Main Menu

Trump’s birth certificate – VOID!

Donald Trump has been going wild questioning President Obama’s birth certificate, but Trump has inadvertently raised a new question about his own birth certificate.

Obama Conspiracy Theories expert Polarikist has been examining of the Trump certificates and discovered that Trump’s certificate has been VOIDED. By adjusting light levels, we have determined that the Trump certificate is marked VOID.

 

There is really nothing odd here. The “VOID” image is just there to prevent photocopying the certificate. However, I still fail to see a raised seal anywhere.

179 Responses to Trump’s birth certificate – VOID!

  1. avatar
    Dave March 30, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    Maybe I’m just stating the obvious, but a scanner doesn’t show raised seals very well. The factcheck.org article showed the raised seal on the President’s BC by sidelighting it and taking a picture — I think that’s the only way to make it clearly show up.

  2. avatar
    Suranis March 30, 2011 at 12:16 pm #

    Of course that’s true Dave, but you have to remember that President Obama originally released his BC to quashproto-birther rumours that his real middle name was Muhummed, not to prove his eligibility. So they just put it into a scanner and scanned it. But you can see the faint outline of the raised seal in any case.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 30, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

    Suranis: Of course that’s true Dave, but you have to remember that President Obama originally released his BC to quashproto-birther rumours that his real middle name was Muhummed, not to prove his eligibility. So they just put it into a scanner and scanned it. But you can see the faint outline of the raised seal in any case.

    I used the same techniques on the Trump certificates that I used on the Obama COLB. In Obama’s case traces of the seal were visible, but not on Trump’s. Further, the security paper used on the Obama certificate makes it more difficult to bring out the seal. My best guess is that the gold seal glued on Trumps hospital souvenir is embossed, the negative-image certificate is not sealed, and the abstract certificate is sealed, but the scan is too poor to reveal it.

  4. avatar
    Scientist March 30, 2011 at 1:48 pm #

    Suranis: Of course that’s true Dave, but you have to remember that President Obama originally released his BC to quashproto-birther rumours that his real middle name was Muhummed, not to prove his eligibility.

    I never quite understood that. Both Hussein and Muhammed are Arab/Islamic names. It’s hard to envision a voter who would refuse to vote for a guy named Muhammed but would be fine with a guy named Hussein.

    I’ll also point out that the release of the b.c. had absolutely no effect on Obama’s poll ratings, either positively or negatively. That kind of goes against the birther meme that this is such a pivotal issue. In fact, few people care. Trump’s ludicrous ravings are going to fail, not just because they are false (though they are), but because voters don’t choose between pieces of paper, but between narratives.

  5. avatar
    Dave March 30, 2011 at 2:09 pm #

    My initial reaction to this image was, NYC sure uses crappy security paper if it takes this kind of image analysis to turn up a hint of the “VOID”.
    But on second thought, Trump probably had someone work on the scan to make the VOID hard to see, since it would’ve been problematical for his narrative.
    Perhaps that same playing around made the raised seal also harder to see.

  6. avatar
    Montana March 30, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    Let me just say that Trump may just be “rattling the Birthers cages”, he can run or he may have grown accustomed to media attention this non-issue would create.

    Our current President travelled under a USA passport long before he was elected President, but I guess the quacky BIRTHERS, must believe that the USCIS – United States Passport was in on the lie, please, grow up, you are wrong!

    The Birthers just HATE and can’t debate!
    Have any of the quacky BIRTHERS presented any credible proof that will standup in court? Answer: No
    Have any of the quacky BIRTHERS won any Court Cases? Answer: No
    They are just mainly backward, uneducated, white people who HATE our half black President.

    The majority of the voting public ask “where the proof”, show some proof BIRTHERS or the voting majority will continue to see you as dumb, stupid or racist, maybe all three. Can you blame them?

    Still, I really hope one of these retreads and blowhards runs for president, not because they have a chance of winning but because I like to see the train wreck that they will cause.

    Faux News Candidates:
    former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin ”The I graduated Early”,
    former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. “The I Love The Interns”,
    former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee “The Huckster Reverend”,
    former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. “The I Love the Gays”,
    former UN Ambassador John Bolton “The I Love The War ”

    I Finance Myself:
    real estate celebrity developer, Donald Trump, “I took my Casino into Bankruptcy, just imagine where I can Take the US”
    former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney “The Flip-Flopping Fudger”,
    former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush “The I Am Not My “Dumb Ass” Brother”,

    Employed Long Shots:
    Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. “The History, I Don’t Need No Stink’n History”,
    Mississippi Gov./ former tobacco lobbyist, Haley Barbour “The last White Hope”

  7. avatar
    James M March 30, 2011 at 3:39 pm #

    The funniest thing in all of this for me is realizing that I would vote Republican if it were for a Susan Collins / Gary Johnson ticket. They have potential candidates, but they put up the likes of Trump, Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann? Even their “real” candidates are horrible. Romney? Pawlenty? I’m just not able to see the wisdom here.

  8. avatar
    Ragout March 30, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    WorldNetDaily has documented that Trump’s mother was a citizen when he was born, even if she was born in Scotland. Assuming she wasn’t a dual citizen, I think Trump’s allegiances are clear. Not only that, but Trump has now produced three (!) birth certificates, to Obama’s one (at most). So, at this point Trump seems like the most qualified candidate for President. Assuming that he can prove that he’s a Christian, of course.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 30, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    Ragout: Assuming she wasn’t a dual citizen, I think Trump’s allegiances are clear

    Unless she renounced her British citizenship, she was a dual citizen. I presume her US naturalization was automatic upon her marriage.

    http://www.immigrationcitizenship.eu/2005/12/british-citizenship.html

  10. avatar
    Majority Will March 30, 2011 at 11:15 pm #

    Ragout: Obama’s one (at most)

    What does that mean?

    “So, at this point Trump seems like the most qualified candidate for President.”

    Interesting set of values you have.

  11. avatar
    Majority Will March 30, 2011 at 11:17 pm #

    Ragout: WorldNetDaily has documented

    Do you think WND is a reputable and reliable source for news?

  12. avatar
    Ragout March 30, 2011 at 11:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Unless she renounced her British citizenship, she was a dual citizen. I presume her US naturalization was automatic upon her marriage.

    Naturally, I assume that she renounced her British citizenship upon marriage to Donald Trump’s Father. And before anyone accuses me of inconsistency, note that I also assume that Obama renounced his US citizenship upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 30, 2011 at 11:30 pm #

    Ragout: Naturally, I assume that she renounced her British citizenship upon marriage to Donald Trump’s Father. And before anyone accuses me of inconsistency, note that I also assume that Obama renounced his US citizenship upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia.

    Loss of British citizenship (today) takes some trouble, including paying a fee. I don’t know what the process was before 1930, but it certainly wasn’t automatic. From my limited reading, British Citizens don’t generally renounce their British Citizenship without a good reason.

    In the case of Obama, there’s no convincing evidence that he was adopted by Soetoro (I don’t consider the school form as all that compelling) in the first place, but if he was, he most certainly didn’t renounce his US Citizenship; it’s not something a US minor can do. (See Perkins v Elg.)

    I wrote about the Indonesian angle in my 2009 article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/hollister-v-indonesian-citizenship-law/

  14. avatar
    Majority Will March 30, 2011 at 11:49 pm #

    Ragout: I also assume that Obama renounced his US citizenship upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia.

    You assume incorrectly. What else are you guessing about? Do you understand the concept of credible evidence such as evidence based on U.S. law? Based on your admitted assumptions, it’s a fair question.

  15. avatar
    y_p_w March 31, 2011 at 12:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Unless she renounced her British citizenship, she was a dual citizen. I presume her US naturalization was automatic upon her marriage.

    http://www.immigrationcitizenship.eu/2005/12/british-citizenship.html

    Not now. Anyone seen the movie “Green Card”?

    Marriage to a US citizen doesn’t necessarily mean the spouse must become a US citizen. Someone could remain a green card holder indefinitely.

  16. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 31, 2011 at 12:04 am #

    Ragout: Naturally, I assume that she renounced her British citizenship upon marriage to Donald Trump’s Father.And before anyone accuses me of inconsistency, note that I also assume that Obama renounced his US citizenship upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia.

    Obama was never adopted and no consulate is going to allow a 6 year old to renounce his citizenship

  17. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 31, 2011 at 12:06 am #

    Ragout:
    WorldNetDaily has documented that Trump’s mother was a citizen when he was born, even if she was born in Scotland.Assuming she wasn’t a dual citizen, I think Trump’s allegiances are clear.Not only that, but Trump has now produced three (!) birth certificates, to Obama’s one (at most).So, at this point Trump seems like the most qualified candidate for President.Assuming that he can prove that he’s a Christian, of course.

    I didn’t realize this was a dick measuring contest on who could release the most documents when one is sufficient.

  18. avatar
    Ragout March 31, 2011 at 12:10 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy
    [Obama] most certainly didn’t renounce his US Citizenship; it’s not something a US minor can do. (See Perkins v Elg.)

    Strictly speaking, no he couldn’t have “renounced” his US Citizenship as a minor. But that’s just playing word games. You can’t deny that if Obama was born in Kenya, he could have walked into a US embassy at any age and reported that his US citizenship was a fraud.

    Here’s how I imagine it happening. Obama, an exceptionally talented, intelligent, and devious 10-year-old, walks into the US embassy in Jakarta, and the following dialogue occurs:

    10-Year-Old Obama and an Embassy Staffer
    “I’m Barack Hussein Obama and I’m here to renounce my citizenship! I renounce my citizenship and I denounce A-mer-i-kah. That’s Amerika with a β€˜K.’ Make that Amerikkka with 3 Ks! I’m not proud of my country, and I never was proud of my country. [GD] Amerika! That’s right, I said β€˜[GD] Amerika!’”

    “I’m sorry son, but no matter how much you hate America, you can’t renounce your citizenship until you’re 18 years old.”

    “Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well listen to me honkey, I wasn’t even born in your ofay country! I was born in Mombassa, Kenya! Thanks to the weak laws in ofay Hawaii, my mother and grandmother conspired to get me a fake birth certificate from your imperialist country!”

    “Well, well, that’s very interesting. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. How exactly is your name spelled?”

    And pretty soon, poof! No more US citizenship.

  19. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2011 at 12:19 am #

    Ragout: Strictly speaking, no he couldn’t have “renounced” his US Citizenship as a minor.But that’s just playing word games.You can’t deny that if Obama was born in Kenya, he could have walked into a US embassy at any age and reported that his US citizenship was a fraud.

    Here’s how I imagine it happening.Obama, an exceptionally talented, intelligent, and devious 10-year-old, walks into the US embassy in Jakarta, and the following dialogue occurs:

    And pretty soon, poof!No more US citizenship.

    I understand. You’re a lonely and really crappy wannabe comedian.

  20. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2011 at 12:22 am #

    Ragout: Strictly speaking, no he couldn’t have “renounced” his US Citizenship as a minor.But that’s just playing word games.You can’t deny that if Obama was born in Kenya, he could have walked into a US embassy at any age and reported that his US citizenship was a fraud.

    Here’s how I imagine it happening.Obama, an exceptionally talented, intelligent, and devious 10-year-old, walks into the US embassy in Jakarta, and the following dialogue occurs:

    And pretty soon, poof!No more US citizenship.

    And if that’s your best attempt at sarcasm, you need help.

  21. avatar
    G March 31, 2011 at 12:23 am #

    Ragout: Here’s how I imagine it happening.

    And that pretty much sums up the full extent of your “arguments”.

    They only exist in your imagination.

  22. avatar
    Ragout March 31, 2011 at 1:07 am #

    Majority Will: And if that’s your best attempt at sarcasm, you need help.

    And you need a dictionary. Do you have any idea what “sarcasm” means? Perhaps you mean satire?

    And why would someone who’s poor at sarcasm “need help”? Do the sarcasm-deprived lead diminished lives?

    It’s so difficult to carry on an intelligent conversation with you Obots!

  23. avatar
    obsolete March 31, 2011 at 1:37 am #

    Pretty good satire, Ragout. Pretty soon MichaelN and others will be parroting it on birther boards, claiming it is a recently found direct transcript.

  24. avatar
    MichaelN March 31, 2011 at 3:11 am #

    I like this poll result on Trump’ site, it brings tears to my eyes as I ROTFLMAO

    Trump Vs. Obama

    Who would you favor in the 2012 Presidential Election?

    * Donald J. Trump (93%, 50,969 Votes)
    * Barack Obama (7%, 3,758 Votes)

    Total Voters: 54,729

    http://shouldtrumprun.com/

  25. avatar
    G March 31, 2011 at 3:25 am #

    MichaelN: I like this poll result on Trump’ site, it brings tears to my eyes as I ROTFLMAOTrump Vs. ObamaWho would you favor in the 2012 Presidential Election?* Donald J. Trump (93%, 50,969 Votes)* Barack Obama (7%, 3,758 Votes)Total Voters: 54,729http://shouldtrumprun.com/

    Well, gee…I would certainly expect a poll conducted on a site by a potential presidential candidate to be extremely in favor of that candidate.

    Such sites appeal to a person’s fan base. No surprises here.

    Good luck with that in the general population though. Such results would be more likely to be directly inverse to this one.

  26. avatar
    US Citizen March 31, 2011 at 3:41 am #

    50,000 whole votes?
    Yep, it sounds like Trump has it in the bag.
    Even Palin can get more than 50,000 and she’s not going to win either.

  27. avatar
    The Magic M March 31, 2011 at 4:10 am #

    > You can’t deny that if Obama was born in Kenya, he could have walked into a US embassy at any age and reported that his US citizenship was a fraud.

    But according to birther lore, this “fraud” could never have been discovered as everyone, including the Hawaiian authorities, have been in on the conspiracy from day 1. So what would the embassy have been able to do in your parallel birther universe?

    Again, stupid conspiracy theories don’t add up, especially not if they require both everyone being part of the conspiracy *and* selected few (where it suits the story) not being part of it. You can’t have the cake and eat it, as they say.

  28. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2011 at 7:20 am #

    Ragout: sarcasm

    No. I meant sarcasm. And you’re obviously a bigot, troll and a douche bag.

    You probably do need all kinds of help but no one really cares.

    Only the mocking voices in your pinhead think you are being clever.

  29. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2011 at 7:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Loss of British citizenship (today) takes some trouble, including paying a fee. I don’t know what the process was before 1930, but it certainly wasn’t automatic. From my limited reading, British Citizens don’t generally renounce their British Citizenship without a good reason.

    Almost no-one renounces citizenship in their birth country when naturalizing in the US. There are several hundreds of thousands of people who naturalize as US citizens each year http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/Natz_01_Sec508Compliant.pdf. If even 10% of them renounced their birth citizenship, foreign consulates and embassies would be beseiged with appilcants. They are not. That is because there is no advantage to renouncing your birth ciitizenship unless you are applying for a security clearance in the US. After all, what harm is there in holding, or being eligible to hold 2 passports? The US is virtually alone in taxing non-resident citizens, so it won’t cost you anything. Thus, almost all naturalized citizens are dual citizens as are most US-born citiizens with a parent who hails from a foreign country (whether or not they naturalized before the child was born). In many cases, even a foreign-born grandparent can make yoou a dual citizen. Thus there are tens of millions of US citizens who hold or are entitled to another citizenship.

    Could Trump claim British nationality based on his mother’s birth? I don’t know and I don’t care. Nor does it matter if Obama at one time had a right to Kenyan citizenship.

    When it comes to allegiance, I hate to sound cynical, but the safest assumption when it comes to ANY politician (or any human) is that their primary allegiance is to their own self-interest, ego, pocketbook and family.

  30. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2011 at 7:24 am #

    MichaelN:
    I like this poll result on Trump’ site, it brings tears to my eyes as I ROTFLMAO

    Trump Vs. Obama

    Who would you favor in the 2012 Presidential Election?

    * Donald J. Trump (93%, 50,969 Votes) * Barack Obama (7%, 3,758 Votes)

    Total Voters: 54,729

    http://shouldtrumprun.com/

    Do you have your own poll too, Mikey?

    Does it also make you giggle uncontrollably?

  31. avatar
    Welsh Dragon March 31, 2011 at 8:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Unless she renounced her British citizenship, she was a dual citizen. I presume her US naturalization was automatic upon her marriage.

    http://www.immigrationcitizenship.eu/2005/12/british-citizenship.html

    Actually automatic naturalization of married women ended in 1922 and the Trumps married in 1936. Mary Trump was in fact naturalized in March 1942.

    At that time, the relevent British legislation was the “British Nationality and Staus of aliens Act 1914” and section 13 of that act would have stripped her of her British subject Status.:

    “Loss of British nationality by foreign naturalization.

    A British subject who, when in any foreign state and not under disability, by obtaining a certificate of naturalization or by any other voluntary and formal act, becomes naturalized therein, shall thenceforth be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject”

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/4-5/17/part/III/crossheading/loss-of-british-nationality/enacted

  32. avatar
    Ragout March 31, 2011 at 9:35 am #

    Majority Will:

    Only the mocking voices in your pinhead think you are being clever.

    If the voices think I’m being clever, they certainly wouldn’t be mocking me!

    I suppose I shouldn’t expect even a coherent insult from somebody who believes that a British subject is eligible to be President of the United States.

  33. avatar
    Bovril March 31, 2011 at 9:54 am #

    WD,

    However, arguing as Birfoons do about Obama…

    Before 1983

    Before 1983, as a general rule British nationality could only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married. See History of British nationality law.

    With effect from 20 July 2009, the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 provides that a person born outside the UK to a British mother may be entitled to register as a British citizen by descent if that person was born before 1 January 1983.

    Before the 2009 changes, only persons born after 7 February 1961 and before 1 January 1983 were eligible for this provision that came into force in April 2003.

    However those with permanent resident status in the UK, or who are entitled to the right of abode, may prefer naturalisation as a British citizen, which gives transmissible British citizenship otherwise than by descent. Requirements for successful registration with form UKM are that the applicant be a child of a British Mother born before 1983 and be of good character and attend a citizenship ceremony. As of 22 Nov 2010, there is no longer an application fee (of £540). Applicants do however still have to pay £80 for the citizenship ceremony.

    Based on current UK law, the Trumpster is arguably in a worse situation than Obama, to whit, he COULD STILL apply for dual nationality and Obama, due to Kenya, no longer can…….

  34. avatar
    misha March 31, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    I said this is a taste of ’12, and here it comes:

    “I don’t think anyone’s going to question whether Donald Trump is or was not born in New York,” Cohen said. He went on to say that there are hospitals named after the Trump family in New York, yet the only hospitals named after Mr. Obama are in Ghana.

    “It’s a little bit odd,” he said.”
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20048318-503544.html

    Romney is going to get on the bandwagon. Hawaii is probably going to release the actual form filled out at the time of birth. It won’t do any good. That crowd will scream ‘forgery,’ and both parents have to be citizens.

    Mark my words.

  35. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    Ragout: I suppose I shouldn’t expect even a coherent insult from somebody who believes that a British subject is eligible to be President of the United States.

    1. There really aren’t “British subjects” anymore. There are UK citizens (who are also EU citizens)
    2. A born US citizen who also held UK citizenship (say through a parent) would be eligible to be both President of the US and Prime Minister of the UK. As a practical matter, attempting to do both at the same time would be difficult (imagine the commute). The suggestion would be to complete your term as one before attempting the other.
    3, Eligiibility, fundamentally, is a matter for the voters in a democracy.
    4. What do you call a 23 year old French-born child of a Chinese father and a Bolivian mother, who was raised in Kazakhstan, if they won the Electoral College and were validated by Congress? Mr (or Madame) President.

  36. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    Scientist: 1. There really aren’t “British subjects” anymore.There are UK citizens (who are also EU citizens)
    2. A born US citizen who also held UK citizenship (say through a parent) would be eligible to be both President of the US and Prime Minister of the UK.As a practical matter, attempting to do both at the same time would be difficult (imagine the commute).The suggestion would be to complete your term as one before attempting the other.
    3, Eligiibility, fundamentally, is a matter for the voters in a democracy.
    4. What do you call a 23 year old French-born child of a Chinese father and a Bolivian mother, who was raised in Kazakhstan, if they won the Electoral College and were validated by Congress?Mr (or Madame) President.

    I find it somewhat astounding but not really surprising that birthers are stupid enough to think that any other country’s laws overrule the sovereignty of the United States in determining the citizenship status of its citizens.

    We know so many birthers are mentally diseased and hate driven but that’s about as anti-American as you can get.

    Irrational, xenophobic bigots like birthers are a disgrace to the United States of America.

  37. avatar
    Thrifty March 31, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    Ragout: I also assume that Obama renounced his US citizenship upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia.

    You assume that a child of single digit age understood the concept of citizenship enough, and was so disenchanted with America, that he renounced his citizenship? At less than 10 years old?

    I assume that you have some evidence to back this up.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 31, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    Ragout: I suppose I shouldn’t expect even a coherent insult from somebody who believes that a British subject is eligible to be President of the United States.

    Reminds me of the book “How a British Subject became President of the United States” by A. P. Hinman in 1884.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States

    Barack Obama, of course is not now, nor has ever been a “British Subject” but he was until age 23 arguably a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (and arguably not). Thomas Jefferson was a citizen of France, by the way, at the time he was President of the United States. Obama’s foreign citizenship was something imposed on him by the laws of another country without his assent. Jefferson accepted his grant of French citizenship as an adult.

  39. avatar
    Thrifty March 31, 2011 at 11:04 am #

    Ragout: suppose I shouldn’t expect even a coherent insult from somebody who believes that a British subject is eligible to be President of the United States.

    I shouldn’t expect intelligent conversation from someone who believes that another country can unilaterally declare a United States citizen ineligible to be President.

    I would LOVE to see Kim Jong Il or some other notable dictator declare “All current citizens of the United States are now citizens of our country, irrevocably and for the rest of their lives. So let it be written, so let it be done.” I’d love to see this happen and then see birthers squirm to explain why, even though every possibly Republican candidate is now a dual citizen, they are still eligible to be president.

  40. avatar
    Dave March 31, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    Thrifty — once you learn the knack of just plain ignoring facts and logic, you never need to squirm to explain anything. You just assert some nonsense, and you’re done.

  41. avatar
    Ragout March 31, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    Thrifty: I shouldn’t expect intelligent conversation from someone who believes that another country can unilaterally declare a United States citizen ineligible to be President.

    I hear this argument all the time from you Obots, but it is foolish. Of course a foreign country can’t “unilaterally” make these kinds of determinations. But there are many instances where US law requires US courts to give deference to foreign law.

    For example, suppose an immigration court determined Obama to be a Kenyan citizen living in the US as an illegal alien. The court would look at, among other things, Kenyan law, to determine if he could be deported. For example, the court might consider whether Obama has a well-founded fear of persecution under Kenyan law. Besides immigration laws, there are many other examples where foreign law is taken into account, such as the foreign corrupt practices act and importation laws.

    So there’s nothing surprising about the US Constitution taking into account foreign citizenship laws. The Founding Fathers believed that they owed “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” not just the opinions of US citizens.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 31, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    Welsh Dragon: Actually automatic naturalization of married women ended in 1922 and the Trumps married in 1936. Mary Trump was in fact naturalized in March 1942.

    Thanks as always for your well-documented comment.

    Now, can we make Trump a German citizen on his father’s side?

  43. avatar
    Suranis March 31, 2011 at 11:29 am #

    Ragout: Strictly speaking, no he couldn’t have “renounced” his US Citizenship as a minor.But that’s just playing word games.You can’t deny that if Obama was born in Kenya, he could have walked into a US embassy at any age and reported that his US citizenship was a fraud.

    Here’s how I imagine it happening.Obama, an exceptionally talented, intelligent, and devious 10-year-old, walks into the US embassy in Jakarta, and the following dialogue occurs:

    And pretty soon, poof!No more US citizenship.

    Thats a very nice fantasy, old boy, but theres a coule of things

    (a) He Imagine that home at 10 under a US passport. That passport would have been revoked if he lost US citizenship. I’m sure there would be proof of that.

    (b) even if you revoked your US citizenship or it was revoked for some reason, Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20

    So even if Obama renounced his US citizenhip for a country he never went back to, he could have gotten it back by stating the desire and swearing alliegence. And he would have been deemed never to have lost it, so he would remain an NBC. The act says

    § 1483. Restrictions on loss of nationality

    (b) A national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of section 1481 (a) of this title.

    That’s US law. Black and white. Your fantasy is irrelevant

  44. avatar
    Ragout March 31, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    Thrifty: You assume that a child of single digit age understood the concept of citizenship enough, and was so disenchanted with America, that he renounced his citizenship?At less than 10 years old?

    Not just any child — Obama. He’s clearly an exceptionally talented, intelligent, and devious adult. No doubt the same was true of 10-year-old Obama.

  45. avatar
    Suranis March 31, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    Ar I meant to say he would have went home to Hawai’i at 10 with a US passport, above.

  46. avatar
    Joey March 31, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    Ragout: I suggest that you hold very still while Suranis removes his foot from your rectum.

  47. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    Ragout: He’s clearly an exceptionally talented, intelligent, and devious adult. No doubt the same was true of 10-year-old Obama

    Yet, according to Donald Trump, no one who knew him from his childhood remembers him.

  48. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    Ragout: But there are many instances where US law requires US courts to give deference to foreign law

    Elections aren’t court proceedings. Living US voters can over-rule foreign laws. They can also over-rule dead Swiss philosophers. They can even over-rule dead American founders. If those guys want a vote in current elections, they have to rise from the dead by full moon like any other zombie.

  49. avatar
    Suranis March 31, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    You know. to be fair, reading the act has a couple of oddities. for instance, the first 2 cases of losing US citizenship state they cant bappen before 18and are similar:

    (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

    (2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

    But number 5 is similar but has no age restriction

    (5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

    But as shown above, even if Obama HAD done that for a country he only lived in for 4 years and never went back to (aside from the odd trip to visit his mother, maybe), he could have renounced it within 6 months of his 18th birthday with no repercussions whatsoever. And yes that WAS before his famous Pakistan trip when he was 21, so he would still have done that under a US passport.

    Its so nice to have raw provable facts on your side.

  50. avatar
    Thrifty March 31, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    Ragout: ot just any child — Obama. He’s clearly an exceptionally talented, intelligent, and devious adult. No doubt the same was true of 10-year-old Obama.

    Riiiiiiiight…. So Barack Obama is some kind of precocious deviant, like something out of a horror novel. When I was 10 I played Nintendo and Sega Genesis and watched Saturday morning cartoons. I had the perception that George H. W. Bush was president. I knew from some basic civics that the House of Representatives and the Senate passed laws and the president could sign them into law or veto them, but that his veto could be overridden by a 2/3 majority. I didn’t know a thing about Congressional committees, though, and thought that the Senate didn’t have the right to introduce bills. I knew we had 50 states and each had their own miniature version of the Congress and President. My classmates all displayed roughly the same level of knowledge and interests, because we were children

    When Barack Obama was 10 he was apparently bright enough to dislike America enough to renounce his citizenship. And he was also informed of the massive conspiracy to cover up his secret birth in Kenya? Who divulges that to a kid? Anyone who’s spent a day with any children knows they can’t keep their mouths shut; they’re like little tape recorders with spazzy play buttons.

  51. avatar
    Suranis March 31, 2011 at 12:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Barack Obama, of course is not now, nor has ever been a “British Subject” but he was until age 23 arguably a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (and arguably not). Thomas Jefferson was a citizen of France, by the way, at the time he was President of the United States. Obama’s foreign citizenship was something imposed on him by the laws of another country without his assent. Jefferson accepted his grant of French citizenship as an adult.

    Just a clarification Doc C. Kenya specifically passed a law revoking British citizenship from the British 1948 Nationality Act from its subjects upon gaining independence in 1963. At that point President Obama would have lost British but gained Kenyan dual citizenship. But Kenya’s constitution specifically forbids dual citizenship to any of its citizens unless they are under 23.

    So, at age 23, for President Obama to remain a Kenyan Citizen, he would have had to renounce US citizenship. He never did this and not even the most rabid birther has ever dug up any evidence that he did. Since President Obama now travels everywhere using a US passport, he is a US citizen and therefore cannot be a Kenyan by the Kenyan constitution, and so it is reasonable to suppose that he lost his Kenyan citizenship on his 23rd birthday and so has no legal ties to Kenya.

  52. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 31, 2011 at 12:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Reminds me of the book “How a British Subject became President of the United States” by A. P. Hinman in 1884.http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-StatesBarack Obama, of course is not now, nor has ever been a “British Subject” but he was until age 23 arguably a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (and arguably not). Thomas Jefferson was a citizen of France, by the way, at the time he was President of the United States. Obama’s foreign citizenship was something imposed on him by the laws of another country without his assent. Jefferson accepted his grant of French citizenship as an adult.

    Doc not to mention Jefferson actually had dual loyalties. You know that whole line in the constitution that Birthers take out of context and try to equate to conflicting loyalties. Jefferson actually had them. Jefferson believed we should have supported France against Britain in their conflict in 1793. He broke from the Washington administration while serving as Secretary of State and led to his resignation. Jefferson supported the French revolution even during the Reign of Terror. Jefferson also worked with Lafayette to form the basis of the French Consitution. I’d say that’s a pretty big conflict of interest

  53. avatar
    The Magic M March 31, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    > Besides immigration laws, there are many other examples where foreign law is taken into account, such as the foreign corrupt practices act and importation laws.

    You are (deliberately?) confusing “taking into account” with “giving preference to”.

    While an immigration court might consider the consequences of deporting an illegal alien by looking at said alien’s home laws, they would not allow those laws to dictate their decision.

    You, OTOH, are claiming that foreign citizenship laws *dictate* who can be President and who can’t.

    > So there’s nothing surprising about the US Constitution taking into account foreign citizenship laws.

    If they did, why didn’t they say “natural born non-dual citizen”? Or just “citizen with no other citizenship as defined by the laws of any other country”? Would have been much easier if that was the goal.

    > The Founding Fathers believed that they owed “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” not just the opinions of US citizens.

    But they certainly didn’t owe so much respect as to let foreign citizenship laws decide who cannot be President.

    Aren’t you birthers constantly saying “they didn’t want any influence by the British king”? Then how could the Founders have intended a regulation that allows the British king to disqualify any American from becoming President, simply by having British citizenship law declare all Americans British citizens? Then their children (at least) would all be ineligible by your crackpot NBC theory.

    Are you claiming the Founders intentionally gave that power to the British king? Or that they were so stupid they didn’t think of that consequence, when any child can come up with that observation?

    Again, your crapalooza of “arguments” doesn’t add up.

  54. avatar
    Daniel March 31, 2011 at 12:18 pm #

    Ragout: Not just any child — Obama.He’s clearly an exceptionally talented, intelligent, and devious adult.No doubt the same was true of 10-year-old Obama.

    Plus he had the support and guidance of the Illuminati Lizard Men from birth to steer him toward their ultimate goal of world domination and New World Order one world government and the bringing of Armageddon…….

    Oh, sorry, got a little too birther on ya there.

  55. avatar
    Suranis March 31, 2011 at 12:19 pm #

    Joey:
    Ragout: I suggest that you hold very still while Suranis removes his foot from your rectum.

    *Assumes Bruce Lee pose* KWAAIIIII!!! πŸ˜€

  56. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 31, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    Ragout: Not just any child — Obama. He’s clearly an exceptionally talented, intelligent, and devious adult. No doubt the same was true of 10-year-old Obama.

    “devious” and intelligent as he was, no consular is going to accept the testimony of a 10 year old disavowing his citizenship. Actually he would have been 6 when this supposedly happened. Again you make yourself look foolish.

  57. avatar
    Judge Mental March 31, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    Suranis: Just a clarification Doc C. Kenya specifically passed a law revoking British citizenship from the British 1948 Nationality Act from its subjects upon gaining independence in 1963. At that point President Obama would have lost British but gained Kenyan dual citizenship. But Kenya’s constitution specifically forbids dual citizenship to any of its citizens unless they are under 23. So, at age 23, for President Obama to remain a Kenyan Citizen, he would have had to renounce US citizenship. He never did this and not even the most rabid birther has ever dug up any evidence that he did. Since President Obama now travels everywhere using a US passport, he is a US citizen and therefore cannot be a Kenyan by the Kenyan constitution, and so it is reasonable to suppose that he lost his Kenyan citizenship on his 23rd birthday and so has no legal ties to Kenya.

    How can Kenya (or indeed any other country) revoke someone’s British citizenship? Surely only the UK can revoke someone’s British citizenship?

    I can see how Kenya could insist that people born in Kenya holding British citizenship effectively choose one or the other by putting in place circumstances where those people have to renounce their British citizenship or be refused Kenyan citizenship.

  58. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): “devious” and intelligent as he was, no consular is going to accept the testimony of a 10 year old disavowing his citizenship.Actually he would have been 6 when this supposedly happened.Again you make yourself look foolish.

    Reality and birthers have never been connected. Watching the goalposts shift when they get uncomfortable with their lies and dissonance is SO predictable.

    I’m really going to enjoy hearing them explode like little zits popping when our President is re-elected in another electoral landslide.

  59. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2011 at 12:29 pm #

    Suranis: *Assumes Bruce Lee pose* KWAAIIIII!!!

    Birthers are pretty easy targets since they are mostly @ss and very little else.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 31, 2011 at 12:33 pm #

    Judge Mental: How can Kenya (or indeed any other country) revoke someone’s British citizenship? Surely only the UK can revoke someone’s British citizenship?

    There were two pieces of legislation, one British and one Kenyan that effected the independence of Kenya. It is the combination of these two that made former Citizens of the UK and colonies into Kenyan citizens.

    For more detail than you probably want see:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/is-president-obama-a-british-citizen/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/donofrio-v-factcheck-org/

  61. avatar
    misha March 31, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

    Majority Will: I’m really going to enjoy hearing them explode like little zits popping when our President is re-elected in another electoral landslide.

    Intrade has Obama at 62%. Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.

    Any bets when Romney gets on the birther bandwagon, or is he going to let his flunkies do it for him?

  62. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    Judge Mental: How can Kenya (or indeed any other country) revoke someone’s British citizenship? Surely only the UK can revoke someone’s British citizenship?

    It was part of the agreement under which independence was granted. Under colonial rule, Kenyans were not UK citizens with right of abode in the UK. except for those who had come out from Britain or were born in Kenya of British parents.

  63. avatar
    Suranis March 31, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

    Judge Mental: How can Kenya (or indeed any other country) revoke someone’s British citizenship? Surely only the UK can revoke someone’s British citizenship?

    I can see how Kenya could insist that people born in Kenya holding British citizenship effectively choose one or the other by putting in place circumstances where those people have to renounce their British citizenship or be refused Kenyan citizenship.

    Good question. Normally they cant. But Kenya was part of the British Empire / Commonwealth till 1963. The 1948 British nationality act gave British citizenship rights to anyone in the British dominions, which included Kenya. So Barack Obama was a British citizen through his blood association with Kenya, not with Britain. And britian only gave citizenship rights by proxy though its own link to Kenya and through kenya to Kenya’s citizens.

    That meant Kenya had the specific power to alter any benefits which were given through that link with itself, but not anywhere else.

    So when they gained independence they gained the power to alter those benefits by passing the law they were breaking the link to Britain that was given through Kenyan citizenship. And they used that power to sever the link with Britain totally. And anyone that was linked to Kenya by law and blood had their citizenship rights altered through that link.

    That said the 1948 British nationality act was still in force in Kenya till the Kenyan parliament revoked it. Much like English Common law was in force in the us unless specificly overridden by US legislation.

    If England wanted to pass a new law granting citizenship to all those disenfranchised by Kenya they could have, but they never did. But that was up to England.

    Hope that makes it clearer. Its the way countries dance in international law.

  64. avatar
    Mike March 31, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Loss of British citizenship (today) takes some trouble, including paying a fee. I don’t know what the process was before 1930, but it certainly wasn’t automatic. From my limited reading, British Citizens don’t generally renounce their British Citizenship without a good reason.

    Well, it’s a good citizenship to have. I’m actually in the process of emigrating to the US to join my wife (a US citizen) and our son, and will be a permanent resident and hopefully a citizen when I can, but I don’t intend on giving up my UK citizenship thereafter.

  65. avatar
    Judge Mental March 31, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    misha: Intrade has Obama at 62%. Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.Any bets when Romney gets on the birther bandwagon, or is he going to let his flunkies do it for him?

    This is a link to a good site for finding a variety of online bookmakers (mostly Brit offshore firms) available odds for who will be elected next President, who will be the Rep Candidate, who will be the Dem Candidate, Winning Party etc. i’ve set the link to the page for who will be next President but it can be easily navigated to the other markets. the odds display can be changed from decimal to traditional etc

    The bookies are in little doubt that Obama will be next President. They are rarely all that far out in their assesments.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner

  66. avatar
    Judge Mental March 31, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    Thanks Suranis and others.

  67. avatar
    Thrifty March 31, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

    Guys, I got some troubling news last night.

    I looked at my birth certificate. It says on there “Date Filed: April 6th 1981”. This is troubling for two reasons.

    1) I was born on March 27th, 1981. April 6th is 10 days later! Late registration! What are my parents hiding?

    2) It says “Date Filed”, not “Date Accepted”! How do I know it’s a legitimate birth certificate? Maybe I was born in Finland, and my parents tried to get me a Delaware birth certificate, but because of foreign birth the certification wasn’t accepted. And the state of Delaware kept it on file for 30 years now, and gave it to me when I asked for a birth certificate.

    My question is; how do I know for certain that I was born in America? Nobody from my kindergarten remembers me.

  68. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Guys, I got some troubling news last night.

    I looked at my birth certificate.It says on there “Date Filed: April 6th 1981‘.This is troubling for two reasons.

    1) I was born on March 27th, 1981.April 6th is 10 days later!Late registration!What are my parents hiding?

    2) It says “Date Filed”, not “Date Accepted”!How do I know it’s a legitimate birth certificate?Maybe I was born in Finland, and my parents tried to get me a Delaware birth certificate, but because of foreign birth the certification wasn’t accepted.And the state of Delaware kept it on file for 30 years now, and gave it to me when I asked for a birth certificate.

    My question is; how do I know for certain that I was born in America?Nobody from my kindergarten remembers me.

    I’m sure your CIA handlers from when you attended that madrassa as a child in Pakistan still remember you. πŸ˜‰

  69. avatar
    Thrifty March 31, 2011 at 2:19 pm #

    And another thing! Where are my passport records? I’ve never been outside the country before (as far as I know), but I must have passport records. WHY WON’T I RELEASE MY PASSPORT RECORDS???

  70. avatar
    katahdin March 31, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    Thrifty:
    And another thing!Where are my passport records?I’ve never been outside the country before (as far as I know), but I must have passport records.WHY WON’T I RELEASE MY PASSPORT RECORDS???

    Clearly you are a terror baby born in a manger in Kenya and trained since birth to wreak terror on America by turning us into an Atheistic/Communist/Muslim/Socialist/ Deflowering all the White Women/Gay Caliphate.

    Dastardly, that’s what you are.
    Dastardly, that’s what you are.

  71. avatar
    Stanislaw March 31, 2011 at 4:06 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Guys, I got some troubling news last night.

    I looked at my birth certificate.It says on there “Date Filed: April 6th 1981‘.This is troubling for two reasons.

    1) I was born on March 27th, 1981.April 6th is 10 days later!Late registration!What are my parents hiding?

    2) It says “Date Filed”, not “Date Accepted”!How do I know it’s a legitimate birth certificate?Maybe I was born in Finland, and my parents tried to get me a Delaware birth certificate, but because of foreign birth the certification wasn’t accepted.And the state of Delaware kept it on file for 30 years now, and gave it to me when I asked for a birth certificate.

    My question is; how do I know for certain that I was born in America?Nobody from my kindergarten remembers me.

    The answer is simple…just demand that Delaware release the index data to confirm your official birthplace story. Once that’s been confirmed, make sure that there’s a confirmation of that confirmation. Of course, then we’ll need the index data from that confirmation…

  72. avatar
    Rickey March 31, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    Ragout:
    Trump has now produced three (!) birth certificates, to Obama’s one (at most).So, at this point Trump seems like the most qualified candidate for President.

    I have four birth certificates, so that makes me the most qualified candidate for President. Can I count on your support?

    Naturally, I assume that she renounced her British citizenship upon marriage to Donald Trump’s Father. And before anyone accuses me of inconsistency, note that I also assume that Obama renounced his US citizenship upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia.

    You assumptions are meaningless. There is no evidence that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and no evidence that he renounced his citizenship. In fact, if he had been able to get the U.S. Embassy to accept a renunciation of citizenship, it would have left him without any citizenship because he wasn’t eligible to become a citizen of Indonesia.

  73. avatar
    DP March 31, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    Ragout:
    Not only that, but Trump has now produced three (!) birth certificates, to Obama’s one (at most).So, at this point Trump seems like the most qualified candidate for President.

    I think this guy is pulling your leg. I find it hard to believe even a birther could seriously write a sentence that stupid.

  74. avatar
    Judge Mental March 31, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    Rickey: I have four birth certificates…..P>

    Pah! I’ll see your 4 birth certificates and raise you 2 passports.

  75. avatar
    JoZeppy March 31, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    Ragout: Strictly speaking, no he couldn’t have “renounced” his US Citizenship as a minor. But that’s just playing word games. You can’t deny that if Obama was born in Kenya, he could have walked into a US embassy at any age and reported that his US citizenship was a fraud. Here’s how I imagine it happening. Obama, an exceptionally talented, intelligent, and devious 10-year-old, walks into the US embassy in Jakarta, and the following dialogue occurs:And pretty soon, poof! No more US citizenship.

    Well, that’s an interseting fantasy….and you honestly think anyone would have taken this crazy 10 year old seriously (even taking the silly, factually unsupported idea of him being born in Kenya)? And don’t you also think that would have come up in the Dept/ State records that have already been released regarding his mother?

  76. avatar
    JoZeppy March 31, 2011 at 8:01 pm #

    MichaelN: I like this poll result on Trump’ site, it brings tears to my eyes as I ROTFLMAOTrump Vs. ObamaWho would you favor in the 2012 Presidential Election?* Donald J. Trump (93%, 50,969 Votes)* Barack Obama (7%, 3,758 Votes)Total Voters: 54,729http://shouldtrumprun.com/

    What brings tears to my eys are idiots that post to non-scientific polls like they mean something.

  77. avatar
    JoZeppy March 31, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    Ragout: I hear this argument all the time from you Obots, but it is foolish. Of course a foreign country can’t “unilaterally” make these kinds of determinations. But there are many instances where US law requires US courts to give deference to foreign law.

    Actually, there aren’t.Within our borders, our laws are supreme.deference to foreign law

    Ragout: For example, suppose an immigration court determined Obama to be a Kenyan citizen living in the US as an illegal alien. The court would look at, among other things, Kenyan law, to determine if he could be deported. For example, the court might consider whether Obama has a well-founded fear of persecution under Kenyan law.

    Wrong again. They are not giving deference to any other nations laws, in fact it is quite the opposite. Our laws are paramount. Our laws actually dictate what the rules for granting asylum are. If we were giving deference to the laws of another country, would a person applying for asylum for fear of prosecution, then be prosecuted in the US? We’re in fact thumbing our noses at the other country’s law by saying their laws are so messed up, we’re going give them a break and not have to live under your laws.

    Ragout: Besides immigration laws, there are many other examples where foreign law is taken into account, such as the foreign corrupt practices act and importation laws.

    And again, you are wrong. The CFPA actually punishes you for violating US laws, even if, for example, the practice of giving kickbacks is considered a normal part of doing business in another country. Again, you cite an example were we treat our law as supreme.

    Ragout: So there’s nothing surprising about the US Constitution taking into account foreign citizenship laws. The Founding Fathers believed that they owed “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” not just the opinions of US citizens.

    Nothing suprising? Well, except for the fact that you can’t show a single instance where we would defer to the laws of another country. The only time you could remotely argue that is in the area of treaties, and customary international law. And those two areas don’t touch on citizenship, and specifically mentioned in the constitution. So, no, we don’t defer to the laws of other countries.

  78. avatar
    MichaelN March 31, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    Look’s like your ‘messiah’ is gonna fall of his perch & a real, genuine ‘natural born Citizen’ will take the office from the liar and usurper that is Obama.

    I am getting this hopey-changey feeling.

    “Half of registered voters say Mr. Obama does not deserve a second term, while 41 percent say he does. The current level of support is the lowest seen since Mr. Obama won election in 2008.

    The decline in support for a second term comes as Mr. Obama’s approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points since early March. His disapproval rating has risen from 46 percent to 48 percent. The poll also comes as the White House faces criticism concerning the current intervention in Libya.

    The poll as conducted March 22-28 and surveyed 2,069 registered voters. The error margin is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.”

    Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/president-obamas-poll-rating-plummets-after-libya-intervention/#ixzz1IETWTtvJ

  79. avatar
    Ragout March 31, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    … you can’t show a single instance where we would defer to the laws of another country. The only time you could remotely argue that is in the area of treaties, and customary international law. And those two areas don’t touch on citizenship, and specifically mentioned in the constitution. So, no, we don’t defer to the laws of other countries.

    You forget the context. I was rebutting Majority Will and some other xenophobic Obots who claimed it was absurd to suggest that dual citizens can’t be President, since the US never takes into account foreign law. The Obots cry that we can’t allow those wicked furriners to dictate to Americans! What if North Korea made us all citizens! Then nobody could be President!

    I noted that when Obama faces his deportation hearing, the immigration court will consider Kenyan law in determining if he faces a well-founded fear of persecution in Kenya. But that would be allowing Kenya to dictate to the US, these knuckle-dragging Obots might say. Kenya could just pass a law aimed at jailing Obama and then we’d never be able to get rid of him! So my counterexample is perfectly on point.

    But you Obots always raise the bar rather than just admitting your mistakes, and now you demand instances of US courts deferring to foreign law, rather than merely taking it into account. Well, I can easily jump over this bar too. The Lacey Act, one of many examples, says that those who violate foreign laws relating to hunting and fishing can be jailed by US courts. Here’s a quote from a US judge’s decision in one well-known case:

    “… a jury found them guilty of conspiracy, smuggling, money laundering, and Lacey Act violations in connection with the importation, sale, and purchase of Caribbean spiny lobsters from Honduras. The defendants’ main argument on appeal is that the district court erred in determining that the Honduran laws that served as the underlying basis of their convictions were valid and enforceable. … The defendants’ challenge to the validity of the Honduran laws requires us to undertake our own foreign law determination.”

  80. avatar
    G March 31, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

    MichaelN: Look’s like your messiah’ is gonna fall of his perch & a real, genuine natural born Citizen’ will take the office from the liar and usurper that is Obama.I am getting this hopey-changey feeling.“Half of registered voters say Mr. Obama does not deserve a second term, while 41 percent say he does. The current level of support is the lowest seen since Mr. Obama won election in 2008.The decline in support for a second term comes as Mr. Obama’s approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points since early March. His disapproval rating has risen from 46 percent to 48 percent. The poll also comes as the White House faces criticism concerning the current intervention in Libya.The poll as conducted March 22-28 and surveyed 2,069 registered voters. The error margin is plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.”Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/president-obamas-poll-rating-plummets-after-libya-intervention/#ixzz1IETWTtvJ

    Yeah, good luck with that.

    Your biggest dilemma is that in 2012 that even people disappointed in the President have to feel that rolling the dice with some other option will be preferential to what they already have. So far, the potential field of competition is the weakest I’ve seen in my lifetime.

    You sad folks who suffer from ODS will hate Obama no matter what he does, whether right or wrong. You didn’t vote for him last time and no one expects you to vote for him next time either, so folks like you really don’t effect the equation at all.

  81. avatar
    Ragout March 31, 2011 at 10:43 pm #

    Scientist:

    Eligiibility, fundamentally, is a matter for the voters in a democracy.

    Elections aren’t court proceedings.

    The Supreme Court begs to differ: “None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.”

    The Courts saved us from that tree-hugging socialist Al Gore. Why oh why won’t they save us from the Sharia-loving Obama!

  82. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2011 at 10:51 pm #

    Ragout: Well, I can easily jump over this bar too. The Lacey Act, one of many examples, says that those who violate foreign laws relating to hunting and fishing can be jailed by US courts. Here’s a quote from a US judge’s decision in one well-known case:

    You aren’t rebutting jack squat, birther child.

    Context? Yeah, right. The Lacey Act. Holy crap. You have serious issues.

    Were the spiny lobsters natural born or naturalized?

    You’re a goalpost moving birther idiot with a steaming pile of nothing and you keep embarrassing yourself with every post but it’s mildly amusing in a pathetic way.

    Dance on, fool.

    “I find it somewhat astounding but not really surprising that birthers are stupid enough to think that any other country’s laws overrule the sovereignty of the United States in determining the citizenship status of its citizens.”

    Did I leave out the part about the citizenship of spiny lobsters by mistake?

  83. avatar
    Majority Will March 31, 2011 at 10:57 pm #

    G: Yeah, good luck with that.

    Your biggest dilemma is that in 2012 that even people disappointed in the President have to feel that rolling the dice with some other option will be preferential to what they already have.So far, the potential field of competition is the weakest I’ve seen in my lifetime.

    You sad folks who suffer from ODS will hate Obama no matter what he does, whether right or wrong.You didn’t vote for him last time and no one expects you to vote for him next time either, so folks like you really don’t effect the equation at all.

    Birthers get huffy and petulant when the stark reality of their irrelevance and utter stupidity is exposed so clearly by anyone who won’t share their bizarre delusions.

  84. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2011 at 10:58 pm #

    Ragout: The Supreme Court begs to differ

    They also think corporations are people. Can I go out to dinner with a corporation, fall in love with a corporation, have sex with a corporation?

    In short, they can bite me…

  85. avatar
    G March 31, 2011 at 11:02 pm #

    Ragout: You forget the context. I was rebutting Majority Will and some other xenophobic Obots who claimed it was absurd to suggest that dual citizens can’t be President, since the US never takes into account foreign law. The Obots cry that we can’t allow those wicked furriners to dictate to Americans! What if North Korea made us all citizens! Then nobody could be President!

    Xenophobia, really? Ahhh…classic projection! LOL! Sorry, that’s what you folks consistently display. Simply pointing out that a nation’s laws and sovereignty is supreme in application to its own citizens OVER any other nation’s claims is simple reality.

    You have to be a real dunce cap to argue that other nations can excercise control over matters within the US’ domain and sovereignty.

    Ragout: I noted that when Obama faces his deportation hearing, the immigration court will consider Kenyan law in determining if he faces a well-founded fear of persecution in Kenya. But that would be allowing Kenya to dictate to the US, these knuckle-dragging Obots might say. Kenya could just pass a law aimed at jailing Obama and then we’d never be able to get rid of him! So my counterexample is perfectly on point.

    *yawn*… yeah, good luck with your delusional fantasies there. We’ve heard the “any day now” babbling from your kind for well over two years now.

    You’re no different than the street corner homeless nut holding a cardboard sign saying “The End is Near” year after year after year… except you come across even less credible than they do.

    Ragout: But you Obots always raise the bar rather than just admitting your mistakes, and now you demand instances of US courts deferring to foreign law, rather than merely taking it into account. Well, I can easily jump over this bar too. The Lacey Act, one of many examples, says that those who violate foreign laws relating to hunting and fishing can be jailed by US courts. Here’s a quote from a US judge’s decision in one well-known case:
    “… a jury found them guilty of conspiracy, smuggling, money laundering, and Lacey Act violations in connection with the importation, sale, and purchase of Caribbean spiny lobsters from Honduras. The defendants’ main argument on appeal is that the district court erred in determining that the Honduran laws that served as the underlying basis of their convictions were valid and enforceable. … The defendants’ challenge to the validity of the Honduran laws requires us to undertake our own foreign law determination.”

    FAIL!

    So, your example is a Law that deals with regulation of primarily interstate commerce and broaden’s it to address certain instances of international commerce?

    Massive analogy FAIL there. …Plus demonstrating that you don’t understand how commerce laws are applied nor how completely unrelated such types of laws are to any relevant issue dealing with citizenship.

    But that’s ok, Ragout. Keep entertaining us with new ways to show the depth of your ignorance and inability to grasp fairly simple terms, concepts and logical thought. Its quite amusing.

    I’m not sure if you are just a 10-year old on a keyboard or merely an angry high-school drop out.

  86. avatar
    Ragout March 31, 2011 at 11:09 pm #

    Scientist: [The Supreme Court Justices] also think corporations are people. … In short, they can bite me…

    If that’s your view of a longstanding precedent that has served this country (and many others) well for 100+ years, it’s no surprise that you also mock the Constitution too.

  87. avatar
    Suranis March 31, 2011 at 11:16 pm #

    Ragout, its very simple. You don’t think that dual citizens are eligible for the presidency. If that was the case then Lybia could declare everyone a citizen of Lybia and disenfranchise everyone. No-one could be President. It has nothing to do with the courts or whatever else you mentioned in your incoherent speech..

    We believe that what other countries say has fuck all to do with who your laws say is eligible to serve as President in your United States.

    But hey, stay scared if you want to.

  88. avatar
    Suranis March 31, 2011 at 11:23 pm #

    Ragout: If that’s your view of a longstanding precedent that has served this country (and many others) well for 100+ years, it’s no surprise that you also mock the Constitution too.

    Interesting you should say that, because it is longstanding US precedent for 250 years that Natural Born Citizen means born on US soil, or born abroad to citizen parents. Just as it was for 200 years before that in British common law. So you should respect that.

    It appears your respect for precedent is selective.

    Remember “What makes America great is that anyone born in America can become president” No, That’s funny, because I remember hearing it all my life and (a) I’m probably older than you and (b) I’m across the Atlantic ocean from you.

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 31, 2011 at 11:28 pm #

    Ragout: The Courts saved us from that tree-hugging socialist Al Gore.

    So you believe that Al Gore actually won the vote in Florida? Fancy that.

  90. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2011 at 11:30 pm #

    Ragout: Ragout

    You can bite me too.

  91. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    Hey Ragout, since you’re such an expert and fan of the Supreme Court perhaps you can show me where they ever said dual citizens can’t be President.

  92. avatar
    Ragout March 31, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    Suranis:
    Ragout, its very simple. You don’t think that dual citizens are eligible for the presidency. If that was the case then Lybia could declare everyone a citizen of Lybia and disenfranchise everyone. No-one could be President.

    If Libya did that, Congress could just pass a law saying that the Libyan law is invalid. As the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.”

    Suranis:
    It has nothing to do with the courts or whatever else you mentioned in your incoherent speech. We believe that what other countries say has fuck all to do with who your laws say is eligible to serve as President in your United States.

    What was that you were saying about “incoherent speech”? I see why you were threatening to kick my ass: it’s the only way you can win an argument!

  93. avatar
    Ragout March 31, 2011 at 11:48 pm #

    Scientist:
    Hey Ragout, since you’re such an expert and fan of the Supreme Court perhaps you can show me where they ever said dual citizens can’t be President.

    I’ve currently knocked down two or three of you Obots’ arguments. I’m waiting to see if anyone can come up with an intelligent response beyond “bite me, you’re an angry high-school drop out with bizarre delusions.” I’ll get around to your other arguments eventually.

  94. avatar
    JoZeppy March 31, 2011 at 11:53 pm #

    Ragout: I noted that when Obama faces his deportation hearing, the immigration court will consider Kenyan law in determining if he faces a well-founded fear of persecution in Kenya. But that would be allowing Kenya to dictate to the US, these knuckle-dragging Obots might say. Kenya could just pass a law aimed at jailing Obama and then we’d never be able to get rid of him! So my counterexample is perfectly on point

    No. Your example isn’t remotely analogous. You are comparing a completely discretionary, individualized examination of a humanitarian courtesy that we chose to give, to giving other countries carte blanche to make the most fundamental decision, who are citizens are and who can be president, for us. It’s apples and oranges.

    Ragout: But you Obots always raise the bar rather than just admitting your mistakes, and now you demand instances of US courts deferring to foreign law, rather than merely taking it into account. Well, I can easily jump over this bar too. The Lacey Act, one of many examples, says that those who violate foreign laws relating to hunting and fishing can be jailed by US courts. Here’s a quote from a US judge’s decision in one well-known case:

    Is this really the best you can do? Our legislature passed a law to prohibit international smuggling. It’s an anti-poaching law, primarily targeted to be able to prosecute crimes of the sort like people who go to Kenya to hunt elephants. Again, you point to a law, past by the US legislature, designed to persue an interest we have chosen, on a limited scale.

    Rather than calling us terrible “Obots” maybe you should find some better examples?

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 31, 2011 at 11:53 pm #

    Ragout: If Libya did that, Congress could just pass a law saying that the Libyan law is invalid.

    I’m not sure that someone who would say that has the capacity to understand why it’s wrong.

    Citizenship law is relative to the country granting the citizenship. The US Congress could pass any law it wanted; but it would not change who was and who was not a Libyan citizen any more than Libya could pass a law saying who was a US Citizen. Nevertheless, you seem perfectly comfortable letting the British Nationality Act of 1948 say who cannot be President of the United States, and that I find both remarkable and troubling.

    You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Rather than looking through the lens of national sovereignty to understand Barack Obama’s status, you look through the lens of what you desire to be Barack Obama’s status to define national sovereignty.

  96. avatar
    Scientist March 31, 2011 at 11:54 pm #

    Ragout: I’ll get around to your other arguments eventually

    It isn’t hard. Either there is a Supreme Court decision saying a dual citizen can’t be Presiident or there isn’t. If there is, then show it. If there isn’t then it’s just your opinion and no one cares. Anyway, Obama is solely a US ciitizen, so any such ruling would not be relevant in his case. you will have to wait until an actual dual citizen gets in the White House.

  97. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 12:05 am #

    Ragout: If Libya did that, Congress could just pass a law saying that the Libyan law is invalid. As the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.”

    How does Congress pass a law declaring a law of another country invalid? Congress has no power over the acts of another nation. Our Congress cannot stop another country from granting citizenship to whomever they want, including our own citizens. We can choose to ignore it…oh wait…we already do that now. We just ignore dual citizen’s other citizenship while they are in the US.

  98. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 12:16 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:… you seem perfectly comfortable letting the British Nationality Act of 1948 say who cannot be President of the United States, and that I find both remarkable and troubling.

    Anytime it wished, the US Congress could pass a law saying “the British Nationality Act of 1948 has no bearing on eligibility for the US Presidency.” Or replace “British Nationality Act of 1948” with the Obots’ beloved hypothetical Libyan, North Korean, and other Wicked Furriners Nationality Act of 2011, or whatever foreign law you want. Such a law would have presumably have no effect in foreign countries, but it would determine eligibility for US President.

    Since Congress hasn’t passed such a law, dual citizens can’t be President.

  99. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 12:29 am #

    Scientist: It isn’t hard.Either there is a Supreme Court decision saying a dual citizen can’t be Presiident or there isn’t.If there is, then show it.If there isn’t then it’s just your opinion and no one cares. Anyway, Obama is solely a US ciitizen, so any such ruling would not be relevant in his case.you will have towait until an actual dualcitizen gets in the White House.

    First you challenge me to come up with a Supreme Court decision about dual citizens and the Presidency and now you say it doesn’t matter! I’m glad I didn’t waste any time jumping over this latest version of your ever-rising bar.

  100. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 12:37 am #

    Ragout: I’ve currently knocked down two or three of you Obots’ arguments. I’m waiting to see if anyone can come up with an intelligent response beyond “bite me, you’re an angry high-school drop out with bizarre delusions.” I’ll get around to your other arguments eventually.

    I’ve yet to see you knock down any arguments. Most of your perceived “points” are disconnected from the source argument. All you’ve shown is a lack of comprehension and a delusional ego. So yeah, you’re Charlie Sheen “winning” there… Good luck with that.

  101. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 12:44 am #

    Ragout: Anytime it wished, the US Congress could pass a law saying “the British Nationality Act of 1948 has no bearing on eligibility for the US Presidency.” Or replace “British Nationality Act of 1948‘ with the Obots’ beloved hypothetical Libyan, North Korean, and other Wicked Furriners Nationality Act of 2011, or whatever foreign law you want. Such a law would have presumably have no effect in foreign countries, but it would determine eligibility for US President. Since Congress hasn’t passed such a law, dual citizens can’t be President.

    But you see, such a law passed by Congress would be meaningless, and without effect. If, as you contend, that dual citizens are barred from the presidency, it would require a contsitutional amendment to do what you propose. If, as you propose, this prohibition against dual citizens which has never been articulated in our country’s two and a quarter centuries, is part of the definition of NBC, then it is a Constitutional recognition of citizenship of other nations. An act of congress, that has no power to effect the grant of citizenship couldn’t impact the defintions of terms in the Constituition.

  102. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 12:48 am #

    Ragout: Anytime it wished, the US Congress could pass a law saying “the British Nationality Act of 1948 has no bearing on eligibility for the US Presidency.” Or replace “British Nationality Act of 1948‘ with the Obots’ beloved hypothetical Libyan, North Korean, and other Wicked Furriners Nationality Act of 2011, or whatever foreign law you want. Such a law would have presumably have no effect in foreign countries, but it would determine eligibility for US President. Since Congress hasn’t passed such a law, dual citizens can’t be President.

    You completely miss the points of the arguments being made.

    The point is simply this – US laws over its own citizens supremely trump any other nation’s claims to those that are born on our soil.

    Hypothetical scenarios of other nation’s granting citizenship over US citizens were provided as a demonstration of why such scenarios would NOT trump US laws nor our sovereignty and explain why dual citizenship claims have NO impact on US laws in regards to US citizens on US soil.

    Your conclusions are completely backwards, as usual. As no current law forbids nor restricts such things, Congress would have to pass a law TO RESTRICT dual citizens from being POTUS. Furthermore, to add such a restriction to a specificly quantified Constitutional office would require not just any old law, but an actual Constitutional Amendment. (Not going to happen, BTW).

  103. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 12:49 am #

    Ragout: Since Congress hasn’t passed such a law, dual citizens can’t be President.

    Congress usually doesn’t pass laws concerning prohibitions that never existed….

    The only limitations on the presidency are age, residency and NBC. The Court has defined NBC by the common law, and that definition doesn’t inlcude any discussion about dual citizenship.

  104. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    Ragout: First you challenge me to come up with a Supreme Court decision about dual citizens and the Presidency and now you say it doesn’t matter! I’m glad I didn’t waste any time jumping over this latest version of your ever-rising bar.

    Again, you demonstrate that you utterly FAIL at reading comprehension.

    Obviously, you don’t have the slightest clue of how conditional arguments work.

    Scientist provided a simple and clear two step argument. There is no contradiction in what he said.

    IF condition 1 exists, (IF YES) then show the evidence to support it. (i.e. if there is a law for “dual citizenship” then find it and show it. Until you can do so, there is no point in moving on to the further flaws with your arguments)

    IF NO, then proceed to step 2 – (i.e. if you could prove that there was a law banning dual citizenship as a qualifier for the Presidency, the NEXT hurdle you must meet is NOW proving that Obama currently holds dual citizenship. Because if he is NOT currently a dual citizen, than such a restriction would NOT apply to him.)

    *DUH*

  105. avatar
    Suranis April 1, 2011 at 1:07 am #

    Ragout: If Libya did that, Congress could just pass a law saying that the Libyan law is invalid.As the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.”

    Actually they already have, in 250 years of saying that the Eligibility ofor president is to be a natural born Citizen, which means Birth on US soil or to US arents when abroad. All other factors, legal and otherwise are irrelevant.

    So all the rulings by all the countries of the world are already irrelevant.

    What was that you were saying about “incoherent speech”?I see why you were threatening to kick my ass: it’s the only way you can win an argument![

    *laughs* Look up, my friend. I never threatened to kick your ass. Someone ELSE said that you should hold very still so I could pull my foot out of your rectum. Someone else said its also quite easy to kick your ass because ass is all you Birthers are made of. But I never threatened to kick your ass. Yet another thing you are wrong/lying about. And the proof is in this very thread.

    You might recall it was when I showed one of your little fantasies was (a) impossible and (b) irrelevant as Obama could have rescinded his renouncing US citizenship easily even if he had done it… by quoting actual real US law. Not fantasy league. You know, the thing you completely ignored in favor of making stuff up about US law.

    And I notice you ignored the last part of my speech, which was something you were proud to be an American about till May 2008.

  106. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 1:34 am #

    Ragout: The Courts saved us from that tree-hugging socialist Al Gore. Why oh why won’t they save us from the Sharia-loving Obama!

    Perhaps because unlike you, they recognize that there is no reason that President Obama shouldn’t hold the office of President?

    (that and they realized how bad an opinion Bush v. Gore was when they wrote it, declaring it of no precidential value, and don’t want another self-inflicted black eye?)

  107. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 1:56 am #

    JoZeppy: If, as you propose, this prohibition against dual citizens … is part of the definition of NBC, then it is a Constitutional recognition of citizenship of other nations.An act of congress,that has no power to effect the grant of citizenship couldn’t impact the defintions of terms in the Constituition.

    It’s debatable, but plenty of reputable constitutional scholars are on my side in believing that Congress has a role in defining “Natural Born Citizen.” Consider a closely related matter. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution places certain restrictions on the election of a President and a Vice President who are both “inhabitants” of the same state. Similarly, the Constitution says that members of Congress must be “inhabitants” of the state that they represent. In Jones v. Bush, patriotic Birther Phil Berg tried and failed to block the election of Bush and Cheney, both inhabitants of Texas (the court said it was good enough for Cheney to switch his residence to Wyoming at the last minute).

    As at least one constitutional scholar has argued, “The interpretation of the term “inhabitant” as it arises under this provision is for Congress to decide. A court should refrain from a pronouncement on such an issue.” So too, within certain limitations, Congress can define “Natural Born Citizen.”

  108. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 2:10 am #

    Suranis:

    Look up, my friend. I never threatened to kick your ass.

    You Obots really do have a strong aversion to the truth.

    Joey:: Ragout: I suggest that you hold very still while Suranis removes his foot from your rectum.
    Suranis: [Replying to Joey] *Assumes Bruce Lee pose* KWAAIIIII!!!

  109. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 3:18 am #

    Ragout: It’s debatable, but plenty of reputable constitutional scholars are on my side in believing that Congress has a role in defining “Natural Born Citizen.” Consider a closely related matter. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution places certain restrictions on the election of a President and a Vice President who are both “inhabitants” of the same state. Similarly, the Constitution says that members of Congress must be “inhabitants” of the state that they represent. In Jones v. Bush, patriotic Birther Phil Berg tried and failed to block the election of Bush and Cheney, both inhabitants of Texas (the court said it was good enough for Cheney to switch his residence to Wyoming at the last minute). As at least one constitutional scholar has argued, “The interpretation of the term “inhabitant” as it arises under this provision is for Congress to decide. A court should refrain from a pronouncement on such an issue.” So too, within certain limitations, Congress can define “Natural Born Citizen.”

    *yawn* Once again, you make apples to oranges comparison’s that don’t support your point.

    First of all, the example you try to use, the 12th Amendment is PROOF of the points that have been made to you about issues impacting defintions of provisions within the Constitution REQUIRING a Constitutional Amendment to change or refine.

    So, yeah, good luck with getting a Constitutional Amendment to restrict NBC as you desire. Not going to happen.

    Second, your entire defense to an issue of the office of POTUS, which applies to the ENTIRE U.S. is to refer to examples of jurisdiction which apply specifically to roles in which there are state specific jurisdiction issues. Apples and oranges. You FAIL again.

  110. avatar
    The Magic M April 1, 2011 at 4:05 am #

    > It’s debatable, but plenty of reputable constitutional scholars are on my side in believing that Congress has a role in defining “Natural Born Citizen.”

    Then why are you birthers complaining that Congress seems to think Obama is an NBC? Wasn’t the birther line always “only the intent of the Founders matters and Congress has no say in what they (Congress) would like it to mean”?

  111. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 4:46 am #

    G: *yawn*Once again, you make apples to oranges comparison’s that don’t support your point.

    First of all, the example you try to use, the 12th Amendment is PROOF of the points that have been made to you about issues impacting defintions of provisions within the Constitution REQUIRING a Constitutional Amendment to change or refine.

    So, yeah, good luck with getting a Constitutional Amendment to restrict NBC as you desire.Not going to happen.

    Second, your entire defense to an issue of the office of POTUS, which applies to the ENTIRE U.S. is to refer to examples of jurisdiction which apply specifically to roles in which there are state specific jurisdiction issues.Apples and oranges.You FAIL again.

    I’ve linked to a law review article that supports my position. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say. Perhaps you could cite a law review article, a court decision, something written by a lawyer, or at least an article by someone capable of writing a coherent sentence, that supports your position.

    By the way, I have no idea why you think 12th Amendment issues are irrelevant. The 12th Amendment applies to Presidential eligibility. NBC applies to Presidential eligibility. Obama is (allegedly) the President. So the analogy is apples to apples.

  112. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 4:58 am #

    The Magic M:
    >

    Then why are you birthers complaining that Congress seems to think Obama is an NBC? Wasn’t the birther line always “only the intent of the Founders matters and Congress has no say in what they (Congress) would like it to mean”?

    I’ve never heard that “birther line.” But if indeed some birther somewhere has made a legal error, I’m hardly obligated to defend it.

    And yes, Congress fell down on its job in verifying Obama’s eligibility. Just as Congress failed in its duty to verify Cheney’s eligibility (under the 12th Amendment) to receive the electoral votes of Texas. That’s why we need the courts to step in!

  113. avatar
    Scientist April 1, 2011 at 6:29 am #

    Ragout: First you challenge me to come up with a Supreme Court decision about dual citizens and the Presidency and now you say it doesn’t matter!

    That’s not what I said. I said that Obama is not a dual citizen during hiis term in office, so it would have no effect on HIM. But there have been Presidents who were dual citizens or had potential claims, including Jefferson (France), Arthur (Britain), Eisenhower (Germany) and perhaps others and there likely will be in the future. Therefore, such a decision would not be without effect.

    Ragout: Anytime it wished, the US Congress could pass a law saying “the British Nationality Act of 1948 has no bearing on eligibility for the US Presidency.” Or replace “British Nationality Act of 1948‘ with the Obots’ beloved hypothetical Libyan, North Korean, and other Wicked Furriners Nationality Act of 2011, or whatever foreign law you want. Such a law would have presumably have no effect in foreign countries, but it would determine eligibility for US President.
    Since Congress hasn’t passed such a law, dual citizens can’t be President.

    What isn’t prohibited is allowed. I don’t need Congress to allow me to breath or eat or walk down the street. Those aren’t forbidden so they are allowed. Same with dual citizen Presidents. Come back when there is a specific law or ruling forbidding dual citizens and we’ll atlk.

  114. avatar
    Majority Will April 1, 2011 at 6:30 am #

    “Why oh why won’t they save us from the Sharia-loving Obama!”

    Spoken like a true racist.

  115. avatar
    Majority Will April 1, 2011 at 6:34 am #

    Ragout: Joey:: Ragout: I suggest that you hold very still while Suranis removes his foot from your rectum.

    Boo-frickin-hoo. Did you get your widdle feewings hurt?

    Try growing a pair.

  116. avatar
    Majority Will April 1, 2011 at 6:39 am #

    Ragout: “I’ve currently knocked down two or three of you Obots’ arguments.”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! !

    Comedy gold.

    Delusion. noun

    an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder : the delusion of being watched.

  117. avatar
    Majority Will April 1, 2011 at 6:49 am #

    Ragout: Since Congress hasn’t passed such a law, dual citizens can’t be President.

    By your illogic, since Congress hasn’t passed a law, idiot birthers can’t be President either.

    Sorry Trump.

    As JoZeppy said, “The only limitations on the presidency are age, residency and NBC. The Court has defined NBC by the common law, and that definition doesn’t inlcude any discussion about dual citizenship.”

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Did you scribble in changes with crayon?

    Are you going to let Congress know your edits and restrictions? They will be probably convene a special session just for you.

  118. avatar
    Suranis April 1, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    You know, thinking about it, even from Rageouts point of view, his “The fact that congress has not passed any laws to void Dual citizenship fo rthat means dual citizenship makes you ineligible to the presidency” makes even less sense. There are Irish citizens that have been born in America, aggording to the Irish nationality act 2004. Italy claims everyone of ialian blood at its citizens. Isreal Claims all Jews. People still are british citizens who were made so inder the 1948 nationality act.. who are American citizens,.

    Rageout could be a dual citizen and not have a clue he is.

    So if all that voided people chance to become resident, how come congress has not already acted?

    Simple, because, its irrelevant to someones eligibility under US law. Q. E. D.

  119. avatar
    The Magic M April 1, 2011 at 8:18 am #

    > That’s why we need the courts to step in!

    Again, that is not how checks and balances work.

    Just like Congress cannot “step in” if a court makes a ruling that is clearly against the law (by reversing the verdict and telling the judge to do over), the courts cannot “step in” and do Congress’ work if Congress refuses (arguendo).

    Presidency issues are reserved to Congress by the Constitution itself.

    Nowhere does the Constitution (that you birthers claim to protect) give the courts the authority to remove a sitting President, regardless for what reason, regardless whether someone “erred” or “maliciously conspired” in making that person President.

    If you’re claiming to uphold the law, tell me where the law (Constitution or otherwise) gives that authority to any court.

    And there is no “backdoor” that allows getting around that by using the contrived argument that impeachment was only for a “legitimate” president, whereas for an “illegitimate” president Congress doesn’t have a say.

    And even if that were true, that still wouldn’t mean the courts have a say instead.

    Just you wishing it to be so doesn’t make it so.

    (As a slightly less scientific argument, I don’t think any of you birthers – like all US citizens – would in general be comfortable with the idea that any court could just declare “your” president ineligible and thus reverse the results of an election and take an end-run around Congress’ sole authority to impeach.
    I’d like to see you in the parallel universe in 2013 where an “Obot judge” declares your “President Donald Trump” ineligible after his landslide win with 97% of the people’s vote. Cue in the screaming in 3… 2… 1…)

  120. avatar
    Majority Will April 1, 2011 at 8:32 am #

    G: But that’s ok, Ragout. Keep entertaining us with new ways to show the depth of your ignorance and inability to grasp fairly simple terms, concepts and logical thought. Its quite amusing.

    I’m not sure if you are just a 10-year old on a keyboard or merely an angry high-school drop out.

    This birther troll’s puerile tantrums, blatant bigotry and mindless illogic are suspiciously similar to the high school age blowhard who posted here a few months back and was banned.

  121. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 1, 2011 at 9:15 am #

    Majority Will: This birther troll’s puerile tantrums, blatant bigotry and mindless illogic are suspiciously similar to the high school age blowhard who posted here a few months back and was banned.

    Ahh yes the high schooler with multiple sockpuppets

  122. avatar
    Scientist April 1, 2011 at 9:19 am #

    Regarding dual citizenship I came upon an excellent site, that tells you everything you might want to know (or not want to know) about dual citizenship.

    http://www.richw.org/dualcit/

  123. avatar
    ballantine April 1, 2011 at 10:09 am #

    You can keep repeating this dual citizenship nonsense you want, but unless you can point to any authority supporting it, it is just birther nonsense. Please, show one court at any level that has ever said dual citizenship is relevant. There are none. Show one statement by a framer. There are none. Show one scholar of any significance. There are none but few 19th century racists trying to prevent Chinese from becoming citizens. They lost.

    Sorry, the fact is that the Supreme court already has defined “natural born citizen” and Congress has no authority to change what the court has decided. It is so sad that so many birthers can’t read case law.

  124. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    The Magic M:
    > That’s why we need the courts to step in!

    Again, that is not how checks and balances work.

    Just like Congress cannot “step in” if a court makes a ruling that is clearly against the law (by reversing the verdict and telling the judge to do over), the courts cannot “step in” and do Congress’ work if Congress refuses (arguendo).

    Yes, that is how checks and balances work. My favorite example of Congress “overruling” the courts is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The Courts had said that even though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination because of sex, there’s nothing wrong with discriminating against pregnant people. Congress “overruled” the courts and passed a law stating “The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” See also the Civil Rights Restoration Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, etc.

  125. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    Ragout: It’s debatable, but plenty of reputable constitutional scholars are on my side in believing that Congress has a role in defining “Natural Born Citizen.” Consider a closely related matter. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution places certain restrictions on the election of a President and a Vice President who are both “inhabitants” of the same state. Similarly, the Constitution says that members of Congress must be “inhabitants” of the state that they represent. In Jones v. Bush, patriotic Birther Phil Berg tried and failed to block the election of Bush and Cheney, both inhabitants of Texas (the court said it was good enough for Cheney to switch his residence to Wyoming at the last minute). As at least one constitutional scholar has argued, “The interpretation of the term “inhabitant” as it arises under this provision is for Congress to decide. A court should refrain from a pronouncement on such an issue.” So too, within certain limitations, Congress can define “Natural Born Citizen.”

    The problem with you analysis, is that the court has already weighed in on the defintion of NBC. Congress can’t unilaterally add requirements to that without amending the constitution.

  126. avatar
    Scientist April 1, 2011 at 10:41 am #

    Your examples are not Congress overruuliing the courts. Coourts ruled based on existing law and those rulings stood. Congress is free to enact new laws, which can also be challenged in court.

    We are alll still waiting for a citation to a court ruling about dual citizens and the Presidency. We are also wondering why you even raise the issue here, since this web site is supposed to deal with President Obama who has held no citizenship but US during his time in office.

  127. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    ballantine:

    Sorry, the fact is that the Supreme court already has defined “natural born citizen” and Congress has no authority to change what the court has decided.It is so sad that so many birthers can’t read case law.

    I know that you Obots think the Supreme Court has endorsed your preferred definition of NBC, but that doesn’t make it so. You might want to check out the site Scientists recommends, which states “The term “natural born citizen” … has never been the subject of any federal court ruling.

    As to whether Congress has authority to change the definition the courts have allegedly decided, the lawyers for Bush and Cheney didn’t think so in Jones v. Bush. They argued that Texas and Wyoming laws defining “habitation” had probative value for the interpretation of the 12th Amendment. If state law matters for defining constitutional terms, then surely federal law must count for something!

  128. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 10:45 am #

    Ragout: Yes, that is how checks and balances work. My favorite example of Congress “overruling” the courts is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The Courts had said that even though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination because of sex, there’s nothing wrong with discriminating against pregnant people. Congress “overruled” the courts and passed a law stating “The terms because of sex’ or on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” See also the Civil Rights Restoration Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, etc.

    You really need to thing your examples through. There is a world of difference between Congress amending a statute, that they wrote, and amending the Constitution. Again, you example is completely off point. You see, Congress has the power to change statutes. They draft them, the president signs them. They become laws. If the courts find ambiguity in a statute that congress overlooked, or a provision, that as written, is unconstitutional, the Congress has all the power in the world to redraft the statute to make comply with the Constitution, and have the same result. Congress doesn’t have that power over the Constitution, and terms in the Constitution that are defined by the common law.

  129. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    JoZeppy: Congress can’t unilaterally add requirements to [the NBC standard for presidential eligibility] without amending the constitution.

    The Magic M: Presidency issues are reserved to Congress by the Constitution itself.

    You Obots need to get your story straight! Let me know when you’ve come up with a coherent theory of whether the Courts or the Congress (or both or neither) have the final say.

  130. avatar
    Scientist April 1, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    Ragout: I know that you Obots think the Supreme Court has endorsed your preferred definition of NBC, but that doesn’t make it so. You might want to check out the site Scientists recommends, which states “The term “natural born citizen” … has never been the subject of any federal court ruling.”

    The Supreme Court has never endorsed YOUR definition either. In fact there few, if any, terms in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has ever defined. They are not a dictionary. They apply the law to cases. They have never defined the establishmment of religion clause, though they have ruled in numerous cases as to whether or not a particular action violates it.

    There were dual citizen Presiidents (Jefferson, Arthur and very likely Eisenhower, among others) and no one ever challenged them, so the courts never ruled. If one comes along and someone challenges them, you might get a ruling. On the other hand the courts might say it was up to Congress. Since it’s not an issue that affects anything at the moment, what is your point?

  131. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 11:01 am #

    Ragout: I know that you Obots think the Supreme Court has endorsed your preferred definition of NBC, but that doesn’t make it so. You might want to check out the site Scientists recommends, which states “The term “natural born citizen” … has never been the subject of any federal court ruling.”

    Well, all due respect to Scientist, what qualifies a person with a BA in Math and Music, masters in Music and computers to make statements on the law. The Supreme Court addressed the issue. We look to the common law, and any person born on US soil (not to diplomats, etc) is a NBC. There is no controvery on that point, so you will never get another SCOTUS opinion on it (perhaps a foreign born to US citizens, but that’s another issue where there actually is scholarly debate).

    Ragout: As to whether Congress has authority to change the definition the courts have allegedly decided, the lawyers for Bush and Cheney didn’t think so in Jones v. Bush. They argued that Texas and Wyoming laws defining “habitation” had probative value for the interpretation of the 12th Amendment. If state law matters for defining constitutional terms, then surely federal law must count for something!

    Again, you are showing that you really have no clue what you are speaking about. You are comparing the courts looking to state law for a definition of a term used in the Constitution that had never been examined before. They looked to state law because it is not unheard of for states to define terms of residence for issues like state income tax. There being no clear statement on the amendment up until that point, the courts had the luxery of looking to wherever they felt they could get the best definition. They have now established a precident for that term. The phase Natural Born Citizen was examined by the Supreme Court. They looked to the common law. The common law is clear on this question. Should Congress try to statutorily alter that definition, and it come before the court, the courts will use the definition established by the SCOTUS, and stike the statutorily definition.

  132. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 11:04 am #

    JoZeppy: You really need to thing your examples through.There is a world of difference between Congress amending a statute, that they wrote, and amending the Constitution.

    So true! Statutes are different from the Constitution! But so irrelevant!

    I was responding to The Magic M who said “Just like Congress cannot “step in” if a court makes a ruling that is clearly against the law.” Magic M didn’t say “against the Constitution,” he said “against the law.” I gave three examples from civil rights law where Congress did just that.

  133. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 11:09 am #

    Ragout: You Obots need to get your story straight! Let me know when you’ve come up with a coherent theory of whether the Courts or the Congress (or both or neither) have the final say.

    There is a coherent theory. However, true to birther form, you take single sentances out of context and try to make something of it.

    Only Congress can remove a sitting president. That power is deligated to them by the Constitution. Any attempts by the Courts to remove a sitting president would violate the Political Question Doctrine. Congerss, however, doesn’t get to change the constitution without an amendment. It is the power of the courts to decide what the Constitution actually means. So up until the President takes the oath of office (although there may be some argument if the court has the power once Electoral Congress has voted, and Congress certifies the votes), the Courts have authority to act (see you fav case of Bush v. Gore).

  134. avatar
    Scientist April 1, 2011 at 11:12 am #

    Just a further point. President Obama has not held any citizenship other than US during his time in office. Did he ever? His campaign website did say that he was eligible for UK and Colonies citiizenship at birth and Kenyan citizenship following independence. But neither Obama nor his campaign are the authoritative source on UK or Kenyan citiizenship. Only the governments and courts of those countries are. It has never been shown that he was a granted a passport or allowed to reside or vote in those countries. In fact, based on the dubious validity of the Dunham-Obama marriage, it is quite possible that he never was a citizen of any country other than the US.

    So why is this even a topic on a board called “Obama Conspiracy Theories”.?

  135. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 11:12 am #

    JoZeppy:

    Again, you are showing that you really have no clue what you are speaking about.You are comparing the courts looking to state law for a definition of a term used in the Constitution that had never been examined before.

    You believe that Jones v. Bush in the year 2000 was the first time the courts have ever considered the term “habitation”? Are you serious? This isn’t worth bothering to rebut.

  136. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    Ragout: I’ve linked to a law review article that supports my position. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say. Perhaps you could cite a law review article, a court decision, something written by a lawyer, or at least an article by someone capable of writing a coherent sentence, that supports your position.
    By the way, I have no idea why you think 12th Amendment issues are irrelevant. The 12th Amendment applies to Presidential eligibility. NBC applies to Presidential eligibility. Obama is (allegedly) the President. So the analogy is apples to apples.

    For the second time, because ALL the points you are trying to make deal specifically about aspects of concern that are STATE-SPECIFIC.

    The issue of NBC deals with the nation as a WHOLE. It doesn’t matter WHICH state of the Union you were born in, just that you were born in the US.

    Neither your example NOR your legal scholar was talking about the NBC issue at all. The NBC issue is the only relevant issue. That is the apple. Your other arguments are the oranges.

  137. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    Ragout: So true! Statutes are different from the Constitution! But so irrelevant!I was responding to The Magic M who said “Just like Congress cannot “step in” if a court makes a ruling that is clearly against the law.” Magic M didn’t say “against the Constitution,” he said “against the law.” I gave three examples from civil rights law where Congress did just that.

    Actually what is irrlevant are all your silly little tangets you keep taking You continue take single sentances out of a discussion and treating them in a vaccum and going off on a totally irrlevant tangent, that does nothing to support any of your arguments.

  138. avatar
    Sef April 1, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    JoZeppy: So up until the President takes the oath of office (

    As has been pointed out multiple times taking the oath does not make the President. It is the advancement of time to the noon on Jan 20 mark that does it.

  139. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    JoZeppy: It is the power of the courts to decide what the Constitution actually means.

    I always keep a copy of the Constitution in my back pocket. I’ve checked and checked, but I can’t find anywhere in the constitution where it says that. Which section is it in?

  140. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    Ragout: You believe that Jones v. Bush in the year 2000 was the first time the courts have ever considered the term “habitation”? Are you serious? This isn’t worth bothering to rebut.

    In the context of the 12th Amendment, yes. You seem to have trouble with this “context” issue.

  141. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    Ragout: You Obots need to get your story straight! Let me know when you’ve come up with a coherent theory of whether the Courts or the Congress (or both or neither) have the final say.

    Again, you only demonstrate that you have difficulty with simple comprehension. If you are confused, maybe it is because you are simply not capable of grasping more complex concepts or their relationships.

  142. avatar
    Sef April 1, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    Ragout: I always keep a copy of the Constitution in my back pocket.I’ve checked and checked, but I can’t find anywhere in the constitution where it says that.Which section is it in?

    Maybe a good place to start would be Article III.

  143. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    JoZeppy: Actually what is irrlevant are all your silly little tangets you keep taking You continue take single sentances out of a discussion and treating them in a vaccum and going off on a totally irrlevant tangent, that does nothing to support any of your arguments.

    Standard birther tactic. They can’t rebut the factual arguments made to them, so they have to try to change the subject slightly and try to distract by going off on some side-tangent, in hopes that they can win some other argument.

  144. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    Ragout: I’ve linked to a law review article that supports my position. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say. Perhaps you could cite a law review article, a court decision, something written by a lawyer, or at least an article by someone capable of writing a coherent sentence, that supports your position.

    It doesn’t support your position. It is on a very narrow subject that is not remotely related to the question of citizenyship. You want a court decision, try Wonk Kim Ark. You want a law review article, how about Gabriel J. Chin, “Why Senator John McCain Cannot be Presidnet: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship,” 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 1, 2 (2008), “Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens.” That’s a little more on point, don’t you think?

    Ragout: By the way, I have no idea why you think 12th Amendment issues are irrelevant. The 12th Amendment applies to Presidential eligibility. NBC applies to Presidential eligibility. Obama is (allegedly) the President. So the analogy is apples to apples.

    The fact that you would think the two are somehow related is quite telling indeed.

  145. avatar
    y_p_w April 1, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    Ragout: I always keep a copy of the Constitution in my back pocket.I’ve checked and checked, but I can’t find anywhere in the constitution where it says that.Which section is it in?

    Not in the Constitution per se, but the Supreme Court took on that role via the Marbury v. Madison decision. That’s taught in most high school American history classes.

  146. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    Sef: As has been pointed out multiple times taking the oath does not make the President. It is the advancement of time to the noon on Jan 20 mark that does it.

    Actually, there was some law geek discussions about this. The 20th Amendment is understood to make the transition happen, but the office of the President is the only office that specificically requires an oath, “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation” Has the 20th Amendment removed this requirement, or can he be president, but not execute his office without the oath? Just fodder for law journal articles, I suppose.

  147. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 11:36 am #

    JoZeppy: Actually what is irrlevant are all your silly little tangets you keep takingYou continue take single sentances out of a discussion and treating them in a vaccum and going off on a totally irrlevant tangent, that does nothing to support any of your arguments.

    I’m just rebutting you Obots. It’s not my fault that you keep making erroneous, irrelevant, and contradictory points!

    Here’s the somewhat larger issue: who decides what NBC means for the purpose of determining Presidential eligibility? Some of you Obots say that only the Courts decide. Others say that only Congress decides. Not only can’t you get your stories straight, but you’re all wrong. Actually, Congress, the Courts, and State governments all have overlapping roles.

  148. avatar
    Scientist April 1, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    Let’s look at that Jones v. Bush case for a second. The plaintiff wanted to enjoin Texas electors from voting for Cheney. Supposing the court had done so and the Electors said, “Screw you, we were sworn to do what the voters elected us to do” and voted for Cheney anyway. What would happen? Well, it would nave been up to Congress to decide whether or not to count those votes. So, in matters regarding the the Presidency (and Vice) Congress is supreme in the end. By the way, Congress could have also ignored Bush v Gore and refused to count Florida’s votes. Legal scholars were quite clear on that at the time.

  149. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    Ragout: I always keep a copy of the Constitution in my back pocket. I’ve checked and checked, but I can’t find anywhere in the constitution where it says that. Which section is it in?

    Try the first clause of Art III Sec. 2…I’ll even give it to you:

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,

  150. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    y_p_w: Not in the Constitution per se, but the Supreme Court took on that role via the Marbury v. Madison decision.That’s taught in most high school American history classes.

    Half right! But you forgot that JoZeppy claimed “It is the power of the courts to decide what the Constitution actually means.” Marbury v. Madison does not say that *only* the courts have that power, which is what JoZeppy seems to believe.

  151. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    Ragout: I’m just rebutting you Obots. It’s not my fault that you keep making erroneous, irrelevant, and contradictory points!

    You can’t rebut anything by taking a sentance out of context and going down an irrelant tangent. So thus far, you have rebutted nothing.

    Ragout: Here’s the somewhat larger issue: who decides what NBC means for the purpose of determining Presidential eligibility? Some of you Obots say that only the Courts decide. Others say that only Congress decides. Not only can’t you get your stories straight, but you’re all wrong. Actually, Congress, the Courts, and State governments all have overlapping roles.

    Actually, no, only the courts have the power to make a final determination of what NBC (or any other term used in the Constitution) means. And those of us in the real world recognize the fact that they already have.

    However, you like to keep pulling random sentances out of context to try to conjure up some pretend contradictions. There aren’t any. You just keep manufacturing them by selective quoting. Just like Congress cannot change the definition of NBC in the face of a contradictory SCOTUS opinion, SCOTUS cannot remove a sitting President, nor do they have power to review the removal of a President by Congress. And finally, state governments have no role at all in defining what NBC means. That is the silliest assertion I’ve seen yet out of you.

  152. avatar
    Scientist April 1, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    Ragout: Actually, Congress, the Courts, and State governments all have overlapping roles

    As a practical matter, Congress has the final word. They don’t do it through statutenor do they iissue definitions (courts usually don’t issue definitions either) but through exercising their function of certifying the votes. If you don’t llike how your member of Congress handled that on one or another occasion, don’t vote for them. Looking to the courts to overturn that is a futile waste of time.

  153. avatar
    Sef April 1, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    JoZeppy: Actually, no, only the courts have the power to make a final determination of what NBC (or any other term used in the Constitution) means.

    If SCOTUS made a definition which precluded a particular candidate & Congress accepted Electoral College votes for a candidate who did not meet that definition, that person would still become POTUS & SCOTUS could pound salt. Congress has the final say on who becomes POTUS.

  154. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    Ragout: I’m just rebutting you Obots. It’s not my fault that you keep making erroneous, irrelevant, and contradictory points!

    *yawn*. Classic projection. Accuse others of what only you yourself are doing.

  155. avatar
    Rickey April 1, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    MichaelN:

    The decline in support for a second term comes as Mr. Obama’s approval rating has dropped 4 percentage points since early March. His disapproval rating has risen from 46 percent to 48 percent. The poll also comes as the White House faces criticism concerning the current intervention in Libya.

    That’s so typical of birthers – seize upon one poll which gives you the results you like while disregarding the rest.

    An AP/GFK Roper poll conducted 3/24-3/28 shows entirely different results. It shows Obama’s approval rating at 53% and his disapproval rating at 45%.

    http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm#AP

    Gallup Daily Tracking Poll 3/28-3/30: Approve 49% Disapprove 43%

    http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm#Gallup

    Another AP/GFK Roper poll, 3/24-3/28:

    “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Barack Obama?”

    Favorable: 59%
    Unfavorable 39%

    http://pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm

  156. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    Scientist: As a practical matter, Congress has the final word.They don’t do it through statutenor do they iissue definitions (courts usually don’t issue definitions either) but through exercising their function of certifying the votes.If you don’t llike how your member of Congress handled that on one or another occasion, don’t vote for them.Looking to the courts to overturn that is a futile waste of time.

    To paraphrase you Obots’ favorite philosopher, the Supreme Court doesn’t have any Army divisions but Congress does. But if a state government refused to place dual citizens on the ballot, or refused to let its electors vote for a dual citizen, they’d have a reasonable constitutional argument, and enough clout to have a reasonable chance of success. Again paraphrasing Stalin: State governments print the ballots and count them too.

  157. avatar
    Scientist April 1, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    Sef: If SCOTUS made a definition which precluded a particular candidate & Congress accepted Electoral College votes for a candidate who did not meet that definition, that person would still become POTUS & SCOTUS could pound salt. Congress has the final say on who becomes POTUS.

    I agree. SCOTUS could define the term if they chose to, but ultimately Congress has to decide if a candidate is in or out. One could argue they should defer to the Court’s definition, but they don’t have to.

    Impeachment represents a similar situation. “High crimes and misdemeanors” has never been defined. Supposing Congress conducts impeachment inan arbitrary and highly political way (many would argue that is what they did in both presidential impeachments). Could a Presiident, if convicted, appeal? Nope.

  158. avatar
    Rickey April 1, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

    Ragout: I’m just rebutting you Obots.It’s not my fault that you keep making erroneous, irrelevant, and contradictory points!

    One difference between Obots and Birthers is that we Obots sometimes disagree with one another. To you that is contradictory; to me, it is a healthy sign of open discourse among people who sometimes have different points of view.

  159. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 12:03 pm #

    Sef: If SCOTUS made a definition which precluded a particular candidate & Congress accepted Electoral College votes for a candidate who did not meet that definition, that person would still become POTUS & SCOTUS could pound salt. Congress has the final say on who becomes POTUS.

    Point taken…

  160. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    Ragout: But if a state government refused to place dual citizens on the ballot, or refused to let its electors vote for a dual citizen, they’d have a reasonable constitutional argument, and enough clout to have a reasonable chance of success.

    No bloody chance of success. You should probably pull out your pocket constitution and look up things like equal protection and the supremecy clause.

  161. avatar
    Scientist April 1, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    Ragout: But if a state government refused to place dual citizens on the ballot, or refused to let its electors vote for a dual citizen, they’d have a reasonable constitutional argument, and enough clout to have a reasonable chance of success.

    Ballot placement is clearly reviewable by the courts. There is plenty of precedent for that. States can’t prevent electors from voting how they like-there have been faithless electors and their votes counted. All they can do is attempt to punish them after the fact. If convicted, an elector could certainly appeal.

    My favorite phiiosopher is Buddha and don’t recall he ever mentioned armies.

    you aren’t doing too well here…

  162. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 12:07 pm #

    Ragout: Again paraphrasing Stalin: State governments print the ballots and count them too.

    I guess you missed that whole civil rights thing back in the 50s and 60s? The state’s power to decide how to handle elections has serious limitations.

  163. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    Ragout: To paraphrase you Obots’ favorite philosopher, the Supreme Court doesn’t have any Army divisions but Congress does. But if a state government refused to place dual citizens on the ballot, or refused to let its electors vote for a dual citizen, they’d have a reasonable constitutional argument, and enough clout to have a reasonable chance of success. Again paraphrasing Stalin: State governments print the ballots and count them too.

    Wow. One of your dumbest arguments yet. And that says a lot.

    Sorry, in matters of federal jurisdiction, the states will be simply overruled if they overreach. Your argument is nothing but the same sort of pablum fantasy nonsense pulled by those that still think that a state can secede from the Union. Sorry, the Civil War settled that issue for good. Any state that tries to go its own way will simply lose. So spare us your keyboard commando hints of armed revolt. Any person or state that tries that is a traitor to this country.

  164. avatar
    Suranis April 1, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Ragout: State governments print the ballots and count them too

    Ahh ha ha haaa. Yout thisn that was threatening you? I wasn’t even responding to you, but to Joey. and in any case in that time scale I was NOT threatening to kick your ass, I’d already done it.

    I know you internet tough guys are scared of your own shadow, but come on.

    I notice you have not responded to when I shattered your “the courts haven’t ruled to make dual citizenship rules invalid so that means that dual citizens are not edible for the presidency” line, which not even a 10 year old would believe let alone try and argu for.

    But then yoau re doing that a lot arent you. We have gone from Obama going into a consulate in Jakarta through dual citizenship to something about states overruling the federal government, which last I checked WAS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

    But it was in the constitution of the Confederacy during your civil war. What a surprise.

  165. avatar
    Suranis April 1, 2011 at 12:14 pm #

    And My favorite philosopher is Jesus Christ, but i also loved reading St Thomas Aquinas and Hegel, and I agree with a lot Kant had to say but I never want to read him again.

  166. avatar
    Sef April 1, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    Ragout: Again paraphrasing Stalin: State governments print the ballots and count them too.

    As an Election Inspector, I take offense at that remark!!!

  167. avatar
    Ragout April 1, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

    G: Wow.One of your dumbest arguments yet.And that says a lot.

    Sorry, in matters of federal jurisdiction, the states will be simply overruled if they overreach.Your argument is nothing but the same sort of pablum fantasy nonsense pulled by those that still think that a state can secede from the Union.Sorry, the Civil War settled that issue for good.Any state that tries to go its own way will simply lose.So spare us your keyboard commando hints of armed revolt.Any person or state that tries that is a traitor to this country.

    Remind me, which party controlled Florida’s State government in 2000, in particular the Secretary of State’s office which oversees elections? Which Presidential candidate won Florida’s electoral votes? Besides the practical power of states, there’s a pretty good constitutional argument too, but I’ve gotta go now.

  168. avatar
    Scientist April 1, 2011 at 12:29 pm #

    Ragout: Remind me, which party controlled Florida’s State government in 2000, in particular the Secretary of State’s office which oversees elections?

    The Republicans. And your point is.

    Ragout: Which Presidential candidate won Florida’s electoral votes?

    Bush. And your point is?

    Ragout: I’ve gotta go now

    Not a moment too soon.

  169. avatar
    Suranis April 1, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    Oh look. the reason for all this bs comes clear..

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/01/donald-trump-gets-fox-new_n_843474.html

    Well, well, well, the Donald has got himself a new job on FoxNews. “Monday mornings with Trump”

    This was all an audition to see if he could lie outrageously with a straight face. Just the qualifications for FIX

  170. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    Scientist: The Republicans. And your point is.Bush. And your point is?Not a moment too soon.

    Exactly. Not a relevant point made by Ragout yet and as usual an irrelevant attempt at dodging the actual questions and going off on weird tangents.

  171. avatar
    G April 1, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Suranis: Oh look. the reason for all this bs comes clear..http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/01/donald-trump-gets-fox-new_n_843474.htmlWell, well, well, the Donald has got himself a new job on FoxNews. “Monday mornings with Trump” This was all an audition to see if he could lie outrageously with a straight face. Just the qualifications for FIX

    Sounds like an April Fools joke to me.

  172. avatar
    JoZeppy April 1, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    Ragout: Remind me, which party controlled Florida’s State government in 2000, in particular the Secretary of State’s office which oversees elections? Which Presidential candidate won Florida’s electoral votes? Besides the practical power of states, there’s a pretty good constitutional argument too, but I’ve gotta go now.

    And the recount was stopped on an equal protection claim. Not anything that the state government did. How exactly does that support your argument?

    And what “pretty good constitutional agrument” is there to support a state can violate the Federal Constitution and bar an eligible candiate from the ballot. In fact, there is clear predicent that they can’t. (check out U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995))

  173. avatar
    Majority Will April 1, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    Ragout: It’s not my fault that you keep making erroneous, irrelevant, and contradictory points!

    You’re not going to convince the maniacal monster in your mirror. You might want to think about turning on some lights too.

    Silly birther dribbling something irrelevant, ” . . . Caribbean spiny lobsters from Honduras.”

    Were those spiny lobsters natural born or naturalized citizens?

  174. avatar
    obsolete April 1, 2011 at 3:40 pm #

    I think Ragout is an early Obot prankster.

  175. avatar
    The Magic M April 1, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    > My favorite example of Congress “overruling” the courts is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.

    Oh, now you’re making it too easy for me. πŸ˜‰

    > Congress “overruled” the courts and passed a law stating

    Wrong! You are indirectly admitting your analogy is wrong by putting “overruled” in quote marks.

    Congress did not overrule any court. Of course it is free to enact a law to prevent courts from ruling in a certain way in the future.
    However my point remains that this is not “overruling”. Congress did not modify nor declare void any court decision that happened prior to the change of the law. Simply because it lacks authority to do so.

    Ergo my statement that Congress cannot reverse, nullify or otherwise modify a court ruling is still unrefuted.
    (And that likewise, under checks and balances, the courts cannot intervene with Congress’ sole authority to remove a sitting president.)

    You, OTOH, again compared apples with oranges and came up with word salad.

  176. avatar
    Jules April 4, 2011 at 6:02 am #

    I need to correct some comments made about British nationality law. As you will see, British nationality law has changed considerably over the years.

    I think that it would be rather silly to argue that the nuances of British nationality law from years past determined the status in the US of someone who never exercised any rights as a British national, it not British today, has unquestionably been a US citizen since birth, and has been exercising his rights as a US citizen.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Loss of British citizenship (today) takes some trouble, including paying a fee. I don’t know what the process was before 1930, but it certainly wasn’t automatic.

    Actually, it was at the time of Donald Trump’s birth. Under s. 13 British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, a person who was voluntarily naturalised in a foreign country would automatically lose their British nationality. Until 1933, s. 10 of that Act went so far as to revoke the British nationality of a British woman who married a foreigner.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Surely only the UK can revoke someone’s British citizenship?

    Correct. The Parliament of the United Kingdom did pass an Act to do just that. Most people who became Kenyan citizens on Kenyan independence lost their citizenship of the UK and colonies by virtue of s. 2 Kenya Independence Act 1963.

    Scientist: 1. There really aren’t “British subjects” anymore. There are UK citizens (who are also EU citizens)

    It’s a more complicated than that. Those are several classes of British nationality and the most common, by far, is that of “British Citizen”. Other forms of British nationality include “British National (Overseas)”, “British Overseas Territories Citizen”, and “British Overseas Citizen”.

    British Overseas Territories Citizens are now entitled to be British Citizens as well. British Overseas Citizens with no other nationality are now entitled to become British Citizens by registration. However, the only classes of UK nationality that in and of themselves confer citizenship of the European Union are the following:
    1. British Citizenship
    2. British Overseas Territories Citizenship granted by virtue of a connection with Gibraltar

    In addition to the above, there exists a handful of people who previously held the status of British Subjects or British Protected Persons and have not fallen into any of the classes of nationality noted above. Transitional provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981 did allow them to retain such status, but people falling into this group are quite literally dying off.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Barack Obama, of course is not now, nor has ever been a “British Subject” but he was until age 23 arguably a Citizen of the UK and Colonies (and arguably not).

    This is not quite correct.

    Until the British nationality Act 1948 came into force in 1949, the unified form of British nationality for the UK, its dominions, and its colonies was that of British Subjects.

    From 1949 to 1983, “Commonwealth citizen” and “British subject” were interchangeable. Any citizen of any Commonwealth country was also a British subject. Any person who had a close connection to the UK or one of its remaining colonies by birth, descent, or naturalisation would also be a Citizen of the UK and Colonies. (Those who were British Subjects or British Protected Persons who did not acquire citizenship of the UK and Colonies or any other country were allowed to remain as British Subjects or British Subjects without Citizenship or British Protected Persons without Citizenship. Additionally, some Irish people were allowed to continue being British subjects if they so chose, even though Ireland left the Commonwealth when it became a republic.)

    If we assume that the marriage of the parents of the current President would have been considered valid, then the situation for Obama was as follows:
    Barack Obama I was, as of 1963, both a British subject and a Citizen of the UK and Colonies by virtue of birth in the colony of Kenya. Under the British nationality Act 1948, Barack Obama II was a British subject and citizen of the UK and colonies from birth by virtue of his father’s status. (Obama II was obviously a US citizen from birth by virtue of birth in the US.) When Kenya became independent, both Obama I and Obama II lost their citizenship of the UK and colonies by virtue of the Kenya Independence Act 1963, an Act of the British Parliament, because they became citizens of Kenya. As they became citizens of Kenya, they continued to be Commonwealth citizens and British subjects. When the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force in 1983, Obama II lost his status as a British subject because the concept of British subjecthood was abolished for the vast majority of British and Commonwealth nationals. In 1984, Obama II lost his citizenship of Kenya (and, consequently, status as a Commonwealth citizen) under the provisions of the Kenyan Constitution that forbade dual nationality because he had taken no steps to relinquish his US citizenship, declare allegiance to Kenya, or take up residence in Kenya.

    Scientist: Under colonial rule, Kenyans were not UK citizens with right of abode in the UK. except for those who had come out from Britain or were born in Kenya of British parents.

    Citizens of the UK and Colonies were not subject to immigration control in the UK during Kenya’s status as a British colony.

    Part I of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 was the first law to make Commonwealth citizens from outside the UK subject to UK immigration control. However, it did not apply to citizens of the UK and colonies who held UK passports. Of course, any person who became Kenyan and lost his citizenship of the UK and colonies on Kenyan independence became subject to UK immigration control from 1963 onwards.

    Citizens of the UK and colonies by virtue of a connection with a remaining colony or overseas territory did become subject to UK immigration control under the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1968 unless they could also show a sufficient connection by birth, descent, or naturalisation with the UK itself. Such a connection was known as “patriality” and was the first restriction on right of abode in the UK for those who were citizens of the UK and colonies.

    When the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force, the Citizens of the UK and Colonies who became British Citizens (as opposed to British Overseas Territories Citizens or British Overseas Citizens) were those patrials with a right of abode in the UK. Those with a close connection giving them a right of abode in some British overseas territory (then known as a British dependent territory) became British Overseas Territories Citizens. Those who were Citizens of the UK and Colonies just before the BNA 1983 came into force who lacked any right of abode in any British overseas territory became British Overseas Citizens.

    British Subjects without Citizenship and British Protected Persons without Citizenship were generally allowed to keep such status. Transitional arrangements for certain British subjects from Ireland continued as well. More recent legislation has allowed British Subjects without Citizenship to register as British Citizens.

  177. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2011 at 9:05 am #

    Jules: I need to correct some comments made about British nationality law. As you will see, British nationality law has changed considerably over the years….

    Thanks!

  178. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2011 at 9:35 am #

    Jules: Actually, it was at the time of Donald Trump’s birth. Under s. 13 British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, a person who was voluntarily naturalised in a foreign country would automatically lose their British nationality. Until 1933, s. 10 of that Act went so far as to revoke the British nationality of a British woman who married a foreigner.

    My understandiing is that the Nationality Act of 1983 gave back some of those rights retroactively. Would Donald Trump, as of today, be able to apply for UK citizenship based on his mother having been born in Scotland and having lost her citiizenship under laws that no longer apply? Thanks for your answer, Jules

  179. avatar
    Jules April 4, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    Scientist: My understandiing is that the Nationality Act of 1983 gave back some of those rights retroactively.Would Donald Trump, as of today, be able to apply for UK citizenship based on his mother having been born in Scotland and having lost her citiizenship under laws that no longer apply?Thanks for your answer, Jules

    As far as I can tell, the only provisions that could have restored British nationality lost under the 1914 Act were contained in the British Nationality Acts 1933 and 1948. The 1933 Act applied only to women who had automatically lost their British citizenship on marrying a foreigner before that Act, and so did not apply to Mrs Trump. Section 14 of the 1948 Act as originally enacted said:

    A woman who, having before the commencement of this Act married any person, ceased on that marriage or during the continuance thereof to be a British subject shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act.

    If that section did apply to Donald Trump’s mother, then she would have had her status as a British subject restored and would have acquired citizenship of the UK and colonies when the 1948 Act came into force. My hesitation in saying that it would have applied to her is because that section’s heading says that it was intended to restore the British nationality of women who ceased to be British “by reason of marriage”. Strictly speaking, it would have been her naturalisation in 1942 rather than marriage in 1936 that led her to lose British nationality. (Her marriage was after 1933, and so would not have led her to lose British nationality. If she had been married before 1933, then the 1933 Act would have automatically reinstated her British nationality.) However, there is no question that the loss of British nationality took place during her marriage and so the text of the section itself might apply.

    In the event that Donald Trump’s mother did become a citizen of the UK and colonies when the 1948 Act came into force, then there is no question that she had the right of abode in the UK under the immigration laws passed in 1968 and 1971. For this reason, she would have become a British citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981.

    If Donald Trump’s mother is a British citizen (or, if she is dead, would be a British citizen but for her death), then amendments to the British Nationality Act 1981 made in recent years would allow Trump to register as a British citizen. However, he would not be British now and would only become British upon exercising his right to be registered as a British citizen.