Main Menu

Tennnessee birther bill

Yes sports fans, just when you thought the birthers couldn’t count past 10, the 11th birther bill has been introduced in Tennessee by state Sen. Mae Beavers. SB366 is a full-bore birther bill, requiring candidates for President and Vice-president  to submit documents that prove that the candidates are a natural born citizens and meet the constitutional requirements for age and residency. The submitted documents must include an original “long form birth certificate” that includes the name of the hospital, attending physician and witnesses. It also requires an sworn statement that “the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.”

Now there are several states with bills pending that would require an original birth certificate. My question is: which state will actually get the original and which will have to settle for certified copies? My next question is: where in the Constitution does it require that US Presidents be born in a hospital?

, ,

131 Responses to Tennnessee birther bill

  1. avatar
    Daniel February 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    It seems most of these are “back bencher bills”, so far as I’ve been able to see.

    Doc:

    Do you have any info on whether or not any of these bills have support of the “legislative majority” or whatever the term is in each particular case?

  2. avatar
    Sef February 10, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

    These bills are beginning to sound awfully similar. They’re probably “crafted” by a single nutcase & sent to someone in each state to introduce. Maybe this will be chance for these legislators to finally understand a little bit of the Constitution.

  3. avatar
    Sean February 10, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    Sounds like a cut-and-paste bill.

  4. avatar
    Daniel February 10, 2011 at 6:20 pm #

    Turns out he Beaver isn’t really a back bencher as such.

    From Wikipedia: “Mae Beavers is the Chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate Transportation Committee. Beavers is also the Treasurer of the Senate Republican Caucus. She was the Republican Assistant Floor Leader during the 103rd General Assembly, and the House Republican Caucus Secretary in the 100th through the 102nd General Assemblies.”

    Kind of scary that someone with that much control over the State Republican party would be functionally delusional a la a birther.

  5. avatar
    Sef February 10, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    Sean: Sounds like a cut-and-paste bill.

    None of these idjits have found ctrl-x yet.

  6. avatar
    Scientist February 10, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

    All the red states should make it impossible for any candidate to get on the ballot. With only votes from blue states, Gore and Kerry would have won in a landslide.

  7. avatar
    US Citizen February 10, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Mae Beavers?
    Poor girl with a name like that has obviously had a persecution complex since she was young.
    Mae Beavers eat her earlobes.

  8. avatar
    Daniel February 10, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    On the other hand, it could quite well be that Beavers is just doing this to placate the birthers, of which there are no doubt a few in the hills of Tennessee.

    I see that the bill has gone to committee. Not hard to see it languishing in committee for a couple of years and then dieing off quietly when it no longer matters. In the meantime the Beaver gets to count on the delusional vote for the foreseeable future.

    Of course it’s all speculation at this point.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    Daniel: Do you have any info on whether or not any of these bills have support of the “legislative majority” or whatever the term is in each particular case?

    There are enough sponsors to the Arizona birther bill to pass it.

    I am reminded of the old saying: “be careful what you wish for” because if the Arizona bill gets passed and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the birthers will have finally lost a case on the merits with no avenue of appeal except a constitutional amendment.

  10. avatar
    Daniel February 10, 2011 at 7:12 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There are enough sponsors to the Arizona birther bill to pass it.

    Not too familiar with Arizona procedures… are sponsors or co-sponsors obligated to vote in favor of a bill they sponsor, in fact or in tradition?

  11. avatar
    Sean February 10, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There are enough sponsors to the Arizona birther bill to pass it.I am reminded of the old saying: “be careful what you wish for” because if the Arizona bill gets passed and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the birthers will have finally lost a case on the merits with no avenue of appeal except a constitutional amendment.

    See, that’s what I was hoping for. To have the Supreme Court spell it all out. Hawaii says he was born there, dual citizenship doesn’t matter and citizen parents don’t matter. Case closed.

  12. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP February 10, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

    Red states should just stop beating around the bush and pass laws that no democrats will be allowed on their ballots; that way, their candidates will never have to lose another election.

    I don’t call these bills “Birther Bills,” I call them “Sore Loser Bills.”

    One has to wonder about the intellectual caliber of those people who vote these numbskulls into office who think that the proper way to run a state is to legislate that the American people in their state can only vote for their party nominee for president

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 10, 2011 at 10:55 pm #

    I wonder if anyone in the news media has actually read the Tennessee bill. They just describe it as requiring a birth certificate, and say nothing about the really nutty parts.

  14. avatar
    e.vattel February 11, 2011 at 1:10 am #

    Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution.

    Their natural and inherent right is the eligibility for President. It is one of the foundations of government the Founders and original citizens passed to their posterity.

    Obama is not a part of this posterity…he is not a natural born citizen.

    When he was born..the subject to jurisdiction did not comply. His father was not a permanent resident.

  15. avatar
    The Magic M February 11, 2011 at 3:56 am #

    > Red states should just stop beating around the bush and pass laws that no democrats will be allowed on their ballots

    Seriously: what exactly is the argument they are not allowed to do so? After all, the Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors […]”. Doesn’t that give the states complete leeway as to how they handle elections? I don’t see Congress being entitled to regulate that.

    I remember reading about at least one SCOTUS decision in that context, could someone point me to it?

  16. avatar
    Sean February 11, 2011 at 5:13 am #

    The Magic M: > Red states should just stop beating around the bush and pass laws that no democrats will be allowed on their ballotsSeriously: what exactly is the argument they are not allowed to do so? After all, the Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors […]“. Doesn’t that give the states complete leeway as to how they handle elections? I don’t see Congress being entitled to regulate that.I remember reading about at least one SCOTUS decision in that context, could someone point me to it?

    Obviously you can’t add your own Presidential qualifications. That would be unconstitutional.

  17. avatar
    Keith February 11, 2011 at 5:38 am #

    The Magic M: Seriously: what exactly is the argument they are not allowed to do so? After all, the Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors […]“. Doesn’t that give the states complete leeway as to how they handle elections? I don’t see Congress being entitled to regulate that.

    Actually, the Constitution is more direct than that. Article IV, Section 4 says:

    The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…

  18. avatar
    Lupin February 11, 2011 at 6:08 am #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: Red states should just stop beating around the bush and pass laws that no democrats will be allowed on their ballots;

    And that all candidates should be white anglo christians.

    OT I saw in the paper that some folks in one of your southern states (can’t remember which right now) wants to put Nathan Bedford Forrest on license plates.

  19. avatar
    E. Glenn harcsar February 11, 2011 at 6:51 am #

    Hi doc
    Last night falling asleep I watched the NBC show 3rd rock poke at the birther crowd while two of the characters struggled to get back to the states from canada so that their soon to be born daughter could grow up to be president one day. Hilarious. When the child is born Canadian American the Baldwin character jack opines that it doesn’t matter for even Alexander Hamilton was born in the caribbean (and I’ll add with his birth year in historical dispute.) I’ll also add the fun chuckle gained in that Hamilton, though a founder served in the federal govt as first banker under washinton, never president. Again clever scripted television. Also funny in that episode was the tracey Jordan character anxious in his performance in rising too far above his comfort and competence level. Comedy draws it’s power from the catharsis of allowing the fool to poke the king with the truth of the disintegration of social structure, and then proving some means of repair. Jack loves and accepts his daughter, Tracey heads to africa.

    I bring this up here because I too see the comedy of these tennnessee bills as the fool poking the king. Many here cast those that have brought suit as clowns, replete in dress, manner, and makeup. Well it’s time to open the floor trap and hoist the deus ex
    machina in the form of a supreme court decision defying our terms and repairing our social order. Otherwise the disintegration remains and this unscripted reality show of legislation, speculation, and obfuscation is tragedy.

  20. avatar
    E. Glenn harcsar February 11, 2011 at 6:56 am #

    And this line was deleted for some reason the end of the first paragraph

    Even Liz lemon and angel from the sky pilot Matt damon kiss and make up by the of the episode. Happy valentine.

  21. avatar
    Scientist February 11, 2011 at 7:17 am #

    E. Glenn harcsar: I bring this up here because I too see the comedy of these tennnessee bills as the fool poking the king. Many here cast those that have brought suit as clowns, replete in dress, manner, and makeup. Well of the whhole NBC nonsense? That is the simplest solution, like cutting through the girdian knit’s time to open the floor trap and hoist the deus ex
    machina in the form of a supreme court decision defying our terms and repairing our social order. Otherwise the disintegration remains and this unscripted reality show of legislation, speculation, and obfuscation is tragedy

    Why not simply get rid of the entire NBC nonsense? That’s the simplest solution, like cutting through the Gordian knot. If it’s so all-fired important, how come every other country manages just fine without it? Let any citizen run for any office and let the voters decide. Problem solved.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2011 at 8:09 am #

    e.vattel: Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution.

    Their natural and inherent right is the eligibility for President. It is one of the foundations of government the Founders and original citizens passed to their posterity.

    Obama is not a part of this posterity…he is not a natural born citizen.

    When he was born..the subject to jurisdiction did not comply. His father was not a permanent resident.

    I’m surprised that you have the nerve to show up here after that little fraud you tried to pull about “The Law of Nations is divine.”

    The Supreme Court decision in US v Wong talked about the children of domiciled aliens, but in fact the children of non-domiciled aliens (ex ambassadors) are universally American citizens today. The reason that this is the case is that normal folks read US v Wong in its entirety, not just the decision, and they see that the logical reasoning if the court applies equally to non-domiciled aliens, and they can see that “jurisdiction” under the 14th Amendment applies to anyone here (ex ambassadors) in our territory. Wongquoted the first chief justice, John Marshall, when he said:

    The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source. This consent may be either express or implied. In the latter case, it is less determinate, exposed more to the uncertainties of construction; but, if understood, not less obligatory.

    John Marshall
    cited in US v Wong page 168-9

    This basic principle of the law of nations is one that the birthers fail to understand, and it dooms them to continual error. While they pay lip service to US sovereignty, they deny it at the drop of the hat when it comes to issues of dual citizenship created by the laws of foreign countries.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2011 at 8:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution

    So you are saying that no one not descended from someone who was a citizen of the United States in 1776 (the US was a country with citizens before the Constitution) is a natural born citizen? I must say, that’s the most extreme position I have seen on this point.

    I’m proud to live in a country founded by better minds than yours.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2011 at 8:17 am #

    Scientist: Why not simply get rid of the entire NBC nonsense? That’s the simplest solution, like cutting through the Gordian knot

    Not the FEMA camps?

  25. avatar
    The Magic M February 11, 2011 at 8:25 am #

    > Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution

    Well then, good luck proving your heritage all the way back to the “original citizens”, including everyone’s parents’ citizenships at birth. I bet you $500 to $1 no-one is able to do that. (How do you prove your paternal great-great-great-grandmother wasn’t temporarily a Canadian citizen during the time of her child’s birth?)

    Especially given the fact that, according to estimates, roughly 10% of all children have a different biological father than they assume they have. According to birthers, such “bastard children” who may very well have real parents with different nationality, all these would be ineligible, too, but they could never be discovered to be.

    Or do you mean that “descendant” is to be taken in the broadest sense (have at least one ancestor who was an “original citizen”)? Then however there may have been countless ancestors whose parents had dual or foreign nationality, potentially (in birtherverse) influencing their allegiance.

    So you see how laughable that idea is. Did you watch too much “Dogma” (excellent movie by the way) and pondered about “the last scion of Christ”?

  26. avatar
    Keith February 11, 2011 at 8:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This basic principle of the law of nations is one that the birthers fail to understand, and it dooms them to continual error. While they pay lip service to US sovereignty, they deny it at the drop of the hat when it comes to issues of dual citizenship created by the laws of foreign countries.

    As I see it, the birther argument these days revolves around a mistaken conflation of ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘allegiance’.

    They refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the word ‘jurisdiction’ and try to argue that it means ‘allegiance’.

    This is a classic conspiracy wingnut ploy. Those who understand the word ‘jurisdiction’ can argue with them till they are blue in the face, while they keep pounding the ‘jurisdiction’ = ‘allegiance’ meme at those people who are less thoughtful or want/need something to hang their unsupported position.

    This serves to ensure that they are arguing a different point than their opponents. I have noticed them do the mobius flip in one sentence along the lines of ” the 14th amendment says ‘…jurisdiction…’ so how can an illegal immigrants child have complete allegiance…”. Then when they have distracted the unthoughtful audience they can get hammer it home with “illegal immigrants aren’t under the jurisdiction of the USA”. Viola! 14th Amendment cleared out of the way in just a few sentences.

    It doesn’t matter how much you argue that “jurisdiction” means “subject to the laws of” not “owing allegiance too” because they don’t care. It isn’t their goal to get it right, it is their goal to introduce FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, and DOUBT into as many minds as they can get access too.

  27. avatar
    Keith February 11, 2011 at 8:44 am #

    The Magic M: Or do you mean that “descendant” is to be taken in the broadest sense (have at least one ancestor who was an “original citizen”)?

    Obama has (at least) one of those!

  28. avatar
    katahdin February 11, 2011 at 9:23 am #

    e.vattel: Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution.Their natural and inherent right is the eligibility for President. It is one of the foundations of government the Founders and original citizens passed to their posterity.Obama is not a part of this posterity…he is not a natural born citizen. When he was born..the subject to jurisdiction did not comply. His father was not a permanent resident.

    President Obama has ancestry on his mother’s side that goes back to the Plymouth Bay Colony in 1698. Can you say the same?

  29. avatar
    Majority Will February 11, 2011 at 9:45 am #

    katahdin:
    President Obama has ancestry on his mother’s side that goes back to the Plymouth Bay Colony in 1698. Can you say the same?

    Of course the birther can’t. These are mindless, hate driven bigots with more spare time than common sense.

    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

    I guess in birther eyes the Statue of Liberty must be a socialist, Marxist commie. They would like nothing more than to shoot out her lamp with a double-barreled shotgun.

  30. avatar
    Scientist February 11, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    e.vattel: Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution.

    No heriditary presidency! Not in Egypt and not in America! Everyone to Tahrir Square!!

  31. avatar
    ASK Esq February 11, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    The most interesting thing to me regarding this bill is that Beavers states that the local Tea Party gave it to her to submit. So, basically, for all their talk about lower taxes and small federal government, the tea partiers also just don’t like Presidents with dark skin and funny names.

  32. avatar
    Elmo February 11, 2011 at 10:29 am #

    I just have to shake my head and smile. If this bill should become law, it probably means no candidate will qualify to be on the Tennessee ballot since few, if any, states issued birth certificates 45 years ago meeting those requirements. And since Tennessee is a Republican state, the end result will be to deprive the Republican nominee of its electoral votes.

    Some folks seem to be not very good at thinking things through, eh?

  33. avatar
    Sef February 11, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    If any of these laws had been i effect in 2008, it would have been interesting to see them try to wiggle past McCain’s birth issues. Note that I am not saying McCain is not NBC, but these laws would cause him problems.

  34. avatar
    Majority Will February 11, 2011 at 12:41 pm #

    ASK Esq: o submit. So, basically, for all their talk about lower taxes and small federal government

    Ask the hypocrites how much this legislation will cost taxpayers and why government bureaucracy was the only solution rather than citizens in the voting booth making their own decisions about who is qualified or our existing adversarial campaign process?

  35. avatar
    Majority Will February 11, 2011 at 12:42 pm #

    Elmo:
    I just have to shake my head and smile. If this bill should become law, it probably means no candidate will qualify to be on the Tennessee ballot since few, if any, states issued birth certificates 45 years ago meeting those requirements. And since Tennessee is a Republican state, the end result will be to deprive the Republican nominee of its electoral votes.

    Some folks seem to be not very good at thinking things through, eh?

    And that’s bad why? 😀

  36. avatar
    Joey February 11, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    e.vattel: Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution.Their natural and inherent right is the eligibility for President. It is one of the foundations of government the Founders and original citizens passed to their posterity.Obama is not a part of this posterity…he is not a natural born citizen. When he was born..the subject to jurisdiction did not comply. His father was not a permanent resident.

    While you are entitled to your personal opinion, that’s all it is, a personal opinion. No court and no law passed by Congress and signed by a president has ever backed your opinion up with statute or ruling.
    I guess you missed that Barack Hussein Obama II is a distant cousin of both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney!
    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/FOX_Obama_related_to_Bush_Cheney_1017.html

    “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS…”–Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, November 12, 2009

  37. avatar
    Rickey February 11, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    e.vattel:
    Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution.

    Their natural and inherent right is the eligibility for President. It is one of the foundations of government the Founders and original citizens passed to their posterity.

    Obama is not a part of this posterity…he is not a natural born citizen.

    By your definition, John F. Kennedy was not a natural-born citizen. None of his ancestors were “original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution.” His great-grandparents on both sides of his family were Irish immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the mid-19th century.

    And of course your definition would exclude most black people from being eligible for the presidency, which I suspect is what you really have in mind.

    When he was born..the subject to jurisdiction did not comply. His father was not a permanent resident.

    People in the U.S. on student visas aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? Too bad Obama’s father didn’t realize that. He could have robbed banks in Honolulu with impunity. What a missed opportunity.

  38. avatar
    Sef February 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    Any birther bill which passes Constitutional muster will pose zero problems for President Obama & cause all the birthers’ heads to explode. Who will feel their wrath?

  39. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    US Citizen: Mae Beavers?
    Poor girl with a name like that has obviously had a persecution complex since she was young.

    Reminds me of Harry Baals:

    “Ex-mayor’s name too funny for Ind. center” :
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110208/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_popular_mayor_unpopular_name

  40. avatar
    misha February 11, 2011 at 6:05 pm #

    Lupin: I saw in the paper that some folks in one of your southern states (can’t remember which right now) wants to put Nathan Bedford Forrest on license plates.

    “Forrest is one of the most controversial – and popular – icons of the war. A Tennessee native, he raised his own militia at the start of the war and rose quickly from a private to a lieutenant general. He drew praise for his battlefield courage, as well as criticism for a raid on Fort Pillow, Tenn., where his troops massacred a black Union regiment.”

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0211/KKK-leader-on-specialty-license-plates-Plan-in-Mississippi-raises-hackles

  41. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 11, 2011 at 10:19 pm #

    Elmo: Nathan Bedford Forrest on license plates

    I was born in Tennessee. I have one of those thingmajiggies that the birthers like to refer to as a “long form birth certificate” issued more than 50 years ago by the Tennessee Department of Public Health, Division of Vital Statistics (“Cooperating with the National Office of Vital Statistics”!!). It contains detailed information such as the doctor’s address and even identifies my parents’ occupations.

    However, my certificate of live birth would not satisfy the requirements of TN Senate Bill 366.

  42. avatar
    US Citizen February 11, 2011 at 10:51 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: However, my certificate of live birth would not satisfy the requirements of TN Senate Bill 366.

    No presidenting for you!

    I think it’s telling that 2+ years into this whole BC issue, one still doesn’t see very many long-form certificates online.
    I don’t think there are all that many available for people to scan even for use as examples.

  43. avatar
    Keith February 12, 2011 at 12:32 am #

    Majority Will: The New Colossus

    Great minds think alike.

    I quoted this in another thread today.

  44. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2011 at 1:02 am #

    Keith: Great minds think alike.

    I quoted this in another thread today.

    😀

  45. avatar
    E. Glenn harcsar February 12, 2011 at 8:28 am #

    Hi dr c
    Here’s a thought balloon for the crowd analyzing the proposed wording of any legislation. Propose to amend the constitution striking the term natural born.

    Where would the wind take us?

  46. avatar
    Steve February 12, 2011 at 9:46 am #

    misha: Reminds me of Harry Baals:“Ex-mayor’s name too funny for Ind. center” :http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110208/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_popular_mayor_unpopular_name

    There was an episode of the Sarah Silverman Program where Sarah got a woman named Mae Kadoodie elected mayor.

  47. avatar
    e.vattel February 12, 2011 at 11:11 am #

    The 1758 edition of Law of Nations….the indigenous …and the naturels..if a people were forced to come to the 13 Colonies..against their will…are these people indigenous to the new country.

    What the Founders wanted to do and by using the words natural born citizen. They limited the Presidency to Anglo Saxons.

    This is what natural (Kind) means. I can admit the 14th Amendment probably changed this rule..but..the courts should decide.

    It is certain the word natural is the same as Kind. This places natural born citizens into a stock or family of citizens.

    My goal is the meaning of natural in natural born citizen.

    In any case..obama cannot pass the subject of jurisdiction. Both parents of WKA were permanent residents. One of obamas parents was a transient with no intention of remaining in the US.

  48. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2011 at 12:49 pm #

    E. Glenn harcsar:
    Hi dr cHere’s a thought balloon for the crowd analyzing the proposed wording of any legislation.Propose to amend the constitution striking the term natural born.

    Where would the wind take us?

    Are you breaking wind again?

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2011 at 1:21 pm #

    e.vattel: What the Founders wanted to do and by using the words natural born citizen. They limited the Presidency to Anglo Saxons.

    Thank you for clarifying your position.

  50. avatar
    Sef February 12, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    e.vattel: What the Founders wanted to do and by using the words natural born citizen. They limited the Presidency to Anglo Saxons.

    Well, I guess that leaves you out. Also, the original Vattel, since by no argument could he have been considered Anglo-Saxon.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: However, my certificate of live birth would not satisfy the requirements of TN Senate Bill 366.

    In my career, I have never seen one that would.

  52. avatar
    Joey February 12, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

    e.vattel: The 1758 edition of Law of Nations….the indigenous …and the naturels..if a people were forced to come to the 13 Colonies..against their will…are these people indigenous to the new country.What the Founders wanted to do and by using the words natural born citizen. They limited the Presidency to Anglo Saxons. This is what natural (Kind) means. I can admit the 14th Amendment probably changed this rule..but..the courts should decide.It is certain the word natural is the same as Kind. This places natural born citizens into a stock or family of citizens.My goal is the meaning of natural in natural born citizen. In any case..obama cannot pass the subject of jurisdiction. Both parents of WKA were permanent residents. One of obamas parents was a transient with no intention of remaining in the US.

    How can you quote Vattel? He was neither an Anglo-Saxon nor an American citizen.
    Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China in 1890 and lived there as subjects of the Emperor for the rest of their lives. Their son stayed in America as a natural born citizen of the United States.

  53. avatar
    Joey February 12, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: In my career, I have never seen one that would.

    Wouldn’t it be funny if the Republican candidate in 2012 with the best chance to defeat Obama happened to be born in a state that now has a Democrat as Governor and the state refuses to issue the Republican a long form birth certificate!

  54. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2011 at 2:35 pm #

    e.vattel: What the Founders wanted to do and by using the words natural born citizen. They limited the Presidency to Anglo Saxons.

    I guess that makes Martin Van Buren the first usurper. This is all the more ironic as he was the first President to be born after the revolution (i.e. a Natural Born Citizen). His family’s history on the continent pre-dates many of his predecessors.

    While we are at it, I guess now that the Roosevelts, Hoover, Eisenhower and Kennedy were also usurpers. By the birthers thinking, this means everything they did is null and void so:

    – The Cherokees can move from Oklahoma (now not a state) back to the South
    – Food and Drug Act
    – Social Security
    – various other Depression era changes (FDIC, FEMA, etc.)
    – TVA and various Electricity Coops (this might cut power to some Monroe County bloggers).
    – Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan wins WWII.
    – No Korean war armistice.
    – NASA (Soviets win the space race, among other things).
    – Soviet Missiles returned to Cuba
    – Hawaii and Alaska not states (the birthers would like half of this)
    – Panama Canal Zone returns to Panama (oops, never mind).

  55. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

    Northland10: While we are at it, I guess now that the Roosevelts, Hoover, Eisenhower and Kennedy were also usurpers.

    I left out the Scotch-Irish since Scotch-Irish heritage also contains some Anglo-Saxon, along with Briton, Celt and Pict (generally). I also likely missed a President or two who may have Swiss and German ancestry.

    I am not sure with Jefferson and Monroe (Welsh and Scottish). If there family did not become involved with the invading Anglo-Saxons, maybe these 2 would be the first usurpers.

  56. avatar
    Daniel February 12, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    Don’t you love it when Birthers quote legalishish sounding stuff from wingnutblogs, without having a clue of what the stuff they quote means?

  57. avatar
    US Citizen February 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    Not sure there would be any Soviet missiles if Germany and Japan won WWII.
    Wouldn’t that suggest conquering the Red Army at the time?

    Regardless, birthers need their heroes and they certainly can’t look up to a black man after so many years looking down upon him.
    Even though none knew who Vattel was until he offered some sliver of hope in reinterpreting the Constitution for them, they’d sooner elect sock lint than concede that a black man could ever be in charge of “their” US.

    With that said, is it me or does it appear that comments on RWNJ blogs are looking more and more openly racist?
    Like they’ve been defeated at every turn and are tired of dressing up their racism as something else once again, so now just “let it all hang out?”
    It’s like I’m watching Blazing Saddles and the new mayor is riding in town.
    They don’t even bother putting lipstick on their pigs any longer with comments about white-anglo-saxons-presidents (the new WASP!)

  58. avatar
    misha February 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    US Citizen: is it me or does it appear that comments on RWNJ blogs are looking more and more openly racist?

    It’s not you. See the commenter here who goes by “e.vattel.”

  59. avatar
    Montana February 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Orly Taitz, birther, lawyer, dentist, and real estate agent, wow, “Jack of all trades, master of none”. Win a case (we all know you do not have the capabilities) but until then many will continue to see you and yours as just dumb, stupid, or racist, maybe all three.

  60. avatar
    Scientist February 12, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    E. Glenn harcsar: Propose to amend the constitution striking the term natural born

    Consider it proposed.

  61. avatar
    Scientist February 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

    Northland10: I guess now that the Roosevelts, Hoover, Eisenhower and Kennedy were also usurpers.

    Reagan’s folks came from Ireland.

  62. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2011 at 5:03 pm #

    US Citizen: Not sure there would be any Soviet missiles if Germany and Japan won WWII.
    Wouldn’t that suggest conquering the Red Army at the time?

    Yes, there is not much logic there, but it fits in with the birther logic. They think Health Care Reform will go away if Obama is marched out of the White House. Of course, since it was not around a recess (thus, eligible for a pocket veto), the Health Care bills would have become law in 10 days, without his signature.

    As for the more open racism, I have noticed, in their desperation, there is more open racism then before. It is possible as the more thoughtful birthers or doubters have since lost interest in the cause (or discovered there is no there, there), those that remain are for more extreme than what was experienced in the early days. Commenter e. vattel has not suprised me here as he has been making the same statements on other blogs for some time.

  63. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2011 at 5:10 pm #

    Scientist: Reagan’s folks came from Ireland.

    As best as I can tell, his folks are from Illinios. His ancestry does appear to go back to Irish, Scotch and English so I chose to skip him since I did not have enough information to determine if he was Northern Ireland (Scotch-Irish) or farther south.

  64. avatar
    Rickey February 12, 2011 at 6:50 pm #

    Northland10: Yes, there is not much logic there, but it fits in with the birther logic.They think Health Care Reform will go away if Obama is marched out of the White House.Of course, since it was not around a recess (thus, eligible for a pocket veto), the Health Care bills would have become law in 10 days, without his signature.

    I’m still waiting for a birther to renounce the extension of the Bush tax cuts, seeing as how they were signed into law by Obama.

    Commenter e. vattel has not suprised me here as he has been making the same statements on other blogs for some time.

    It’s a good thing that Rudy Giuliani wasn’t elected President, or E. Vattel would have had to march him out of the White House in chains. I don’t know enough about Spiro Agnew’s mother to determine if she had Anglo-Saxon blood. And it would have been a problem for E. Vattel if McCain had chose Lieberman to be his running mate.

  65. avatar
    Sean February 12, 2011 at 7:24 pm #

    “With that said, is it me or does it appear that comments on RWNJ blogs are looking more and more openly racist?”

    I noticed that if you argue with birthers, more time than non, the N-word comes out. So yes, it’s color of skin that’s important.

  66. avatar
    e.vattel February 12, 2011 at 7:26 pm #

    “Their son stayed in America as a natural born citizen of the United States.”

    WKA was affirmed a citizen..not a natural born citizen.

    Seems the posters on this site have not learned the meaning of Natural and Kind.

    Too complicated. Ben Franklin wrote about Natural and Kind

  67. avatar
    E. Glenn harcsar February 12, 2011 at 7:56 pm #

    Hi majority will, hi scientist thanks for responding.

    First off mr will, fart jokes!? Really. I get the joke, but I read here regularly and I know you can do better, at least in honor of our dear host.

    After posting this am I spent the hour on a treadmill at the y considering my own question. I recalled an early 90’s conversation with housemates just return from a Fulbright assignment in Estonia. There their students wondered why we risked south Florida with an influx of Carib and Cuba for risk that native national identity would eventually claim soil. My friends found their mission to explain our county as an idea. We are ready to remove, and probably sooner than 222 years, this check against the influence of a foreign prince.
    Think about it mr Obama is a perfect example on one side, and our dear south Floridian mr Rubio, Or indeed mr Jindal on the other.

    But 222 is not a good time is it. Yikes. My battery dying on this machine. I’ll share what endorphins produce soon. Sorry and good night

  68. avatar
    Scientist February 12, 2011 at 8:12 pm #

    E. Glenn harcsar: We are ready to remove, and probably sooner than 222 years, this check against the influence of a foreign prince

    If foreign princes want influence they will buy it. How about a constitutional amendment banning all campaign contributions, foreign and domestic? As Randy Newman says, “It’s money that matters in the USA”

    By the way, the market has done better in Obama’s first 2 years than in any other President’s entire first term. That matters. Birthers don’t.

  69. avatar
    Sef February 12, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    Scientist: By the way, the market has done better in Obama’s first 2 years than in any other President’s entire first term. That matters. Birthers don’t.

    Such comments are totally lost on birthers for whom portfolio means “a case for carrying loose papers.”

  70. avatar
    Majority Will February 12, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    E. Glenn harcsar:
    Hi majority will, hi scientist thanks for responding.

    First off mr will, fart jokes!? Really.I get the joke, but I read here regularly and I know you can do better, at least in honor of our dear host.

    After posting this am I spent the hour on a treadmill at the y considering my own question.I recalled an early 90′s conversation with housemates just return from a Fulbright assignment in Estonia.There their students wondered why we risked south Florida with an influx of Carib and Cuba for risk that native national identity would eventually claim soil.My friends found theirmission to explain our county as an idea.We are ready to remove, and probably sooner than 222 years, this check againstthe influence of a foreign prince.
    Think about it mr Obama is a perfect example on one side, and our dear south Floridian mr Rubio, Or indeed mr Jindal on the other.

    But 222 is not a good time is it. Yikes. My battery dying on this machine. I’ll share what endorphins produce soon. Sorry and good night

    Your post is incoherent. I’m not here to please our host. Yikes, indeed.

  71. avatar
    Sean February 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm #

    Sef: Such comments are totally lost on birthers for whom portfolio means “a case for carrying loose papers.”

    A birther investment portfolio is a Peachee full of lottery tickets. (I wrote that.)

  72. avatar
    ellid February 12, 2011 at 10:27 pm #

    e.vattel:
    Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens after the ratification of the Constitution.

    Their natural and inherent right is the eligibility for President. It is one of the foundations of government the Founders and original citizens passed to their posterity.

    Obama is not a part of this posterity…he is not a natural born citizen.

    When he was born..the subject to jurisdiction did not comply. His father was not a permanent resident.

    Guess what? I’m a natural born citizen since I a direct descendant of a pre-1776 American citizen. And I think you and your little birther buddies are malicious little racist provocateurs who don’t deserve to be in MY country.

  73. avatar
    Suilbup February 12, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    This is all academic.

    Not only is Barack Obama illegitimate, so is the Constitution of the United States and all presidents who have been elected under it.

    The legitimate government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation was illegally overthrown by a bunch of white elitist liberals on March 4, 1789.

    The Articles clearly stated that “the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

    However the Constitution which came out of the convention stated that it would be ratified not by the legislatures of every state as required by the Articles of Confederation, but of the conventions of only nine states.

    You cannot legitimately alter or abolish the supreme law of the land which requires the approval of the legislatures of all of the states by the conventions of only nine states.

    While some may argue that all of the states eventually ratified the Constitution, this did not happen until May 29, 1790, over a year after the illegitimate government seized control.

    And Rhode Island’s ratification was not legitimate as it was done under duress, after the illegal Congress threatened her with economic destruction (a bill was passed in Congress which would have prohibited all trade with Rhode Island).

    So don’t waste your time with all this Birther stuff.

    IT’S TIME TO REALLY TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!

    Suilbup

  74. avatar
    Sef February 12, 2011 at 11:10 pm #

    ellid: Guess what?I’m a natural born citizen since I a direct descendant of a pre-1776 American citizen.And I think you and your little birther buddies are malicious little racist provocateurs who don’t deserve to be in MY country.

    As am I. So FOAD e vattel.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2011 at 11:21 pm #

    e.vattel:

    WKA was affirmed a citizen..not a natural born citizen.

    Seems the posters on this site have not learned the meaning of Natural and Kind.

    Too complicated. Ben Franklin wrote about Natural and Kind

    I have very little tolerance for white trash.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2011 at 11:27 pm #

    Suilbup: This is all academic.

    Hey, haven’t seen you here in ages.

    It may be academic, but we find it fun playing Whack-a-Mole with the birthers.

    IT’S TIME TO REALLY TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!

    So exactly how do you do that without really making a mess of the whole world? Have you forgotten the saying “not worth a Continental?

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    E. Glenn harcsar: First off mr will, fart jokes!? Really. I get the joke, but I read here regularly and I know you can do better, at least in honor of our dear host.

    I come from a very flatulent family.

    By the way, check out this for all you ever wanted to know about farts:

    http://fart.com/question.html

  78. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 13, 2011 at 2:20 am #

    e.vattel:
    “Their son stayed in America as a natural born citizen of the United States.”

    WKA was affirmed a citizen..not a natural born citizen.

    Seems the posters on this site have not learned the meaning of Natural and Kind.

    Too complicated. Ben Franklin wrote about Natural and Kind

    Wrong again. You obviously didn’t read the case that Wong Kim Ark was based on and why it was appealed to the Supreme Court. The lower court decided Wong Kim Ark was natural born according to the law. The Supreme Court only affirmed the lower court’s decision.

  79. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2011 at 4:37 am #

    Suilbup: Not only is Barack Obama illegitimate, so is the Constitution of the United States and all presidents who have been elected under it.

    I agree. All the land on which the so-called United States squats was illegally stolen from its rightful owners in various acts of genocidal terrorism. The only legitimate presidents are the chiefs of native tribal councils.

    Suilbup: IT’S TIME TO REALLY TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!

    Which tribe do you belong to?

  80. avatar
    misha February 13, 2011 at 7:23 am #

    Scientist: Which tribe do you belong to?

    Dan and Judah:
    http://lamissuesforum.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/12-tribes-silouette1.jpg

  81. avatar
    e.vattel February 13, 2011 at 8:26 am #

    In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, a child, born here of domiciled Chinese parents, was held a citizen.

    Obama’s father was never domiciled. He was a transient student. He never filed paperwork to be become domiciled.

  82. avatar
    E. Glenn harcsar February 13, 2011 at 9:49 am #

    As I was saying in a thought balloon–this evolutionary appendix of our Constitution has got to go. Like an extra vertebra below the pelvis, it’s an unwelcome reminder that we were not always exactly as we are; a guard against an infection we no longer fear. It’s very definition obscure by language, history, and case law; it’s purpose suspect with religious fervor, diseased with social ills, and brutal in political force demanding blood and dirt. It can flame, it can burst, it can kill. It must be excised.

    Dr c, your theme in this blog is to point out that inept state legislators are like untrained surgeons using tools and remedies that will not only kill their patient, but lose their license to ever again practice “birtherism” that is, as I am often reminded here , a looney wing nut racist backward fringe set on disrupting the political aspirations and success of a man, nay, a people of all kinds heretofore betrodden whose time, whose ideas, and whose political will has arrived.

    As this thought balloon continues An amendment striking the natural born clause proposes a rational, mainstream,progressive set on welcoming the aspirations and success of all. I ve written as much before although in chalk on the wall in a t graphic organizer in front of 7th graders who are asked in a lesson out o their school textbook, to weigh the need for a check upon the influence of a foreign prince against the possibility of Arnold gov thou never president schwartzenegger. This same textbook urged the students to urge their parents to not waste electricity in order to save those cute big eyed green tree frogs in the rainforest. I’d do it just to save money, but selfish me I digress and recognize the wind behind the point of this thought breaking left. (winkie wink mr will)

    But now it not a good time for such a surgery for it would leave a permanent asterisk on our constitution and a scar on one– one of five some will say for the son of man and a woman with no greater and worthy a title here on earth than citizen of the world, (drifting drifting ).

    Just let political will run with a high tolerance for pain until it flames, and bursts like this balloon.

    I know dear c you do not share my fears, but I hope you’ll share my prayers for God’s grace and God’s will to be done

  83. avatar
    Sef February 13, 2011 at 9:58 am #

    E. Glenn harcsar: As I was saying in a thought balloon–this evolutionary appendix of our Constitution has got to go.

    If there were a problem that needed to be solved, then I would agree. But there is no problem. There are plenty of natural born citizens who are eligible for the Presidency. Never in our history has a person become President who has not met all requirements. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

  84. avatar
    BatGuano February 13, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    Sef: There are plenty of natural born citizens who are eligible for the Presidency.

    agreed…… i also think there are a ton of immigrants in this country that could do one hell of a job as the chief executive. i think the NBC clause needs to be retired ( just prob not a good idea during obama’s first term ).

  85. avatar
    Sef February 13, 2011 at 11:01 am #

    BatGuano: agreed…… i also think there are a ton of immigrants in this country that could do one hell of a job as the chief executive. i think the NBC clause needs to be retired ( just prob not a good idea during obama’s first term ).

    If you’re hellbent on fixing something that really is broken get rid of that dumb 2nd Amendment. Or at least define it to mean what the founders really meant.

  86. avatar
    Bovril February 13, 2011 at 11:11 am #

    Sef,

    The problem with deciding that you don;t like one of the fundamentals in the BoR and it should go is it sets the stage for “Well, what about that stupid self incriminatory one, think how many crooks have gotten off…”

    Or “Privacy, pah, get rid of that damn Roe v Wade”

    Be careful what you wish for

  87. avatar
    Sef February 13, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    Bovril:
    Sef,

    The problem with deciding that yiu don;t like one of the fundamnetals in the BoR and it should go is it sets the stage for “Well, what about that stupid self incrimantory one, think how many crooks have gotten off…”

    Or “Privacy, pah, get rid of that damn Roe v Wade”

    Be carefule wahat you wish for

    Prediction: At some time in the future the Heller decision will be viewed similarly to Dred Scott.

  88. avatar
    Bovril February 13, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    God, my spelling was bad in that one………

  89. avatar
    Bovril February 13, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    Unlikely in the near to medium future as the 2nd has only just been incorporated.

    Additionally Dred Scott was an inherently racist decision that actively discriminated against an entire class of peoples.

    If you want to go down that route, bear in mind that firearms laws restricting the right to carry and bear arms were only initially implemented to disarm the black populace and other “undesirable elements, see Jim Crow and Sullivan laws passim.

    As I’ve stated to Birthers before, the Constitution isn’t a pick n mix, you get the whole package and if there isn’t a bit you like for personal reasons tough titty. You have recourse to the whole panoply of legal and legislative remedies, agitate for a repeal via Constitutional Amendment

    If not, you end up with EXACTLY the same situation we have with Birther bills in various state assemblies now attempting to deprive classes of people of their inherent, Constitutional rights by bigots and feckwits

  90. avatar
    Bovril February 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm #

    Sorry Sef,

    Realised my last papragraph might have implied you’re a feckwit…8-(

    The only ones I bucket there are the Birthers….

  91. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    Sef: But there is no problem. There are plenty of natural born citizens who are eligible for the Presidency

    Sef-With all due respect, that is a foolish argument. There are plenty of men who are eligible, so why allow women? There are plenty of whites who are eligible, so why allow blacks?

    The point is there is no valid reason not to allow naturalized citizens to run. It’s a matter of simple equity and justice. All citizens should be equal. Full stop.

  92. avatar
    Suilbup February 13, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Hey, haven’t seen you here in ages.

    Aw man, you peeked! No fair!

    It may be academic, but we find it fun playing Whack-a-Mole with the birthers.

    Oh I know. Whacked a few myself back in the day. But after the Kenyan birth certificate punking, I decided to hang up my mallet.

    So exactly how do you do that without really making a mess of the whole world? Have you forgotten the saying “not worth a Continental?

    I can dream, can’t I? 😉

    Actually I’d recently stumbled on this seemingly little known bit of history and found it rather fascinating.

    Suilbup

  93. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2011 at 1:58 pm #

    e.vattel: In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, a child, born here of domiciled Chinese parents, was held a citizen.

    Obama’s father was never domiciled. He was a transient student. He never filed paperwork to be become domiciled.

    Domicile is not a matter of paperwork; it is a matter of intent. I think it fair to conclude that
    Barack Obama Sr. was not domiciled in the United States since he returned to Kenya and made his home there, but it was tied to his legal status in the United States.

    While the narrow question answered by the Supreme Court in Wong dealt with a domiciled person, competent readers including the State Department (for 100 years) and the Indiana Court of Appeals (in Ankeny v Daniels) read the Wong decision and look at the chain of reasoning that leads to that decision and see that the authorities and precedents cited do not require domicile. Indeed, Wong being Chinese has more to do with the decision than the status of his parents.

    This is why Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United States (it says so on his passport) as well as everyone like him. Your crank opinion amounts to nothing compared to 100 years of legal precedent and practice.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    Suilbup: Aw man, you peeked! No fair!

    Sorry. The admin interface I use to read comments includes the email address, and yours is rather distinctive and just jumped out.

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

    Bovril: God, my spelling was bad in that one………

    FIFY

  96. avatar
    Rickey February 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Sef: If you’re hellbent on fixing something that really is broken get rid of that dumb 2nd Amendment. Or at least define it to mean what the founders really meant.

    I fully support the right of law-abiding citizens to own single-shot muskets. As many as they please, for that matter.

  97. avatar
    gorefan February 13, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    e.vattel: In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, a child, born here of domiciled Chinese parents, was held a citizen.

    Hello Mr Vattel, I have some questions for you. From your earlier post you seem to be under the impression that there was a difference between “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject”, so can you explain the following:

    In the Vermont Constitution of 1777,

    “SECTION XXXVIII. Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer, land or other real estate; and after one years residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and intitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative, until after two years residence.

    When they revised the constitution in 1786, they wrote,

    “XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence.”

    They changed “foreigner” to “person”, they changed the elective offices that a foreigner could hold but they didn’t change “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen”. And when they revised the constitution again in 1793, they still didn’t change “subject” to “citizen”.

    Why didn’t they change it? is it possible that you are more concerned with the difference between “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen”, than the founders were? Or did Vermont just not get the memo?

  98. avatar
    Keith February 13, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    Bovril: Unlikely in the near to medium future as the 2nd has only just been incorporated.

    What does that mean?

    Also:

    2nd Amendment:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Article I Section 8 Clause 16

    The Congress shall have power…
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Heller is WRONG and will be overturned in the future. It is not as bad a decision as Dred Scott, but it is in the same neighborhood.

    Remember the story of the shootout at the OK Corral in Tombstone? The specific dispute was the Tombstone city ordinance that forbade weapons within the city limits. The lawman seeking to enforce that ordinance was U.S. Marshall Wyatt Earp (and yes the dispute was complicated by the bad blood between the Earps and the Clantons).

    There are two points here: one, that the Wild West was not as ‘wild’ as legend would have it, guns were nowhere near ‘free’ as the NRA would have you believe; and two, Tombstone was in Arizona Territory, not yet a state, and the legal equivalent of the ‘federal enclave’ described in Heller.

    People in Tombstone, Dodge City, Deadwood, or any of the other ‘Wild West’ towns would have considered someone absolutely insane were they to suggest that open carry of guns could not be restricted because such a restriction was unconstitutional.

  99. avatar
    e.vattel February 13, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    “This is why Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United States”

    A citizen cannot be President. WKA was never affirmed a natural born citizen.

    The Supreme Court in 2003 stated. “The Law of Nations has been a part this country’s law for 200 years.”

    Chapter XIX Law of Nations: A natural born citizen is born to citizen parents. A country should desire this. A nation cannot perpetuate itself unless its citizens are born from citizens.

    Jefferson: ” They will come here and bring their failed ideas, distort our laws and make a mess of what we built.”.

    A poster on FR is claiming the alleged 1787 Edition of the Law of Nations on this site is not the 1787. Since you have no proof to back up your claims..how can you state it is the 1787 New York edition. He said the type setting is wrong.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2670001/posts?page=128#128

    “I am fairly certain old English Latin Alphabet variants of typesets were dropped shortly after the Revolutionary War in the United States. As such, no Vattel translations printed in the United States should have the old English Latin Alphabet typeset shown in the example you provided”.

    “England and Europe were still using this typeset and alphabet well into the early 19th century.”

  100. avatar
    Sef February 13, 2011 at 6:22 pm #

    Bovril:
    Unlikely in the near to medium future as the 2nd has only just been incorporated.

    Additionally Dred Scott was an inherently racist decision that actively discriminated against an entire class of peoples.

    If you want to go down that route, bear in mind that firearms laws restricting the right to carry and bear arms were only initially implemented to disarm the black populace and other “undesirable elements, see Jim Crow and Sullivan laws passim.

    As I’ve stated to Birthers before, the Constitution isn’t a pick n mix, you get the whole package and if there isn’t a bit you like for personal reasons tough titty. You have recourse to the whole panoply of legal and legislative remedies, agitate for a repeal via Constitutional Amendment

    If not, you end up with EXACTLY the same situation we have with Birther bills in various state assemblies now attempting to deprive classes of people of their inherent, Constitutional rights by bigots and feckwits

    Take a look at today’s Doonesbury strip.

  101. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2011 at 7:21 pm #

    e.vattel: A citizen cannot be President.

    I guess that will come as a surprise to the 43 who have served in the job so far.

    e.vattel: The Supreme Court in 2003 stated. “The Law of Nations has been a part this country’s law for 200 years.”

    2003-200 =1803. That was 15 years after the Constitution was ratified.

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    e.vattel:
    “This is why Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United States”

    A citizen cannot be President. WKA was never affirmed a natural born citizen.

    The Supreme Court in 2003 stated. “The Law of Nations has been a part this country’s law for 200 years.”

    Chapter XIX Law of Nations: A natural born citizen is born to citizen parents. A country should desire this. A nation cannot perpetuate itself unless its citizens are born from citizens.

    Jefferson: ” They will come here and bring their failed ideas, distort our laws and make a mess of what we built.”.

    A poster on FR is claiming the alleged 1787 Edition of the Law of Nations on this site is not the 1787. Since you have no proof to back up your claims..how can you state it is the 1787 New York edition. He said the type setting is wrong.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2670001/posts?page=128#128

    “I am fairly certain old English Latin Alphabet variants of typesets were dropped shortly after the Revolutionary War in the United States. As such, no Vattel translations printed in the United States should have the old English Latin Alphabet typeset shown in the example you provided”.

    “England and Europe were still using this typeset and alphabet well into the early 19th century.”

    Since Mr. Greschak was one that believed that natural born citizens require citizen parents, he hardly had any motive to provide a false text that weakened his argument. “Fairly certain” from a birther, in my long experience, means “this is what I would like it to be.” The Free Republic is where you copied that BS about a certain Supreme Court justice saying “the Law of Nations is divine,” which proved to be a fraud (it was in lower case and didn’t refer to Vattel’s book).

    Further, another commenter here verified the edition at the Library of Congress. So I am not concerned about an error this point.

    Is your 2003 quote about International Law and not Vattel’s book? I didn’t fall for that trick the first time you tried it.

    You have no credibility at all on this forum, so don’t bother posting here again unless you provide full citations for every quote and authorities to back anythings else up. (Free Republic is not an authority.) Otherwise, your comment will be summarily trashed.

  103. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2011 at 7:27 pm #

    Keith: People in Tombstone, Dodge City, Deadwood, or any of the other ‘Wild West’ towns would have considered someone absolutely insane were they to suggest that open carry of guns could not be restricted because such a restriction was unconstitutional.

    Let’s pose a question: Are private citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons? I think even the NRA would say no. So we can all acknowledge that the right to possess weapons is not 100% unrestricted. Somewhere between no one can ever own a gun and everyone can have nukes is a happy medium where reasonable gun laws are constitutionally acceptable. Where that line is drawn is open to some interpretation, but saying all gun laws are unconstitutional leads to absurd results.

  104. avatar
    gorefan February 13, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    e.vattel: “England and Europe were still using this typeset and alphabet well into the early 19th century.”

    And the founders were still using the term “natural born subject” almost 20 years after July 4th, 1776.

    Blackstone, “THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such”

    Zephaniah Swift. “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considerded as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

    Swift wrote that in 1795 and he was referring to the State of Connecticut. Swift became a member of the Connecticut Supreme Court and eventually the the Chief Justice of the court.

  105. avatar
    Rickey February 13, 2011 at 8:34 pm #

    e.vattel:
    WKA was never affirmed a natural born citizen.

    Yes, he was. The District Court ruled that he was a natural-born citizen. The government, in its Supreme Court brief, acknowledged that if the District Court decision was upheld, it meant that Wong Kim Ark was eligible to be President. The District Court decision was upheld, without exception. That means that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen.

    The Supreme Court in 2003 stated. “The Law of Nations has been a part this country’s law for 200 years.”

    Really? Please cite the Supreme Court ruling in which that quote can be found. I Googled that sentence, and the only place the quote appears is in posts on Free Republic.

  106. avatar
    Northland10 February 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    Rickey quoting semi-banned e. vattel: The Supreme Court in 2003 stated. “The Law of Nations has been a part this country’s law for 200 years.”

    Rickey: Really? Please cite the Supreme Court ruling in which that quote can be found. I Googled that sentence, and the only place the quote appears is in posts on Free Republic.

    They are probably referring to Sosa V. Avarez-Machain (03-339). Of course, though Souter does quote Vattel a few times (and Blackstone, many more times), it had only to do with the concept of the law of nations:

    In the years of the early Republic, this law of nations comprised two principal elements, the first covering the general norms governing the behavior of national states with each other: “the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights,” E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Preliminaries §3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883) (hereinafter Vattel) (footnote omitted), or “that code of public instruction which defines the rights and prescribes the duties of nations, in their intercourse with each other,” 1 James Kent Commentaries *1. This aspect of the law of nations thus occupied the executive and legislative domains, not the judicial. See 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 68 (1769) (hereinafter Commentaries) (“[O]ffenses against” the law of nations are “principally incident to whole states or nations”).

    Opinion of the court delivered by Justice Souter

    Scalia in his concurrence, while taking issue with some of the opinion of the court, mentions how the Founders received the law of nations as general common law.

    Though it is not necessary to resolution of the present case, one further consideration deserves mention: Despite the avulsive change of Erie, the Framers who included reference to “the Law of Nations” in Article I, §8, cl. 10, of the Constitution would be entirely content with the post-Erie system I have described, and quite terrified by the “discretion” endorsed by the Court. That portion of the general common law known as the law of nations was understood to refer to the accepted practices of nations in their dealings with one another (treatment of ambassadors, immunity of foreign sovereigns from suit, etc.) and with actors on the high seas hostile to all nations and beyond all their territorial jurisdictions (pirates).

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-339.ZS.html

  107. avatar
    bovril February 13, 2011 at 9:02 pm #

    Keith

    I would recommend before pontificating about Constitutional Amendments and your personal beliefs about Supreme Court rulings that you acquaint yourself with both.

    You are also using the exact same style of irrelevant and inflated arguments as those who say that there are “14th Amendment citizens” who aren’t permitted to be president.

    You don’t like it, good for you, alas as we all tell Birthers every day you’re opinion doesn’t get to override other peoples constitutional rights.

  108. avatar
    gorefan February 13, 2011 at 9:42 pm #

    e.vattel: Jefferson: ” They will come here and bring their failed ideas, distort our laws and make a mess of what we built.”.

    Could you link this quote?

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2011 at 10:06 pm #

    gorefan: e.vattel: Jefferson: ” They will come here and bring their failed ideas, distort our laws and make a mess of what we built.”.

    Could you link this quote?

    The quote seems a rather obvious fake, like the rest of E. Vattel’s assertions.

    I did a little digging in the archives, and I see that E.Vattel is none other than the banned troll Dancing Rabbit and the equally offensive DraggingCanoe.

    We won’t be hearing from him again.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) February 13, 2011 at 10:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The quote seems a rather obvious fake, like the rest of E. Vattel’s assertions.

    I did a little digging in the archives, and I see that E.Vattel is none other than the banned troll Dancing Rabbit and the equally offensive DraggingCanoe.

    We won’t be hearing from him again.

    I can hardly claim that this comes as a shock. Considering the continued quoting of Freerepublic by both “dancing rabbit” and “draggingcanoe” At least now I know who it is when I see that “E. Vattel” name on other sites.

  111. avatar
    gorefan February 13, 2011 at 10:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: E.Vattel is none other than the banned troll Dancing Rabbit and the equally offensive DraggingCanoe.

    That explains his misquotes, out right lies and refusal to answer simple questions.

  112. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2011 at 2:03 am #

    bovril:
    Keith

    I would recommend before pontificating about Constitutional Amendments and your personal beliefs about Supreme Court rulings that you acquaint yourself with both.

    You are also using the exact same style of irrelevant and inflated arguments as those who say that there are “14th Amendment citizens” who aren’t permitted to be president.

    You don’t like it, good for you, alas as we all tell Birthers every day you’re opinion doesn’t get to override other peoples constitutional rights.

    I am quite acquainted with both, thank you very much. And I am familiar with the currently accepted view that it is only the last phrase of the 2nd Amendment that has any relevance.

    However, it is my prediction that one day soon, people will notice that there is exactly one amendment that includes a description of its rationale and points back to the clause in the main part of the Constitution that it specifically amends.

    The original Constitution gave Congress the theoretical right to disarm the militia, so the 2nd amendment fixed that loophole. It did not remove the duty of Congress to regulate the militia, and it did not remove the responsibility of the States to appoint militia officers and to train the militia. So all those private militia’s running around are really pirate militias, and drug dealers and pimps with semi-automatics running around New York, Miami, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, and yes, Washington D.C. are not militias, period.

    I understand that the current view is to ignore this, and as far as I can tell this is especially true of the loudmouths that are trying to ‘restore the original intent of the Constitution’.

    Before you criticize my opinion, perhaps you should give thoughtful consideration to your own.

  113. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2011 at 6:45 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The quote seems a rather obvious fake, like the rest of E. Vattel’s assertions.

    To be fair, Doc, he never said it was THOMAS Jefferson. Those who remember their 70s TV might guess it was George Jefferson, Archie Bunker’s equally rascist (in the opposite direction) neighbor.

  114. avatar
    The Magic M February 14, 2011 at 7:22 am #

    > Really? Please cite the Supreme Court ruling in which that quote can be found. I Googled that sentence, and the only place the quote appears is in posts on Free Republic.

    Sounds like a typical crank paraphrase quote to me. You know, like “Supreme Court declares Constitution void” (by a guy over at EU times whose cert in a tiny matter was denied) or, my favourite, “Judge says: A black car is not a cow and not a vehicle” (by a crank who misinterpreted a judgement on a car crash, then compared it to two allegedly similar crashes involving a cow and another car, respectively).
    Cranks are experts in such “paraphrased quotes”.

  115. avatar
    Welsh Dragon February 14, 2011 at 8:26 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The quote seems a rather obvious fake, like the rest of E. Vattel’s assertions

    Very obvious – that usage of “mess” didn’t appear until several years after Jefferson’s death!

  116. avatar
    Black Lion February 14, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Boehner says facts show Obama a Christian, citizen

    WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner says Americans have a right to think what they want to think, even when they’re wrong about President Barack Obama’s citizenship and his religion.

    Some people believe that Obama, a native of Hawaii, was actually born outside the U.S. or in some other way is not a natural-born citizen eligible to be president. There is also a persistent belief among some that Obama, a Christian, is actually a Muslim.

    When the host of NBC’s “Meet the Press” asked Boehner whether he, as speaker of the House, had a responsibility to “stand up to that kind of ignorance,” Boehner told David Gregory: “It’s not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people.”

    Boehner continued: “Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me. The president says he’s a Christian. I accept him at his word.” He later called those “the facts” of Obama’s background.

    Gregory asked, “But that kind of ignorance, about whether he’s a Muslim, doesn’t concern you?”

    “The American people have the right to think what they want to think,” Boehner replied. “I can’t — it’s not my job to tell them.”

    Boehner denied that he is willing to let those misperceptions remain because they weaken and delegitimize Obama.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110213/ap_on_re_us/us_boehner_obama

  117. avatar
    misha February 14, 2011 at 3:35 pm #

    Black Lion: House Speaker John Boehner says Americans have a right to think what they want to think, even when they’re wrong about President Barack Obama’s citizenship and his religion.

    United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:
    “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”

    Conservatives love the 2nd Amendment, and hate everything else. See conservatives’ war on the 14th, and on contraception.

    Ann Coulter said she thinks there should be more journalists put in jail, during her appearance at the annual CPAC conference on Saturday:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/13/ann-coulter-more-jailed-journalists_n_822533.html

  118. avatar
    misha February 14, 2011 at 3:39 pm #

    misha: Ann Coulter said she thinks there should be more journalists put in jail

    I also should add Coulter is an anti-semite. She loves Israel, but hate Judaism and Jewish culture. She also hates Arabs. A classic anti-semite.

  119. avatar
    Scientist February 14, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    Black Lion: “The American people have the right to think what they want to think,” Boehner replied. “I can’t — it’s not my job to tell them.”

    Of course anyone is free to think what they want to think, but leaders are supposed to, well, lead.

  120. avatar
    HORUS February 15, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    They can pass all the State requirements they want and NOT ONE will ever be enforceable!
    The ONLY requirements that must be met by Presidential Candidates is Federal Requirements.
    State Laws don’t mean squat!

  121. avatar
    Suilbup February 15, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    HORUS:
    They can pass all the State requirements they want and NOT ONE will ever be enforceable!
    The ONLY requirements that must be met by Presidential Candidates is Federal Requirements.
    State Laws don’t mean squat!

    Of course they do.

    Read your Constitution.

    The state elections aren’t for electing presidents, they’re for appointing electors, which the Constitution says may be done however the state legislature chooses. Therefore the state legislature may place whatever qualifications they wish as to who may be placed on their state ballots.

    The only federal restriction is that “no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

    Suilbup

  122. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    Suilbup: The state elections aren’t for electing presidents, they’re for appointing electors, which the Constitution says may be done however the state legislature chooses. Therefore the state legislature may place whatever qualifications they wish as to who may be placed on their state ballots.

    So is it your contention that a state could refuse to put a black person or a woman on the ballot?

  123. avatar
    Bovril February 15, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    Sorry Suilbup,

    Not really close at all I’m afraid.

    The state can apply it’s own METHODS to provide the necessary electors they CANNOT however apply, for Federal offices (such as the Presidency), any restrictions other than those that are provided for at the Federal/Constitutional level.

    If they want to apply more rigorous filters at the STATE level for STATE positions they can try (although they had better expect to get sued if they are blatant attempts to deny individuals or groups their place on the ballot).

    Jim Crow anyone….?

  124. avatar
    Sef February 15, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    Bovril:
    Sorry Suilbup,

    Not really close at all I’m afraid.

    The state can apply it’s own METHODS to provide the necessary electors they CANNOT however apply, for Federal offices (such as the Presidency), any restrictions other than those that are provided for at the Federal/Constitutional level.

    If they want to apply more rigorous filters at the STATE level for STATE positions they can try (although they had better expect to get sued if they are blatant attempts to deny individuals or groups their place on the ballot).

    Jim Crow anyone….?

    Are the real attorneys who frequent this site as dismayed as I am at the poor state of legal education that the birther attorneys have displayed? I would like to see a requirement for periodic refresher courses and periodic bar exams. Maybe that would cut down on some of the silliness in our courts. Why should teachers be required to periodically prove their worth & lawyers get off scott free?

  125. avatar
    JoZeppy February 15, 2011 at 12:58 pm #

    Sef: Are the real attorneys who frequent this site as dismayed as I am at the poor state of legal education that the birther attorneys have displayed? I would like to see a requirement for periodic refresher courses and periodic bar exams. Maybe that would cut down on some of the silliness in our courts. Why should teachers be required to periodically prove their worth & lawyers get off scott free?

    I think the real issue is that with the except of the three stooges of Orly, Mario, and Donoforio, there are no birther attorneys. The problems is that far too many nuts think all it takes to be an attorney is a couple of google searches, and BAM! They’re qualified to make statements on the what the current state of law is. This phenomenom is nothing new. Just look at all the “sovereign citizen” and tax protestor junk law arguments circulating around the internets. If it was that easy, why would I spend three years and over $100k for law school?

    Oh, and many states do require continuing legal education (not that it matters, but I thought I’d mention it).

  126. avatar
    JD Reed February 15, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    Right on, Bovril, Suilbup, the states can apply the restrictions found in several “birther” bills ONLY if the Vatellist/no-dual-citizenship-at-birth theories are upheld by the Supreme Court as valid. If not, then someone born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents and dual citizenship is as much a natural born citizen as someone with 100 percent Mayflower ancestry. So to keep a natural born citizen with non-citizen parents or dual citizenship off the presidential ballot, while listing any applicant with two citizen parents and only U.S. citizenship, would be invidious discrimination. It’ll never fly. If a state were to merely specify a certified copy of a presidential candidate’s birth certificate, that might well pass muster. And then when and if — I’m thinking when — Hawaii presents a copy of the same COLB that Obama displayed in 2008, it’s game over.

  127. avatar
    Stanislaw February 15, 2011 at 1:54 pm #

    Sef: Are the real attorneys who frequent this site as dismayed as I am at the poor state of legal education that the birther attorneys have displayed? I would like to see a requirement for periodic refresher courses and periodic bar exams.Maybe that would cut down on some of the silliness in our courts. Why should teachers be required to periodically prove their worth & lawyers get off scott free?

    The short answer is “yes.” However, most states require that lawyers take a certain number of continuing legal education (CLE) hours in order to remain in good standing with their states’ respective bar associations. As for whether certain attorneys put those lessons to use in practice, well that’s another story. On the other hand, when it comes to birthers the problem isn’t that they are uneducated the problem is that the extreme majority of them are willfully ignorant liars.

  128. avatar
    Suilbup February 15, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

    Scientist: So is it your contention that a state could refuse to put a black person or a woman on the ballot?

    That’s a bit of a tricky one.

    I would say that at some level that would violate the equal protection clause.

    I say it’s tricky because the state ballots are something of a mindfuck. I say that because while you may see the names of presidential candidates on the ballot, you’re not actually casting a vote for president. We don’t directly elect the president. Instead what you’re doing is casting a vote for electors who will have pledged their electoral vote for that particular candidate.

    But even that isn’t always true as some states proportion their electors while others are winner take all where all electoral votes are expected to go to whomever received the most votes in the election.

    Ultimately though, I think one could argue that excluding a candidate’s name from the ballot on the basis of race or gender would be a violation of the equal protection clause.

    Suilbup

  129. avatar
    misha February 15, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    Suilbup: That’s a bit of a tricky one.
    I would say that at some level that would violate the equal protection clause.

    Oh yeah? What about a ballot with a candidate from Mars? It actually happened. See for yourself: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5171HH2ASJL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

  130. avatar
    Greg February 15, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

    Suilbup: The state elections aren’t for electing presidents, they’re for appointing electors, which the Constitution says may be done however the state legislature chooses. Therefore the state legislature may place whatever qualifications they wish as to who may be placed on their state ballots.

    If this had never been litigated before, you might have a point. However, the Supreme Court has said that State discretion isn’t limitless. Congress, for example, can police fraud in the selection of electors, Burroughs and Cannon v. United States, 290 U.S. 534 (1934). In Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) the Court struck down a State’s limiting the electors to the two major parties. Here’s what the Court said:

    “There, of course, can be no question but that this section does grant extensive power to the States to pass laws regulating the selection of electors. But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution. . . . [It cannot be] thought that the power to select electors could be exercised in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands that specifically bar States from passing certain kinds of laws. [citing the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty–fourth Amendments]. . . . Obviously we must reject the notion that Art. II, Sec. 1, gives the States power to impose burdens on the right to vote, where such burdens are expressly prohibited in other constitutional provisions.”

    In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) it was established that not even Congress can add to the qualifications listed in the Constitution (here the qualifications for Congress). I think it highly likely that the Court would find that adding requirements to the Presidential qualifications is expressly forbidden in the same way that adding requirements to Congressional qualifications.

  131. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2011 at 6:19 pm #

    Suilbup: Ultimately though, I think one could argue that excluding a candidate’s name from the ballot on the basis of race or gender would be a violation of the equal protection clause.

    So would excluding a candidate based on his parents citizenship or whether he was born in a hospital or has lost the birth certificate his parents got when he was a child. Especially when the timing of such laws is suspicious to say the least.