Main Menu

Apuzzo fulminates against Fukino

Given how much damage Dr. Chiyome Fukino did to the birther movement when she disclosed Barack Obama not only had a long form birth certificate, but that it was signed by a doctor and thereby forcing the “Obama was not born in the US” crowd onto the last bit of land still not covered by the factual flood: “everybody’s lying,” one would expect the birthers to come out slinging. Attorney Mario Apuzzo, representing one of the more angry of the angry birthers,  has met expectations with his article: An Analysis of the Current Revelations of Hawaii’s Dr. Chiyome Fukino to NBC News Regarding Obama’s Place of Birth. Keep in mind that when a birther titles something “analysis” they usually mean “smear.”

Apuzzo upholds that stereotype with logic such as:

  • We shouldn’t listen to what Fukino, who saw Obama’s birth certificate, has to say because she’s not the current Health Director. Rather we should ask the current acting director who hasn’t seen Obama’s birth certificate about it.
  • Fukino is criticized for not disclosing the second Health Department official’s name who accompanied her to look at the certificate, despite the fact that in her statement on the Department of Health web site, she specifies the title of the person, which can only be Dr. Alvin Onaka, who has been in that position for at least 2 decades.
  • Fukino’s disclosure that a doctor signed the certificate is invalidated by the fact that she didn’t say more about which hospital Obama was born in.
  • Her comments are invalidated by the fact that she didn’t make them earlier.
  • Apuzzo makes the false distinction between birth in Hawaii and registration of a birth in Hawaii. Hawaii only registered people born there in 1961, and now that we know a doctor signed the form, all that grandmother/family fraud rumor is disproved.
  • Apuzzo says: “Obama’s supporters are proclaiming Dr. Fukino’s recent revelations are the death of the ‘birthers.’” He doesn’t disclose who said that. I didn’t say that. I just say that Dr. Fukino’s recent revelations just make them all the more fringe.
  • Tim Adams contradicts Fukino. Tim Adams will not even tell us who told him that there was no long form nor explain how this alleged person could have possibly known. Fukino has seen it herself. Apuzzo plays on public ignorance of vital statistics procedures to suggest that there could be a registration without a birth certificate.

It’s basically crap. Read it if you want, but not before you eat.

Print Friendly

, , , ,

51 Responses to Apuzzo fulminates against Fukino

  1. avatar
    Rickey April 12, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    Let’s not forget that Mario still refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong when he claimed that Americans were banned from traveling to Pakistan in 1981. When called on it on this blog, he lamely insisted that it was a “de facto” ban. That lack of integrity tells us all that we need to know about Mario.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2011 at 10:03 pm #

    Rickey: Let’s not forget that Mario still refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong when he claimed that Americans were banned from traveling to Pakistan in 1981. When called on it on this blog, he lamely insisted that it was a “de facto” ban. That lack of integrity tells us all that we need to know about Mario.

    Mario poses a moral dilemma for me. As much disdain as I have for him, I still believe in the right of every man to have a paid advocate to lie for him.

  3. avatar
    MaryMitch April 12, 2011 at 10:04 pm #

    Dr. Fukino probably still can’t believe that the birthers are parsing her statements.

    But she should be assured that even if she had given a step by step account (“We opened the door and took 5 steps to the file cabinet; we unlocked the drawer and pulled out the book; … we confirmed the original vital birth records for Barack Obama with the names and addresses of the mother and father, the hospital, the signature of the attending doctor…”) – even then they would make up some claim about what she REALLY meant, or else just accuse her of lying.

    She doesn’t deserve this disrespect.

  4. avatar
    Obsolete April 12, 2011 at 10:12 pm #

    Birthers anger will continue to rise in the coming weeks as they realize:
    1- no one is about to frog-march the Obamas out of the White House.
    2- Obama will run again and won’t be kept off any state’s ballots.
    3- Donald Trump’s bout of birtherism accomplished nothing except exposing The Donald to ridicule.

    Birther tears are sweet nectar.

  5. avatar
    Sef April 12, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    Obsolete:
    Birthers anger will continue to rise in the coming weeks as they realize:
    1- no one is about to frog-march the Obamas out of the White House.
    2- Obama will run again and won’t be kept off any state’s ballots.
    3- Donald Trump’s bout of birtherism accomplished nothing except exposing The Donald to ridicule.

    Birther tears are sweet nectar.

    You can add to that list:
    4- Because The Donald has elevated the issue, the MSM will be more free to ask other potential GOP candidates of their feelings, thus further marginalizing this fringe group.
    5- If this dies down Candidate Obama can bring it back up at will to heap scorn on his opponents
    6- This is infinitely better than a candidate holding up his hand to indicate he doesn’t believe in evolution.

  6. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 12, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    MaryMitch: She doesn’t deserve this disrespect.

    The birthers are all about disrespect. I had one birther once tell me that he wasn’t being disrespectful to Dr. Dunham by referring to her as ‘Stanley’ (he also ‘respected’ the president by failing to use racial slurs… [anything else was fair game as far as I could tell...]). While that may have been her name, I sincerely doubt that she would have considered a stranger calling her ‘Stanley’ to be a sign of respect… Bithers deserve no more respect than they show the president and his family.

  7. avatar
    G April 12, 2011 at 10:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Mario poses a moral dilemma for me. As much disdain as I have for him, I still believe in the right of every man to have a paid advocate to lie for him.

    I think you give Apuzzo too much benefit of the doubt and credit.

    We don’t know the financial arrangement between Hemenway and Apuzzo, or if even still exists. What case does he still have to argue? His right to protect his (former) client at this point really should amount to no more than staying quiet. No, I seriously doubt Mario has any noble motive or even professional motive here. He choses this issue and chose to take on that client because he deeply and personally shares the same bigoted views as his client. His motives are just as slimy and based in prejudice and hate as his client.

    The evidence of Mario’s attitude and responses on birther based discussions appears to go way beyond merely representing a client. I think it has become crystal clear over time that Mario is deeply a birther on a personal level too. Being a birther doesn’t mean that he believes every one of his con artist arguments, but similar to WND’s Joseph Farah, willfully lies and spreads misinformation and propoganda because they believe their hatred of something gives them free license to attack, smear and lie.

    Face it, Apuzzo is most likely just another ends-justifies-the-means bigot and con artist.

    In my view, he’s more deserving of contempt because of that than some of his merely cluleless and extremely gullible followers.

  8. avatar
    gorefan April 12, 2011 at 10:47 pm #

    Sef: 4- Because The Donald has elevated the issue, the MSM will be more free to ask other potential GOP candidates of their feelings, thus further marginalizing this fringe group.

    7. Once the citizenship/birth certificate meme has been completely discredited, the Vattel/two citizen parent stuff will seem like so much sour grapes. Most Americans will dismiss it out of hand.

  9. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 12, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    Obsolete:
    Birthers anger will continue to rise in the coming weeks as they realize:
    1- no one is about to frog-march the Obamas out of the White House.

    I think you underestimate the power of their wishful thinking (they’ll believe that someone is just about to frog-march him out of the White House until he leaves office…)

    2- Obama will run again and won’t be kept off any state’s ballots.

    We can expect cries of ‘judicial treason’ if any state law is challenged (and struck down) in court and cries of ‘obot tampering’ with state legislatures if no birther bill becomes law – but the funniest result would be if President Obama satisfies a birther law and a Republican candidate has problems – in this event, I think the cumulative cognitive dissonance will render the birthers able to do little more that froth word salad in impotent rage.

    3- Donald Trump’s bout of birtherism accomplished nothing except exposing The Donald to ridicule.

    I’d take a look at his show’s ratings for this season (and last) before implying that The Donald is one of the losers here…

    Birther tears are sweet nectar.

    Indeed.

    Sef: You can add to that list:
    4- Because The Donald has elevated the issue, the MSM will be more free to ask other potential GOP candidates of their feelings, thus further marginalizing this fringe group.

    The poor birthers really don’t understand this…

    5- If this dies down Candidate Obama can bring it back up at will to heap scorn on his opponents

    I don’t think that President Obama can get the same effect if he’s seen as pushing this issue – also, I think that the Obama campaign would rather that this had happened six months from now…

    6- This is infinitely better than a candidate holding up his hand to indicate he doesn’t believe in evolution.

    Yes. Yes it is. (Although doubting evolution SHOULD be every bit as bad…)

  10. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 12, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    gorefan: 7. Once the citizenship/birth certificate meme has been completely discredited, the Vattel/two citizen parent stuff will seem like so much sour grapes.Most Americans will dismiss it out of hand.

    Which is going to be REALLY funny to watch… not only will the birthers be forced to try to sway public opinion with an abstruse legal argument with no supporting precedent, but they will be unable to use their standard tactic of switching between Vattel and the COLB when they’re cornered! ;-)

  11. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 11:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Mario poses a moral dilemma for me. As much disdain as I have for him, I still believe in the right of every man to have a paid advocate to lie for him.

    I take issue with this sentiment. An attorney has a duty to be a zealous advocate for his client. He also has a duty to do nothing that will reflect poorly on the profession, which of course, would including lying. An attorney is prohibited from arguing legal arguments he knows are not supported by law (or a minimum amount of research would show is not supported)(they can argue that the law should be changed, but can’t take a legal position that they know to be unsupported by law).

    In short, Apuzzo deserves nothing but disdain. He is a pimple on the buttocks of the legal community. I would personally rather give up the practice of law than to be reduced to being the embodiment of why people have a generally poor opinion of lawyers.

  12. avatar
    GeorgetownJD April 12, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    Slartibartfast:

    And when the birthers claim that “I was taught in grade school that NBC = two citizens parents AND born on American soil,” parents will be checking their children’s text books and will discover that is not true.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2011 at 11:44 pm #

    G: We don’t know the financial arrangement between Hemenway and Apuzzo, or if even still exists

    Kerchner.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2011 at 11:46 pm #

    JoZeppy: I take issue with this sentiment. An attorney has a duty to be a zealous advocate for his client

    I guess what I intended was not clear. I was speaking of Mario’s role as a public-relations agent rather than an attorney.

  15. avatar
    richCares April 13, 2011 at 12:05 am #

    no matter how often debunked, birthers keep repeating the same silly stories, it’s like they have Alzheimer’s. The one advantage birthers have is they can see the same movie 9 or times.

  16. avatar
    JoZeppy April 13, 2011 at 12:22 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I guess what I intended was not clear. I was speaking of Mario’s role as a public-relations agent rather than an attorney.

    As an attorney, Mario is still by the Rules of Professional conduct, even as a paid propaganda minister for the birther cause. He is prohibited from taking any action that reflects poorly on the profession, even if that action is in a non-attorney role. However, since he freely blurs any other such rule under the guise of his “legal” opinions, there is really no need to distinguish the two. No matter how you frame it, Mario deserves nothing but contempt.

  17. avatar
    Sef April 13, 2011 at 12:38 am #

    JoZeppy: No matter how you frame it, Mario deserves nothing but contempt.

    He certainly has mine.

  18. avatar
    ASK Esq April 13, 2011 at 12:44 am #

    Mario continues to bring shame to the legal profession. As a member of said profession, we’re kind of used to that sort of thing. In fact, law is one of few professions where we actually police ourselves and punish those who don’t abide by the rules and codes. But the simple fact is, if Mario’s submissions to any court were as poorly researched and as obviously biased as his writings on the topic of President Obama’s eligibility, he’d be a good candidate for sanctions. Courts don’t like it when you clearly lie and ignore known facts to try to make your case.

    He also manages to bring shame to New Jersey, which I always thought was nearly impossible.

  19. avatar
    JoZeppy April 13, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    ASK Esq: He also manages to bring shame to New Jersey, which I always thought was nearly impossible

    Mario makes the cast of Jersey Shore embarrased to be from New Jersey

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 13, 2011 at 2:38 am #

    JoZeppy: No matter how you frame it, Mario deserves nothing but contempt.

    No argument from me against that.

  21. avatar
    Keith April 13, 2011 at 4:40 am #

    Slartibartfast: I think you underestimate the power of their wishful thinking (they’ll believe that someone is just about to frog-march him out of the White House until he leaves office…)

    They might as well since most of them don’t believe that anything after the 12th Amendment are legal. So if he leaves office any time before March 4th 2016 it is because he has been frog marched out.

  22. avatar
    nc1 April 13, 2011 at 5:23 am #

    ASK Esq:
    Mario continues to bring shame to the legal profession. As a member of said profession, we’re kind of used to that sort of thing. In fact, law is one of few professions where we actually police ourselves and punish those who don’t abide by the rules and codes. But the simple fact is, if Mario’s submissions to any court were as poorly researched and as obviously biased as his writings on the topic of President Obama’s eligibility, he’d be a good candidate for sanctions. Courts don’t like it when you clearly lie and ignore known facts to try to make your case.

    He also manages to bring shame to New Jersey, which I always thought was nearly impossible.

    =============================================================
    What is your opinion about John Bingham’s statement:
    “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”

    Does this definition include children of illegal aliens born in the USA?

  23. avatar
    Lupin April 13, 2011 at 6:01 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Mario poses a moral dilemma for me. As much disdain as I have for him, I still believe in the right of every man to have a paid advocate to lie for him.

    Without trying to sound like Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of “lie”, doesn’t it?

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t US attorneys barred from stating something that they know to be false in their pleadings?

    I think Mario crossed that line several times.

  24. avatar
    Lupin April 13, 2011 at 6:06 am #

    For the record Mario has always steadfastly avoided denying that his services are paid by people or organizations connected to racist/extreme right-wing causes.

    I always thought Mario’s real job was to promote a racist / anti-immigrant agenda of the type being on display in Arizona.

  25. avatar
    Scientist April 13, 2011 at 7:34 am #

    nc1: What is your opinion about John Bingham’s statement:
    “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”

    My opinion is that Mr Bingham needed Misha to make him some better eyeglasses if he saw the phrase “of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignity” written in the Constitution, because it isn;t there.

  26. avatar
    DaveH April 13, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    What NC1 fails to understand about Bingham’s statement is that he was referring to parents that are ambassadors to this country or foreign invading armies.

    Regardless of that, the statement is not found in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any child born in this country that is not a child of an ambassador or a foreign invading army. That makes a child of illegal aliens natural born citizens.

    Why do you think states are trying to get the 14th Amendment taken out of the constitution of the United States?

  27. avatar
    Bovril April 13, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    Poor Nancy

    Still fails spectacularly when it comes to basic comprehension. Do tell how does all that lovely creamy FAIL taste like?

    In the REAL world, where REAL laws stand, allegiance means to fall under the control of and accept and adhere to the laws and controls of a country.

    In the fetid imaginarium of yours, scary brown “Anchor Babies” musn’t have “Allegiance” therefore they can flout the laws with impunity…..What, they must obey the laws….well, in that case there’s your allegiance.

    Typical, standard, repetitive, boring FAIL.

  28. avatar
    Reality Check April 13, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    “Mario fulminates at Fukino”

    Great choice or wording, Doc. Congratulations.

  29. avatar
    Reality Check April 13, 2011 at 8:11 am #

    ..Great choice of wording…

  30. avatar
    dch April 13, 2011 at 8:14 am #

    Mario Logic:
    “We shouldn’t listen to what Fukino, who saw Obama’s birth certificate, has to say because she’s not the current Health Director. ”
    So when a public official leaves a position their actions and knowledge become inadmissiable in future courts? Idiot.

    “Fukino’s disclosure that a doctor signed the certificate is invalidated by the fact that she didn’t say more about which hospital Obama was born in.”

    Sp the question for Mario remains – why have you failed with every court and in front of every judge? Why can’t you get you case heard?
    Why do you always fail? ewh Mario?
    LOL

  31. avatar
    Tarrant April 13, 2011 at 8:22 am #

    Well, I would say that if it did go to court, that they would want the current health director, not the former one. So in that he’s partially right.

    That said, he didn’t believe her statements when she WAS the health director, so his argument that it’s only because she’s no longer in her position that makes him unwilling to believe her is a lie.

  32. avatar
    Greg April 13, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    nc1: What is your opinion about John Bingham’s statement:

    That it was taken out of context and that as demonstrated by James Ho and Garrett Epps the clear understanding of the Founders of the 14th Amendment was that anyone born here, born free, was a citizen.

    There was a vocal debate when drafting the 14th Amendment about whether it would cover the children of gypsies — who denied they were bound by American law, who claimed it had no jurisdiction over them — and the children of the Chinese, whose parents could never become citizens. It was agreed that the 14th Amendment covered these folks – Senators voted against the Amendment because it allowed the children of individuals:

    who recognize no authority in [Pennsylvania’s] government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own—an imperium in imperio; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen. and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers wherever they go . . . .I mean the Gypsies. . . . If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous

    Doesn’t that sound like illegal aliens to you?

    That was Senator Cowan. He voted against the 14th Amendment because it granted citizenship based on the “mere fact of being born in the country” to undesirable, downright illegal, people who lived outside the law and recognized no authority in the law.

    And, remember, the Chinese could not become citizens. They could not get rid of their allegiance to the Chinese nation. They could never be anything other than a subject of China. Cowan asked Lyman Trumbull whether the children of “Chinese and Gypsies born in this country” would be naturalized. “Undoubtedly,” replied Trumbull.

    How could there be anything but doubt if the Chinese could never be anything other than subject to China?

  33. avatar
    The Magic M April 13, 2011 at 9:23 am #

    > “Fukino’s disclosure that a doctor signed the certificate is invalidated by the fact that she didn’t say more about which hospital Obama was born in.”

    So my disclosure that the Audi TT with the license plate “2COOL4U” that’s parked outside my house is my car is, according to Mario, invalidated by the fact I didn’t say more about what colour the car has?
    If an “attorney” such as Mario is so desperate to twist A into non-A, it shows the birfers have reached the end of their rainbow – and found no trace of gold.

  34. avatar
    Tarrant April 13, 2011 at 9:38 am #

    Furthermore, it’s likely that Fukino knows that she CAN’T name a hospital without violating various state privacy laws. And being an attorney I bet Apuzzo also knows this, but he’s just fanning the flames because that’s what he does.

  35. avatar
    nemocapn April 13, 2011 at 10:19 am #

    Once again Bingham rears his head. He’s quoted as if he were some great authority on citizenship. He wasn’t. He believed women didn’t have the right to vote because women weren’t citizens. Granted, opposing female suffrage was a common stance in his era, but believing that women weren’t citizens was not. His opinion demonstrates his lack of expertise on the laws citizenship.

    On page 99 of Lois Beachy Underhill’s book, “The Woman Who Ran for President,” Bingham is quoted as saying, “Madam you are not a citizen.” He said that to the first woman to run for President of the United. She claimed she had the right to vote based on the 14th amendment which he wrote. She pointed out to him that his amendment used the term “all persons” instead of “all males,” but that wasn’t what he meant to write. He said that his amendment had “a richer burden of meaning than he had meant to freight it with.”

    If Bingham is an unimpeachable authority on US citizenship, then women aren’t citizens and are ineligible to be President of the United States. So, nc1, what is your opinion of John Bingham’s statement that women aren’t citizens?

    I don’t know if you’re a woman or not, but if you are, it seems to be you’re in a worse place than Obama. According to your interpretation of Bingham, Obama would still be a citizen if born in the US, just not a natural born one, but you wouldn’t be a citizen at all no matter where you’re born.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 13, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    nemocapn: Once again Bingham rears his head. He’s quoted as if he were some great authority on citizenship. He wasn’t. He believed women didn’t have the right to vote because women weren’t citizens. Granted, opposing female suffrage was a common stance in his era, but believing that women weren’t citizens was not. His opinion demonstrates his lack of expertise on the laws citizenship.

    I don’t know the timing of his comment, but it obviously goes against what the court said in Minor v Happersett, which was the women were and always had been citizens.

  37. avatar
    nc1 April 13, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    nemocapn:
    Once again Bingham rears his head.He’s quoted as if he were some great authority on citizenship. He wasn’t.He believed women didn’t have the right to vote because women weren’t citizens. Granted, opposing female suffrage was a common stance in his era, but believing that women weren’t citizens was not. His opinion demonstrates his lack of expertise on the laws citizenship.

    On page 99 of Lois Beachy Underhill’s book, “The Woman Who Ran for President,” Bingham is quoted as saying, “Madam you are not a citizen.” He said that to the first woman to run for President of the United.She claimed she had the right to vote based on the 14th amendment which he wrote. She pointed out to him that his amendment used the term “all persons” instead of “all males,” but that wasn’t what he meant to write.He said that his amendment had “a richer burden of meaning than he had meant to freight it with.”

    If Bingham is an unimpeachable authority on US citizenship, then women aren’t citizens and are ineligible to be President of the United States.So, nc1, what is your opinion of John Bingham’s statement that women aren’t citizens?

    I don’t know if you’re a woman or not, but if you are, it seems to be you’re in a worse place than Obama.According to your interpretation of Bingham, Obama would still be a citizen if born in the US, just not a natural born one, but you wouldn’t be a citizen at all no matter where you’re born.

    If you were aware of a lie or a controversial statement Obama told to the public – would you dismiss other things he said?

    He is on record voting against the law that would require doctors to provide medical care to babies who survived abortion attempt – please use your own standard applied to Bingham and apply it to Obama. Did Obama say that born alieve babies were not human beings worthy of legal protection? He supported infanticide.

    Bingham wrote the most quoted part of the 14th amendment – which part of the statement from my previous post do you dispute as inaccurate?

  38. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 13, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    nc1: If you were aware of a lie or a controversial statement Obama told to the public – would you dismiss other things he said? He is on record voting against the law that would require doctors to provide medical care to babies who survived abortion attempt – please use your own standard applied to Bingham and apply it to Obama. Did Obama say that born alieve babies were not human beings worthy of legal protection? He supported infanticide.Bingham wrote the most quoted part of the 14th amendment – which part of the statement from my previous post do you dispute as inaccurate?

    Actually it sounds more like Obama supported Tort Reform a conservative stance.

  39. avatar
    nc1 April 13, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    Greg: That it was taken out of context and that as demonstrated by James Ho and Garrett Epps the clear understanding of the Founders of the 14th Amendment was that anyone born here, born free, was a citizen.

    There was a vocal debate when drafting the 14th Amendment about whether it would cover the children of gypsies — who denied they were bound by American law, who claimed it had no jurisdiction over them — and the children of the Chinese, whose parents could never become citizens. It was agreed that the 14th Amendment covered these folks – Senators voted against the Amendment because it allowed the children of individuals:

    Doesn’t that sound like illegal aliens to you?

    That was Senator Cowan. He voted against the 14th Amendment because it granted citizenship based on the “mere fact of being born in the country” to undesirable, downright illegal, people who lived outside the law and recognized no authority in the law.

    And, remember, the Chinese could not become citizens. They could not get rid of their allegiance to the Chinese nation. They could never be anything other than a subject of China. Cowan asked Lyman Trumbull whether the children of “Chinese and Gypsies born in this country” would be naturalized. “Undoubtedly,” replied Trumbull.

    How could there be anything but doubt if the Chinese could never be anything other than subject to China?

    You are talking about naturalization of children of illegals – it is not the same concept as being a natural born citizen.

  40. avatar
    JoZeppy April 13, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    nc1: If you were aware of a lie or a controversial statement Obama told to the public – would you dismiss other things he said?
    He is on record voting against the law that would require doctors to provide medical care to babies who survived abortion attempt – please use your own standard applied to Bingham and apply it to Obama. Did Obama say that born alieve babies were not human beings worthy of legal protection? He supported infanticide.
    Bingham wrote the most quoted part of the 14th amendment – which part of the statement from my previous post do you dispute as inaccurate?

    Wow, I really don’t know where to start with this one, but I’ll give it a try. First off, your comparison makes no sense. A vote, says very little, particularly in light of the fact that there was already a law in the state that required doctor to save any child born where there is any chance of survival. We’re not even talking about statements here. You dislike of Obama is clouding your thinking here. There no evidence he either supported infanticide or believed babies were not human beings worthy of legal protection.

    Secondly, it comes down to how much meaning to we put on personal beliefs of a person drafting legislation (or an amendment in this case)? The answer is not very much. The fact that Bingham may have had some inaccurate personal beliefs about citizenship doesn’t change the meaning of what was passed. Bingham is not the filter we view all things from. Just like his view of woman not being citizens doesn’t matter, any other misconceptions he may have had about citizenship don’t change the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The fact of the matter is that the Amendment is clear. Pretty much everyone else understood that what they were passing is an amendment that made it clear that everyone born on US soil was a citizen. That’s all that really matters.

  41. avatar
    JoZeppy April 13, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    nc1: You are talking about naturalization of children of illegals – it is not the same concept as being a natural born citizen.

    Just out of curiosity….how is that possible. The first act of Congress to place any restrictions on immigration was the Page Act of 1875.

    The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868.

    The use of “illegals” is not being used in reference to the modern understanding of “illegal aliens” as there was no such thing. It is just a slur against certain ethnic groups percieved to generally operate outside normal respect for the law.

  42. avatar
    Greg April 13, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    nc1: You are talking about naturalization of children of illegals – it is not the same concept as being a natural born citizen.

    No, I am talking about birthright citizenship for the children of illegals.

    But, thanks for demonstrating, once again, the fundamental illiteracy of birthers.

  43. avatar
    Tarrant April 13, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    Furthermore, simply focusing on the possible intent of the guy who wrote the first draft of the amendment is useless – much like any legislation, the Amendment was discussed and debated within Congress. Bingham’s original text was not the text that was originally adopted, so one must assume that Congress didn’t necessarily agree with everything he meant the Amendment to be.

    It’s like looking at dicta or even a dissent from a Supreme Court case and citing it as authoritative, or picking random statements from various Founding Fathers that are contradicted by statements by other ones. In the end it’s the text that made it into the Constitution that matters and not all of the debate before it. Maybe that’s what Bingham wanted from the 14th – I don’t know – but what he wanted isn’t necessarily what Congress intended upon passing the Amendment text and sending it to the States.

  44. avatar
    Greg April 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

    nc1: Bingham wrote the most quoted part of the 14th amendment – which part of the statement from my previous post do you dispute as inaccurate?

    Sorry, no. Bingham did not write the Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

    The 14th Amendment was drafted by the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction. As it was initially drafted, it had no citizenship language. When it passed the House, in May 1866, it still had no citizenship language. Senator Benjamin Wade proposed taking out the word “citizen” in the “privileges and immunities” clause, suggesting that, because of Dred Scott, the term “citizen” was unclear. He suggested this substitute language:

    “the privileges or immunities of persons born in the United States or
    naturalized by the laws thereof.”

    Wade and Fessenden engaged in a colloquy about the clause, in which Wade clearly stated that the only people that could be born here and not become a citizen were the children of “foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States, in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States, although born in Washington.”

    It was Jacob Howard, of Michigan, who, on May 30, 1866, introduced the language that would become the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment:

    “[A]ll persons born in the United States, and subject to the
    jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States
    wherein they reside.”

    Our friend Senator Cowan rose to complain that surely this change would not extend birthright citizenship to the children of the Chinese:

    “[I]s it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not.”

    Senator Cowan, of course, was from Pennsylvania, not California. The Senator from California arose to dispute Cowan:

    The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. . . . I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of
    the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States

    Bingham didn’t write the citizenship clause, nc1, and I’m not sure where you came up with the notion that he did. But, a decade before the 14th Amendment was passed, he wrote this:

    All free persons born and domiciled within the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States from birth; all aliens become citizens of the United
    States only by act of naturalization . . . .

  45. avatar
    Horus April 13, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    nc1: He is on record voting against the law that would require doctors to provide medical care to babies who survived abortion attempt – please use your own standard applied to Bingham and apply it to Obama. Did Obama say that born alieve babies were not human beings worthy of legal protection? He supported infanticide.

    I cannot believe you are trotting out that old piece of shit now!
    You fail to mention what else was contained in that law he voted against you moron.

  46. avatar
    G April 13, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Kerchner.

    Sorry. Thanks for the correction.

  47. avatar
    ballantine April 13, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    Author of the 14th Amendment:

    “Mr. HOWARD. I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who has been naturalized and then become a citizenof the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)

    Other members of such Congress:

    “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

    “The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States.” Sen. Sherman, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1035 (1869)

    “The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency? Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).

    “One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877).

    “What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)

    “It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 387 (1866)

    “The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States…. Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President…” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).

  48. avatar
    nemocapn April 13, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

    Dr. C, the Minor V. Happersett ruling came out about 4 years after Bingham made his statement. After Victoria C. Woodhull pointed out to him in 1871 what the 14th amendment really said, he had to give up the argument that women weren’t citizens because it was an indefensible legal position. When the House Judiciary Committee, which he chaired, presented the majority report on whether the 14th amendment gave women the right to vote, the committee had to concede that women are citizens, but argued that just because you’re a citizen doesn’t mean you have the right to vote. The majority report asserted states rights and told Woodhull to take it to the courts, to see whether they would rule in her favor. As a result, numerous women, including Susan B. Anthony, Woodhull, and Virginia Minor attempted to vote citing the 14th amendment. Minor was the one whose case made it to the Supreme Court.

  49. avatar
    nemocapn April 13, 2011 at 2:19 pm #

    And, thank you, JoZeppy. I agree with you that the abortion comparison makes no sense.

    NC1, have I said or implied that Obama is an authority on abortion laws? No. Have you implied that Bingham is an authority on citizenship laws? Yes. I’m asking why you trust Bingham as an authority on natural born citizenship when he didn’t even know the basic fact that women have long been citizens of this country?

    I came across an article today in the 1993 Yale Law Review by Richard L. Aynes that is supportive of Bingham, but in it, Aynes refers to the work of Professor Charles Fairman, who wrote an article about the 14th amendment and Bingham that is “one of the most cited law review articles written since World War II.” According to Aynes, “Some scholars have made positive assessments of Bingham’s abilities, but others continue to adhere to Fairman’s characterization of Bingham as inept and unintelligible. Fairman’s view–that Bingham was a confused man and that his views provide no guidance when attempting to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment–continues to pervade legal scholarship.” Fairman described Bingham as “muddled, inconsistent and idiosyncratic.” And that’s who you accept as an authority?

    As for Obama’s abortion legislation, he said that one of the reasons he voted against the bill to which you’re referring is that there was already a law like it on the books. Turns out he was right. You can view it here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm

    It says, “Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.”

    He also said he voted against the bill because “I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.” So, why would he replace a constitutionally sound law that protects the life of an aborted fetus born alive with an unconstitutional law that would be struck down in the courts? That would be foolish. Then, there would be no law on the books in Illinois to protect an aborted fetus born alive.

  50. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 13, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    Nc1 asked:
    What is your opinion about John Bingham’s statement:
    “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”
    Does this definition include children of illegal aliens born in the USA?

    Yes, it does. Even if it did not, it would be totally irrelvant, because he was not talking about the 14th Amendment, which is the law of the land on citizenship.

    The source is John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)). He was not talking about the 14th Amendment. He was discussing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was enacted over Andrew Johnson’s veto.

    He was addressing a bill with language that differed from the 14th Amendment. That Act applied “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” The 14th Amendment, as we all know, applied to all persons born in the United States, and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    Different language. Not the language Bingham was interpreting.

    All children born in the U.S. (other than diplomatic or hostile military) are subject to the power and judicial jurisdiction of the United States, even the children of illegal aliens. No other country has any legal jurisdiction over them. No other country can take custody of them or put them up for adoption or foster care. They are under US jurisdiction.

    The 14th Amendment is in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. It supersedes anything to the contrary that was said by Rep. Bingham. Rep. Bingham’s statement is NOT part of the legislative history of the 14th Amendment because he was not talking about that Amendment. He was talking about a separate bill with different language.

    A commenter named James Ho noted that “proponents and opponents of birthright citizenship alike consistently interpreted the Act, just as they did the Fourteenth Amendment, to cover the children of aliens. In one exchange, Cowan, in a preview of his later opposition to the Howard text,
    “ask[ed] whether [the Act] will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?”
    Trumbull replied: “Undoubtedly. … [T]he child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.”

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/educating-the-confused-14th-amendment-and-bingham/

    Does the definition apply to children of illegal aliens? Yes. Did Bingham consciously intend it to? This question is anachronistic, since illegal aliens did not exist until later laws excluded certain classes of aliens.

    Now this quote, as evidenced by google, is all over the internet. Nearly every posting takes it out of context, and makes no mention of its true purpose. If someone has time, it would be interesting to post the true context in each an every one of those nutsites.

    Now, does THAT answer the question for now?

  51. avatar
    ASK Esq April 14, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    nc1: =============================================================What is your opinion about John Bingham’s statement:“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….”Does this definition include children of illegal aliens born in the USA?

    Others have already pointed out why this quote fails to prove any anti-Obama point, but I’ll just add that nowhere does Bingham say that those are the only natural-born citizens, simply that those are natural-born citizens. He does not say it is a requirement to have two citizen parents.