort children nowadays?

    And obstructing the highway where there is a imminent threat of a muder attempt (in view of past events, yes I am generalizing, but less so than you about Muslims) is aiding and abetting terrorism.

  89. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    charo: Lupin’s view from France is that the birther movement is founded upon racism.Birthers are called RWNJ.RWNJ’s are said to be the conservative fringe.That fringe is said to be made up of religious nuts.Religious nuts are said to be against abortion.You can interchange birther, RWNJ, conservative right wing… and the religious right, the anti-abortion crowd.Most anti-abortion crowds peacefully protest at centers where a significant number of minority children are aborted. Someone called them terrorists, and well, there we are…. or were.Just trying to follow the logic of the comments with my own.

    Interesting Glass Bead Game oder Das Glasperlenspiel.

    Be careful whether the rabbit you’re chasing isn’t the rabbit in your reflection.

  90. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 12, 2011 at 9:38 am #

    misha: Most Crusades ended in pogroms.

    Apart from killing a lot of Jews, most Crusades killed far more Christians (Orthodox and other Eastern Christians that is) than Muslims. Islam thanks its dominant position in Turkey and Syria to the Crusades.

    The Northern Crusades (against “pagans” in the Baltics) were in fact Roman Catholic campaigns to stop Prussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and Finns from peacefully converting to Orthodox Christianity.

    That legacy of those days is still among us. Not only in Egypt (Copts) and Lebanon, but particularly in the countries of former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union.

  91. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 12, 2011 at 10:04 am #

    Lupin: Because of the time difference I’m responding a little late to NC1′s question.

    It is correct that a child born in France can only acquire French citizenship if one of his parents was him/herself born in France (a subtle difference with saying that one of his parents must be French).

    Thanks. I suppose this means France does not distinguish between births (residents, illegal aliens and passers-by).

    We do need to add that all over Europe, citizenship laws have been evolving during the last 50 years. Countries which were Vatellite (Germany and Belgium) have become more soil-ist. France, which dropped Vatellism at the end of the 19th century, is no longer so soil-ist nowadays. I base that last one on the fact that one famous Belgian ex-prime minister, born quite accidentally in Montpelleir in 1940, got French draft papers during the Algerian troubles, refused to go and got his French citizenship taken away.

  92. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 12, 2011 at 10:29 am #

    Sef:
    Does watching Poirot movies count?

    Or how about drinking Belgian beer?

    Only if:

    1) you stop calling chips “French fries”
    2) you start calling every hill over 10 metres (you know what a metre is, right) a mountain, and everything over 300 metres a Baraque
    3) you drop that silly Peter Ustinov accent, since only Tom Conti talks like a real Belgian.

    But who would want to be a Belgian nowadays, since every Frenchman knows that “La Belgique s’effrite”?

    By the way, to get back on topic, Hercule Poirot’s birth certificate, as kept at the mairie of Ellezelles-Ellezele is an obvious fake, since he was really born in 1874.

    http://herculepoirot.free.fr/age.htm

  93. avatar
    Sef February 12, 2011 at 11:04 am #

    Belgium, man. Belgium!

  94. avatar
    misha February 12, 2011 at 11:06 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Hercule Poirot’s birth certificate, as kept at the mairie of Ellezelles-Ellezele is an obvious fake, since he was really born in 1874.

    Hercule Poirot was a Belgian invented by an Englishwoman, Agatha Christie.

  95. avatar
    charo February 12, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    Majority Will: Interesting Glass Bead Game oder Das Glasperlenspiel.

    Be careful whether the rabbit you’re chasing isn’t the rabbit in your reflection.

    I have no doubt that I am a RWNJ in the eyes of someone who wants to categorize that way. I am not violent, but conservative, sympathetic to the tea party movement, against abortion, Catholic (strictly believe and try to follow the teachings of the Catechism), sympathetic to some of the birther questions. That is probably enough to identify me as the rabbit you claim I am chasing.

    If I comment any further, I am moving it over to the open thread.

  96. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 12, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    misha: Hercule Poirot was a Belgian invented by an Englishwoman, Agatha Christie.

    Come on, Misha. Why do you stop Mr Smith from faking a second one, and Orly from buying it?

    (For those who don’t get the joke, Peter Ustinov played Mr Smith in the film Hot Millions)

  97. avatar
    charo February 12, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: And obstructing the highway where there is a imminent threat of a muder attempt (in view of past events, yes I am generalizing, but less so than you about Muslims) is aiding and abetting terrorism.

    I don’t know what you are talking about regarding obstructing the highway. As for the Muslim comment, read what I said in context. I said according to Misha’s logic, all Muslims are terrorists.

    Any further response will be at the open thread.

  98. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    charo: I have no doubt that I am a RWNJ in the eyes of someone who wants to categorize that way.I am not violent, but conservative, sympathetic to the tea party movement, against abortion, Catholic (strictly believe and try to follow the teachings of the Catechism), sympathetic to some of the birther questions.That is probablyenough to identify me as the rabbit you claim I am chasing.

    If I comment any further, I am moving it over to the open thread.

    You need to take a closer look at that rabbit before it bites your nose.

    I think abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor,

    And I claim nothing. I observe.

    I wouldn’t hesitate to beat the living crap out of a self-righteous hypocrite preaching about how I should live and believe in my own personal life.

    You will never live my life or die my death. So STFU about how you pray it should go.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2011 at 1:29 pm #

    charo: Lupin’s view from France is that the birther movement is founded upon racism.

    Certainly racism is one of the central pillars upon which the birther movement rests. Polls show that birther views are most prevalent among the former slave states. I think that there are other pillars including the conservative/liberal divide and mental defects. It would be a mistake, though, to say that all birthers are racists, just as it would be to say that all birthers are insane.

  100. avatar
    charo February 12, 2011 at 1:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Certainly racism is one of the central pillars upon which the birther movement rests. I think that there are others including the conservative/liberal divide and mental defects. It would be a mistake, thought,to say that all birthers are racists.

    IMO, if the internet, twitter, even forensics, all the technological advances that we have available today were available throughout presidential history, birtherism would have existed long before now. It may have been even uglier. There was even a big difference between the Bush elections and Obama.

  101. avatar
    misha February 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    e.vattel: If you are not a descendant of the original citizens created after the ratification of the Constitution you are not a natural born citizen.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Certainly racism is one of the central pillars upon which the birther movement rests. Polls show that birther views are most prevalent among the former slave states.

    And here is the perfect illustration.

  102. avatar
    Scientist February 12, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    charo: IMO, if the internet, twitter, even forensics, all the technological advances that we have available today were available throughout presidential history, birtherism would have existed long before now. It may have been even uglier.

    Chester Arthur had his birthplace questioned, but my impression is that the issue died after the election. I would be interested if anyone has any information as to whether there was any significant discussion of it during his term. Certainly there could have been barroom talk that is lost to history, but my impression is that there was nothing said about it in newspapers post-election. He didn’t run for a second term, so we can’t know whether it would have come up then.

    charo: There was even a big difference between the Bush elections and Obama.

    Here is the difference. It is a simple fact that the Florida vote was within any reasonable margin of error. Reputable sources (a consortium of newspapers) did actual research after the 2000 election and concluded that had a state-wide recount been done, then Gore would have won Florida. Interestingly, Gore pushed for a recount in selected counties, by which criteria Bush would have won. So the actual data suggests the true winner in 2000 is unknown and probably unknowable. Yet, while there were certainly anti-Bush web sites, there were none that I am aware of dedicated primarily to questioniing his legitimacy in office, as opposed to questioning his policies.

    With Obama, we have no actual data that says he is not legitimate. Yet, there are numerous siites questioning his legitimacy, as opposed to his policies, which are fair game.

  103. avatar
    charo February 12, 2011 at 5:29 pm #

    Percentage of Homes With Internet Triples in the Past 10 Years

    by Terrence O’Brien on June 7, 2009

    http://www.switched.com/2009/06/07/percentage-of-homes-with-internet-triples-in-the-past-10-years/

  104. avatar
    nc1 February 12, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    Lupin: To answer the last question first, the children of Algerians who were born in Algeria (the parents, not the children) before it became independent (and therefore was a part of France) can become French citizens if they so choose at age 18.That said, your response does not address at all what I said. I commented upon the (to me) strange obsession with defining the finer issues of citizenship, specifically the “natural born citizenship”, which has nothing to do with immigration, legal or illegal. I said, and I still believe, that the people obsessed with the definition of “natural-born citizen”are driven by racism. As i have often pointed out, this notion was part of the founding documents of the KKK.Secondly, I admitted that there is a debate in France, as there is in your country, about how many rights and/or services “illegal” (or “undocumented”) aliens are entitled to. That is certainly an issue where reasonable people can agree to disagree.But in France that issue has not spilled over (if I could use that term) into the more legalistic domain of “citizenship” — and it is far less a “token” issue than you think — a found baby presumably born of Turkish parents (to reuse your example) but found at a Church will become de facto French if his birth parents cannot be located.In plainer words, our National Front right-wing folks do argue about the costs of services, subsidies, etc. spent on “undocumented aliens” just as much I presume as some citizens of Arizona or California, but I haven’t seen citizenship becomes an issue. Actually, if anything, the French Right wants to “integrate” said “undocumented” and want them to be “more French”.

    The natural born citizenship question is important because it is a Constitutional requirement for POTUS. The “obsession” with the definition of NBC phrase stems from the fact that large number of US citizens know that we have been lied to by government officials when it comes to Obama’s eligibility while courts refuse to make a ruling.

    If we lived in a country ruled by laws this should have been a trivial issue, resolved before the elections (2008).

    Back to the French immigration rules – examples you provided show that French immigration and naturalization laws are strickter than their USA counterparts. My original point was simple – you should not lecture US citizens for “excessive” debate about nature of citizenship as long as you live in a country where such rules are not as liberal as ours.

    What is the reason that France limits the immigration from Algeria at all? According to the logic you applied to USA, it must be racism. It is not fair that you distinguish between children whose Algerian parents were born before and after Algeria gained independence. If you agreed with such policy you must be a racist too.

    As you can see it is easy to play your game.

  105. avatar
    Sef February 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    nc1: If we lived in a country ruled by laws this should have been a trivial issue, resolved before the elections (2008).

    For all but a few congenital idiots like yourself it was resolved before the election. Sorry you have not been able to keep up.

  106. avatar
    US Citizen February 12, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    nc1: The “obsession” with the definition of NBC phrase stems from the fact that large number of US citizens know that we have been lied to by government officials when it comes to Obama’s eligibility while courts refuse to make a ruling.

    But if you “know” this, what good would a ruling do?
    You’d simply dismiss whomever provided said ruling (such as the Supreme Court.)
    You’ve dismissed many courts, the FEC, DNC, RNC, US State dept, Hawaii’s health dept, Hawaii’s governor, all state electors, Congress (all senators and reps), past presidents, the FBI, CIA, NSA, the MSM, et al.
    Despite all these authorities being sure Obama is legally the president, you “know” he isn’t.
    So nothing will EVER convince you.
    You’ll always just move the goalposts and continue playing.

  107. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 12, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

    nc1: The natural born citizenship question is important because it is a Constitutional requirement for POTUS.The “obsession” with the definition of NBC phrase stems from the fact that large number of US citizens know that we have been lied to by government officials when it comes to Obama’s eligibility while courts refuse to make a ruling.

    If we lived in a country ruled by laws this should have been a trivial issue, resolved before the elections (2008).

    Back to the French immigration rules – examples you provided show that French immigration and naturalization laws are strickter than their USA counterparts.My original point was simple – you should not lecture US citizens for “excessive” debate about nature of citizenship as long as you live in a country where such rules are not as liberal as ours.

    What is the reason that France limits the immigration from Algeria at all?According to the logic you applied to USA, it must be racism.It is not fair that you distinguish between children whose Algerian parents were born before and after Algeria gained independence.If you agreed with such policy you must be a racist too.

    As you can see it is easy to play your game.

    By large numbers you mean less than 1% of the US population and their multiple sock puppet identities. Anyone who is serious doesn’t have these questions. Its obvious you’re not a serious person and instead of paying attention you just continue to ignore it as if the question was never answered. We do live in a country of laws, the question was definitively answered as Obama was sworn in and the election certified. A handful of whiners such as yourself want to break Federal and State laws to overturn an election because you guys are sore losers.

  108. avatar
    nc1 February 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Northland10: You are completely missing Lupin’s initial point. France’s immigration policies are not relevant. France is not a nation made up of primarily immigrants. France does not have a statue (ironically, made them by), with a plaque stating, “Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Lupin is not talking of immigration policies of all nations but the oddity that a country that prides itself on being made of immigrants has many citizens who seem to hate immigrants.What I may need to disagree with on Lupin’s statement is that this is a strictly racist attitude now. One of the America’s annoying traditions is that there are many who dislike the immigrants that come after them. Starting with the Irish in the early 19th century (and possibly before), it is the same complaining each time. It is like the old joke we had up near Traverse City. People would move up north and then automatically start complaining of too much development from people moving north. In short, they were saying, “I’m here, now close the door.”NC has an issue with birthright citizenship (which, of course, demonstrates the President’s eligibility), yet, myself, whose ancestors’ most recent arrival was 1805 (with the majority being over 100 years earlier) has no problem with birthright citizenship.

    Birthright citizenship should only be reserved for children of those who are legally in the country on a long term visa or have a green card. Children born to Illegal aliens and tourists are citizens of their parent’s country.

  109. avatar
    Sef February 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    nc1: Birthright citizenship should only be reserved for children of those who are legally in the country on a long term visa or have a green card. Children born to Illegal aliens and tourists are citizens of their parent’s country.

    Your “should” does not equate to our laws. Sorry. Why don’t you go back to your home country, whose laws you apparently pine for.

  110. avatar
    Scientist February 12, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    nc1: As you can see it is easy to play your game.

    Let’s play your game:

    1. The US should modify its birthright citizenship laws because other countries (except for Canada) don’t grant it.

    2. The US should keep a restriction against naturalized citizens holding the highest office, even though no other countrty (except the Phillippines) has one.

    All I can say is “Wow!”

  111. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

    nc1: Birthright citizenship should only be reserved for children of those who are legally in the country on a long term visa or have a green card.

    You have the right to believe that, however, at this time, our Constitution says otherwise. I should mention that Obama’s father would have been in the country legally with some sort of long term visa or green card.

    As for your “large” numbers who “know” they have been lied to, would that be the 3 at Dr. Kate’s usurpathon or the 50-60 who were at Berg’s protest (it is hard to tell which ones were there to protest and which ones who were passing by, stopping to figure out why there was a guy in a Captain America outfit waving a big flag).

  112. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2011 at 7:57 pm #

    nc1: If we lived in a country ruled by laws this should have been a trivial issue, resolved before the elections (2008).

    It was.

  113. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 12, 2011 at 8:26 pm #

    nc1: Birthright citizenship should only be reserved for children of those who are legally in the country on a long term visa or have a green card.Children born to Illegal aliens and tourists are citizens of their parent’s country.

    And Obama Senior would have been in the US Legally as he was a student he would have most likely had a long term visa or a J1. It most likely would have been modified when he married.

  114. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 12, 2011 at 8:49 pm #

    Scientist: Chester Arthur had his birthplace questioned, but my impression is that the issue died after the election.

    The only other President who was questioned, was Hoover, because of the residence requirement. There was no doubt that Hoover did not comply with a definition of 14 years’ residence before inauguration, since his name was in the London phone directory during that period.

    The controversy did not last long, as journalists soon found the names of other Presidents who did not fulfil the most severe interpretation: Thomas jefferson and John Quincey Adams.

    Some of the birfer state proposals are actually asking for evidence that the candidate has resided in the States for the fourteen years just before election/inauguration. They do not know or choose to ignore that Eisenhower would not have been able to comply with any of their demands.

  115. avatar
    charo February 12, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Obstructing the highway is an old common law concept, dating back for centuries.

    http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/42.03.00.html

    The keyword is inconvenient. Though yes, when doctors and other personnel get killed sometimes, “hazardous” also applies.

    I am familiar with “putting up road blocks.” I thought you were talking about a specific event, the way you phrased your remark. I assume that I am not expected to respond, that you can imply an accusation that I somehow had something to do with the murder of doctors and personnel when I pray at a clinic (which I have done but not on a regular basis). I would be a self-righteous a## (a term of endearment from someone else) to do anything except let the comment stand.

  116. avatar
    misha February 12, 2011 at 9:11 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Some of the birfer state proposals are actually asking for evidence that the candidate has resided in the States for the fourteen years just before election/inauguration. They do not know or choose to ignore that Eisenhower would not have been able to comply with any of their demands.

    Hoover’s and Eisenhower’s 14 years were cumulative, not consecutive.

    “They do not know or choose to ignore”

    They do not know. Sarah Palin could not find Israel, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan on an unmarked map. Watch Jay Leno’s “Jay Walking,” to see how uninformed Americans are.

  117. avatar
    Keith February 12, 2011 at 9:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It would be a mistake, though, to say that all birthers are racists, just as it would be to say that all birthers are insane.

    True. It would also be a mistake to say that all birthers are in it for whatever money they can squeeze out of a paypal button, just as it would be to say tha all birthers are RW propaganda operatives out to sow as much FUD as they possibly can.

    But the union of the four sets would clearly be very, very, very close to the set of all birthers.

  118. avatar
    Lupin February 13, 2011 at 2:00 am #

    nc1: The natural born citizenship question is important because it is a Constitutional requirement for POTUS. The “obsession” with the definition of NBC phrase stems from the fact that large number of US citizens know that we have been lied to by government officials when it comes to Obama’s eligibility while courts refuse to make a ruling.

    If we lived in a country ruled by laws this should have been a trivial issue, resolved before the elections (2008).

    But that, simply put, is a crazy way of looking at things. It just does NOT describe the situation.

    nc1: Back to the French immigration rules – examples you provided show that French immigration and naturalization laws are strickter than their USA counterparts. My original point was simple – you should not lecture US citizens for “excessive” debate about nature of citizenship as long as you live in a country where such rules are not as liberal as ours.

    !. This statement is “loaded”. Our laws are neither more or less liberal than yours. They are different. I don’t consider granting citizenship a “liberal” act. That, in itself, is racist, or xenophobic.

    2. Various factions of America (not sanctioned by your Government) have been a pain in our collective asses (we Yurpeans) for the last decade or so, funding or helping our neo-nazis (Stormfront), breaking our laws (Molex, Gallo), or trying to lobby to change them despite the people’s will (Monsanto), meddling in our healthcare policies (Heritage Foundation), spreading religious anti-evolution bullshit, so we have every right to “lecture” you. If you kept your lunatics at home instead of being a 21st century version of the Komintern, maybe we would take less of an interest in our craziness.

    nc1: What is the reason that France limits the immigration from Algeria at all? According to the logic you applied to USA, it must be racism. It is not fair that you distinguish between children whose Algerian parents were born before and after Algeria gained independence. If you agreed with such policy you must be a racist too.

    Not at all. We in fact grant citizenship to children of Algerians born in France (and who’ve never known Algeria) all the time. There’s a procedure for this. They have to apply when they’re 18. The status of their parents is totally irrelevant to the decision.

    But as I said — and repeat again — while there is a debate with heavy racist overtones in France about ” foreigners stealing French folks bread” there is none about granting them citizenship, on the contrary.

    I’m not saying the French don’t have racists; we do; I’m saying citizenship is not an issue.

  119. avatar
    Sef February 13, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    US Citizen: Charo, I’m curious if prayer at abortion centers works better than prayer elsewhere?

    Prior to the invention of “zero” this would have been a meaningful question. Since 976 AD it has not been meaningful, since you are comparing 2 instances of zero to see which is greater.

  120. avatar
    nc1 February 13, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    Lupin: But that, simply put, is a crazy way of looking at things. It just does NOT describe the situation.

    nc1: Back to the French immigration rules – examples you provided show that French immigration and naturalization laws are strickter than their USA counterparts. My original point was simple – you should not lecture US citizens for “excessive” debate about nature of citizenship as long as you live in a country where such rules are not as liberal as ours.

    !. This statement is “loaded”. Our laws are neither more or less liberal than yours. They are different. I don’t consider granting citizenship a “liberal” act. That, in itself, is racist, or xenophobic.

    2. Various factions of America (not sanctioned by your Government) have been a pain in our collective asses (we Yurpeans) for the last decade or so, funding or helping our neo-nazis (Stormfront), breaking our laws (Molex, Gallo), or trying to lobby to change them despite the people’s will (Monsanto), meddling in our healthcare policies (Heritage Foundation), spreading religious anti-evolution bullshit, so we have every right to “lecture” you. If you kept your lunatics at home instead of being a 21st century version of the Komintern, maybe we would take less of an interest in our craziness.

    nc1: What is the reason that France limits the immigration from Algeria at all? According to the logic you applied to USA, it must be racism. It is not fair that you distinguish between children whose Algerian parents were born before and after Algeria gained independence. If you agreed with such policy you must be a racist too.

    Not at all. We in fact grant citizenship to children of Algerians born in France (and who’ve never known Algeria) all the time. There’s a procedure for this. They have to apply when they’re 18. The status of their parents is totally irrelevant to the decision.

    But as I said— and repeat again — while there is a debate with heavy racist overtones in France about ” foreigners stealing French folks bread” there is none about granting them citizenship, on the contrary.

    I’m not saying the French don’t have racists; we do; I’m saying citizenship is not an issue.

    I did not use word “liberal” as a political qualification – all I wanted to say is that rules for obtaining citizenship in US are less restrictive than rules for obtaining French citizenship.

    In one of your previous posts you mentioned a difference between children whose Algerian parents were born before and after Algeria gained independence from France. Now you claim that there is no difference when it comes to French citizenship for their children.

    Lets also expand the question beyond Algeria – to another country, China for example. A chinese couple shows up at hospital, next day their child is born. Parents are illegal aliens – no valid papers for entering France. Is their child considered a French citizen?
    Would it make any difference if the couple entered France as tourists few weeks before the child was born?

    We should not forget that Turkey has been waiting for many years to join EU. Because of racsim they were not allowed to join while some other countries from E. Europe took their place in line.

  121. avatar
    Lupin February 14, 2011 at 6:16 am #

    nc1: all I wanted to say is that rules for obtaining citizenship in US are less restrictive than rules for obtaining French citizenship.

    That simply isn’t true. But even if it were, it is besides the point, and it is also besides the point to discuss Turkey’s admission into the EU. And in any event, I have also stipulated that there is plenty of racism in France, and in Europe too, so that’s not the issue either.

    You constantly avoid my original point which was your (and the birthers’) strange obsession with (re)defining citizenship in a country of immigrants in general, and Obama’s in particular.

  122. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    Tarrant: Is he aware that Federal courts are not allowed to give advisory opinions, a category this would certainly fall under? Much like all the people that want a court to just “declare Obama ineligible” so he can be marched out of the White House. Federal courts cannot remove him (that’s Congress’ domain and theirs exclusively), so they therefore don’t get involved at all.Now, they COULD get involved if necessary come ballot placement in 2012, because they do have the ability to allow or deny ballot access (and IMO birthers are going to be very upset come that day when every secretary of state and court rules him eligible). But until then, birthers will have to live with dismissal after dismissal.

    Well, you miss the point completely. A result of myopia I’m sure, knowing the symptoms because in some regards I suffer from the same affliction.

    You are correct that the SCOTUS does not / can not give advisory opinions, but an Opinion is not being asked for, that is, when I get there.

    But Declaratory judgments are within the province.

    If I, given the documentation that I have provided, can not be determined as being in conformity to the Constitutional prerequisite imperative, then I fail to understand how ANYONE can be considered to conform to the Constitutional requirement.

    I realize the logic and reason is lost on those who refuse to consider common sense as being less than lucid, but if the Framers did not intend a distinction they most probably would not have used redundant proscriptions barring “…no person except ….shall be eligible…”.

    That a ‘legal loop-hole’ exists for the lack of an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen would seem to me an issue that the SCOTUS could and should be compelled to correct, don’t you…?

  123. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    Scientist: There is a way for Craig to be certified as a natural born citizen-he can run for President or Vice President and win. Those who hold those offices are, in fact, certified as natural born citizens.

    On that sir, you are totally mistaken.

    It is a PREREQUISITE, “….no person except…SHALL be eligible….”, and an imperative.

    Being found to be not eligible after the fact is a simple civil misdemeanor offense of usurpation but is subject to compulsory removal.

    But I personally am not concerned with the political ramifications in the 1st instant.

    My concern has always been the lack of acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    An offense against me personally, my parents and their’s and against each and every POTUS, including the ‘0’, should it be determined that he is an NBC as well.

    I should think that everyone no matter what side they are on would want the issue settled, am I wrong…?

  124. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 26, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    slcraig: On that sir, you are totally mistaken.

    It is a PREREQUISITE, “….no person except…SHALL be eligible….”, and an imperative.

    Being found to be not eligible after the fact is a simple civil misdemeanor offense of usurpation but is subject to compulsory removal.

    But I personally am not concerned with the political ramifications in the 1st instant.

    My concern has always been the lack of acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    An offense against me personally, my parents and their’s and against each and every POTUS, including the ’0′, should it be determined that he is an NBC as well.

    I should think that everyone no matter what side they are on would want the issue settled, am I wrong…?

    The issue is settled and has been settled for over 2 years. Just because you don’t accept it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been settled.

  125. avatar
    misha February 26, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    slcraig: I should think that everyone no matter what side they are on would want the issue settled, am I wrong…?

    It was settled with Wong Kim Ark, and affirmed by Ankeny.

    Do try to keep up.

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2011 at 7:17 pm #

    slcraig:

    Being found to be not eligible after the fact is a simple civil misdemeanor offense of usurpation but is subject to compulsory removal.

    Do you have some law or legal precedent where that came from?

    My concern has always been the lack of acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    An offense against me personally, my parents and their’s and against each and every POTUS, including the ’0′, should it be determined that he is an NBC as well.

    I should think that everyone no matter what side they are on would want the issue settled, am I wrong…?

    Hey, no one would like this settled any more than me. I could dispose of half the BS on this blog. However, I also support the law and the Constitution, and if this is going to be resolved, it must be settled in a constitutional way. I can envision some possible scenarios where it could be settled, but Joe citizen asking the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion is simply not going to work. The Supreme Court is not empowered to do that.

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    slcraig: But Declaratory judgments are within the province.

    I would observe even if you got yourself declared a “natural born citizen”, that wouldn’t tell us anything about Barack Obama unless you have similar parentage.

  128. avatar
    Rickey February 26, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    slcraig:

    But Declaratory judgments are within the province.

    Before you can get a declaratory judgment you have to present an actual case or controversy pursuant to Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1. An actual case or controversy requires standing, and standing requires that you have a particularized injury for which the courts can grant relief.

    How have you been injured by the fact that the government will not certify that you are a natural-born citizen? And even if you have been injured, how does that make you different than every other U.S. citizen?

    An offense against me personally, my parents and their’s and against each and every POTUS, including the ’0′, should it be determined that he is an NBC as well.

    You just made my point about standing. Your “injury,” even if there is one, isn’t particularized.

  129. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): The issue is settled and has been settled for over 2 years. Just because you don’t accept it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been settled.

    Well, I have spent 2 1/2 yrs trying to find a Department, Agency, Bureau or Service of the Guv’mnt that could/would define natural born Citizen and have yet to find one.

    So I guess it is NOT SETTLED.

    I know you have your opinion of what the definition is and I have mine, but our opinions, neither yours nor mine can either be called the ‘legal’ definition simply because there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    So I repeat, it is NOT SETTLED.

  130. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 8:53 pm #

    misha: It was settled with Wong Kim Ark, and affirmed by Ankeny.Do try to keep up.

    See above.

    But, I thought the question of that case was whether the little Wong was a “Citizen” and that, notwithstanding the various dicta and citations of the case, the Opinion affirmed the little Wong as a “Citizen”.

    But here’s a little tid-bit for you to mull over;

    “The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only, birth and naturalization.”
    United States v: Wong Kim Ark, 18 Sup. Ct 456, 459, 169 U. S. 649, 42 L. Ed. 890

    The Opinion speaks only of the 14th, although incorporated and attached to the Constitution, he does not include the WHOLE of the Constitution in the declaratory statement.

    The Constitution expresses Three forms’ of Citizenship; 1) Those Citizen of the various States made Citizens of the ‘Union’ immediately upon Adoption; 2) Those anticipated by Article I Section VIII, to be Naturalized, and those Contemplated in Article II Section I Clause V, being natural born Citizens.

    I know that will make your head spin, but nevertheless, neither the 14th nor WKA AMENDED the idiom of natural born Citizen. There are NO words that say so and none that require it.

  131. avatar
    Majority Will February 26, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    slcraig: Well, I have spent 2 1/2 yrs trying to find a Department, Agency, Bureau or Service of the Guv’mnt that could/would define natural born Citizen and have yet to find one.

    So I guess it is NOT SETTLED.

    Which in your tiny world this means no President has been valid. Or is it just the darkies?

    How relevant is your delusion?

    I know you have your opinion of what the definition is and I have mine, but our opinions, neither yours nor mine can either be called the legal’ definition simply because there is NO acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    So I repeat, it is NOT SETTLED.

  132. avatar
    Majority Will February 26, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

    Which in your tiny world this means no President has been valid. Or is it just the darkies?

  133. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 9:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Do you have some law or legal precedent where that came from?Hey, no one would like this settled any more than me. I could dispose of half the BS on this blog. However, I also support the law and the Constitution, and if this is going to be resolved, it must be settled in a constitutional way. I can envision some possible scenarios where it could be settled, but Joe citizen asking the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion is simply not going to work. The Supreme Court is not empowered to do that.

    To the ST question, usurpation is a Civil Offense in the Statutes hence the Quo Warranto Statutes resident at the USDC DC that covers ALL Federal Offices. As far as being compulsory when found to be in that condition would seem to be self-evident. I would think particularly in the usurpation of an Office that has specific language in the Constitution that says, “…no person except….shall be eligible for the office…”, being both a prerequisite and imperative.

    But again, I’ll leave the political ramifications to bright minds like yours to sort out.

    I am only interested in assisting the Federal Garment by finding the lost definition, meaning and intent.

    As to the ND question, which seems to imply I’ve done something illegal or am trying to use some extra-legal means.

    I send papers to the Courts, various Garment Departments, Agencies, Bureaus, Services, etc asking a SIMPLE QUESTION, i.e., what is the legal definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    What am I doing outside the law…?

  134. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 9:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I would observe even if you got yourself declared a “natural born citizen”, that wouldn’t tell us anything about Barack Obama unless you have similar parentage.

    Well, at this point it is not possible because there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen. <Period

    That is why I suggest to the 10th that they do NOT have the Jurisdiction to complete the Review because ONLY the SCOTUS can provide the relief and remedy lacking in any and all other Federal venues, inasmuch as it would do no good to Petition Congress or the Executive for a definition.

    Just as with any and all of these State Election Eligibility Laws coming out with their own 'State' definitions, anything emanating from anywhere other than the SCOTUS is subject to challenge.

    But let's see how the 10th wiggles out of this, if they do, and then we'll talk about what comes next.

  135. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 26, 2011 at 9:20 pm #

    slcraig: Well, I have spent 2 1/2 yrs trying to find a Department, Agency, Bureau or Service of the Guv’mnt that could/would define natural born Citizen and have yet to find one.

    So I guess it is NOT SETTLED.

    I know you have your opinion of what the definition is and I have mine, but our opinions, neither yours nor mine can either be called the legal’ definition simply because there is NO acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    So I repeat, it is NOT SETTLED.

    I’d say you have wasted 2 and a half years of your life then on something you had no affect on. How many actual court cases have you bothered reading on the subject?

  136. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 26, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    slcraig: See above.

    But, I thought the question of that case was whether the little Wong was a “Citizen” and that, notwithstanding the various dicta and citations of the case, the Opinion affirmed the little Wong as a “Citizen”.

    But here’s a little tid-bit for you to mull over;

    “The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship and two only, birth and naturalization.”
    United States v: Wong Kim Ark, 18 Sup. Ct 456, 459, 169 U. S. 649, 42 L. Ed. 890

    The Opinion speaks only of the 14th, although incorporated and attached to the Constitution, he does not include the WHOLE of the Constitution in the declaratory statement.

    The Constitution expresses Three forms’ of Citizenship; 1) Those Citizen of the various States made Citizens of the ‘Union’ immediately upon Adoption; 2) Those anticipated by Article I Section VIII, to be Naturalized, and those Contemplated in Article II Section I Clause V, being natural born Citizens.

    I know that will make your head spin, but nevertheless, neither the 14th nor WKA AMENDED the idiom of natural born Citizen. There are NO words that say so and none that require it.

    Did you bother reading the appellate briefs? The lower court determined WKA to be a natural born citizen and the SCOTUS merely upheld the lower court’s decision.

  137. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 26, 2011 at 9:29 pm #

    slcraig: To the ST question, usurpation is a Civil Offense in the Statutes hence the Quo Warranto Statutes resident at the USDC DC that covers ALL Federal Offices. As far as being compulsory when found to be in that condition would seem to be self-evident. I would think particularly in the usurpation of an Office that has specific language in the Constitution that says, “…no person except….shall be eligible for the office…”, being both a prerequisite and imperative.

    But again, I’ll leave the political ramifications to bright minds like yours to sort out.

    I am only interested in assisting the Federal Garment by finding the lost definition, meaning and intent.

    As to the ND question, which seems to imply I’ve done something illegal or am trying to use some extra-legal means.

    I send papers to the Courts, various Garment Departments, Agencies, Bureaus, Services, etc asking a SIMPLE QUESTION, i.e., what is the legal definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    What am I doing outside the law…?

    Doc I think in short Craig means to answer your question with a resounding NO.

  138. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 26, 2011 at 9:30 pm #

    slcraig: Well, at this point it is not possible because there is NO acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen. <Period

    That is why I suggest to the 10th that they do NOT have the Jurisdiction to complete the Review because ONLY the SCOTUS can provide the relief and remedy lacking in any and all other Federal venues, inasmuch as it would do no good to Petition Congress or the Executive for a definition.

    Just as with any and all of these State Election Eligibility Laws coming out with their own ‘State’ definitions, anything emanating from anywhere other than the SCOTUS is subject to challenge.

    But let’s see how the 10th wiggles out of this, if they do, and then we’ll talk about what comes next.

    There is no next, you lack standing

  139. avatar
    Bovril February 26, 2011 at 9:35 pm #

    Of course there is the oh so minor problem that there is no such crime as “usurpation”

  140. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 9:42 pm #

    Rickey: Before you can get a declaratory judgment you have to present an actual case or controversy pursuant to Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1. An actual case or controversy requires standing, and standing requires that you have a particularized injury for which the courts can grant relief.How have you been injured by the fact that the government will not certify that you are a natural-born citizen? And even if you have been injured, how does that make you different than every other U.S. citizen? An offense against me personally, my parents and their’s and against each and every POTUS, including the ’0′, should it be determined that he is an NBC as well.You just made my point about standing. Your “injury,” even if there is one, isn’t particularized.

    Well, obviously you have not read the ‘Response’ very closely.

    But, like most, you miss the point of my efforts.

    I have PROVED that there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen within any Department of the Federal Guv’mnt or any sub-division thereof.

    There has NEVER been a case within the Courts that has asked ‘specifically’ for the definition, meaning and / or intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, so ALL of those cases that you feel the dicta supports some specific definition are merely informative but under the LAW can not be considered as even Judicial Dicta let alone be held as Law.

    Now, we need to consider the ramifications of it being acknowledged that NO ONE can be ‘certified’ as being in conformity to the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    All of those executed and acknowledged documents hanging in the file cabinets of all those Secretary’s of State offices are suddenly made “FRAUDULENTLY produced and accepted.

    And that is just the little handful snowball before it starts its long roll down the hill, or perhaps in this instance, up the Hill.

  141. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2011 at 9:44 pm #

    slcraig: To the ST question, usurpation is a Civil Offense in the Statutes hence the Quo Warranto Statutes resident at the USDC DC that covers ALL Federal Offices

    Did you have a particular statute in mind? It’s pretty hard to discuss a statute in the abstract, except to say that guilt requires intent. How would you ever show that Obama intended to be a usurper, when no court has ever said that someone like Obama is ineligible? You would have to say that all 44 presidents were usurpers and that would be silly.

    Since removal of the president is relegated by the Constitution to impeachment or disability, I really doubt that the courts, would decide that they had the authority to do anything.

    I certainly do not suggest that you are breaking the law, but I suggest that were the courts to do what you ask, they would be going against the Constitution. I realize we don’t agree on this point, but up until now, the courts have not been persuaded by your argument.

  142. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 9:45 pm #

    Majority Will: Violating your probation by refusing to take lithium carbonate>

    F U PUNK

  143. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    slcraig: The Constitution expresses Three forms’ of Citizenship; 1) Those Citizen of the various States made Citizens of the ‘Union’ immediately upon Adoption; 2) Those anticipated by Article I Section VIII, to be Naturalized, and those Contemplated in Article II Section I Clause V, being natural born Citizens.

    I admit, it’s been a couple of months since I read the Constitution, but I do not recall anything about anyone being made citizens upon ratification of the Constitution. Indeed, it is generally understood that there were citizens of the United States since the Articles of Confederation.

    If this is not so, how was George Washington eligible to be president? When the Constitution was adopted, George Washington’s state of Virginia had not yet ratified it. George Washington was not born a US Citizen, nor would he have been a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted.

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2011 at 9:55 pm #

    slcraig: Majority Will: Violating your probation by refusing to take lithium carbonate>

    F U PUNK

    Please accept my apology for Will’s rude remark.

    I delete such things from time to time without mention, but I do see them, and I do not appreciate them. Hospitality is a virtue.

  145. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 10:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Did you have a particular statute in mind? It’s pretty hard to discuss a statute in the abstract, except to say that guilt requires intent. How would you ever show that Obama intended to be a usurper, when no court has ever said that someone like Obama is ineligible? You would have to say that all 44 presidents were usurpers and that would be silly.Since removal of the president is relegated by the Constitution to impeachment or disability, I really doubt that the courts, would decide that they had the authority to do anything. I certainly do not suggest that you are breaking the law, but I suggest that were the courts to do what you ask, they would be going against the Constitution. I realize we don’t agree on this point, but up until now, the courts have not been persuaded by your argument.

    A civil offense does NOT require the guilt of foreknowledge just like breaching a contract does not require the intent to breach. But whatever occurrence participated the breach puts the person in BREACH of the contract. That is how usurpation is viewed.

    But to be honest I will have to go back through my records and find the Statutes on ‘usurpation’.

    Hey, and I am not saying that the ‘0’ knows or doesn’t. He may be like you and have his opinion of what the definition is and feel that he is in conformity to the definition, meaning and intent or he recognized that the lack of an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition gave him license to get his nose through the door.

    I don’t know and likely never will.

    Like I said, none of us know for certain what the ‘legal’ definition is as it has NEVER been ‘interpreted’ by the SCOTUS.

    The closest guess any of us has is the 1790 Act that was repealed by the 3rd Congress.

    But then some of you think that with the repeal that somehow confirms jus soli only, whereas I feel that the 1790 Act was an ‘enlargement’ that the 3rd Congress recognized as an un Constitutional infringement into the Articles of the Executive that requires an Amendment in order to ‘enlarge, abridge and or otherwise modify’.

    We’ll see.

  146. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 10:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Please accept my apology for Will’s rude remark.I delete such things from time to time without mention, but I do see them, and I do not appreciate them. Hospitality is a virtue.

    Please accept my apology as well. I know better than to be rude in someone elses ‘house’ but ‘stupid’ offends me.

  147. avatar
    misha February 26, 2011 at 10:08 pm #

    To slcraig:

    I too want to apologize for MJ’s remark. You have a valid point about the exact definition.

    I have found a legal scholar with what you are looking for.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

    slcraig: Now, we need to consider the ramifications of it being acknowledged that NO ONE can be certified’ as being in conformity to the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    I would argue at the very least that all Presidents of the United States since the 20th amendment was ratified in 1933 have been certified as natural born citizens by virtue of the certification of their election by Congress.

    Since the Congress is tasked by the Constitution to determine who won the election, it may be that the Congress defines who is a natural born citizen. Since only effect of the definition in all of law is eligibility to be president (or vice president), and the Congress is assigned the power to determine when the president “fails to qualify” then it could be argued that this “idiom” as you call it is one that the courts are powerless to define. Just speculating here, since I’m not a lawyer.

  149. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 10:27 pm #

    misha: To slcraig:I too want to apologize for MJ’s remark. You have a valid point about the exact definition. I have found a legal scholar with what you are looking for.

    I don’t know what that is supposed to mean but a ‘legal scholar’ with an ‘educated opinion’ is not the SAME as a ‘legal definition’ for Constitutional purposes, so your little buddy can keep his ribbitts to his self.

  150. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 10:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I would argue at the very least that all Presidents of the United States since the 20th amendment was ratified in 1933 have been certified as natural born citizens by virtue of the certification of their election by Congress.Since the Congress is tasked by the Constitution to determine who won the election, it may be that the Congress defines who is a natural born citizen. Since only effect of the definition in all of law is eligibility to be president (or vice president), and the Congress is assigned the power to determine when the president “fails to qualify” then it could be argued that this “idiom” as you call it is one that the courts are powerless to define. Just speculating here, since I’m not a lawyer.

    Well, I would find it necessary to rebut your arguement by explaining that such an argument would turn the very ‘idiom’ on its head rendering it without effect with your approach of waiting until a ‘person’ is over the age of 35 before being able to determine if he was or was not WORTHY to be deemed as if a natural born Citizen.

    Just trying to make sense of such a construction would have required several more sentences in the Clause.

    As for my so called ‘idiom’ being undefinable too makes no sense.

    Did NO ONE here actually read the “Response”.

    “Common sense, then, must inform that natural born Citizen’s possess characteristics that are distinguishable and definable so that a Citizen person may be determined to be in conformity with the Constitutional imperative of the Clause and, by extension, at least a portion of the Citizen population must be in conformity with the characteristics of a natural born Citizen from their date of birth in order to perpetuate the population of the Executive Office(s).

    The United States, being a Representative Republic, draws its Representatives from the Citizen population and that includes, with the additional prerequisite imperatives, the Executive Representatives.

    The right’ that the Appellant asserts is derived directly from the Constitution in unambiguous language. Natural born Citizens were contemplated by, acknowledged by and differentiated by the juxtaposition of words and that were made into a wholly and unique American idiom by the usage within the Constitution and any assertion to the contrary is a distortion of facts, both Constitutional and linguistic.”

  151. avatar
    slcraig February 26, 2011 at 10:55 pm #

    I guess a P.S. is in order since I did not address the 20th Amendment thing you raised.

    Unless I misread somewhere I saw NO mention of natural born Citizen within the Amendment and unless I am misinformed NO Article, Section or Clause, nor the common understanding of words can be ‘enlarged, abridged and or otherwise modified’ unless there are words that say so or words that require it’.

    And the old standby applies here to;

    Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137

    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”

    And same citation;

    ….. Is it to be contended that where the law, in precise terms, directs the performance of an act in which an individual is interested, the law is incapable of securing obedience to its mandate? Is it on account of the character of the person against whom the complaint is made? Is it to be contended that the heads of departments are not amenable to the laws of their country?……………

    If some acts be examinable and others not, there must be some rule of law to guide the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

    In some instances, there may be difficulty in applying the rule to particular cases; but there cannot, it is believed, be much difficulty in laying down the rule………………………………………………..

    This opinion seems not now for the first time to be taken up in this country……”

    ____________________________________________

    Deja vu ?

  152. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2011 at 11:04 pm #

    slcraig: Did NO ONE here actually read the “Response”.

    [The following text has been revised.]
    Yes, I read it when I posted the article.

    What may seem self-evident to one person may not appear evident at all to another. Such is the case with the argument in your comment. I see nothing in the Constitution that grants one the right to a declaration of natural born citizenship. I’m not persuaded, nor do I think any court is going to be persuaded without some cases and authorities. They aren’t so far.

  153. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2011 at 11:07 pm #

    slcraig: If some acts be examinable and others not, there must be some rule of law to guide the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

    See “political question.”

  154. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2011 at 11:16 pm #

    slcraig: Well, I would find it necessary to rebut your arguement by explaining that such an argument would turn the very idiom’ on its head rendering it without effect with your approach of waiting until a person’ is over the age of 35 before being able to determine if he was or was not WORTHY to be deemed as if a natural born Citizen.

    Given that there is no benefit at law to being a “natural born citizen” except that of being President of Vice President of the United States, I would say that such a designation is without effect until a person reaches age 35 and can run for President. I have no idea what legal implication the word “WORTHY” is supposed to have.

    I suppose that one might say that a younger citizen can aspire to being President, but that is too generalized and hypothetical for a federal lawsuit.

  155. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 27, 2011 at 12:11 am #

    slcraig: Well, obviously you have not read the Response’ very closely.

    But, like most, you miss the point of my efforts.

    I have PROVED that there is NO acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen within any Department of the Federal Guv’mnt or any sub-division thereof.

    You have proved nothing of the sort. The only thing you’ve proven is that like the entire female populace, the federal government and people in position of power will not give you the time of day.

  156. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 27, 2011 at 1:59 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Being found to be not eligible after the fact is a simple civil misdemeanor offense of usurpation

    There is no such “offense” in any federal statute.

  157. avatar
    Rickey February 27, 2011 at 2:54 am #

    slcraig:

    But, like most, you miss the point of my efforts.

    I get your point. That doesn’t change that fact that you have no standing.

    I notice that you didn’t answer my question about how you have been damaged by the government’s refusal to certify that you are a natural-born citizen. Being unhappy and dissatisfied does not constitute a particularized injury.

    If I were you, I wouldn’t spend too much time researching hotel rooms for your Supreme Court hearing. It isn’t going to happen.

  158. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 5:14 am #

    Expelliarmus: There is no such “offense” in any federal statute.

    Chapter 35, §16-3501 of the USDC DC federal quo warranto statute

    A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

    § 16-3501 applies against any person within the District of Columbia who “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises… a public office of the United States.” Under the statute, the writ of quo warranto is issued by the DC District Court in the name of the United States.

    The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted this statute is Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915). The opinion is truly one of most rational and clearly written decisions in Supreme Court history and by itself serves as a thorough education on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation.

    The Latin ‘Quo Warranto’ translates; by what right.

  159. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 27, 2011 at 6:05 am #

    1. That law doesn’t make usurpation an “offense” – is simply sets the grounds for the bringing of a writ of quo warranto.

    2. The definition of a “usurper” is NOT a person who is unqualified for office. A “usurper” is one who purports to occupy an office without the proper procedures for filling that office having been followed — in the case of an elective office, one who has not been elected. Obama was elected and the election ratified by Congress, as set forth in the Constitution. Therefore, if it turned out that he was in fact a 32 year old non-US citizen… he would not be a “usurper”. Rather, he would be a “de facto officer.”

    3. Quo warranto cannot be used to unseat a President, because (A) the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that only Congress may remove a sitting President, and then only upon specific grounds and by following specific procedures; and (B) the writ of quo warranto is an an executive prerogative writ, meaning it is brought pursuant to the authority of the President – not against him. It’s a one way thing — at Common Law, it was the legal process that a British King could use to oust someone who was wrongfully occupying an office. Basically it was the way a King got the courts to enforce his orders.

    The DC statute probably exists because Washington DC is full of political appointees to federal agencies who are supposed to serve only at the pleasure of the President. when a new President takes office, it’s customary that all the old appointees tender their resignations. But if someone refused to quit, then the Justice Dept. could bring legal action, and the name of that type of action is quo warranto/

  160. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    @slcraig:

    Quo warranto is a civil action. You can’t get a misdemeanor out is a civil action.

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2011 at 10:33 am #

    Uhhh, what is a “civil misdemeanor?”

  162. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: @slcraig:Quo warranto is a civil action. You can’t get a misdemeanor out is a civil action.

    Well, I’ll defer to the wisdom of both you and Expelliarmus on the fine points of the features, definitions, meanings and intents of the various interpretations of Quo Warranto Statutes and consequences in being found in ‘contravention’ of same.

    In large measure it is irrelevant due to the height of the bar placed as an obstacle to secure sustainable Standing for any Ex Relator to advocate for a Peculiar Interested Person.

    I would spend time arguing that a finding in a Quo Warranto action that found the subject person in ‘contravention’ of the ‘prerequisite imperatives of a Constitutional requirement’ would in fact be ‘Removed’ on the basis of that finding in that the Congressional convening and affirming those findings in an Impeachment hearing would most likely be titled ‘Articles of Removal’ and that a Senate Trial would have been made MOOT considering that the Supreme Court Justice presides over it and would have been among those affirming the findings of the Quo Warranto Court.

    But again, sustaining a Quo Warranto action against the ‘0’ is a bar too high, especially with the acknowledgment that there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen complicating and compromising any Parties or Courts ability to offer or affirm any indisputable FACTS.

  163. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    Rickey: I get your point. That doesn’t change that fact that you have no standing.I notice that you didn’t answer my question about how you have been damaged by the government’s refusal to certify that you are a natural-born citizen. Being unhappy and dissatisfied does not constitute a particularized injury. If I were you, I wouldn’t spend too much time researching hotel rooms for your Supreme Court hearing. It isn’t going to happen.

    Well, the damage I claim is a matter of factual finding. It MUST 1st be determined if NBC’s actually still exist within the citizenry population and then to determine the definition, meaning and intent of the idiom in order to determine if I have, in fact, been damaged.

    A cart and horse thingy.

  164. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    slcraig: Well, the damage I claim is a matter of factual finding. It MUST 1st be determined if NBC’s actually still exist within the citizenry population and then to determine the definition, meaning and intent of the idiom in order to determine if I have, in fact, been damaged.

    A cart and horse thingy.

    If the damage is hypothetical, then you lack standing to sue in federal court. That line of reasoning is doomed.

    The Supreme Court has clarified the doctrine since Justice Douglas’s time. It is now clear that standing is an “irreducible constitutional minimum” that has three elements. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); see also Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 432 F.3d 286, 290-91 (3d Cir. 2005) (employing Lujan’s three-pronged test). First, a party must have experienced an injury in fact: “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (citations and quotation marks omitted)…

    Cribbed from the order in Berg v. Obama et al.

  165. avatar
    Joey February 27, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    slcraig: Chapter 35, §16-3501 of the USDC DC federal quo warranto statute

    A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

    § 16-3501 applies against any person within the District of Columbia who “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises… a public office of the United States.”Under the statute, the writ of quo warranto is issued by the DC District Court in the name of the United States.

    The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted this statute is Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915).The opinion is truly one of most rational and clearly written decisions in Supreme Court history and by itself serves as a thorough education on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation.

    The Latin ‘Quo Warranto’ translates; by what right.

    Taitz v Obama in the US District Court for the District of Columbia was already adjudicated on the issue of quo warranto claims against Barack Obama. Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth (a Reagan appointee to the federal judiciary) said in his Memorandum Opinion ruling that Orly Taitz did not have standing to bring a quo warranto claim under the DC Code: “This is one of several such lawsuits brought by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”–April 14, 2010

  166. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2011 at 2:08 pm #

    slcraig: Well, I’ll defer to the wisdom of both you and Expelliarmus on the fine points of the features, definitions, meanings and intents of the various interpretations of Quo Warranto Statutes and consequences in being found in contravention’ of same.

    As I think you realize, quo warranto is not a tool you can use. The courts have ruled that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General of the United States are the only persons who can bring a quo warranto suit under the DC statute.

    I have no problem with folks trying clever gambits to get “natural born citizen” defined. What I do not approve (and I’m not accusing you of doing this) is some folks expecting the courts to suspend the rules just for them and then calling the judges vile names when they refuse to buy their crank legal theories. An example is Leo Donofrio labeling a photo of the Supreme Court justices “WUSSY.” (Donofrio scrubbed the photo, by the way.)

  167. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 2:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If the damage is hypothetical, then you lack standing to sue in federal court. That line of reasoning is doomed.Cribbed from the order in Berg v. Obama et al.

    Well, again, in order for YOU to determine that my injury is hypothetical you must have a basis upon which to make that determination.

    Lacking an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen it would seem to me that the suggestion that it is hypothetical s its-self hypothetical in that it requires assuming evidence or FACTS that is not in the record.

    I have sought through EVERY Guv’mnt Department and sub-division thereof, to ‘locate an acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen by which I can compare my birth circumstances to determine if I am in conformity of such a ‘definition and or , meaning and intent’. Finding none is NOT hypothetical, it is FACT.

    I focus on the DHS/USCIS in consideration of the obvious, i.e., being the ONLY Department that offers any form of Citizenship certification in the 1st instant, given that acquiring a Passport requires proof of Citizenship priori. I single out the Citizen’s Almanac, again, for obvious reason, given that the ‘turn of words’ used in the subject paragraph describing Executive Office qualifications is found NOWHERE within the Constitution nor in ANY Amendment thereto.

    In order for YOU to suggest that my being or not being in conformity to the needs of the UN Amended and UN abridged, un enlarged and or otherwise UN modified is beyond yours or a Lower Courts Jurisdiction in that ONLY the SCOTUS has the Mandate to make THAT determination.

    I believe I expressed that position to the USCA 10th.

  168. avatar
    Joey February 27, 2011 at 3:01 pm #

    slcraig: Well, again, in order for YOU to determine that my injury is hypothetical you must have a basis upon which to make that determination.

    Lacking an acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen it would seem to me that the suggestion that it is hypothetical s its-self hypothetical in that it requires assuming evidence or FACTS that is not in the record.

    I have sought through EVERY Guv’mnt Department and sub-division thereof, to locate an acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen by which I can compare my birth circumstances to determine if I am in conformity of such a definition and or , meaning and intent’.Finding none is NOT hypothetical, it is FACT.

    I focus on the DHS/USCIS in consideration of the obvious, i.e., being the ONLY Department that offers any form of Citizenship certification in the 1st instant, given that acquiring a Passport requires proof of Citizenship priori.I single out the Citizen’s Almanac, again, for obvious reason, given that the turn of words’ used in the subject paragraph describing Executive Office qualifications is found NOWHERE within the Constitution nor in ANY Amendment thereto.

    In order for YOU to suggest that my being or not being in conformity to the needs of the UN Amended and UN abridged, un enlarged and or otherwise UN modified is beyond yours or a Lower Courts Jurisdiction in that ONLY the SCOTUS has the Mandate to make THAT determination.

    I believe I expressed that position to the USCA 10th.

    The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction in the hypothetical that you address above. I don’t think that you understand the constitutional role of the Supreme Court. If you did understand that role you would understand why the High Court has already rejected 12 different Obama eligibility related appeals and they have rejected them all without comment: Berg v Obama, Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Herbert v Obama, Hollister v Soetoro, Kerchner v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Rhodes v MacDonald , Schneller v Cortes, Taitz v Obama and Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz.
    Were you a candidate for the presidency who was deprived election due to an ineligible candidate being on the ballot? If you were, then you might have standing. If you weren’t then you are dealing with a “political question” which is not to be adjudicated in the Courts.
    John McCain might have standing, even Sarah Palin, and possibly the Republican National Committee on behalf of McCain-Palin. You could be a co-plaintiff as a representive of voters but unless those with direct and particularized injury-in-fact are listed as plaintiffs, your lawsuit is going the way of about 70 others, dismissed in pre-trial motions.
    When John McCain and the Republican National Committee were being sued for McCain not being a natural born citizen due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone, McCain and the RNC had the lawsuit of Hollander (v McCain and the Republican National Commitee) dismissed for lack of standing.

  169. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 27, 2011 at 3:05 pm #

    slcraig: . It MUST 1st be determined if NBC’s actually still exist within the citizenry population and then to determine the definition, meaning and intent of the idiom in order to determine if I have, in fact, been damaged.

    No, if something has to be determined first, then by definition there is no damage. Actual damage has to be provable on its own. You are merely stating a definition for something that is “hypothetical” or “speculative” (if ___, then ___) — which is exactly what the courts will NOT accept.

  170. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2011 at 3:08 pm #

    slcraig: Well, again, in order for YOU to determine that my injury is hypothetical you must have a basis upon which to make that determination.

    You surprised me there. I could just hear a court citing your own words back to you when declaring your injury to be hypothetical. To get past this first step of standing you have to allege that your injury is actual, and show exactly how it is actual. You admitted that you didn’t know whether you had been injured or not, which is the essence of a hypothetical.

    It doesn’t matter, of course, what I think; it’s what the court thinks–and we pretty well know what that is.

  171. avatar
    gorefan February 27, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    slcraig: The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted this statute is Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915). The opinion is truly one of most rational and clearly written decisions in Supreme Court history and by itself serves as a thorough education on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation.

    Did you write this? It seems familiar.

  172. avatar
    Rickey February 27, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    slcraig: Well, the damage I claim is a matter of factual finding. It MUST 1st be determined if NBC’s actually still exist within the citizenry population and then to determine the definition, meaning and intent of the idiom in order to determine if I have, in fact, been damaged.

    If that’s your best argument for having sustained an injury (and I suspect it is your best argument), your case is doomed.

    Your injury must be tangible and particularized. You have to show how the government’s failure to certify you as a natural-born citizen has actually harmed you, and you also have to show that your harm is not shared by the general population. Good luck with that.

  173. avatar
    Rickey February 27, 2011 at 3:51 pm #

    gorefan: Did you write this?It seems familiar.

    It’s Donofrio, at the top of page three. And we all know how well Leo’s Quo Warranto action worked out.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/17239725/Leo-Donofrio-Quo-Warranto-Legal-Brief

  174. avatar
    misha February 27, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Rickey: It’s Donofrio, at the top of page three.

    Watch for Donofrio’s instructional video: “How to play winning poker.”

  175. avatar
    gorefan February 27, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    Rickey: It’s Donofrio,

    I thought it was Christopher Strunk’s letter to DC Federal Prosecutor Jeffrey Taylor.

    I’m sure neither Leo nor Cristopher would care one way or the other, but still it probably should be attributed.

  176. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 4:36 pm #

    Expelliarmus: No, if something has to be determined first, then by definition there is no damage. Actual damage has to be provable on its own. You are merely stating a definition for something that is “hypothetical” or “speculative” (if ___, then ___) — which is exactly what the courts will NOT accept.

    Well, that may be yours and the 10ths Opinion, but I would disagree given the FACT that there is NO acknowledged Statutorily constructed ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, a priori, therefore a CONSTITUTIONAL determination is necessary before a Statutory bar to Standing can be determined, a postiori.

    But I am still taken aback by all the lack of encouragement in my seeking a Constitutionally acknowledged definition of the idiom of natural born Citizen.

    From where does the fear of A TRUTH emanate from I am left to wonder…(?)

  177. avatar
    Northland10 February 27, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    slcraig: Well, the damage I claim is a matter of factual finding. It MUST 1st be determined if NBC’s actually still exist within the citizenry population and then to determine the definition, meaning and intent of the idiom in order to determine if I have, in fact, been damaged.

    Rickey: Your injury must be tangible and particularized. You have to show how the government’s failure to certify you as a natural-born citizen has actually harmed you, and you also have to show that your harm is not shared by the general population. Good luck with that.

    In many various political or “legal” concepts, there are many that I view as “understood” definitions. In other words, there is a general understanding of what a term or concept means, backed possibly but some legal rulings but not necessarily. The understood definitions continue along until somebody, having been specifically denied a privilege seeks redress in the court which may or may not agree with the injured party. In the terms of Natural Born Citizen, that is where we stand, with some legal direction from WKA and other cases. Whether our commenter here or other birthers agree is immaterial. By the actions of the various levels of electoral processes, there is an obvious “understood” definition and nobody with direct, particular injury.

    The only case I see ever proceeding would be one were the candidate was denied ballot access by a state or the Congress refused to certify their election. Even then, the court could conceivably still punt the NBC issue, as in Marbury v Madison (they did not rule on the original injury), and only rule on the appropriateness of the process, leaving the rest to Political Question. That is how our system works.

    Our system works this way, in part, due to limits. These limits have been set by and for the court, as they have been set for the entire federal government and even for the state governments. This is the system of limited government enshrined in our Constitution. What is asked here and in other birther cases is to expand the limits of the Federal Government. Is that really what they want?

  178. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    slcraig: From where does the fear of A TRUTH emanate from I am left to wonder…(?)

    This “fear” does not in fact exist. The left, the middle and the rational right already know the answer as to Obama’s eligibility, and it is the status quo.

  179. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 4:44 pm #

    gorefan: I thought it was Christopher Strunk’s letter to DC Federal Prosecutor Jeffrey Taylor.I’m sure neither Leo nor Cristopher would care one way or the other, but still it probably should be attributed.

    You are correct, it is from L.Donofrio, QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: part 1
    INTRODUCTION:; and yes I should have attributed it.

    Apologies to both Leo and you, however, in all fairness I knew that you would recognize it because it was from Leo that you probably learned of Quo Warranto in the 1st instant, insofar as it may relate to the current subjects.

  180. avatar
    misha February 27, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    slcraig: But I am still taken aback by all the lack of encouragement in my seeking a Constitutionally acknowledged definition of the idiom of natural born Citizen.
    From where does the fear of A TRUTH emanate from I am left to wonder…(?)

    What about my cat? I live in fear, as does he, that he may not have all the civil rights accorded me.

    Does that bother me? You bet your sweet bippie.

  181. avatar
    misha February 27, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    slcraig: if I am in my car, travelling at the speed of light and turn on the headlights, will they throw a beam?

  182. avatar
    gorefan February 27, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    slcraig: But I am still taken aback by all the lack of encouragement in my seeking a Constitutionally acknowledged definition of the idiom of natural born Citizen.

    Would you rather they blow smoke up your heinie and tell you how wonderful you are? They are actually helping you think about and hone your arguments. Or maybe they are trying to wave you off before you hit the wall.

  183. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 5:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This “fear” does not in fact exist. The left, the middle and the rational right already know the answer as to Obama’s eligibility, and it is the status quo.

    So, in considering ‘status quo’, are you saying that a Constitutional prerequisite imperative need not be defined and should be left to the whims of the moment which requires the Congress to Certify Votes of the Electoral College regardless of the age, residency or Citizenship status of an democratically elected individual rendering the Clause to be without effect…?

    Go with that, I’m behind you all the way…….

  184. avatar
    misha February 27, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    slcraig: should be left to the whims of the moment

    What about the whims of animal shelters? Why are you avoiding my questions?

  185. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    misha: slcraig: if I am in my car, travelling at the speed of light and turn on the headlights, will they throw a beam?

    Why would I want to turn my lights on and see ahead when I can look behind me and watch time catch up instead of fading away as usual.

  186. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    misha: What about the whims of animal shelters? Why are you avoiding my questions?

    No not avoiding, just wondering if you are calling NBC’s pussy’s or what…?

  187. avatar
    misha February 27, 2011 at 5:06 pm #

    slcraig: should be left to the whims of the moment

    Don’t forget about the GMC Whim:
    General Motors Reports Record Sales Of New Disposable Car

    General Motors announced 56 percent growth for the first quarter, a profit increase company officials attributed to February’s wildly successful launch of the GMC Whim, the first-ever non-refillable, disposable automobile.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/general-motors-reports-record-sales-of-new-disposa,1491/

  188. avatar
    Northland10 February 27, 2011 at 5:06 pm #

    slcraig: But I am still taken aback by all the lack of encouragement in my seeking a Constitutionally acknowledged definition of the idiom of natural born Citizen.

    Just because you do acknowledge the definition of NBC that most of the rest of the county understands does not mean there is not an acknowledged definition. I do not recall there being a Constitutionally acknowledged definition of “post road” either, but I sure am not losing any sleep over it. Until the Congress gets into a snit that Obama created a post road on his own, without Congress, I do think anybody else would be much concerned.

    Come to think of it, I do not recall the Congress establishing a post road recently. Why are you not upset about them shirking their Constitutional responsibility.

  189. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    gorefan: Would you rather they blow smoke up your heinie and tell you how wonderful you are?

    Not when you put it THAT way…!!!

    They are actually helping you think about and hone your arguments. Or maybe they are trying to wave you off before you hit the wall.

    I can live with that.

  190. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    slcraig: Apologies to both Leo and you, however, in all fairness I knew that you would recognize it because it was from Leo that you probably learned of Quo Warranto in the 1st instant, insofar as it may relate to the current subjects.

    No, I tend to learn from the court orders dismissing lawsuits from the likes of Donofrio, Berg, Taitz and Apuzzo.

  191. avatar
    misha February 27, 2011 at 5:10 pm #

    misha: slcraig: if I am in my car, travelling at the speed of light and turn on the headlights, will they throw a beam?

    slcraig: Why would I want to turn my lights on and see ahead when I can look behind me and watch time catch up instead of fading away as usual.

    Excellent anwer. Did you study physics?

  192. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    Northland10: Just because you do acknowledge the definition of NBC that most of the rest of the county understands does not mean there is not an acknowledged definition. I do not recall there being a Constitutionally acknowledged definition of “post road” either, but I sure am not losing any sleep over it. Until the Congress gets into a snit that Obama created a post road on his own, without Congress, I do think anybody else would be much concerned. Come to think of it, I do not recall the Congress establishing a post road recently. Why are you not upset about them shirking their Constitutional responsibility.

    Please, if you know where I can locate the ‘acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen that I can obtain a ‘certification’ of being in confomity with for gosh sake speak up…!!!

  193. avatar
    gorefan February 27, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

    slcraig: Apologies to both Leo and you

    No need to apologize. I didn’t assume anything deceitful.

    slcraig: I knew that you would recognize it because it was from Leo that you probably learned of Quo Warranto

    That is probably true. But mostly, I remember this from Newman,

    “While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.”

    “The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him an interested party who may maintain quo warranto proceedings against the incumbent of an office on the consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.”

    “An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”

    Help me out, on this next part:

    “The conclusion that the relator must have a personal interest in the office before he can sue in the name of the United States is strengthened by the fact that the courts of the District not only have jurisdiction to issued quo warranto against officers of the District, but against all those, attached to the seat of government, who held a statutory office.

    Is the Presidency a statutory office?

  194. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 5:20 pm #

    slcraig: Please, if you know where I can locate the acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen that I can obtain a certification’ of being in confomity with for gosh sake speak up…!!!

    P.S.,

    What does Congress have to do with interpreting a Clause of the Executive…? They did that once and promptly repealed the effort to enlarge the original definition, IMO.

    Would not any definition the Congress might assert be subject to Judicial review by the SCOTUS upon a bona fide challenge…?

    And wouldn’t that ‘assertion’ need to be within a proposed Amendment and not by a legislative act….?

    The sad FACT is that ANY and ALL posited OPINIONS of what the correct and proper Original Intent, Meaning and Definition is just that, OPINIONS, WITHOUT the imprimatur of LAW.

  195. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 5:27 pm #

    gorefan: No need to apologize. I didn’t assume anything deceitful.That is probably true. But mostly, I remember this from Newman,“While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.”“The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him an interested party who may maintain quo warranto proceedings against the incumbent of an office on the consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.”“An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”Help me out, on this next part:“The conclusion that the relator must have a personal interest in the office before he can sue in the name of the United States is strengthened by the fact that the courts of the District not only have jurisdiction to issued quo warranto against officers of the District, but against all those, attached to the seat of government, who held a statutory office.Is the Presidency a statutory office?

    Of course, and that is why I say that the bar is too high for a Quo Warranto challenge based on the citizenship eligibility in that there is No acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    But again, my concern is NOT of the ‘transient Political aspects’ of the Constitutional idiom, but rather my attempt is to obtain the larger Constitutionally ‘legal’ definition’ of the idiom insofar as MY citizenship is concerned.

    How it may or may not affect others is NOT my concern.

  196. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    gorefan: Is the Presidency a statutory office?

    Uh, no.

  197. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    misha: misha: slcraig: if I am in my car, travelling at the speed of light and turn on the headlights, will they throw a beam?Excellent anwer. Did you study physics?

    No, but I did matriculate at the Memphis TN. Holiday Inn Institute of Hospitality for awhile.

  198. avatar
    Northland10 February 27, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    slcraig: Please, if you know where I can locate the acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen that I can obtain a certification’ of being in confomity with for gosh sake speak up…!!!

    What governmental privilege have you been denied due to your lack of “certified” status? Since there is only 2 places where you need to be a Natural Born Citizen, then submit to be a candidate and run for office. I should warn you, you still would not be “certified.”

    The government does not certify everything (thankfully). Consider the following:

    Taxpayer – I have not received certification that I am a taxpayer. I assume that, since I pay taxes, I am a taxpayer. Now, if the government later on says no, then I may have to contest that (if, of course, there is actual loss of a privilege, and more than, they said no to me).

    Citizen – I do have an expired Passport, but no actual other certification that states in writing, that I am a citizen (and if I did not have a Passport…). How am I to know I am a citizen.

    Resident of Illinois – Illinois has not certified me as a resident. I assume I am one since they gave me a drivers license with an Illinois address. Besides my old Michigan license, I had to show them my lease to prove I lived here but they still did not give me a card that said “certified resident” (or certifiable resident, as the case may be).

    Natural Born Citizen – Since I was born in the US, and the understanding for most folks is, born here, I am, by default, a Natural Born Citizen. Since this as little bearing on my life (I am not intending to run for the Presidency any time soon), I see no reason why I would need to have somebody else spend time telling me what I already know. If, at some point, a government agency chose to deny me some privilege claiming I was not an NBC then, I would need to consider whether I should sue. Until that time, my life is no different.

    In actually, you are not interested in the government declaring you and NBC but only that you can have a definition to use against the President (or not as the case would be). Though more creative then the other attempts, it is even more a dishonorable act as you are not doing this for your own citizenship needs but to try and remove a President you do not like. You are being deceptive with the only mitigation being that it will not work anyway.

  199. avatar
    gorefan February 27, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    slcraig: The sad FACT is that ANY and ALL posited OPINIONS of what the correct and proper Original Intent, Meaning and Definition is just that, OPINIONS, WITHOUT the imprimatur of LAW.

    That may be true, IANAL but I suspect your approach will in all likelihood fail. If and when that happens, I hope you don’t rant about how the courts are corrupt or bought by the politicians or afraid of riots. As you see on this site, people (some of whom are lawyers) have a different opinion of the legal merits of your case. If courts deny your claims it is because they disagree with your arguments not because they are afraid of them.

  200. avatar
    misha February 27, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    slcraig: No, but I did matriculate at the Memphis TN. Holiday Inn Institute of Hospitality for awhile.

    Are there Holiday Inns in outer space?

  201. avatar
    gorefan February 27, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Uh, no.

    Well, I figured you knew the answer, I was looking for an answer from the “Judy” group.

  202. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Uh, no.

    So you are saying that the Office is NOT subject to Regulatory LIMITS…?

    I will agree that the Office is in the 1st instant established by the Constitution, just as I assert that so too are natural born Citizens, but if you are saying that there are NO Statutory limitations piled on top of the Constitutional proscriptions we may depart from a mutual understanding of what the questions are…?

    But let me ask, in the absence of ANY promulgated Legislation concerning some ‘instance’ within the Constitution that would then be duly codified into the Statutes is not that ‘instance’ then, being unabridged, enlarged and or otherwise modified, to be taken as the Statutory construction of the 1st instant…?

  203. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 27, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    slcraig: P.S.,

    What does Congress have to do with interpreting a Clause of the Executive…? They did that once and promptly repealed the effort to enlarge the original definition, IMO.

    Would not any definition the Congress might assert be subject to Judicial review by the SCOTUS upon a bona fide challenge…?

    And wouldn’t that assertion’ need to be within a proposed Amendment and not by a legislative act….?

    The sad FACT is that ANY and ALL posited OPINIONS of what the correct and proper Original Intent, Meaning and Definition is just that, OPINIONS, WITHOUT the imprimatur of LAW.

    So there is nothing you can really accept unless you were able to dig up the founders and reanimate their bodies and ask their direct opinion.

  204. avatar
    slcraig February 27, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    Northland10: What governmental privilege have you been denied due to your lack of “certified” status? Since there is only 2 places where you need to be a Natural Born Citizen, then submit to be a candidate and run for office. I should warn you, you still would not be “certified.” The government does not certify everything (thankfully). Consider the following:Taxpayer – I have not received certification that I am a taxpayer. I assume that, since I pay taxes, I am a taxpayer. Now, if the government later on says no, then I may have to contest that (if, of course, there is actual loss of a privilege, and more than, they said no to me).Citizen – I do have an expired Passport, but no actual other certification that states in writing, that I am a citizen (and if I did not have a Passport…). How am I to know I am a citizen.Resident of Illinois – Illinois has not certified me as a resident. I assume I am one since they gave me a drivers license with an Illinois address. Besides my old Michigan license, I had to show them my lease to prove I lived here but they still did not give me a card that said “certified resident” (or certifiable resident, as the case may be).Natural Born Citizen – Since I was born in the US, and the understanding for most folks is, born here, I am, by default, a Natural Born Citizen. Since this as little bearing on my life (I am not intending to run for the Presidency any time soon), I see no reason why I would need to have somebody else spend time telling me what I already know. If, at some point, a government agency chose to deny me some privilege claiming I was not an NBC then, I would need to consider whether I should sue. Until that time, my life is no different.In actually, you are not interested in the government declaring you and NBC but only that you can have a definition to use against the President (or not as the case would be). Though more creative then the other attempts, it is even more a dishonorable act as you are not doing this for your own citizenship needs but to try and remove a President you do not like. You are being deceptive with the only mitigation being that it will not work anyway.

    Well, assign WHATEVER MOTIVES you wish, that does NOT change the FACT that there is NO acknowledged ‘legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and whether you consider my motives HONORABLE or not makes not an iota of difference to me.

    But I do read into your words that there is a ‘tinge’ of FEAR that should I be successful in my ends it will somehow have some adverse affect on the ‘status quo’. mmm mmmm mmmmm

  205. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2011 at 7:24 pm #

    slcraig: Dr. Conspiracy: Uh, no.

    So you are saying that the Office is NOT subject to Regulatory LIMITS…?

    I will agree that the Office is in the 1st instant established by the Constitution, just as I assert that so too are natural born Citizens, but if you are saying that there are NO Statutory limitations piled on top of the Constitutional proscriptions we may depart from a mutual understanding of what the questions are…?

    What I said is that the office of the President is established by the Constitution and not by Legislation.

    I’m not a constitutional authority, so I don’t know all there is to know about this, but I would assume that the Congress cannot limit the constitutional powers of the president (which is why Congress uses appropriations to influence the executive). Congress couldn’t change the eligibility age or impose term limits.

    At least two US Attorneys General have issued opinions stating that a sitting President cannot be indicted or prosecuted for a crime, for example. I do not think the Congress could constitutionally pass legislation that would allow for the removal of a President through any means other than what is delineated in the Constitution.

    The President is not immune from civil lawsuits during his term, and quo warranto is a civil proceeding; nevertheless, I cannot see how such a suit could remove him from office and be constitutional.

    Please be aware that sometimes I cannot figure out what you mean, as in the last paragraph of the comment liked here.

    By the way, I see that Eric Holder has moved to dismiss your suit; however, the Court’s ECF system says access to the document is restricted.

    Note: normally discussion on this article would be cut off this long after its publication, but I have extended it to 21 days.

  206. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 27, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    slcraig: Well, assign WHATEVER MOTIVES you wish, that does NOT change the FACT that there is NO acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and whether you consider my motives HONORABLE or not makes not an iota of difference to me.

    But I do read into your words that there is a tinge’ of FEAR that should I be successful in my ends it will somehow have some adverse affect on the status quo’. mmm mmmm mmmmm

    Except that it was defined many times during the founding fathers day and after. Peruse this site Natural Born Citizen has been addressed multiple times by caselaw and multiple law experts you just choose to ignore it.

  207. avatar
    Bovril February 27, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    Real simple slcraig

    Name a single winning Supreme Court case, or Constitutional lawyer or Constitutional expert or sucessful case law suit in the last 100 years that holds that the President is not an NBC as per the Constitution.

    You won’t as you can’t, so guess what, the NBC point ou are desperately trolling is inherently value free and moot.

  208. avatar
    obsolete February 28, 2011 at 12:36 am #

    slcraig: I know better than to be rude in someone elses ‘house’ but stupid’ offends me.

    slcraig: Hey, and I am not saying that the ’0′ knows or doesn’t.

    slcraig: But again, sustaining a Quo Warranto action against the ’0′ is a bar too high

    Hey, slcraig-
    You complain about rudeness but not once have you referred to President Obama by his name or title, instead you call him the “0”.
    Does calling a black man “President” hurt you so much? Show some respect to the President of the United States.

  209. avatar
    misha February 28, 2011 at 12:55 am #

    obsolete: Show some respect to the President of the United States.

    Especially after Shrub.

    When Bush Shrub said in his State of the Union address, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” did anyone shout “you lie”?

    Of course not. He’s white.

  210. avatar
    Rickey February 28, 2011 at 1:47 am #

    slcraig: Well, assign WHATEVER MOTIVES you wish, that does NOT change the FACT that there is NO acknowledged legal’ definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and whether you consider my motives HONORABLE or not makes not an iota of difference to me.

    Your motives are obvious. Unless you are planning to run for President or Vice-President, and you have some reason to believe that you might be found not to be a natural-born citizen, there is no reason why you would need to be certified as one. Naturalized citizens have the same rights as natural-born citizens, the lone exception being that only the latter can be President or Vice-President. Perhaps you would like to explain why you never showed any interest in being certified a natural-born citizen before Obama was elected President?

    But the relevant fact is that the arguments you are making here were already addressed by the 10th District in your previous lawsuit.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf

    But I do read into your words that there is a tinge’ of FEAR that should I be successful in my ends it will somehow have some adverse affect on the status quo’. mmm mmmm mmmmm

    That “tinge of fear” which you imagine that you see is actually a healthy dose of disgust that birthers such as you continue to waste scarce judicial resources by filing frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit. I also have noted that you filed for in forma pauperis status in both cases, meaning that the taxpayers are picking up the court costs for your lawsuits.

  211. avatar
    misha February 28, 2011 at 2:01 am #

    Rickey: I also have noted that you filed for in forma pauperis status in both cases, meaning that the taxpayers are picking up the court costs for your lawsuits.

    He’s part of the crowd who screams ‘socialist,’ ‘Marxist,’ and ‘communist.’

  212. avatar
    nc1 February 28, 2011 at 2:58 am #

    misha:
    misha: slcraig: if I am in my car, travelling at the speed of light and turn on the headlights, will they throw a beam?

    Excellent anwer. Did you study physics?

    ===================================================================

    You obviously did not since you used Newtonian physics in your thought experiment. Speed of light in vacuum is constant regardless of the motion of the light source or observer.

    As a consequence,an object (mass > 0 at rest) cannot reach the speed of light.

  213. avatar
    misha February 28, 2011 at 3:18 am #

    nc1: You obviously did not since you used Newtonian physics in your thought experiment.

    How can I hail a taxi in outer space?

  214. avatar
    misha February 28, 2011 at 3:24 am #

    nc1: You obviously did not

    To get my optician license, I took two semesters of Geometric Optics. What is your degree in?

  215. avatar
    Northland10 February 28, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    slcraig: But I do read into your words that there is a tinge’ of FEAR that should I be successful in my ends it will somehow have some adverse affect on the status quo’. mmm mmmm mmmmm

    Well, now I am amused, but no, there is no fear. First, there is a general understood definition, so, I generally know what would happen if you actual was able to advance your case. This case also would be different then the object of your concern, therefore it wouldn’t change anything. Second, I am not fearful of the future, even one where the present may not have gone the way I might like. In the long run, it all works out (if you really want to know where this would come from, see Matthew 6:24-34, Isaiah, 48:8-16, etc).

    So enjoy your case and best of luck.

  216. avatar
    slcraig February 28, 2011 at 8:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: What I said is that the office of the President is established by the Constitution and not by Legislation. I’m not a constitutional authority, so I don’t know all there is to know about this, but I would assume that the Congress cannot limit the constitutional powers of the president (which is why Congress uses appropriations to influence the executive). Congress couldn’t change the eligibility age or impose term limits. At least two US Attorneys General have issued opinions stating that a sitting President cannot be indicted or prosecuted for a crime, for example. I do not think the Congress could constitutionally pass legislation that would allow for the removal of a President through any means other than what is delineated in the Constitution.The President is not immune from civil lawsuits during his term, and quo warranto is a civil proceeding; nevertheless, I cannot see how such a suit could remove him from office and be constitutional.Please be aware that sometimes I cannot figure out what you mean, as in the last paragraph of the comment liked here.By the way, I see that Eric Holder has moved to dismiss your suit; however, the Court’s ECF system says access to the document is restricted.Note: normally discussion on this article would be cut off this long after its publication, but I have extended it to 21 days.

    Yes, Administrative Reviews are NOT open public records. The extent of his “Response” was to assert the Court lacked jurisdiction under Title 8 Statutes citing those relative to ‘Orders of Removal’.

    The AAO/U Chief, Perry Rhew, signed the determination stating that I am a “native-born U.S. Citizen” and, like the original ‘field office decision’, stated they ‘need do no more’.

    But somehow, although I NEVER Appealed an ‘Order of Removal” under Title 8 nor did I Appeal to the BIA, by rope a dope, the DHS/USCIS/Atty.Gen. somehow finds that an effective strategy to deflect from the question at hand.

    Title 5 has a different view as to the extent of the Courts Jurisdiction, even though I do agree that the USCA 10ths Jurisdiction is, upon this subject, limited.

    Your view on the Role of Congress, and the Executive for that matter is correct, on THIS subject, which is the cause for the consideration of invoking Original Jurisdiction as a RIGHT under the 1st Amendment Right to Petition.

    Given that the SCOTUS is the ONLY Branch of the Guv’mnt that has the Mandate to interpret the Constitution in the 1st instant, insofar as ‘Constitutional legality’ of ANY interpretations are concerned, and given the passing of 222 years it would seem apparent that is sufficient time to acknowledge that there is RIPENESS in this issue.

  217. avatar
    The Magic M February 28, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    > But I do read into your words that there is a tinge’ of FEAR that should I be successful in my ends it will somehow have some adverse affect on the status quo’.

    That would not explain how people like me (from Germany) or Lupin (from France) are calling you birthers out for what you are. I couldn’t care less who’s in the White House – I’ve survived the GWB era without noticing much.

    But even if, arguendo, all your birther dreams came true – Obama “frog-marched” out of the WH, 111th and 112th Congress criminally prosecuted… What “big” would happen? People would vote for a new Congress, but it’s unlikely there will be radical differences. Because huge social systems have a lot of inertia. People will not vote for unknown candidates and give some hobo loudmouth the power over the nuclear arsenal.
    (Do I have to remind you that even in Eastern Europe it took most states just a couple of years to vote for communist parties again? And they’ve been abused for 40+ years. I can’t imagine people would take even a “fraud of that dimension” to turn 180 degrees.)

  218. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2011 at 9:35 am #

    Rickey: That “tinge of fear” which you imagine that you see is actually a healthy dose of disgust that birthers such as you continue to waste scarce judicial resources by filing frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit. I also have noted that you filed for in forma pauperis status in both cases, meaning that the taxpayers are picking up the court costs for your lawsuits.

    I do marvel that the courts write these comprehensive, well-researched and scholarly replies to crank lawsuits. I mean, there are a LOT of lawsuits in the courts. Where do they find the time?

  219. avatar
    Reality Check February 28, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I do marvel that the courts write these comprehensive, well-researched and scholarly replies to crank lawsuits. I mean, there are a LOT of lawsuits in the courts. Where do they find the time?

    Smart, hard working law clerks?

  220. avatar
    Lupin February 28, 2011 at 10:44 am #

    The Magic M: That would not explain how people like me (from Germany) or Lupin (from France) are calling you birthers out for what you are. I couldn’t care less who’s in the White House – I’ve survived the GWB era without noticing much.

    And Paul too, from Belgium, I believe?

    I find it rather ironic that some of those fools assume we’re all ” pro-Obama.” To tell the truth, and without steering to far OT, I’m not particularly pro-Obama myself, although I am fully aware that the alternative is unspeakably worse.

    Using an easy comparison, I’m much in synch with Glenn Greenwald of Salon, who is not particularly pro-Obama either.

    I was reflecting yesterday that there are so many assaults on science, women, human rights, common sense and decency in the United States (from ideological bases that make even our own National Front look positively enlightened) that I just don’t know how you guys manage. The little I see on the net is enough to drive me nuts.

  221. avatar
    misha February 28, 2011 at 11:12 am #

    Lupin: there are so many assaults on science, women, human rights, common sense and decency in the United States

    Ga. Law Could Give Death Penalty for Miscarriages

    Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentially punishable by death: any “prenatal murder” in the words of the bill, including “human involvement” in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death.

    http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia

    I’ve said it before: if anything happens to Obama, I will emigrate.

  222. avatar
    Bovril February 28, 2011 at 11:29 am #

    Reality Check: Smart, hard working law clerks?

    FIFY

    Smart, hard working Obot law clerks from Perkins Coie

  223. avatar
    The Magic M February 28, 2011 at 11:29 am #

    > I do marvel that the courts write these comprehensive, well-researched and scholarly replies to crank lawsuits.

    Especially to those cranks who are lawyers themselves.
    I’ve always been amazed how lenient US courts are towards pro-se litigants (in Germany, they’re much stricter). But towards a lawyer who brings a lawsuit that’s frivolous on its face?

    I can only imagine some judges like the intellectual challenge of treating these cases as if they actually had any merits.
    Over here, if another crank protests his traffic fine with a 300-page lawsuit challenging everything from the authority of the judge to the foundations of the country itself, you don’t see the judges meticulously refuting their every argument (and the cranks complain bitterly about that).
    But maybe the workload is higher here (where attorneys are cheaper and those on welfare get the state to pay one)…

  224. avatar
    Rickey February 28, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    misha: He’s part of the crowd who screams socialist,’ ‘Marxist,’ and communist.’

    He probably is on public assistance, as well, or at least cashing government checks of some kind.. Someone who requests in forma pauperis status has to provide a fairly detailed financial statement, and I believe that the filing fee is only $350.00. This is the application form (it’s in .rtf format):

    http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/Usable_Rules_Forms_Appellate/APP4-Affidavit_Accompanying_Motion_for_Permission_to_Appeal.rtf

  225. avatar
    slcraig March 1, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

    And still NO meaningful reason for being in opposition of having the Constitutional idiom defined for legal purposes.

    Under many of ‘your’ constructions it would have it that a person born of ‘legally admitted aliens’ under a Treaty that PROHIBITED their naturalization would have been within the CONTEXT of the definition, meaning and intent of what the Framers had in mind when inserting the term of words into the Executive qualification Clause.

    I guess I’m just a rube as you suspect because that just does not add up to a proposition that makes ANY rational sense to me.

  226. avatar
    misha March 1, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    slcraig: that just does not add up to a proposition that makes ANY rational sense to me.

    It makes sense to my cat.

  227. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 1, 2011 at 1:50 pm #

    slcraig: Under many of ‘your’ constructions it would have it that a person born of legally admitted aliens’ under a Treaty that PROHIBITED their naturalization would have been within the CONTEXT of the definition, meaning and intent of what the Framers had in mind when inserting the term of words into the Executive qualification Clause.

    I don’t know what this treaty is that you’re taking about, but the Chinese Exclusion Act did prevent the naturalization of Wonk Kim Ark’s parents. Wong himself, however was not naturalized, but born a citizen. While many have called the 14th Amendment merely declarative of what was always the case (except for that Dred Scott thing), clearly under the 14th Wong was born a citizen.

    The cases and authorities cited in the 6-2 opinion in Wong clearly show that the history and precedent not only make Wong a citizen, but a natural born citizen. Further, reviewing the briefs in the case, the contestants knew full well that if Wong were a citizen, he would be eligible to run for President.

    While you don’t actually say it, the only way I can make sense of your comment is to add the assumption that you are asserting the crank definition of natural born citizen (the meat and two theory), which has poked its head up a few times in history in minority court opinions, losing briefs, and crank articles. I don’t think that anyone here doubts that the motivation behind your lawsuits has nothing to do with yourself, but rather are intended to spread the idea that natural born citizens must be born in the United States to two citizen parents and to replace the existing consensus views and historical authorities with that interpretation.

    As William Rawle said in his oft-cited book A View of the Constitution (1825):

    Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity….

    Under the Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however that capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of the president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.