Main Menu

The Empire strikes back

Donald Trump has created such a stir with his birther stories that even President Obama addressed them an interview with ABC News with George Stephanopoulos (video below). Obama said:

I think that over the last two and a half years, there’s been an effort to go at me in a way that is politically expedient in the short term for Republicans but creates I think a problem for them when they want to actually run in the general election, where most people feel pretty confident the president was born where he says he was, in Hawaii. …We’re not really worrying about conspiracy theories or birth certificate.

Politico.com reports that a fundraising event later, Obama said:

“I was talking to a group earlier, and I said: ‘You know, I grew up here in Chicago. I wasn’t born here,’” Obama said, prompting laughter from his supporters. “Just want to be clear. I was born in Hawaii. But I became a man here in Chicago.”

446 Responses to The Empire strikes back

  1. avatar
    thefarleftView April 15, 2011 at 11:29 am #

    he became a thug and liar in illinois

    but we all knew that already

  2. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 15, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    thefarleftView: he became a thug and liar in illinoisbut we all knew that already

    We? Are you hearing voices in your head again?

  3. avatar
    Lupin April 15, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    thefarleftView: he became a thug and liar in illinois

    but we all knew that already

    I can’t hear you through the hood.

  4. avatar
    Rickey April 15, 2011 at 12:42 pm #

    thefarleftView:
    he became a thug and liar in illinois

    Did you fail remedial English?

    Main Entry:thug
    Pronunciation:*th*g
    Function:noun
    Etymology:Hindi
    Date:1810

    : a brutal ruffian or assassin
    –thuggery \*th*-g(*-)r*\ noun
    –thuggish \*th*-gish\ adjective

    Who has Obama brutalized or assassinated?

    As for “liar,” you only have to look in a mirror for its definition.

  5. avatar
    Montana April 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    Trump loves “rattling the Birthers cages”, too funny.

    The GOP is like the “Chicken Littles” always saying that the “Sky is Falling”, like the same ones that were the “Chicken Hawks” (“W” Wars), big talk no courage. The United States, favors creativity wherever it can be found. We’re apostles of prosperity and defenders of the free exchange of ideas and when more people in more countries are free to rise, to invent, to communicate, to dissent, it’s not the doom of United States leadership, its the triumph of the American way.
    Generations have worked hard and sacrificed much for the country to reach this point (individuals and our unions!), and with further hard work and sacrifice (along with our relentless self-doubt) the United States will rise again, we do not tire and we are coming back, no matter what the “Chicken Littles” keep saying about our nation. Never Bet Against the United States!
    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! Remember when some contractors were busted during the “George W. Bush” administration for looking at our current President passport file (how quick you forget).
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/03/20/obamas_passport_files_hacked/

    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”

  6. avatar
    Joey April 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    Trump and Soros partners?

    Investing in a downtown dream [Donald Trump] will be attending a ceremony Thursday for the demolition of the former Chicago Sun-Times building. Trump’s 90- story tower will be financed through several sources. INVESTORS Total of $160 million [George Soros] Fortress Investment Group LLC Grove Capital LLP, a spinoff of Soros Fund Management Blackacre Institutional Capital Management LLC CONSTRUCTION LENDER $650 million Deutsche Bank.
    Chicago Tribune

    Since George Soros and Donald Trump have been business partners and since Trump and Obama administration employee Hillary Rodham Clinton are good friends and political allies, it’s reasonable to speculate that Trump is playing “Perot” to Obama’s “Clinton” and conservatives are dumb enough to fall for it.

  7. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 15, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    Joey:
    Trump and Soros partners?

    Investing in a downtown dream [Donald Trump] will be attending a ceremony Thursday for the demolition of the former Chicago Sun-Times building. Trump’s 90- story tower will be financed through several sources. INVESTORS Total of $160 million [George Soros] Fortress Investment Group LLC Grove Capital LLP, a spinoff of Soros Fund Management Blackacre Institutional Capital Management LLC CONSTRUCTION LENDER $650 million Deutsche Bank.
    Chicago Tribune

    Since George Soros and Donald Trump have been business partners and since Trump and Obama administration employee Hillary Rodham Clinton are good friends and political allies, it’s reasonable to speculate that Trump is playing “Perot” to Obama’s “Clinton” and conservatives are dumb enough to fall for it.

    Some birthers are already aware of this (and distrust Trump because of it). I will provide a convenient rationalization when Trump’s birther candidacy doesn’t have the happy ending they were hoping for…

  8. avatar
    Romo Cop April 15, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    So what’s the explanation of the day why Obama has a Connecticut SSN#?

    There’s always a slip up … and yet another thing which none of you guys can explain.

    Ok, let’s hear it. Your boy is going down (not on you guys, though, I realize how much you’d like that … or would you like it the other way? Yeah, I’m sure)

  9. avatar
    richCares April 15, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    Your boy is going down
    sure, sure, sure

  10. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 15, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    Romo Cop:
    So what’s the explanation of the day why Obama has a Connecticut SSN#?

    There’s always a slip up … and yet another thing which none of you guys can explain.

    Ok, let’s hear it. Your boy is going down (not on you guys, though, I realize how much you’d like that … or would you like it the other way? Yeah, I’m sure)

    Ask the SSA. They don’t seem to be to concerned about it, which they certainly would be if there was anything amiss.

  11. avatar
    Dave April 15, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    Romo Cop — not to sound impatient or anything, but I’ve been listening to predictions of the President’s imminent expulsion for a very long time. Could you estimate just how much longer this is going to take?

    You better hope he gets re-elected, because you’re going to need the extra four years to finally make your case.

  12. avatar
    DaveH April 15, 2011 at 3:48 pm #

    Romo Cop:
    So what’s the explanation of the day why Obama has a Connecticut SSN#?

    There’s always a slip up … and yet another thing which none of you guys can explain.

    Ok, let’s hear it. Your boy is going down (not on you guys, though, I realize how much you’d like that … or would you like it the other way? Yeah, I’m sure)

    Yep. Any day now. I’m predicting around 1/20/2017. I’m using birfer math to do my prediction.

  13. avatar
    G April 15, 2011 at 3:48 pm #

    Romo Cop: So what’s the explanation of the day why Obama has a Connecticut SSN#?There’s always a slip up … and yet another thing which none of you guys can explain.Ok, let’s hear it. Your boy is going down (not on you guys, though, I realize how much you’d like that … or would you like it the other way? Yeah, I’m sure)

    *yawn* Again, very, very old news. Addressed a long time ago.

    Here, read up:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/obama-connecticut-social-security-number-confirmed/

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/is-barack-obama-using-some-dead-guys-social-security-number/

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obamas-social-security-number/

  14. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 15, 2011 at 3:48 pm #

    Dave:
    Romo Cop — not to sound impatient or anything, but I’ve been listening to predictions of the President’s imminent expulsion for a very long time. Could you estimate just how much longer this is going to take?

    You better hope he gets re-elected, because you’re going to need the extra four years to finally make your case.

    Exactly. Taitz said more than 560 days ago that he was going to be out of office in 30 days. lmao

  15. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 15, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    961 days since birther bigots™ said Obama would not get the nomination because he’s not a citizen (9/27/08)

    866 days since birther bigots™ said Obama wouldn’t be elected because he’s not a citizen (11/4/08)

    827 days since Vice President Dick Cheney & Congress certified the election and declared Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States. (1/8/09)

    815 days since birther bigots™ said President Obama wouldn’t be sworn in because he’s not a citizen (1/20/09)

    562 days since birther bigot™ Horly Taitz said President Obama would be out of office in 30 days. (9/12/09)

    344 days since Republican Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle said that it’s “just a fact” that President Obama was born in Hawaii (5/6/10)

    99 days since Speaker Boehner said that Obama’s birth is not an issue (1/6/11)

    77 birther bigot™ lawsuits tossed out of court

    11 birther bigot™ cases denied at the Supreme Court

  16. avatar
    Fred April 15, 2011 at 4:06 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): We?Are you hearing voices in your head again?

    Oily Taintz is whispering sweet nothings in his ear.

  17. avatar
    Fred April 15, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    As much as I LUV luv luv all this birther talk for it’s destructive force on the GOP in a general election, frankly it’s all getting a bit boring. Ever day there is another poorly photoshopped photo or a bad kenyan birth certificate forgery.

    Where have all the semi-competent liars and haters gone. Can’t they invent another conspiracy with enough creativity to make it stick a little. Don’t want to have to ride the birther crazy train all the way to the BIG win in 2012 for Obama. At least mix it up a little. You will still alienate the same number of voters but at least it will make it a bit more entertaining!

  18. avatar
    Joey April 15, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    Romo Cop:
    So what’s the explanation of the day why Obama has a Connecticut SSN#?

    There’s always a slip up … and yet another thing which none of you guys can explain.

    Ok, let’s hear it. Your boy is going down (not on you guys, though, I realize how much you’d like that … or would you like it the other way? Yeah, I’m sure)

    The administrator of the Social Security Administration is Michael J. Astrue. He was appointed to a six year term in 2007 by President George W. Bush. I suggest that you write to him and inquire about any questions you have concerning the president’s Social Security number.
    Being a birther, you’re obviously too stupid to know that a person can’t file a federal income tax return without a valid (and SINGLE) Social Security number. President Obama and (before he was elected to the presidency) Senator Obama’s income tax returns are a part of financial disclosure statements under federal law since he was first elected to the US Senate.

  19. avatar
    Sef April 15, 2011 at 6:06 pm #

    Romo Cop: So what’s the explanation of the day why Obama has a Connecticut SSN#?

    I think it’s reasonably probable that President Obama has been given a new SSN, any access to the new one is locked down tighter than a drum, any attempted access is immediately reported to the FBI. In addition, probably similar restrictions will be, or have been placed on the other potential Presidental candidates SSA records.

  20. avatar
    JohnC April 15, 2011 at 6:06 pm #

    Over at Politico, Maggie Haberman offers the following commentary on Obama’s statements to Stephanopolous:

    “The White House is elevating Trump by addressing the problem, on the one hand, and many believe it suits the Democrats’ political purposes to use the issue as a foil. At the same time, it speaks to the intensity the issue has taken on, and the risk of leaving it unaddressed.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53236.html

    Outside of the hysterical birther bubble, that’s the first time I’ve heard of anyone viewing this “controversy” as a political liability for Obama with any constituency that matters to his re-election.

    Since the central tenet of birtherism is that Obama is such a dishonest person that he may be willing to commit unprecedented document fraud, bribery and intimidation to stay in office, I highly doubt birthers would have much of a disposition to vote for him even if he had been born before a live studio audience in Washington, D.C.

  21. avatar
    JohnC April 15, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

    Fred: As much as I LUV luv luv all this birther talk for it’s destructive force on the GOP in a general election, frankly it’s all getting a bit boring. Ever day there is another poorly photoshopped photo or a bad kenyan birth certificate forgery.

    There’s kind of a symbiotic relationship at work here. As long as Obama ignores the birthers, they get to continue with their cottage industry of nimble and ever-changing intrigue and conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, Obama gets to watch the GOP mainstream stumble all overthemselves trying to cater to the birther base while the independent voters shake their heads in disbelief at the whole spectacle.

    The only real losers here are the GOPers who in private would rather this nonsense go away, but are too afraid to call their core group of voters “stupid.”

  22. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 15, 2011 at 6:15 pm #

    JohnC: Outside of the hysterical birther bubble, that’s the first time I’ve heard of anyone viewing this “controversy” as a political liability for Obama with any constituency that matters to his re-election.

    I don’t really see this as a potential liability – President Obama has the Constitution to fall back on (and any court case on this issue will be decided in his favor). It sounds to me like someone is just a closet birther…

  23. avatar
    JohnC April 15, 2011 at 6:27 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I don’t really see this as a potential liability – President Obama has the Constitution to fall back on (and any court case on this issue will be decided in his favor). It sounds to me like someone is just a closet birther…

    Obviously, I don’t believe Obama is threatened in any way by this nonsense. But it just goes to show how members of the beltway media have a tendency to surrender some of their critical thinking skills when those get in the way of a juicy narrative.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Romo Cop: So what’s the explanation of the day why Obama has a Connecticut SSN#?

    Hey, Romo. Click the Social Security Numbers link on the right sidebar of this blog and read more than you ever cared to about Obama’s SSN.

    But please, read the material before entering a new discussion, and when starting a new discussion use the Open Mike threads rather than hijacking another topic.

  25. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 15, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    JohnC: The only real losers here are the GOPers who in private would rather this nonsense go away, but are too afraid to call their core group of voters “stupid.”

    And the people like Karl Rove who are desperately trying to defuse the birther issue before it hands President Obama the 2012 election…

  26. avatar
    misha April 15, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    Slartibartfast: And the people like Karl Rove who are desperately trying to defuse the birther issue before it hands President Obama the 2012 election…

    Too late.

  27. avatar
    G April 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm #

    JohnC: Obviously, I don’t believe Obama is threatened in any way by this nonsense. But it just goes to show how members of the beltway media have a tendency to surrender some of their critical thinking skills when those get in the way of a juicy narrative.

    The beltway media tend to be like that in general. Sometimes I think they are a bunch of sensationalized handwringers from another planet… or at least living in their own little sealed-off soap opera bubble…

    …no wonder the actions of D.C. seem to be so detatched from the reality on the ground in the rest of America.

  28. avatar
    Daniel April 15, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    Fred: Where have all the semi-competent liars and haters gone. Can’t they invent another conspiracy with enough creativity to make it stick a little.

    The flat Earthers got first draft pick

  29. avatar
    Romo Cop April 15, 2011 at 9:21 pm #

    None of the links explain the CT SSN

    AT ALL.

    The writer admits that it is peculiar.

    He won’t show any documents.

    Yet you blame honest people for asking questions … and you can’t give any good answers, so you just resort to derision.

  30. avatar
    Sef April 15, 2011 at 9:27 pm #

    Romo Cop:
    None of the links explain the CT SSN

    AT ALL.

    The writer admits that it is peculiar.

    He won’t show any documents.

    Yet you blame honest people for asking questions … and you can’t give any good answers, so you just resort to derision.

    Don’t you find it strange that birthers believe the wildest, impossible scenarios, yet cannot see the possibility of a simple typo converting the Honolulu ZIPcode to a CT ZIPcode.

  31. avatar
    Keith April 15, 2011 at 9:52 pm #

    Fred: As much as I LUV luv luv all this birther talk for it’s destructive force on the GOP in a general election, frankly it’s all getting a bit boring.

    Could not agree more.

  32. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 9:53 pm #

    “We’re not really worrying about conspiracy theories or birth certificate.”

    LoL …………. that’s why he has done everything he can to avoid discovery & transparency.

    If he was not worried, then what’s the problem with producing a hospital certificate and a long form birth certificate.

    The liar in chief is a fraud.

    He’s worried alright!

    And so he should be, his lie is falling apart.

    And the truth shall set you free, it’s only a matter if time.

  33. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 9:55 pm #

    It was easy for Obama’s birth registration to be put in the Hawaiian system by ANYONE and it was easy for Obama to provide supplementary information to complete the registration information (the strange and sudden visit to Hawaii during the election campaign?)

    Although supplementary information provided in 2008-2009 would not appear on Obama’s CoLB, it may be that it was necessary for Obama to add some more at that late stage, to shore-up his evidence’ of Hawaiian birth in anticipation of people demanding more solid evidence than what the CoLB, as previously issued contained.

    Here’s how easy it was to get on the HDoH system and to add to it pro rata.

    Hawaiian Revised Statutes.
    §338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

    (b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered”. [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]

  34. avatar
    Suranis April 15, 2011 at 9:58 pm #

    Romo Cop:
    None of the links explain the CT SSN

    AT ALL.

    The writer admits that it is peculiar.

    He won’t show any documents.

    Yet you blame honest people for asking questions … and you can’t give any good answers, so you just resort to derision.

    What, the fact that the dead guy who Obama is supposed to have stolen the SSN from (Jean Paul Ludwig) was not only very much alive in 1981 butmalso had a different security number, does not tip you off that the entire claim is full of sausage?

  35. avatar
    Joey April 15, 2011 at 10:00 pm #

    Romo Cop:
    None of the links explain the CT SSN

    AT ALL.

    The writer admits that it is peculiar.

    He won’t show any documents.

    Yet you blame honest people for asking questions … and you can’t give any good answers, so you just resort to derision.

    Once again, Mr. Astrue, the Administrator of the Social Security Administration is a Bush appointee with two years left on his six year term. He can investigate if there is anything worth investigating.
    Also, the Republicans control the House of Representatives. The House’s chief investigative committee is the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform headed by Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA). If there is anything to look at concerning the President’s Social Security number, the Republicans in Congress can look into it.
    It’s been more than four years since Barack Hussein Obama II announced his candidacy
    for the presidency: no grand jury investigations of his Social Security number, no Social Security Administration investigations of his Social Security number and no Congressional investigations of his Social Security number.
    And yet you prefer to go with unfounded rumors and web site innuendos. Why?

  36. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 10:07 pm #

    Keith: Could not agree more.

    This demonstrates your problem, and how you are prepared to sell your soul, purely to hold power.

    It’s not about political parties, it’s about the security of the office of POTUS from foreign influence and claims.

    This is what’s going on right under your pathetic partisan noses under jihad in chief’s watch.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/04/did-obama-and-holder-scuttle-prosecutions-of-hamas-linked-cair-leader-and-other-muslim-leaders.html

    “The joke is that a number of leaders of Islamic organizations (all of whom publicly opposed the King hearings on Muslim radicalization) were about to be indicted on terror finance support charges by the U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas, which had been investigating the case for most of the past decade.

    But those indictments were scuttled last year at the direction of top-level political appointees within the Department of Justice (DOJ) — and possibly even the White House.”

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/06/us-jiyza-obama-pimping-for-hamas.html

    “Your taxpayer dollars at work.

    Obama to Offer More Aid to Gaza Despite Benefits for Hamas by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, INN

    U.S. President Barack Obama is expected on Wednesday to offer visiting PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas more American aid for Hamas-controlled Gaza with conditions that the money not end up in the hands of the terrorist faction. However, a Palestinian Authority official has revealed how the money ends up in Hamas’ hands.

    “The president and…Abbas will discuss steps to improve life for the people of Gaza, including U.S. support for specific projects to promote economic development and greater quality of life,” according to a senior Obama administration official quoted by Reuters. American aid for Gaza since Hamas took control of Gaza has been funneled through the Fatah-led PA, but Bassem Khoury, minister of national economy for the Palestinian Authority, explained to the French newspaper Le Monde last October how Hamas pockets the money.”

    Congratulation fools …………. you explain it to your grand children how they will have to pay for your messiah’s disgusting folly.

    “During eight years under the Bush administration, the national debt increased by $4 trillion ($500 billion per year.) These years included the attack on the World Trade Centers, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina, as well as the explosion of the housing bubble. Obama added $4 trillion to the national debt in 421 days. And his belief that “spreading the wealth around” has created a debt that will burden future generations for years to come.

    Obama’s economic policy is transforming America.

    Despite the absence of Constitutional authority, or a single Republican vote, Obama’s health care plan not only deepens the public debt, but also forces previously free citizens to purchase a product designated by the government. Never before has the federal government presumed to dictate what its citizens must buy. Moreover, Obama, and his Democrat majority in Congress, used bizarre procedures to force “Obamacare” into law. By so doing, Obama has demonstrated that he believes his ideas on governance to be superior to the Founders’, and that achieving his goals is far more important than any rules or procedural restraints.

    Obama chooses not to enforce federal drug laws relating to marijuana, or to allow his Department of Justice to prosecute Black Panthers who stood — with Billy-club in hand — in front of polling places to intimidate white voters. But he quickly sues a school district for not allowing a Muslim teacher to take three weeks off to go to Mecca.”

    You have sold your souls ………… fools.

  37. avatar
    MichaelN April 15, 2011 at 10:14 pm #

    Joey said ………..

    “And yet you prefer to go with unfounded rumors and web site innuendos. Why?

    ——————————————————————————–

    And you prefer to go with an image on the internet? ROTFLMAO

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

    MichaelN: You have sold your souls ………… fools.

    I don’ ‘preciate no ad hominem from no idiot moron lying white trash birthers.

  39. avatar
    JohnC April 15, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    MichaelN: It was easy for Obama’s birth registration to be put in the Hawaiian system by ANYONE and it was easy for Obama to provide supplementary information to complete the registration information (the strange and sudden visit to Hawaii during the election campaign?)

    Although supplementary information provided in 2008-2009 would not appear on Obama’s CoLB, it may be that it was necessary for Obama to add some more at that late stage, to shore-up his evidence’ of Hawaiian birth in anticipation of people demanding more solid evidence than what the CoLB, as previously issued contained.

    Here’s how easy it was to get on the HDoH system and to add to it pro rata.Hawaiian Revised Statutes.§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

    (b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered”. [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]

    None of this is applicable if, as Dr. Fukino says, Obama’s “long-form” has a doctor’s signature on it.

  40. avatar
    G April 15, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    Romo Cop: None of the links explain the CT SSNAT ALL.The writer admits that it is peculiar.He won’t show any documents.Yet you blame honest people for asking questions … and you can’t give any good answers, so you just resort to derision.

    I don’t see anyone honest who is asking questions. All I see are a bunch of insincere concern trolls making up a bunch of fake nitpick issues that are nothing but a propoganda sideshow of disingenuous smears.

    The IRS is darn well aware of what SSN the president has. You are a total doofus if you think they wouldn’t have noticed anything unusual.

    Yes, this is most likely a simple typo when setting up a SSN. If you read the SSN rules, they are quite upfront that there is no hard correlation to zip code.

    You are tilting at windmills.

  41. avatar
    Joey April 15, 2011 at 10:26 pm #

    MichaelN:
    It was easy for Obama’s birth registration to be put in the Hawaiian system by ANYONE and it was easy for Obama to provide supplementary information to complete the registration information (the strange and sudden visit to Hawaii during the election campaign?)

    Although supplementary information provided in 2008-2009 would not appear on Obama’s CoLB, it may be that it was necessary for Obama to add some more at that late stage, to shore-up his evidence’ of Hawaiian birth in anticipation of people demanding more solid evidence than what the CoLB, as previously issued contained.

    Here’s how easy it was to get on the HDoH system and to add to it pro rata.

    Hawaiian Revised Statutes.
    §338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

    (b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered”. [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]

    The only constitutionally relevant information for Article II, Section 1 eligibility that is on a birth record is place of birth and date of birth. Barack Hussein Obama II has a certified birth record from the state of Hawaii showing that he was born on August 4, 1961 in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii.
    Obama’s latest copy of his COLB was issued on June 6, 2007.
    Obama’s birth was registered with the state of Hawaii on August 8, 1961.
    The contemporaneous birth announcements for Obama appeared in the August 13th and August 14, 1961 editions of the two primary Honolulu newspapers.
    Why would the previous Republican administration in Hawaii help a liberal Democrat and have not one single person in that administration expose the supposed “fraud?”
    How do you propose to expose the surreptitious “entries” into the system at this late date?
    The courts obviously aren’t interested and neither are the investigative committees of the Republican controlled House of Representatives.
    By law, an amended birth record would say “AMENDED” or “DELAYED REGISTRATION” on the COLB.
    “The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidible opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not initiated impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. (See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Congress. 2009) commemorating, by a vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”–U.S. District Court Judge Clay R. Land. US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2011 at 10:27 pm #

    MichaelN: And you prefer to go with an image on the internet? ROTFLMAO

    Most of the things in my life excepting what happens right around me, I know from images on TV and on the Internet. Normal people develop ways of distinguishing between things which are reliable and those that are not. They work most of the time. Birthers also have ways of distinguishing between things: if it makes Obama legitimate, it’s not reliable and if it makes Obama look bad, then it’s God’s own truth. That rule seems to fail most all the time for the topics we discuss here.

  43. avatar
    gorefan April 15, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    MichaelN: but also forces previously free citizens to purchase a product designated by the government. Never before has the federal government presumed to dictate what its citizens must buy.

    In 1797, President John Adams signed into law an act that mandated merchant seaman had to buy health insurance. The money was withheld from their pay checks.

    In 1993, the Republican party proposed a health care bill that mandated that people had to buy health insurance. In fact, the so called Obamacare is modeled on this Republic model.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 15, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    MichaelN: It was easy for Obama’s birth registration to be put in the Hawaiian system by ANYONE

    Sherely the Frenchman thinks you just made that up.

  45. avatar
    G April 15, 2011 at 10:39 pm #

    MichaelN: “We’re not really worrying about conspiracy theories or birth certificate.”LoL …………. that’s why he has done everything he can to avoid discovery & transparency.If he was not worried, then what’s the problem with producing a hospital certificate and a long form birth certificate.The liar in chief is a fraud.He’s worried alright!And so he should be, his lie is falling apart.And the truth shall set you free, it’s only a matter if time.

    Ah…projection! Classic birtherism. The only ones who’ve been constantly whining and wringing their hands in worry are you scared little birthers who are afraid of Obama and have to cry about it all the time.

    Obama – he’s merely ignoring you…and cracking jokes at your expense. As well he should, you folks are nothing but a pathetic joke.

    The state of HI has already repeatedly told you that he can only get the COLB. Same for everyone with a HI BC these days. That’s all they give out. It has been that way for a decade. You are an intentional liar who is merely concern trolling.

    Go take your widdle temper tantrum somewhere else, you whiny baby.

  46. avatar
    misha April 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm #

    MichaelN: also forces previously free citizens to purchase a product designated by the government.

    Yeah, just like the law in Massachusetts, sponsored by Mitt Romney. I suppose you refuse vaccinations – correct? Since you don’t like this, you do not own a car or home – correct?

    During Vietnam, you actively encouraged men to resist the draft – correct?

  47. avatar
    Rickey April 15, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    MichaelN:

    Obama chooses not to enforce federal drug laws relating to marijuana, or to allow his Department of Justice to prosecute Black Panthers who stood — with Billy-club in hand — in front of polling places to intimidate white voters

    You birthers are so hopeless that you can’t even get your “facts” straight.

    It was the Bush Justice Department – not the Obama Justice Department – which decided not to prosecute the two members of the inconsequential “New Black Panthers.” As Newsweek has reported:

    On Nov. 4, 2008, Republican poll watchers spotted two members of the New Black Panther Party—a fringe black supremacist group not affiliated with its 1960s namesake—outside a Philadelphia polling station in a predominantly black neighborhood. One was carrying a billy club. Police were summoned and escorted the men away (one was caught on video shouting racist slurs as he left), although no voters reported having been intimidated (Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, a lawyer who has made the case a personal cause célèbre, has tried to hedge this by arguing that a poll watcher was intimidated, although this obviously isn’t the same thing). The Bush-era Department of Justice considered criminal charges against the two men, the party, and its chairman, then opted for a civil suit.. After the Obama administration took power, Justice obtained an injunction against the man with the baton from displaying a weapon near a polling place on election days and dropped the rest of the civil charges in May 2009

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/23/the-new-black-panther-story-light-on-facts-heavy-on-echo.html

    Do you understand the difference between criminal charges and a civil suit? A civil suit is not a criminal prosecution. There was no evidence that any voters were intimidated (not a single voter came forward with a complaint), so the Justice Department decided that continuing the civil suit was futile.

  48. avatar
    G April 15, 2011 at 10:52 pm #

    MichaelN: It’s not about political parties, it’s about the security of the office of POTUS from foreign influence and claims.
    This is what’s going on right under your pathetic partisan noses under jihad in chief’s watch….blah…blah..blah

    Michael, why are all of your citations only from disreputable tabloid trash nut sites?

    Why don’t any of these stories appear in any serious source?

    Maybe because they are all made up by a bunch of delusional right-wing scaredy-pants nuts, like you?

    No wonder your mind is so diseased. You are about as gullible as they get and you buy into any scary muslim “bogeyman” tale that the tabloids can reel you in on.

    Go stand and preach on a street corner somewhere, you pants-wetting kook.

  49. avatar
    G April 15, 2011 at 10:57 pm #

    MichaelN: And you prefer to go with an image on the internet? ROTFLMAO

    Um…everything on the internet is an image, you fool.

  50. avatar
    James M April 15, 2011 at 10:58 pm #

    Romo Cop:

    None of the links explain the CT SSN

    The “CT SSN” follows from a branch of birther lore that holds his entire past to be some series of fraud after fraud. Once it becomes clear that there is no reason why Obama would ever need to do something as radical as whatever is being suggested by the reality assumption within “CT SSN”.

  51. avatar
    MichaelN April 16, 2011 at 1:05 am #

    JohnC: None of this is applicable if, as Dr. Fukino says, Obama’s “long-form” has a doctor’s signature on it.

    DOCTOR Fukino probably signed-in on the bottom of the record to make note of accessing the document.

    Such are the verbal gymnastics of Fukino, with her deliberately misleading, ambiguous blurbs.

    How come Fukino, sees fit to unofficially deliver this ‘information’ about a doctor’s signature and yet still avoid confirming the hospital of birth?

    What’s more, why should Fukino be believed in her unofficial capacity?

    Why did she not mention the doctors’ signature when she was in her official capacity?

    You seem to believe anything that suits your agenda, but whine and moan when people of an opposing stripe do the same, accusing them of failing to prove or substantiate their beliefs.

    This is why you are the laughing stock of the internet blogs, all huddled together self gratifying, smugly patting each other on the back about how nasty you can be to ‘birthers’ or anyone else who dares to express their genuine concerns about Mr Transparency.]

    When the truth of your liar messiah is finally brought to light, and it will be better world for all concerned, until then, you live in your dark hole, throwing rocks at anything that moves toward the light.

    Like I said, you have sold your souls and sold-out you nation and constitution for the sake of your petty, partisan grab of power in government.

  52. avatar
    MichaelN April 16, 2011 at 1:13 am #

    G: Um…everything on the internet is an image, you fool.

    This ain’t, and it’s on hard copy AND available for the public to examine, unlike Obama’s ‘proof’

    John Bingham

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

    Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

    “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    From the internet and about the above.

    “No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.”
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/

  53. avatar
    MichaelN April 16, 2011 at 1:22 am #

    Maybe you ‘patriots’ (not) should read this.

    http://www.shortstoryarchive.com/a/emperors_new_clothes.html

  54. avatar
    gorefan April 16, 2011 at 1:32 am #

    MichaelN: DOCTOR Fukino probably signed-in on the bottom of the record to make note of accessing the document

    She said it was signed by he doctor who delivered the President. You are a moron. Keep quoting Leo. He’s been real successful in his legal battles.

  55. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 16, 2011 at 2:08 am #

    MichaelN: You seem to believe anything that suits your agenda, but whine and moan when people of an opposing stripe do the same, accusing them of failing to prove or substantiate their beliefs.

    No, we believe in what the Constitution says, what the law says, what the facts say, and what people with expertise say – we shape our agenda to a rational understanding of the facts – you should try it some time… You’ve repeatedly had your arguments shown to be incorrect, lied about, ignored facts and displayed your bigotry for all to see – no one gives a damn about your beliefs – only what you have evidence for (which is nothing).

    This is why you are the laughing stock of the internet blogs, all huddled together self gratifying, smugly patting each other on the back about how nasty you can be to birthers’ or anyone else who dares to express their genuine concerns about Mr Transparency.]

    Hm… as opposed to those bastions of free speech and erudite discourse that are the birther blogs? You haven’t expressed any genuine concerns about President Obama (which is not to say there aren’t genuine concerns – just that you haven’t raised any). You guy lost? Tough. It looks like your guy (or gal) is gonna lose again? Been there, done that. Suck it up, you pansy. Stop whining over losing, acknowledge the facts (contrary to your apparent beliefs, you don’t get your own facts), and grow the f*ck up – we’ve got real problems and spineless liars like yourself just waste time that could be used to work on those problems…

    When the truth of your liar [says the known liar…] messiah

    Birthers are the only ones that think of President Obama as a messiah (they also seem to have a lot of homo-erotic thoughts regarding the president), why is that?

    is finally brought to light, and it will be better world for all concerned, until then, you live in your dark hole, throwing rocks at anything that moves toward the light.

    Funny – I assume you are describing yourself (projection is another thing birthers seem to be really good at…)

    Like I said, you have sold your souls and sold-out you nation and constitution [Patriotic Americans know that the word ‘Constitution’ should be capitalized – and, like all birthers, you’re willing to rape any part of the Constitution necessary for your seditious fantasies…] for the sake of your petty, partisan grab of power in government.

    You are referring to how the Democrats and President Obama seized power by winning elections? Or are you referring to the birther’s seditious attempts at overthrowing the US Constitution? I do believe it is important for the Democrats to grab and hold as much power as (legally) possible – 8 years of President Bush and Dick the War Criminal had brought this country to its knees. It’s good to have an adult in the Oval Office again – even if he doesn’t always do what I’d like…

    Once again another shameful post from MichaelN – what a pathetic loser…

  56. avatar
    obsolete April 16, 2011 at 2:17 am #

    MichaelN, you seem extra bitter lately. It’s hard to be a birther when all the birther’s lies are exposed and Obama prepares for his second term…

    I notice you may be jumping on the anti-Muslim bandwagon by the links you posted to bigoted sites. How long do you think it will be before we see you posting Stormfront and KKK links? That’s the final stop on most birther trolleys.

  57. avatar
    Robert Clark April 16, 2011 at 4:10 am #

    JohnC: Since the central tenet of birtherism is that Obama is such a dishonest person that he may be willing to commit unprecedented document fraud, bribery and intimidation to stay in office…

    He did come from Chicago after all …

    Bob

  58. avatar
    nc1 April 16, 2011 at 6:00 am #

    JohnC:
    Over at Politico, Maggie Haberman offers the following commentary on Obama’s statements to Stephanopolous:

    “The White House is elevating Trump by addressing the problem, on the one hand, and many believe it suits the Democrats’ political purposes to use the issue as a foil. At the same time, it speaks to the intensity the issue has taken on, and the risk of leaving it unaddressed.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53236.html

    Outside of the hysterical birther bubble, that’s the first time I’ve heard of anyone viewing this “controversy” as a political liability for Obama with any constituency that matters to his re-election.

    Since the central tenet of birtherism is that Obama is such a dishonest person that he may be willing to commit unprecedented document fraud, bribery and intimidation to stay in office, I highly doubt birthers would have much of a disposition to vote for him even if he had been born before a live studio audience in Washington, D.C.

    Do I need to remind you about Abercrombie’s motivation to end the birther controversy once and for all?

  59. avatar
    G April 16, 2011 at 6:27 am #

    MichaelN: Such are the verbal gymnastics of Fukino, with her deliberately misleading, ambiguous blurbs. Blah, blah, blah

    *sigh* Only people like you see verbal gymnastics, because you are so desperate to twist simple words and explanations, because you can’t accept reality.

    This isn’t even your country. The fact that your every day is filled with hate and fear over who our leader is reflects on how screwed up you are.

    As usual, the rest of your post is just more spittle-inflected projection. Hate to tell you pal, but we’ll always be the majority and you fools will always remain the small contingent of malcontents that the world shakes their head sadly at.

  60. avatar
    G April 16, 2011 at 6:28 am #

    MichaelN: This ain’t, and it’s on hard copy AND available for the public to examine, unlike Obama’s proof’
    John Bingham

    Um, once you typed it onto the computer, it is a mere image of the words from a book, not a book itself.

    Likewise, Obama’s COLB is a an actual legal document on paper, which was scanned in. QED.

  61. avatar
    Lupin April 16, 2011 at 6:31 am #

    Romo Cop: There’s always a slip up …

    Oh yes — those shifty n*** trying to infiltrate the ice cream business as teenagers… Sure, that’s where he slipped up…

    Seriously, do you actually read what you write?

  62. avatar
    G April 16, 2011 at 6:50 am #

    nc1: Do I need to remind you about Abercrombie’s motivation to end the birther controversy once and for all?

    Yeah, because he found birther lies to be offensive and stupid, which they are.

  63. avatar
    Suranis April 16, 2011 at 6:55 am #

    Robert Clark: He did come from Chicago after all …

    Actually President Obama came from Hawai’i.

  64. avatar
    Suranis April 16, 2011 at 6:59 am #

    nc1: Do I need to remind you about Abercrombie’s motivation to end the birther controversy once and for all?

    Yes. Pity he respects the laws of the United States and Hawai’i enough to accept that they prohibited him from releasing President Obama’s records. Not that anything would have stopped you making crap up.

  65. avatar
    nc1 April 16, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    G: Yeah, because he found birther lies to be offensive and stupid, which they are.

    That was not the reason why he started the investigation – he wanted to remove issue which could cause problems for re-election.

    I mentioned it because JohnC claimed that nobody prior to the Politico article thought that this issue is a political liability for Obama. Abercrombie did.

  66. avatar
    Northland10 April 16, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    nc1: he wanted to remove issue which could cause problems for re-election.

    Yet, it is the Republicans that are now running for cover over the issue and the increased press due to Trump. Obama’s team has found it beneficial to say nothing. If I were into blindly following theories with no evidence, I would be more inclined to believe that, possibly, the White House wanted the Governor to back off on the search. The issue, as we are seeing, could only really hurt Republicans now.

    “Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake” – Napoleon

    “If your opponent is temperamental, irritate him” – Sun Tzu

  67. avatar
    misha April 16, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    Northland10: “Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake” – Napoleon

    “If your opponent is temperamental, irritate him” – Sun Tzu

    My wife is from China. Spot on.

    Now Trump. Popcorn.

  68. avatar
    Sef April 16, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    Northland10: “Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake” – Napoleon

    Here’s one. “Never step into the center of a circular firing squad.”

  69. avatar
    Suranis April 16, 2011 at 8:56 pm #

    Just for clarity this is what Governor Albercombie actually said.

    “I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.

    …What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.

    If there is a political agenda then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president.”

    Which is a little bit away from saying its politically disastrous. I read it as talking about the corrosive effect this will have on politics in general, and in that I agree with him.

  70. avatar
    MichaelN April 16, 2011 at 9:28 pm #

    MichaelN ………. said

    It was easy for Obama’s birth registration to be put in the Hawaiian system by ANYONE and it was easy for Obama to provide supplementary information to complete the registration information (the strange and sudden visit to Hawaii during the election campaign?)

    Although supplementary information provided in 2008-2009 would not appear on Obama’s CoLB, it may be that it was necessary for Obama to add some more at that late stage, to shore-up his evidence’ of Hawaiian birth in anticipation of people demanding more solid evidence than what the CoLB, as previously issued contained.

    Here’s how easy it was to get on the HDoH system and to add to it pro rata.

    Hawaiian Revised Statutes.
    §338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

    (b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered”. [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]
    ————————————————–

    JohnC said:

    “None of this is applicable if, as Dr. Fukino says, Obama’s “long-form” has a doctor’s signature on it.”

    But it was easy to get …………………… right?

    And why should Fukino in here unofficial capacity be believed, especially when in her official capacity she could have come out with this ‘information ………… but didn’t’?

    The point is proven, that It was easy for Obama’s birth registration to be put in the Hawaiian system by ANYONE and this could be EASILY done with Obama being born off-shore.

  71. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 16, 2011 at 9:47 pm #

    Sef: Here’s one. “Never step into the center of a circular firing squad.”

    I’ve always been partial to “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers” or “there are no stupid questions just stupid people”

  72. avatar
    Suranis April 16, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    Northland10: “Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake” – Napoleon

    The Ironic thing is that this advice was used against him at Waterloo, where the Duke of Wellington sat back and basically allowed Napoleon to fall over himself and throw away a sure victory despite having a 2 to 1 advantage in troops on the field.

    And Napoleon deep down knew this, and that’s why Napoleon spent his last years writing books that blamed every single other person for his failures. Marshal Ney has taken an unfair share of the blame for Waterloo, but Ney was on the field trying to organize things and getting 3 horses shot out from under him while Napoleon was lying on a field tent away from the battle getting gout treatment for hours but still insisting on holding full battle control and ignoring Neys urgent requests for troop re-deployments.

    Napoleon had a serious case of Birther complex in his final years.

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 16, 2011 at 10:11 pm #

    MichaelN: The point is proven, that It was easy for Obama’s birth registration to be put in the Hawaiian system by ANYONE and this could be EASILY done with Obama being born off-shore.

    This particular logical fallacy is called a non sequitur.

  74. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 16, 2011 at 10:20 pm #

    MichaelN: The point is proven, that It was easy for Obama’s birth registration to be put in the Hawaiian system by ANYONE and this could be EASILY done with Obama being born off-shore.

    You failed to prove this. I could make the same claim about any state saying somehow anyone anywhere could get a Texas birth certificate or a North Dakota birth certificate. The thing is you haven’t proven this is possible. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.

  75. avatar
    Suranis April 16, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This particular logical fallacy is called a non sequitur.

    I went and looked this up out of interest. Heres wikipedias definition

    “Non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

    [edit] Non sequitur in normal speech
    See also: Derailment (thought disorder)

    The term is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were. An example might be: “If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.” However, there is no direct relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people. This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.

    Two examples include:

    * “If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog.” (Premise and conclusion are once again unrelated; this is also an example of an appeal to emotion.)
    * “I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.” (The conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.)”

    And then there is a list of logical fallacies such as

    1. Men are human.
    2. Mary is human.
    3. Therefore, Mary is a man.

    Quite interesting reading actually.

  76. avatar
    misha April 16, 2011 at 11:23 pm #

    Suranis:
    1. Men are human.
    2. Mary is human.
    3. Therefore, Mary is a man.

    Humans have opposable thumbs. Lemurs have opposable thumbs. Therefore, you are a lemur.

  77. avatar
    Rickey April 16, 2011 at 11:42 pm #

    MichaelN:
    The point is proven, that It was easy for Obama’s birth registration to be put in the Hawaiian system by ANYONE and this could be EASILY done with Obama being born off-shore.

    If it is so easy, it should be easy for you to produce evidence of just one person who was born outside of Hawaii in the past 60 years but has a Hawaii birth certificate which says that he or she was born in Hawaii. Just one, that’s all we ask. Until then, your point hasn’t been proven.

  78. avatar
    Keith April 17, 2011 at 12:36 am #

    MichaelN: G: Um…everything on the internet is an image, you fool.

    This ain’t, and it’s on hard copy AND available for the public to examine, unlike Obama’s proof’

    John Bingham

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

    Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

    “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    From the internet and about the above.

    “No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.”
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/

    Image or not, how does your quotation of the words of Bingham further your argument? Bingham was talking, not about the 14th amendment, but a prior bill in 1866 debate. Further, he was discussing not the desirability of the result the bill was meant to achieve, but the Constitutionality of the bill.

    He had no problem with the citizenship part of the 1866 bill, but BIngham wanted to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights to the States, the bill under debate tried to do this however SCOTUS had already ruled that was not Constitutional. Bingham was concerned that the bill would be invalidated by SCOTUS. Congress and America agreed with him and the 14th Amendment was ratified to supersede the bill.

    Finally, you will note the the 14th Amendment does not mention ALLEGIANCE, it mentions JURISDICTION which is the correct wording for what the amendment was meant to achieve. It doesn’t really matter what Bingham said about ALLEGIANCE because the 14th amendment doesn’t talk about ALLEGIANCE.

    The 14th Amendment talks about JURISDICTION because foreign diplomats and invading armies are not under the JURISDICTION of American law. Turists, temporary workers, illegal aliens, and foreign students most definately ARE under the JURISDICTION of American law.

    The 14th amendment:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

    Jurisdiction From Dictionary.com

    jurisdiction

     /ˌd’ʊərɪsˈdɪkʃən/ Show Spelled[joor-is-dik-shuhn] Show IPA
    –noun
    1.
    the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies.
    2.
    power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American soldiers in the area.
    3.
    the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police.
    4.
    the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the northwest are his jurisdiction.

    Allegiance

    allegiance

     /əˈlid’əns/ Show Spelled[uh-lee-juhns] Show IPA
    –noun
    1.
    the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign.
    2.
    loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like.
    Use allegiance in a Sentence
    See images of allegiance
    Search allegiance on the Web
    Origin:
    1350–1400; Middle English aliegiaunce, equivalent to a- probably a-5 + liege liege + -aunce -ance; compare Middle French ligeance

    —Related forms
    nonallegiance, noun
    overallegiance, noun

    —Synonyms
    See loyalty.

    —Antonyms
    1. treason. 2. treachery.

  79. avatar
    James M April 17, 2011 at 12:40 am #

    MichaelN:

    Such are the verbal gymnastics of Fukino, with her deliberately misleading, ambiguous blurbs.

    You are accusing her of claiming to be the doctor who delivered Obama? She isn’t old enough, and you are just being silly.

  80. avatar
    Joey April 17, 2011 at 12:46 am #

    Rickey: If it is so easy, it should be easy for you to produce evidence of just one person who was born outside of Hawaii in the past 60 years but has a Hawaii birth certificate which says that he or she was born in Hawaii. Just one, that’s all we ask. Until then, your point hasn’t been proven.

    Janice Okubo, Director of Communications for the Hawaii Department of Health addresses the birth certificates for persons not born in Hawaii myth:
    “It’s crazy,” said Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health. “I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them.”
    Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories. “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”

    http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2011 at 12:49 am #

    MichaelN: Such are the verbal gymnastics of Fukino, with her deliberately misleading, ambiguous blurbs.

    Did it ever occur to you that Fukino is speaking normally, and it is your perceptions that are distorted?

  82. avatar
    obsolete April 17, 2011 at 3:41 am #

    For the life of me, I cant understand how Dr. Fukino is supposed to be doing “verbal gymnastics”. Her statements have been very clear and consistent. If you think she is speaking in “codes” perhaps you should get checked for advanced syphilis.

  83. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 4:44 am #

    Keith: Image or not, how does your quotation of the words of Bingham further your argument? Bingham was talking, not about the 14th amendment, but a prior bill in 1866 debate. Further, he was discussing not the desirability of the result the bill was meant to achieve, but the Constitutionality of the bill.

    Point is that Bingham stated who is a ‘natural born Citizen’ and no one objected.

    What does it matter what bill discussion this took place within?

    You are so sleezy, you sprout-off about WKA case, all because NBC was mentioned, yet the DECISION was only ‘citizen’ when the case was NOT about NBC, yet you and moan & whine because Bingham defines NBC in forum that was also not about NBC

    You can’t have it both ways ………… your whole argument is based on your petty partisan bias and the absurdity that the founding fathers would allow any anchor baby born of foreign influence and claim to be POTUS ………… you have sold your soul and sold-out your country and constitution just to protect a fraudulent power grab of government…….. disgraceful traitor.

  84. avatar
    Keith April 17, 2011 at 4:55 am #

    MichaelN: Such are the verbal gymnastics of Fukino, with her deliberately misleading, ambiguous blurbs.

    You (and others on your ‘side’) are the only one’s performing ‘verbal gymnastics’.

    Fukino’s statements are absolutely straightforward, un-coded, bog-standard, everyday plain, English.

    Her words mean exactly what they purport to say with out any interpretation or pretzel twisting needed to understand them.

    Obama was born in Hawai’i and the documentation to prove it is on file in Hawai’i in exactly the same manner as every other person born in Hawai’i. End of story.

  85. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 4:56 am #

    Joey: Janice Okubo, Director of Communications for the Hawaii Department of Health addresses the birth certificates for persons not born in Hawaii myth:
    “It’s crazy,” said Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health. “I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them.”
    Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories. “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”

    http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam

    For starters, you don’t know that the image on the internet of an alleged official issue is an image of an actual official issue and no one from HDoH has confirmed that it was.

    I have shown you that anyone can get a CoLB under HRS 338-06.

    Obama’s CoLB (if a genuine issue) states “Date Filed by the Registrar’, but there are other CoLBs that state ‘Date Accepted by the State Registrar’ which indicates that all Obama’s CoLB is (if a genuine issue) is a basic status report of the current status of the record held on file to date, and it is absent of satisfactory proof of the details which were reported to the HDoH, by someone saying that he was born Hawaii under HRS 338-06.

  86. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 4:57 am #

    Keith: You (and others on your side’) are the only one’s performing ‘verbal gymnastics’.

    Fukino’s statements are absolutely straightforward, un-coded, bog-standard, everyday plain, English.

    Her words mean exactly what they purport to say with out any interpretation or pretzel twisting needed to understand them.

    Obama was born in Hawai’i and the documentation to prove it is on file in Hawai’i in exactly the same manner as every other person born in Hawai’i. End of story.

    You wish!

  87. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 5:31 am #

    Rickey: If it is so easy, it should be easy for you to produce evidence of just one person who was born outside of Hawaii in the past 60 years but has a Hawaii birth certificate which says that he or she was born in Hawaii. Just one, that’s all we ask. Until then, your point hasn’t been proven.

    Point has been proven, from a reading of HRS 338-06, that it is EASY to have a birth registered in Hawaii for a person born off-shore.

    As if I should go out and try and prove someone has already done this just to prove to you that it is easy to do, when it is patently clear that it is easy to do, just by reading the statute.

    YOU show how it would not be so easy.

  88. avatar
    Keith April 17, 2011 at 5:53 am #

    MichaelN: Point has been proven, from a reading of HRS 338-06, that it is EASY to have a birth registered in Hawaii for a person born off-shore.

    And if such a birth is registered in Hawai’i, the registration will show unequivocably that the person was born off-shore.

    It will NOT show that the person was born in Hawai’i.

  89. avatar
    Scientist April 17, 2011 at 6:08 am #

    MichaelN: Point has been proven, from a reading of HRS 338-06, that it is EASY to have a birth registered in Hawaii for a person born off-shore.

    The laws permit anyone to run a mile in under 3 minutes. So it must be EASY. Anything permitted by law is EASY to do, right?

    Sorry, if you want to prove that something can be done, you have to do it or show someone that has done it.

  90. avatar
    Suranis April 17, 2011 at 8:41 am #

    MichaelN: Point has been proven, from a reading of HRS 338-06, that it is EASY to have a birth registered in Hawaii for a person born off-shore.

    This is an example of how you look at something in isolation can easilly spin something compleatly irronious from it.

    First Dr. Fukuno said there was a Doctors Signature on the Vital records. NC1 and Clark have been trying to spin that into a huge conspiracy. Therefore the birth was not UNATTENDED, therefore 0338-06 does not apply to President Obama.

    Second the laws at the time are fairly clear…

    ACT 96.

    AN ACT

    To PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF HAWAIIAN BIRTH.

    “… All applications shall be by sworn petition, in which the party shall set forth circumstantially all the facts upon which his application rests, and shall be accompanied by sworn affidavits of witnesses. The Secretary and such persons as he may designate and appoint may examine, under oath, any applicant or person cognizant of the facts regarding any application and for that purpose he and they are hereby authorized and empowered to administer oaths, subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers, punish for contempts and, generally, to exercise the same authority with regard to their special jurisdiction as is by law conferred on District Magistrates.

    SECTION 2. Any applicant or any person, who shall give or offer any false testimony, oral or written, under oath, in support or respect of any application for a certificate under the provisions of the foregoing Section, shall be deemed guilty of perjury and shall be punishable accordingly. ”

    So it was not a case of wandering in with a baby to an office and getting a birth cert made up then and there. They had to make out a sworn petition in writing, and then be interviewed by a representitive of the secretery of state. Once you passed all that you might get your Birth cert.

    But it would take a LOT longer than 4 days. Which is the difference between the time President Obama was born, and the time his birth was filed.

    So, it didn’t apply to President Obama and it was not as simple as 338-06 in isolation implies, and would take a lot longer.

    Another MichealN failure of careful documentation snipping. But at least he used a whole sentence this time,.

  91. avatar
    Suranis April 17, 2011 at 8:43 am #

    Oh and just to be cleat, Act 96 was in force from 1911 to 1972 and was the overriding law in cases of all births, so it would have covered births under 338-06.

  92. avatar
    obsolete April 17, 2011 at 9:04 am #

    Poor MichaelN, debunked again!

  93. avatar
    Fred April 17, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

    Can someone moderate this forum to get rid of these WND trolls? Let them have their one post so we can make fun of them but don’t let them clutter the place up with their trash.

  94. avatar
    Joey April 17, 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    MichaelN: For starters, you don’t know that the image on the internet of an alleged official issue is an image of an actual official issue and no one from HDoH has confirmed that it was.

    I have shown you that anyone can get a CoLB under HRS 338-06.

    Obama’s CoLB (if a genuine issue) states“Date Filed by the Registrar’, but there are other CoLBs that state ‘Date Accepted by the State Registrar’ which indicates that all Obama’s CoLB is (if a genuine issue) is a basic status report of the current status of the record held on file to date, and it is absent of satisfactory proof of the details which were reported to the HDoH, by someone saying that he was born Hawaii under HRS 338-06.

    Since no court of law and no committee of Congress appears to have the slightest interest in the difference in 1961 Hawaii Health Bureau policy distinquishing between “date filed” and “date accepted” I think that I’ll continue to go with the actual statements of those officials of the state of Hawaii charged with overseeing the state’s vital records. Any of those officials, former officials and the records themselves can be deposed and subpoenaed in a court or congressional proceeding but thus far, none have.
    As Ms. Okubo said: “the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories.”
    As Dr. Fukino said: “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii state Department of Health, have seen the ORIGINAL vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health VERIFYING Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.”–July 27, 2009
    As Dr. Fukino also stated in testimony before the Hawaii Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary and Government Operations: “For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail requests a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT POSTED A COPY OF THE CERTFICATE ON HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN WEBSITE.”–February 23, 2010
    As former Governor Lingle said: “the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. It’s been established. He was born here.”–May 2, 2010
    “The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner (R-OH). And that’s good enough for me too.

  95. avatar
    Joey April 17, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

    Fred:
    Can someone moderate this forum to get rid of these WND trolls?Let them have their one post so we can make fun of them but don’t let them clutter the place up with their trash.

    I hope they can stay and continue to be made to look like the fools that they are. It’s much more fun humiliating them! 😉

  96. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 17, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    Fred:
    Can someone moderate this forum to get rid of these WND trolls?Let them have their one post so we can make fun of them but don’t let them clutter the place up with their trash.

    Moderating forums to stifle dissent is a standard birther tactic… besides, the purpose of this place (at least to me) is to show that birthers’ theories are just that – trash.

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 17, 2011 at 4:05 pm #

    Fred: Can someone moderate this forum to get rid of these WND trolls? Let them have their one post so we can make fun of them but don’t let them clutter the place up with their trash.

    From time to time I do ban some posters who appear to be nothing but trying to provoke angry exchanges. I don’t want this site to be like birther sites that control everything that appears. I think that open dialog (even with idiots) is a good thing — if only to build character and patience.

    If somebody annoys you, just don’t read their stuff. There are a few folks that I just spin by.

  98. avatar
    Daniel April 17, 2011 at 4:32 pm #

    MichaelN: Point has been proven, from a reading of HRS 338-06, that it is EASY to have a birth registered in Hawaii for a person born off-shore.

    No matter how many times you beat that dead horse, it’s not going to carry you to the finish line.

  99. avatar
    Keith April 17, 2011 at 6:09 pm #

    MichaelN: Point is that Bingham stated who is a natural born Citizen’ and no one objected.

    What does that mean, ‘nobody objected’? At the time the debate took place? So what? The wording was corrected in the amendment. The amendment says who is a citizen, and the allegiance of the parents doesn’t enter into it, only the jurisdiction they are in. End of story.

    What does it matter what bill discussion this took place within?

    It doesn’t really, except that he was discussing a bill that was incorrectly worded, a bill that was inadequate to do the task it was designed to do because only an amendment could fix the problem.

    His statement is a throw-away line, he is saying the first part of the bill reiterating what makes a citizen is fine, it didn’t change how the Constitution was understood and he didn’t want to pay any attention to that part (except that it did: the allegiance/jurisdiction).

    What he wanted to address was the part of the bill that purported to change the way the Constitution was understood, specifically to apply the Bill of Rights to State Governments. Bingham knew that any such bill was inadequate and only an Amendment would fix that problem. Congress and the American people agreed with him.

    While the 14th amendment was being drafted, someone noticed that ‘allegiance’ was the wrong word, corrected it to ‘jurisdiction’ and that is the wording that was adopted.

    It is pointless for you to use Bingham’s words about allegiance, allegiance is NOT the law of the land, jurisdiction is the law of the land. The Constitution says:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

    End of story.

    You are so sleezy, you sprout-off about WKA case,…

    I have not mentioned WKA, but why would quoting a appropriate SCOTUS case be a ‘sleezy’ tactic in a discussion about the Constitution and the law?

    Seems like a losers last resort to name calling to me.

  100. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 17, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    MichaelN: You are so sleezy, you sprout-off about WKA case, all because NBC was mentioned, yet the DECISION was only citizen’ when the case was NOT about NBC, yet you and moan & whine because Bingham defines NBC in forum that was also not about NBC

    The one who is sleazy here is the one who repeats the birfer encantation that Wong KIm Ark was not about natural born citizenship but about citizenship. Unfortunately for you, the lower court did call him a natural born citizen, the Government siad he could not be a natural born citizen and the losing sid’s opinion expressly said that if Wong was a citizen, h had to be a natural born citizen, meaning he could be President. The winning’s side opinion did not even try to refute that – for obvious reasons: there are only two sorts of citizens, natural born citizens and nationalized citizens, and Wong Kim Ark could not even have been naturalized.

    That is also the reason why the court in Ankeny said that based on Wong Kim Ark, Obama was a natural born citizen.

    So, both the history of the case and the jurisprudence afterwards says Wong Kim Ark was a citizen for one reason only: born in the jurisdiction, and not naturalized.

  101. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 7:18 pm #

    Keith: What does that mean, nobody objected’? At the time the debate took place? So what? The wording was corrected in the amendment. The amendment says who is a citizen, and the allegiance of the parents doesn’t enter into it, only the jurisdiction they are in. End of story.

    No one objected to the meaning of NBC, because it was the correct definition.

    That’s why ‘allegiance’ was left out of 14th and the children born in US, referred to in the 14th, ONLY got ‘citizen’ and NOT NBC.

    In light of Bingham’s UNCONTESTED definition of NBC, the framers were attuned to the distinct differences in definitions of ‘citizen” and NBC, so had the framers thought and intended subject to the jurisdiction to mean NBC ……… they would have called those of the born variety mentioned in 14th as NBC …………. but they didn’t,
    and because they didn’t, it was OBVIOUSLY INTENTIONAL to call 14th Amendment BORN citizens as ‘citizens’ ONLY and NOT natural born.

  102. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 7:24 pm #

    Obviously there are two types of born US citizens, i.e. 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ (born soli) and ‘natural born Citizen’ (born soli & sanguinis)

    Why would the framers settle for anything less than the highest possible allegiance & loyalty requirement for the office of POTUS?

    You know damn well that for the founding fathers to settle for anything less is an ABSURD notion.

    You dudes are so dishonest, you have sold-out your nation and constitution for the sake of your petty partisan politics……………. disgraceful!

  103. avatar
    G April 17, 2011 at 7:39 pm #

    MichaelN: Obviously there are two types of born US citizens, i.e. 14th Amendment citizen’ (born soli) and natural born Citizen’ (born soli & sanguinis)Why would the framers settle for anything less than the highest possible allegiance & loyalty requirement for the office of POTUS?You know damn well that for the founding fathers to settle for anything less is an ABSURD notion.You dudes are so dishonest, you have sold-out your nation and constitution for the sake of your petty partisan politics……………. disgraceful!

    FAIL! Only two types of citizens period – BORN and NATURALIZED. Born = NBC. Simple as that.

    Sorry, but no modern laws support your bigoted interpretation. Of course, as a foreigner, I wouldn’t expect you to understand our country or our laws.

  104. avatar
    Suranis April 17, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    Haven’t you copied and pasted that 10 times in the past week alone? I know your line about 338-6 was shattered but that’s no excuse to keep CTRL+Ving the same crap over and over and over in order to pretend that you CTRL+Ving 338 all over the place didn’t make you look like a complete idiot.

    I’m sorry you never managed to convince anyone with your edited half sentences of Coke, but the fact is, that John Binghams line in that debate is the ONE AND ONLY LINE YOU HAVE IN ALL THE DEBATES IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITES STATES that in anyway agrees with you. That’s it, thats all you’ve got. Thats why you keep repeating it. Every other speech in history repeats what was a fact under English commom law – A persons highest allegiance is to the land of his birth.

    So come on micheal. Give me ONE OTHER politician in the history of the United states that said anything like what John Bingham said.

    Since I’m having fun here, I’ll just quote you a part of Perkins Vs Elg that Maio Apuzzo does not want you to read.

    This is the court drawing precident from a different case…

    “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages.”

    So. this case, from the 19th century, clearly states that a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN with dual German citizenship can be President of the united states and that is clearly understood even at that time.

    Yes I’m sorry that you always come a cropper when people look outside the 3 pages of law you want them to look at, but that’s the price of living in reality, Micheal.

  105. avatar
    G April 17, 2011 at 7:42 pm #

    MichaelN: You dudes are so dishonest, you have sold-out your nation and constitution for the sake of your petty partisan politics……………. disgraceful!

    The only dishonesty and politicization is coming from your end.

    There is something very un-American about looking for ways to make our system of government MORE exclusionary instead of more inclusive. The history of this great country has always moved forward towards providing opportunity to achieve the American dream and away from antiquated forms of bigotry and exclusion.

    Inclusiveness is an American ideal. One that guides us towards the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

  106. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 17, 2011 at 7:58 pm #

    MichaelN,

    Why would the framers use the term ‘natural born citizen’ in a way that was different than its common law definition (cf. Blackstone) without specifically defining it? They did so with the term treason, why not NBC?

  107. avatar
    Keith April 17, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    MichaelN: No one objected to the meaning of NBC, because it was the correct definition.

    That’s why allegiance’ was left out of 14th and the children born in US, referred to in the 14th, ONLY got citizen’ and NOT NBC.

    NO< FAIL AGAIN.

    Nobody is recorded as objecting to his definition, but you don’t know that there were no objections. Somebody obviously did object because the wording of the ineffective Civil Rights Act of 1866 was corrected when the effective 14th Amendment.

    The word allegiance’ was NOT ‘left out’ of the 14th Amendment; the correct word jurisdiction was used in its place.

  108. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    MichaelN,

    Why would the framers use the term natural born citizen’ in a way that was different than its common law definition (cf. Blackstone) without specifically defining it?They did so with the term treason, why not NBC?

    Ah, a post from you with a semblance of civil tone.

    Answer(s):

    Because English common law was not a part of the US Constitution.

    Because Blackstone in his commentary was generalizing and referring to subjects of a sovereign monarch, the same said subjects of England were not eligible, nor required to meet any eligibility requirements for high office of president of a constitutional republic.

    Conversely, the framers were breaking from being subjects of a sovereign monarch in establishing a constitutional republic, where the Citizens were the sovereign and a ‘natural born Citizen’ status WAS for highest office of the republic and it was crucial to secure that office from any foreign influence or claim.

    There is NO PRECEDENT in English common law that deals with citizens or natural born citizens of a constitutional republic or a natural born CITIZEN of said republic.

    Blackstone’s commentary was only good in relationship with subjects of a monarch.

    Blackstone’s commentary for whatever relevance it did have, was only to provide a principle for soli born citizens of US, which US has seemingly adopted and utilized (i.e.subject to debate -14th Amendment) to define birthright US citizenship, without the OTHER quality of ‘procreation’ or ‘natural’.

    SIR William Blackstone was a loyal monarchist and so it is little wonder Blackstone failed to even mention or comment on Cokes statements when Coke said:

    “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right,” – (two qualities)

    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita, and this originally is due by nature and birthright,” – (two qualities)

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,” (born soli NOT good enough)

    It is without any doubt that there were TWO essential qualities required to make a natural born subject in England and it IS apparent that those two qualities are soli AND sanguinis.

    i.e. the subject/citizenship of the parent father mattered.

    The framers used the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in Article II because they were highly educated, wise and learned English subjects (by origin) and were well versed in English common law.

    They were also meticulously studious to the extent that they referenced many diverse great writers, philosophers, commentators, etc, etc, including Vattel to source and adopt guidance in forming the USC.

    They chose the term NBC because it described what they wanted, i.e. a person born of TWO essential qualities, i.e. born via procreation/nature and birthright, and a person of the HIGHEST loyalty & allegiance as they could possibly imagine, to secure the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence, persuasion or claim.

    It is absurd to the extreme, that the framers would have settled for anything less………. and YOU know it!

    There were only two qualities to choose, so, to ensure a degree of maturity and experience, they also added the age & residency duration (no age & residency in English common law either – shock horror the framers departed AGAIN from English common law)

    Now a question for you ………… in English common law per Lord Coke in Calvin’s case:

    Did the ‘subject’ status of the parent father matter in determining his child as a subject to the English sovereign?

    If your answer is ‘no’, then you explain. (save your usual disgusting insulting mannerisms and get real, or don’t bother replying, else I won’t even bother reading your posts or responding to them)

  109. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

    Keith: NO< FAIL AGAIN.

    Nobody is recorded as objecting to his definition, but you don’t know that there were no objections. Somebody obviously did object because the wording of the ineffective Civil Rights Act of 1866 was corrected when the effective 14th Amendment.

    The word allegiance’ was NOT left out’ of the 14th Amendment; the correct word jurisdiction was used in its place.

    you wish.

  110. avatar
    Sef April 17, 2011 at 9:03 pm #

    MichaelN: There is NO PRECEDENT in English common law that deals with citizens or natural born citizens of a constitutional republic or a natural born CITIZEN of said republic.

    What does the Constitution, or Blackstone, or English Common Law have to say about telephones or computers? For that matter, what does the U.S. Constitution have to say about the Air Force?

  111. avatar
    Suranis April 17, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    Don’t forget NASA.

  112. avatar
    Joey April 17, 2011 at 9:16 pm #

    One would think that if MichaelN’s points had even the slightest bit of constitutional validity, at least ONE of the nine Justices of the US Supreme Court would have been interested in seeking a response from Obama’s attorneys to any of the 13 appeals of Obama Eligibility lawsuits that have reached the Supreme Court for certioari conferences.
    When an appeal makes it to the “discuss” list, any Justice that is interested in the constitutional issues raised by an appeal will give the appellee the opportunity to submit a brief in opposition to the appellant’s petition. That has occurred ZERO times with regard to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to be the 44th President of the United States as a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court just isn’t interested.

  113. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 9:16 pm #

    Suranis: This is an example of how you look at something in isolation can easilly spin something compleatly irronious from it.

    First Dr. Fukuno said there was a Doctors Signature on the Vital records. NC1 and Clark have been trying to spin that into a huge conspiracy. Therefore the birth was not UNATTENDED, therefore 0338-06 does not apply to President Obama.

    Second the laws at the time are fairly clear…

    ACT 96.

    AN ACT

    To PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF HAWAIIAN BIRTH.

    “… All applications shall be by sworn petition, in which the party shall set forth circumstantially all the facts upon which his application rests, and shall be accompanied by sworn affidavits of witnesses. The Secretary and such persons as he may designate and appoint may examine, under oath, any applicant or person cognizant of the facts regarding any application and for that purpose he and they are hereby authorized and empowered to administer oaths, subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers, punish for contempts and, generally, to exercise the same authority with regard to their special jurisdiction as is by law conferred on District Magistrates.

    SECTION 2. Any applicant or any person, who shall give or offer any false testimony, oral or written, under oath, in support or respect of any application for a certificate under the provisions of the foregoing Section, shall be deemed guilty of perjury and shall be punishable accordingly. ”

    So it was not a case of wandering in with a baby to an office and getting a birth cert made up then and there. They had to make out a sworn petition in writing, and then be interviewed by a representitive of the secretery of state. Once you passed all that you might get your Birth cert.

    But it would take a LOT longer than 4 days. Which is the difference between the time President Obama was born, and the time his birth was filed.

    So, it didn’t apply to President Obama and it was not as simple as 338-06 in isolation implies, and would take a lot longer.

    Another MichealN failure of careful documentation snipping. But at least he used a whole sentence this time,.

    That’s for ‘Issuance of CertifiCATES of Hawaiian Birth”

    Obama’s is a CertifiCATION of Live Birth. (but that’s nit-picking.)

    HRS 338 is not about ‘issuance’ ……….. it’s about PREPARING a birth certificate and yes, affidavits, etc are required, but under 338-06 the initial registration by ANYONE can be VERY scant to get a registration in the system.

    Obama’s (alleged) ‘officially’ issued CoLB is noted as ‘Date File by Registrar’ so it appears information is lacking to get a notation of ‘Date Accepted by the State Registrar’, there are other CoLBs that have been issued by HDoH that DO HAVE the notation ‘Date Accepted by the State Registrar’.

    Bottom line is that it was EASY to get a birth registered in Hawaii under 338-06 WITHOUT ANY verification from a duly recognized entity ………. just ANYONE would do to get a birth registered in Hawaii Department of Health.

  114. avatar
    Daniel April 17, 2011 at 9:28 pm #

    MichaelN: Bottom line is that it was EASY to get a birth registered in Hawaii under 338-06 WITHOUT ANY verification from a duly recognized entity ………. just ANYONE would do to get a birth registered in Hawaii Department of Health.

    MichaelN: At some point in time you have to understand that the race is over, your horse is dead, and your whip is broken.

    You’re never going to get across the finish line with that fallacy. Anybody who could possibly be in any position do anything about it understands that you are just plain wrong.

  115. avatar
    Suranis April 17, 2011 at 9:55 pm #

    MichaelN: Bottom line is that it was EASY to get a birth registered in Hawaii under 338-06 WITHOUT ANY verification from a duly recognized entity ………. just ANYONE would do to get a birth registered in Hawaii Department of Health.

    Again, 338-06 only applied to unattended births. Obamas birth was attended, as Dr Fukino said there was a doctors signature on the vital record. Ergo, 338-06 was not used in this case. So it does not apply to president Obama

    Repeat, Obama DID NOT get a Birth registration from 338-06.

    Did Not get a birth registration from 338-06.

    Thats straight from the act MichealN

    You want proof. Heres the act

    “§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child WHOSE BIRTH IS UNATTENDED as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.”

    338-05 by the way tells any medical facility to provide records to the DOH, so if there’s a doctors sig on the vital record, 338-06 is not in play. And for the record, there was only 14 such births in the whole of Honolulu in 1961

    I’m not saying this for your benefit Micheal. You are just a fairly stupid Australian racist. You would not listen if God Almighty projected an image of Obamas birth straight into your brain.

    As for

    HRS 338 is not about issuance’ ……….. it’s about PREPARING a birth certificate and yes, affidavits, etc are required, but under 338-06 the initial registration by ANYONE can be VERY scant to get a registration in the system.

    Bull shit. 338-06 itself says “the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth”

    Under act 96 the way they did that was sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury. With witnesses. You cant brush that aside with “affidavits etc”. There was a strict procedure to follow. And the DOH would NOT transmit a notice to the local newspapers that a birth had occurred just because they had received a call that a birth had occurred somewhere. They would have it when a record of birth had been finalized and inserted into the record.

    Regardless 4 days is not enough time to secure an affidavit with witnesses. And just starting the process would not be enough to get your nirth registered, and the only way that that ad would have appeared in both newspapers is if the DOH had signed off on it.

    So all the circumstantial evidence pretty much proves that 338-06 has nothing to do with Obama’s birth. Nothing. So you can CTRL+V it all you want, Micheal. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama birth.

    And by the way, if anyone wants to read all the Hawai’in birth statutes for themselves to find out how full of shit MichealN is, here’s the link

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0006.htm

    You can just click on the previous and next links on the bottom to cycle through the sections.

  116. avatar
    Suranis April 17, 2011 at 10:16 pm #

    Ok that got moderated so heres the short version

    §338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is UNATTENDED as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

    Obamas birth record has doctoors signture so it was attended

    Therefore 338-06 does not apply to Obama

    By act 96 the only was to secure the necessary information was a sworn affidavit with 2 witnesses under penalty of perjury.

    Which would have taken longer than 10 days, when is when the ad sent by the DOH appeared. Which means the DOH had accepted the facts surrounding Obamas birth.

    So on 2 counts of complimentary evidence, application of statute and time, it is physically impossible for 338-06 to apply to president Obama’s birth.

    So shut up about it MichealN. Its irrelevant.

  117. avatar
    Suranis April 17, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    Oh dear. Here’s the real kicker. Remember 338-05 mentioned in the act?

    “Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred,

    or if not so attended, by one of the PARENTS.”

    Which means that Obamas GRANDPARENTS could not register the birth. So that’s another one of the standard lines of MichealN et al blown out of the water.

    So since Obama Senior was away at school, that means that if it was unattended through 338-06 that it had to be reported by the mother. 4 days after the birth.

    Which means that there is no way she could have traveled back from Kenya.

    Thanks for leading me to yet more proof of the Obama nativity story, MichealN.

  118. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 10:39 pm #

    Suranis:
    Oh dear. Here’s the real kicker. Remember 338-05 mentioned in the act?

    “Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred,

    or if not so attended, by one of the PARENTS.”

    Which means that Obamas GRANDPARENTS could not register the birth. So that’s another one of the standard lines of MichealN et al blown out of the water.

    So since Obama Senior was away at school, that means that if it was unattended through 338-06 that it had to be reported by the mother. 4 days after the birth.

    Which means that there is no way she could have traveled back from Kenya.

    Thanks for leading me to yet more proof of the Obama nativity story, MichealN.

    §338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) IF NEITHER PARENT of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information FROM ANY PERSON having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

    (b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered”. [L 1949, c 327, §10; RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]

  119. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

    Daniel: MichaelN: At some point in time you have to understand that the race is over, your horse is dead, and your whip is broken.

    You’re never going to get across the finish line with that fallacy. Anybody who could possibly be in any position do anything about it understands that you are just plain wrong.

    you wish

  120. avatar
    MichaelN April 17, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    “Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.”

    In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, “of great use to Judges,” that LAWS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE INTENT OF THE AUTHOR, AND EVERY INTERPRETATION WHICH LEADS TO ABSURDITY SHOULD BE REJECTED.”
    http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

    We all here know what the authors of the (LAW) US Constitution intended by use of the term ‘natural born Citizen’ for POTUS eligibility, now don’t we ‘patriots’?

    You are patriots? ……… right?

  121. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 17, 2011 at 11:02 pm #

    MichaelN: Ah, a post from you with a semblance of civil tone.

    It is entirely up to you whether or not it lasts – see below.

    Answer(s):

    Because English common law was not a part of the US Constitution.

    No, but the ‘context’ of the Constitution, so to speak, is the common law of the original states which was originally the common law of the colonies which was the common law of England. Give a citation from anywhere in that chain that uses a different definition of NBC or admit Blackstone’s definition is the one from the Constitution – anything else is dishonest (which is exactly what I expect from you).

    [I deleted a whole buch of things where you incorrectly (to put it in the nicest possible way – you’ve been corrected often enough that it is clear that you are aware that what you post is categorically wrong) interpret the law – they have all been thoroughly debunked by others here.]

    Now a question for you ………… in English common law per Lord Coke in Calvin’s case:

    Did the subject’ status of the parent father matter in determining his child as a subject to the English sovereign?

    Do you understand the difference between being a ‘subject of the sovereign’ and being ‘subject to the authority of the sovereign’? You have conflated the two terms in order to twist the clear meaning of the law in a way contrary to its accepted meaning in every commentary ever written. Does this seem intellectually honest to you?

    If your answer is no’, then you explain. (save your usual disgusting insulting mannerisms and get real, or don’t bother replying, else I won’t even bother reading your posts or responding to them)

    My answer is above – your question is a trap based on a fallacy (a tactic that I [and, I suspect, most people here] see as intellectually dishonest).

    As for my insulting you, can you point out a single example where anything that I said about you was untrue? Let’s look at some of the (less than flattering) things I’ve called you:

    Ignorant – I believe that most of the people here would agree that not only have you displayed ignorance, but you’ve displayed willful ignorance. Above you displayed ignorance of the context in which Coke’s words were written (context which you have been repeatedly reminded of, I might add), to cite but one of many examples.

    Stupid – This is a little subjective, but I believe that the repeated willful ignorance you’ve shown is a sign of stupidity. Also, if you have any belief that your pathetic arguments will convince a single rational person (especially in the face of so many people with so much more expertise than you so ably exposing the flaws in your arguments) then I would classify that as stupid as well.

    Intellectually Dishonest – As I pointed out an example of your intellectual dishonesty above, the validity of this charge isn’t in doubt, but since you have made so many dishonest arguments here, I thought I would give some more detail – your primary MO is to take quotes out of context in order to alter the meaning of a passage and then when you are called on that (or any other of your dishonest tricks) you generally ignore the allegation and have never (that I can recall) even attempted to refute the charge, let alone explained how you weren’t trying to use (pretty transparent) trickery to ‘prove’ your point or apologized for your actions.

    Bigotry – Since the only reason that you are making these arguments is because of your irrational baseless hatred of President Obama (admit it – every time you read ‘President Obama’ your dander rises a little…) I think that the term ‘bigot’ is appropriate for any birther (including yourself). After all, bigotry results from prejudice and the origin of birtherism is blind faith in the axiom that anything associated with President Obama is bad and anyone who seems to disagree with President Obama is right – in other words, to be a birther one must be guilty of massive pre-judgement i.e. all bithers are bigots. If you would like me to stop calling you a bigot, you should try to demonstrate that you are not prejudiced against President Obama (good luck with that…).

    Sedition – This is defined as “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.” You have been making baseless allegations about the legitimacy of the POTUS (something [President Obama’s legitimacy] which is a legal certainty due to the evidence available and the lack of any credible evidence to the contrary). That seems pretty seditious to me.

    If you would like for me to stop calling you names, then I suggest you address these arguments that I have made (after all, what are you hiding? Why wont you deny these charges? Isn’t ignoring these allegations hypocritical on your part considering your stance on the comments statements and testimony of public officials?) If you’d like to engage in debate, I (and, I’m sure, many others here) would be happy to engage you in polite conversation – but in order to do that, you need to acknowledge when you opponent rips your argument to shreds or rebut their attack. Ignoring points that you are presumably impotent to refute only reveals that you are juvenile and incapable of civilized discussion – in which case I ask you: why should I waste my time doing more than pointing out your dishonesty by using labels which you have gone out of your way to earn?

    So next time you see me responding to you, you can be assured that it will be in a manner entirely appropriate to your actions.

  122. avatar
    Keith April 17, 2011 at 11:19 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Do you understand the difference between being a subject of the sovereign’ and being subject to the authority of the sovereign’? You have conflated the two terms in order to twist the clear meaning of the law in a way contrary to its accepted meaning in every commentary ever written. Does this seem intellectually honest to you?

    Well since that difference is similar to the difference between ‘allegiance’ and ‘jurisdiction’, and he/she steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that difference even though it has been clearly shown to him/her, then I’d say, no, he/she doesn’t.

  123. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 17, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    MichaelN:
    “Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.”

    How many of those citations were on the topic of citizenship? I’m guessing zero. The only citation of de Vattel on the subject of citizenship that I know if is the majority in the Dredd Scott decision. Do you think that citation helps your case?

    In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, “of great use to Judges,” that LAWS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE INTENT OF THE AUTHOR, AND EVERY INTERPRETATION WHICH LEADS TO ABSURDITY SHOULD BE REJECTED.”

    First, if you were being honest, you would have included the three statements. Second, it has been shown (repeatedly) that your interpretations lead to absurdities – are you arguing that all of your arguments should be rejected? (If so, I completely agree… ;-))

    We all here know what the authors of the (LAW) US Constitution intended by use of the term natural born Citizen’ for POTUS eligibility, now don’t we patriots’?

    You haven’t admitted it, but most of us here share the understanding of every single court, judge, Constitutional lawyer, and competent expert in the US – The founding fathers (who considered themselves natural born citizens [with the exception of people like Alexander Hamilton]) wanted to bar foreign-born princes from seizing control of their fledgling Republic. They also founded a nation of immigrants – where any immigrant’s child (born in the US) could grow up to be president (if you were truly a patriotic American, you would realize how strongly this thread runs through the fabric of this country and you would see just how deeply disrespectful the birther movement is to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and everything they stood for). Face it, the Founders had a problem with the idea of President Schwartzenhagger, but President Obama was just fine by them (except maybe for the race thing…). It’s nothing short of a lie to say any differently.

    You are patriots? ……… right?

    I’m very dubious of people who wrap themselves in the flag – it is usually an attempt to conceal motives that are anything but patriotic (I think that you’ve done such a poor job concealing your motives that they are obvious to everyone here…).

  124. avatar
    Suranis April 17, 2011 at 11:44 pm #

    MichaelN: §338-6Local agent to prepare birth certificate.(a)IF NEITHER PARENT of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information FROM ANY PERSON having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

    Uh huh. Micheal, the problem being that this still does not prove your central position, that anyone could have gone into the DOH and registered a fraudulent birth and it was easy to do so. First the statute says that they have to establish that the parents are unable to prepare a BC themselves (not too unreasonable a supposition) and then and only then can they secure the information. With the sworn affidavit and witnesses as per act 96.

    But the fact is Micheal, according to 338-05, its the parents that have to report the birth to the DOH before 338-06 comes into play. And it only applies to unattended births. President Obama’s birth was not unattended.

    What does that mean, kids?

  125. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 12:16 am #

    MichaelN,

    Face it, you’ve lost – your arguments will never carry the day here (nor, I suspect, anywhere else that isn’t heavily censored or completely unnoticed). It happens – be a man, suck it up, and move on. You can keep fighting your Quixotic battles but you’ll never have more than the occasional Pyrrhic victory to liven up an unending string of humiliating defeats as you slowly become the pitiful wretch that all birthers are devolving into.

    Seriously, for your own good you should give this up. Just admit that President Obama is legitimate – it will only hurt for a second and then you’ll feel better… (you don’t have to like him, or vote for him [which you can’t do anyway], or anything like that – just stop lying about him).

  126. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 12:19 am #

    MichaelN,

    Don’t you wish I was still being ‘disgusting’? You asked for a civilized conversation and in a civilized conversation, you get held accountable for your actions – I imagine that would suck if my prior actions were as shameful as yours…

  127. avatar
    MichaelN April 18, 2011 at 12:30 am #

    MichaelN said:

    “Because English common law was not a part of the US Constitution.”
    ———————————————————————————

    Slartibartfast replies:

    No, but the context’ of the Constitution, so to speak, is the common law of the original states which was originally the common law of the colonies which was the common law of England. Give a citation from anywhere in that chain that uses a different definition of NBC or admit Blackstone’s definition is the one from the Constitution – anything else is dishonest (which is exactly what I expect from you)”

    I don’t give a rats what you ‘expect’, this is not about you.

    What a load of garbage ….. i.e. ‘the context, so to speak, is the common law of the original states’ – ROTFLMAO

    There was NO PRECEDENT for the office of POTUS – as you know…….. and YOU talk about being dishonest!

    The whole point in addressing your playing the Blackstone-card is that Blackstone was a loyal Knight of a monarch, a loyal royalist who was fixated with ‘subjects’ and ‘monarchs’, his commentaries as regards CITIZEN of a REPUBLIC are as useless as tits on a bull.

    And he failed to discuss or mention the Coke statements that I posted, showing TWO qualities for NBS…………. so when you play your ‘English common law-card’ it bites you on the arse because it shows that it was NOT SOLI only, it was the subject status of the parent father that was essential in determining who is a NBS.

    There were TWO essential qualities required to make a NBS and they are apparently soli and sanguinis.

    Blackstone didn’t refer to, or discuss citizens or natural born Citizen in ANY CONTEXT that had to do with the ideals and intent of the framers of a constitution for a republic nations with democratic election processes, he did not discuss, mention or even contemplate the processes of the establishment of a republic, by the people for the people as sovereign citizens, from whom one is to be elected for the highest office of the land, said office to be secured from any foreign influence and claim.

    (this part’s about you)
    Like I said you have sold-out you nation and your constitution for a lousy political agenda.

    (back topic)
    Bingham said it as it was, unchallenged, i.e. born in the land to citizen parents makes NBC, and shortly thereafter 14th Amendment made it clear that soli gave birthright citizenship at best ,and they used the term ‘citizen’ only with deliberate intention.

    (this part’s about you) Now paleeeeese don’t try and lecture me on dishonesty …………. look in the mirror ‘patriot’. (not)

  128. avatar
    Suranis April 18, 2011 at 12:42 am #

    Yeah no-one is asking you to like President Obama, Micheal. Just drop this stupid white knighting with made up facts. You will actually feel better once you just do it. Walk out the door, order a coffee and live your life in peace.

  129. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 12:53 am #

    MichaelN:
    Obviously there are two types of born US citizens, i.e. 14th Amendment citizen’ (born soli) and natural born Citizen’ (born soli & sanguinis)

    This is clearly not obvious – if something is truly obvious, then no one has a substantive rebuttal to it. Your notion has been completely debunked multiple times here. Obviously this is more intellectual dishonesty from you.

    Why would the framers settle for anything less than the highest possible allegiance & loyalty requirement for the office of POTUS?

    What is the ‘highest possible allegiance’? It has been pointed out to you that a requirement of 15 years residency would be higher – don’t you agree? The founders decided that NBC, 35 years old, and 14 years a resident were SUFFICIENT qualifications for the presidency – you just want to twist the way their words have been understood for 200 years in order to serve your bigotry. Do you think that is honorable behavior?

    You know damn well that for the founding fathers to settle for anything less is an ABSURD notion.

    I find the notion that the founders wouldn’t have specifically mentioned using a term in a non-standard way [as they did elsewhere in the Constitution] to be absurd. You must admit (unless you think that it is okay to lie when a flaw in your argument is pointed out) that virtually all of the references to this term or the requirement for POTUS agree with me rather than you – since my understanding is consistent with the common understanding (both now and 200 years ago), why didn’t the founders state the definition in the Constitution if they were using the term differently than it was commonly understood?

    You dudes are so dishonest, you have sold-out your nation and constitution for the sake of your petty partisan politics……………. disgraceful!

    I see that you don’t mind hurling epithets (as long as they are baseless) even though you’re thin-skinned when it comes to receiving them. I explained why I felt justified in using all of the slurs I’ve applied to you – can you come up with examples of dishonesty by the obots here? (We have certainly documented many examples of your dishonesty – this statement being merely the latest…) And how have we ‘sold-out [sic] our nation’? We’ve applied the law to the evidence objectively and interpreted it in a manner consistent with every Constitutional authority. You have no credible objective evidence that President Obama is illegitimate, ultra-liberal, socialist, communist, nazi, muslim, anti-American, or any of the multitude of slurs that you and other birhters have baselessly hurled against the president yet that hasn’t stopped you from grasping at any lie you could think of to bolster your case. Given that none of your allegations against President Obama rise above petty partisan politics, it seems that you are complaining about a non-existent mote in our eyes while ignoring the mother of all beams in your own. You’re right that something stinks here… and, as is often the case, he who smelt it, dealt it.

  130. avatar
    Suranis April 18, 2011 at 1:09 am #

    You know Micheal, in all seriousness, rather than stay up all night posting the same crap night after night on blogs, why don’t you indulge your interests in a positive way. Why not write a book on Calvins case?

    You obviously have the interest, and I think doing the research and arranging such a project would do you good. You could explain the history and the context involved, and then break down the ruling and argue your interpretation. I really think that would be a valuable and interesting project, and I think you would really enjoy putting something like that together. And it would leave something there, a legacy if you will.

    Think about it.

  131. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 1:57 am #

    MichaelN,

    Does it hurt to strive for eloquence and fail so badly or are you content to be an ignorant, barely literate liar?

    MichaelN:
    MichaelN said:

    “Because English common law was not a part of the US Constitution.”
    ———————————————————————————

    Slartibartfast replies:

    No, but the context’ of the Constitution, so to speak, is the common law of the original states which was originally the common law of the colonies which was the common law of England. Give a citation from anywhere in that chain that uses a different definition of NBC or admit Blackstone’s definition is the one from the Constitution – anything else is dishonest (which is exactly what I expect from you)”

    I don’t give a rats what you expect’, this is not about you.

    What a load of garbage ….. i.e. the context, so to speak, is the common law of the original states’– ROTFLMAO

    To what context do you take recourse to define the terms used in the Constitution? As far as I can see, your method is to make up the definition that you want – sorry, but you should have learned better by age 10 or so…

    There was NO PRECEDENT for the office of POTUS – as you know…….. and YOU talk about being dishonest!

    There were sure as hell multiple precedents for the term ‘natural born citizen’ (as well as many more using it synonymously with ‘native born citizen’ and ‘natural born subject). As Doc has been educating people here on examples of logical fallacies, your comment would be a non-sequitor – the fact that there was no precedent for the office of POTUS in the English common law has no bearing whether or not there is a precedent for the term ‘natural born citizen’. Do you think that the use of such fallacies is an honest tactic? I ALSO NOTICE THAT YOU’VE BEEN RAISING YOUR VOICE A LOT MORE. DO YOU THINK THIS ADDS GRAVITAS TO YOUR ARGUMENT OR DO YOU THINK THAT IT JUST MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A PETULANT CHILD?

    The whole point in addressing your playing the Blackstone-card is that Blackstone was a loyal Knight of a monarch, a loyal royalist who was fixated with subjects’ and monarchs’, his commentaries as regards CITIZEN of a REPUBLIC are as useless as tits on a bull.

    So you don’t think that there is any analogy between citizens of a republic and subjects of a monarchy? It’s a good thing you aren’t in the US because if you were you probably would have gotten a negative score on the SAT… Why did legislators and jurists in the original states frequently use the terms ‘citizens’ and ‘subjects’ interchangeably? It doesn’t matter what your opinion of Blackstone was – just what the Founders opinion was. The evidence says that they didn’t see it your way…

    And he failed to discuss or mention the Coke statements that I posted, showing TWO qualities for NBS…………. so when you play your English common law-card’ it bites you on the arse because it shows that it was NOT SOLI only, it was the subject status of the parent father that was essential in determining who is a NBS.

    Sorry, I already pointed out how this is a fallacy based on conflating the meanings of phrases that used the same word in different contexts. Once again you repeat an argument that has been shown to be fallacious – bad troll! (You earned that smear a long, long time ago…

    There were TWO essential qualities required to make a NBS and they are apparently soli and sanguinis.

    Not even close – jus soli wasn’t sufficient in all cases (diplomats and enemies) and jus sanguinis can potentially be all that is necessary on its own, but the ‘surest’ criteria is jus soli – with the exceptions above it is always sufficient. There have been about 100,000 quotes on this site to back up my understanding (the only reason that I can give you such a beating is because I’m standing on the shoulders of Doc and others here… thanks guys!) yet the best you can do to support your argument is to cherry pick quotes out of context and hope that this time no one notices – who do you think an objective observer finds more credible? (I’ll give you a hint – it’s not you. ;-))

    Blackstone didn’t refer to, or discuss citizens or natural born Citizen in ANY CONTEXT that had to do with the ideals and intent of the framers of a constitution for a republic nations with democratic election processes

    The framers were building something. The foundation of their building was made of words – do you really think that those words didn’t have a well-defined meaning? That is ludicrous. The built our government out of words and there was consensus as to the meaning of these words (that’s what that whole ‘Constitutional Convention’ thingy was about…). The Founding Fathers KNEW what natural born citizen meant. We know this for a fact because when they intended a different meaning than the common usage, they explicitly indicated it. We also know that all of the contemporary references to the term ‘natural born citizens’ were consistent with my understanding of the term (Vattel did not make reference to the term ‘natural born citizen’). The inescapable conclusion is that I am right and you are wrong. Sorry, but your third rate tricks don’t work here.

    , he did not discuss, mention or even contemplate the processes of the establishment of a republic, by the people for the people as sovereign citizens, from whom one is to be elected for the highest office of the land, said office to be secured from any foreign influence and claim.

    Again, this is just a continuation of your non-sequitor…

    (this part’s about you)
    Like I said you have sold-out you nation and your constitution for a lousy political agenda.

    Your slurs are as pathetic as your arguments you narrow-minded contemptuous troll.

    (back topic)
    Bingham said it as it was, unchallenged, i.e. born in the land to citizen parents makes NBC, and shortly thereafter 14th Amendment made it clear that soli gave birthright citizenship at best ,and they usedthe term citizen’ only with deliberate intention.

    So what – it didn’t make it in to the final version. Every credible authority disagrees with you – there are only two classes of citizenship: Naturalized and Natural Born – if you think that there is a third, you should point out where the Constitution specifies that there is a class of citizens that are neither naturalized nor natural born. If you can’t do that (it’s alright Michael, we already know you can’t…) then once again your argument is nothing more than a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    (this part’s about you) Now paleeeeese don’t try and lecture me on dishonesty …………. look in the mirror patriot’. (not)

    What are you, like 12 years old? Just about every poster at this site has helped to repeatedly crush every single argument that you made, you have proven yourself to be dishonest (and you have done so in an incredibly [dare I say, stupidly] obvious way), ignorant, bigoted, and seditious and if you are a US citizen your behavior is not just unpatriotic, it’s inciting treason. I can lecture you on dishonesty as I haven’t said or done anything dishonest here – you can’t lecture me on patriotism because you have clearly demonstrated that you are the diametric opposite of a patriot.

  132. avatar
    MichaelN April 18, 2011 at 2:26 am #

    Oh, and by the way ‘patriots’.

    “Sunday, April 17, 2011

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that

    21% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president.

    Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove,

    giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16 ”

    No that’s not a hyphen folks …………. that’s a MINUS.

  133. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 2:40 am #

    MichaelN:
    Oh, and by the way patriots’.

    “Sunday, April 17, 2011

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that

    21% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president.

    Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove,

    giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16 ”

    No that’s not a hyphen folks …………. that’s a MINUS.

    You really are too stupid to understand that has no relevance to your (completely debunked) argument, aren’t you?

  134. avatar
    MichaelN April 18, 2011 at 2:46 am #

    Slartibartfast: Just about every poster at this site has helped to repeatedly crush every single argument that you made

    The default ‘argument’ of a loser. LOL

    Hey, but a bit of fantasy is Ok ……………. although you constantly take it to the extreme.

    Here lighten up Kev, it might help with your blood pressure.

    “They say that Christopher Columbus was the first Democrat.
    When he left to discover America, he didn’t know where he was going.
    When he got there he didn’t know where he was.
    And it was all done on a government grant. “

  135. avatar
    Bovril April 18, 2011 at 2:54 am #

    Tut tut MuchaelN, more examples of cherry picking, non sequitors and FAIL.

    Lets look at the actual results shall we?

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

    Total approve………48%
    Total disapprove…..51%

    Using “strongly approve” as some sort of useful indicator would only have value if said folks votes counted for more than those who only “approve”.

  136. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 2:56 am #

    MichaelN: The default argument’ of a loser. LOL

    Can you give an example of a single argument you’ve made here that hasn’t been discredited? You’re the one who makes completely unsupported statements as if they were irrefutable arguments – I’m the one who explains every accusation I make about your character in detail using examples from your own statements. I wonder which one of us most of the readers think is losing the argument…

    Hey, buta bit of fantasy is Ok ……………. although you constantly take it to the extreme.

    My fantasies generally include instant karma for people like you – I’d love to see the look on your face when you finally appreciated just how dishonest and shameful your behavior here has been…

  137. avatar
    MichaelN April 18, 2011 at 3:02 am #

    Slartibartfast: yet the best you can do to support your argument is to cherry pick quotes out of context

    More fantasy and default ‘out of context’ garbage, but here, have a go … ready?

    What’s ‘out of context’ with this?

    “Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright”

    Procreation & birthright.= two qualities right? …………. your supposed to be good at math.

    TWO qualities, now what do you suppose they are Kev?

    Given that Calvin was a NBS, and to be as such was due by ‘nature and birthright’. (two qualities again)

    Where’s the ‘lie’, where’s the ‘out of context’?

    What do ‘nature’, ‘procreation’ and birthright’ mean in this mysterious ‘context’ you harp on about?

  138. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 3:07 am #

    MichaelN,

    If you want me to answer, show me the entire section the quote is from (at least the whole paragraph) or provide a link. Otherwise you further show yourself to be a dishonest troll.

  139. avatar
    MichaelN April 18, 2011 at 3:09 am #

    Bovril:
    Tut tut MuchaelN, more examples of cherry picking, non sequitors and FAIL.

    Lets look at the actual results shall we?

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

    Total approve………48%
    Total disapprove…..51%

    Using “strongly approve” as some sort of useful indicator would only have value if said folks votes counted for more than those who only “approve”.

    I don’t know why Rasmussen uses ‘strongly’, ask Rasmussen.

    Here’s some more from Rasmussen reports.

    “Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters now say the country is heading down the wrong track.
    Since January 2009, pessimism about the country’s direction has ranged from 57% to 72%”

  140. avatar
    MichaelN April 18, 2011 at 3:12 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    MichaelN,

    If you want me to answer, show me the entire section the quote is from (at least the whole paragraph) or provide a link.Otherwise you further show yourself to be a dishonest troll.

    Nothing dishonest at all, the piece I quoted shows that there were two qualities to make a NBS.

    I have posted it umpteen times, but if you have a problem checking go here ……….

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27

    You are just running interference, as usual, and evading addressing the point.

  141. avatar
    MichaelN April 18, 2011 at 3:18 am #

    Some more lightening up Kev.

    Author unknown.

    “I recently asked my friends’ little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President of the United States. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there. So I asked her, “If you were President, what would be the first thing you would do?” She replied, “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people!”

    Her parents beamed.

    “Wow…what a worthy goal,” I told her. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

    She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

    I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

    Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.”

  142. avatar
    MichaelN April 18, 2011 at 3:28 am #

    You know …………… if I was POTUS and promised transparency and said “the only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide”, and people thought I had something to hide, then I would show my long form birth certificate, I’d even get a court order to get it if necessary.

    Wouldn’t you?

  143. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 18, 2011 at 4:10 am #

    MichaelN:
    Some more lightening up Kev.

    Author unknown.

    “I recently asked my friends’ little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President of the United States. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there. So I asked her, “If you were President, what would be the first thing you would do?” She replied, “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people!”

    Her parents beamed.

    “Wow…what a worthy goal,” I told her. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

    She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

    I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

    Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.”

    Pauline Hanson may not like that one, Michael. She too wants to give money away who spend the whole day in their bench watching TV or in their basement typing away at a computer. Provided the lazy bums have the right colour (incluing of hair and eyes) and the right sound to their family name.

    And thinking about transparency, why does Pauline Hanson continue to refuse whether she buys her make-up stuff at the same internet shop, as your other Heroin, Svetlana Averbnukhs?

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/if-the-truth-be-told-/2006/01/19/1137553712938.html

    After all, what does she have to hide? Skin that is too “tanned” to withstand the test of teh White Austrtalia Policy?

  144. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 4:12 am #

    MichaelN:
    You know …………… if I was POTUS and promised transparency and said “the only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide”, and people thought I had something to hide, then I would show my long form birth certificate, I’d even get a court order to get it if necessary.

    Wouldn’t you?

    If I were the president and I had exceeded the standards that my predecessors met and people still weren’t satisfied, I would conclude that those people were not making their judgements based on evidence and no amount of proof would suffice. Thus I would ignore them – especially if I gained a wedge issue by doing so… (even more so if I knew that I had the ‘long form’ in the hole in case the issue ever gained any traction [say, in the extremely unlikely event that The Donald was the Republican nominee, I would wait until he brought up the birth certificate in a debate before whipping it out along with affidavits attesting to its legitimacy from the appropriate officials {thus crippling his campaign mere weeks before the election}]) The birthers are a gift that short-sighted Republican tactics has given to the Democrats (only one of many – the latino vote, for instance, is much bigger [so is the pro-union vote that Governor Walker has galvanized]), why would President Obama want to do anything that got in the way of the Republicans being hoist on their own petard? What do you think Sun Tzu would advise?

  145. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 18, 2011 at 4:14 am #

    (and again sent too early by pressing the wrong combination of keys)

    Pauline Hanson may not like that one, Michael. She too wants to give money away to larrikins (or Larkins) who spend the whole day in their bench watching TV or in their basement typing away at a computer. Provided the lazy bums have the right colour (including of hair and eyes) and the right sound to their family name.

    And thinking about transparency, why does Pauline Hanson continue to refuse to tell us whether she buys her make-up stuff at the same internet shop, as your other Heroin, Svetlana Averbukha?

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/if-the-truth-be-told-/2006/01/19/1137553712938.html

    After all, what does she have to hide? Skin that is too “tanned” to withstand the test of the White Austrtalia Policy?

  146. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 4:20 am #

    MichaelN: Nothing dishonest at all, the piece I quoted shows that there were two qualities to make a NBS.

    I have posted it umpteen times, but if you have a problem checking go here ……….

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27

    You are just running interference, as usual, and evading addressing the point.

    So you either post part of a sentence or the entire document without referencing where the quote came from? When you quit your dishonest passive-agressive games, you’ll get your answer you juvenile little troll (unless one of the other posters here who is familiar with Calvin’s case does it for me…).

  147. avatar
    The Magic M April 18, 2011 at 5:14 am #

    > “Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright”
    > Procreation & birthright.= two qualities right? …………. your supposed to be good at math.
    > TWO qualities, now what do you suppose they are Kev?

    That “argument” again fails to distinguish between necessary and sufficient condition.
    For example, if I say “you are a citizen by virtue of §1 and §2”, that does not say both §1 and §2 must be applicable to be a citizen. That is elementary grammar and elementary logic, both of which you have failed so many times here.

    If I say “you are my relative by being my cousin and being my brother-in-law”, I have not stated that you need to be both my cousin *and* my brother-in-law to be part of my family. Easy for a child. Easy for you, too?

    Since you did not even address whether Coke said that “procreation” *and* “birth-right” are required to make an NBS, your argument is inconsistent.

    On the contrary, it is true that both ius soli and ius sanguinis can make an NBC, but it is not required to have both.

  148. avatar
    Suranis April 18, 2011 at 6:18 am #

    Bovril:
    Tut tut MuchaelN, more examples of cherry picking, non sequitors and FAIL.

    Lets look at the actual results shall we?

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

    Total approve………48%
    Total disapprove…..51%

    Using “strongly approve” as some sort of useful indicator would only have value if said folks votes counted for more than those who only “approve”.

    That’s fairly decent actually, especially for Rasmussen. Last year they were tracking him at 44. I guess his employers at FOX told him to not be so obviously biased.

    Just comparing to previous presidents, Nixon was at 50, Carter was at 40, Reagan was at 42, H. W. Bush was at 79, Clinton was at 48, and Bush Jr was at 70 in April of their third year.

  149. avatar
    Suranis April 18, 2011 at 6:29 am #

    By the way, Micheal is cruising to be banned. he did the same on fogbow when he realized his arguments were getting flattened and no-one was taking him seriously. He got really nasty and abusive to people and basically did everything possible to be banned not to mention constantly copy pasting the same crap over and over. I guess he feels that if he gets banned he has somehow won. You can expect him to become more and more antagonistic and nasty to force Doc to ban him rather than face up the humiliation of all his arguments being debunked.

    It’s the only victory he ever has.

    MichaelN: You know …………… if I was POTUS and promised transparency and said “the only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide”, and people thought I had something to hide, then I would show my long form birth certificate, I’d even get a court order to get it if necessary.

    Wouldn’t you?

    If I had shown already shown my birth certificate, no.

  150. avatar
    The Magic M April 18, 2011 at 6:54 am #

    > I guess he feels that if he gets banned he has somehow won.

    Well, then he can lie to himself and other birthers that he was banned because “no-one could refute my arguments”.

    Another example I’ve seen on my favourite forum is cranks trying to get their threads deleted along with being banned. Thus they hope to remove all traces of their crackpot theories being solidly debunked so they can start all over again with another account the next month.

  151. avatar
    Scientist April 18, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    MichaelN: Point is that Bingham stated who is a natural born Citizen’ and no one objected.

    The fact that no one objected is meaningless. Do you ever watch C-SPAN? Many speeches are given to an empty chamber. That didn’t just happen in modern times. The fact is that the 14th amendment says no such thing and it’s the ACTUAL TEXT that gets voted on and it’s THE ACTUAL TEXT that has primacy. Bingham;s statement is his OPINION. Nothing more.

    But even suppose Bingham’s opinion was widely shared in his day. We know the meaning of words changes with time. “Freedom of the press” no longer means just ink on paper. “All men are created equal” may have included only males when first written but now includes females. There are many more examples.

    “Natural born citizen” does not necessarily mean today what it meant in 1788 or 1866. Nothing wrong with that. Look how the world has changed. How has the term been understood and applied by the voters and by Congress since then?:

    1. Chester Arthur was elected Vice President and became President. His father was a Britihs citizen. Please don’t give me the “no one knew”. It would have been easy to find out. no one ASKED, because no one CARED.

    2. Spiro Agnew was elected Vice President twice. His father was a Greek citizen. No one thought anything of it.

    3. John McCain was considered by the unanimous consent of the Senate a natural born citizen despite his birth outside the US, 60 million people voted for him.

    4. Barack Obama was elected President and approved by Congress without objection. Don’t give me “Dick Cheney didn’t ask”-the objections had to be in writing and the same Dick Cheney stopped the count in 2005 after a properly constituted objection was made.

    Before you scream partisan I will note that 3 of those 4 were Republicans

    What natural born citizen meant in 1788 or 1866 is of historical interest. All that matters is what it means today. From 1880 to the present, we know that it includes those born in the US of a citizen mother and a non-citizen father and also those born abroad of at least one citizen parent.

    I live in 2011. You can pretend you live in 1788, where the average life expectancy was 36 years. Today it is 78. i will take the extra 42 years (and flush toilets and central heat and air), thank you very much, and tell you 18th century types to get lost.

  152. avatar
    G April 18, 2011 at 11:09 am #

    MichaelN: Author unknown.

    MichaelN,

    This forum is not a place for your petty partisan tantrums and fake strawman argument stories. If you can’t stick to the topics at hand (and more importantly, actually bring new arguments or info into those topics, instead of just trolling and repeating the same debunked lies over and over and overa gain), then you shouldn’t be posting here.

    As Dr. C has repeatedly stated, this forum is for discussing the Obama Conspiracy Theory stuff, NOT political hactivism or opinions on his job performance. There are other blogs that cover those things.

    You’ve shown that your true agenda and motivations on this issue are quite clear, which have nothing to do with laws nor the Constitution at all.

    You are simplly a RWNJ smear merchant that hates anyone you perceive as “left” of who you are and you have an unhealthy obsession and fear of anything you perceive as muslim.

    I suspect you have further tribalist bigotry going on in your scared little head than that, but that’s your problem, not mine. You live your life afraid each day, hating a world around you that is full of people different from you. That is just sad.

  153. avatar
    Daniel April 18, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    MichaelN:
    You know …………… if I was POTUS and promised transparency and said “the only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide”, and people thought I had something to hide, then I would show my long form birth certificate, I’d even get a court order to get it if necessary.

    Wouldn’t you?

    If you were Potus, I’d dig a bomb shelter. Real quick.

  154. avatar
    Daniel April 18, 2011 at 12:00 pm #

    MichaelN: Daniel: MichaelN: At some point in time you have to understand that the race is over, your horse is dead, and your whip is broken.

    You’re never going to get across the finish line with that fallacy. Anybody who could possibly be in any position do anything about it understands that you are just plain wrong.

    you wish

    I don’t have to wish.

    Years into the Obama administration and birthers like you are still spouting the same crap on internet blogs as they did right from the beginning.

    And what has it gained you? Nothing.

    Birthers have gained no ground, had no victories, no successes, and have garnered and incredible string of losses. They have not managed to meet one goal, one objective, one victory, despite all their effort and diatribe.

    You know this yourself. If you really thought you had a case, you’d be hounding your AG office, and petitioning congress daily for impeachment, rather than dripping and moaning on an internet blog. Have you sworn out a complaint with the police, MIcheael? Have you parked your but in your congressional office, refusing to move until impeachment? Have you hounded your AG until he or she does something? Have you even tried to exhaust your constitutionally mandated redress?

    Or do you just troll internet blogs?

    You realize it’s a dead issue. You know as well as I do that Obama will serve his term without any victory at all by the birthers. You know as well as I do that no one will ever take you seriously. I suspect that deep down inside, in that quiet, dark place you dare not go, you also realize you’re wrong.

    So no, I don’t need to wish.

    I have legal experts, officials, precedent, court rulings, history, and the Republican party firmly on my side,

    You have nothing…. except wishful thinking.

  155. avatar
    Greg April 18, 2011 at 3:35 pm #

    Point is that Bingham stated who is a natural born Citizen’ and no one objected.

    Sort of like how the dissent in WKA said that the children of Chinese people could run for President and no one objected? Or how the government argued in their brief that WKA shouldn’t be a citizen because then he’d be a natural born citizen and could run for President and WKA’s attorneys didn’t argue “No, he’d only be a citizen” they argued that, sure, he’d be eligible for the Presidency, and if he won, that would be because he was an awesome candidate?

    Yeah, why would anyone have taken the opportunity to set the government, WKA’s attorneys and the dissent straight?

    Is it also like how the people who voted against the 14th Amendment voted against it because it would make the children of Chinese (who couldn’t become citizens) and Gypsies (who were lawless and respected no law) into citizens?

  156. avatar
    Greg April 18, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    MichaelN: Among those citing Vattel

    And guess what?

    They cited Blackstone MORE!

  157. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    Greg: And guess what?

    They cited Blackstone MORE!

    I suspect that the difference is especially stark when you restrict the inquiry to citations regarding citizenship law. Do you know of any reference (in a judicial ruling or opinion) to Vattel regarding citizenship besides the Dredd Scott decision?

    MichaelN,

    This is yet another example of you burying yourself with your own arguments – if the people who you referenced as quoting Vattel is to be considered a persuasive argument, is not that argument then falsified if it turns out that Blackstone was quoted more? Furthermore, if Vattel was never quoted by those people on the subject of citizenship, then the entire argument is just another non-sequitor. Face it, you’ve shown yourself to be a deceitful troll who doesn’t give a damn about misrepresenting (or outright lying about) the facts, the law, or the Constitution if they should get in the way of propagandizing for your bigoted ultra-partisan agenda… If you had any common sense whatsoever, you would just walk away from this argument for your own good (and save yourself being verbally pummeled on a regular basis). Really, what do you hope to accomplish here?

  158. avatar
    ballantine April 18, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    “Point is that Bingham stated who is a natural born Citizen’ and no one objected”

    .

    Gee, If only Bingham had anything to do with the citizenship clause. Too bad, he did not.

    Funny, no one objected when the actual author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment said the President must be a native-born citizen and that jus soli was the universal rule. No one objected when the author of the citizenship clause under the 1866 Civil Rights Act said the same things. No one objected when at least 6 other members of such Congress said the President must be a native-born citizen or when 5 other members said that jus soli was the universal rule. No one objected when the House Judiciary chair said Blackstone’s definition of “natural born” was incorporated into the original Constitution or when the Senate judiciary head said that “natural born citizen” meant the same thing as “natural born subject.” No one objected in the next Congress when if was debated whether the 15th Amendment should apply only to natural born citizens and such definition was only spoken of relating to place of birth. No one objected when Bingham himself said “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). Need to do a whole lot more research before bringing this crap here.

  159. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    MichaelN,

    The evidence of your idiocy, ignorance, and malfeasance continues to mount – even the dimmest rational person can see that the post above by ballantine means that if one accepts your reasoning then one must also reject your conclusions. You do realize that eventually the prurient interest generated by the train wreck of your ‘logic’ and ‘scholarship’ will fade and you will become just another lonely, ignored birther troll on the intertubes, don’t you?

  160. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 18, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    MichaelN said “Bingham said it as it was, unchallenged, i.e. born in the land to citizen parents makes NBC, and shortly thereafter 14th Amendment made it clear that soli gave birthright citizenship at best ,and they used the term citizen’ only with deliberate intention.”

    No, Michael, no, no, no, that is not what he said.

    This is what Bingham said:

    “’I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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…’”

    He did not incoherently say “… born in the land to citizen parents makes NBC…”

    Bingham spoke in March 1866, months before the 14th Amendment was introduced. He
    was referring to the Constitution as it existed in March 1866, before it was amended by the 14th Amendment. He said the bill was declaratory of what was in the Constitution, but he was talking about the Constitution as it existed in 1866, before it was amended. His words have no relevance today to the Constitution as amended by the 14th Amendment.

    He was describing a bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not the 14th Amendment. The bill had language that he described as “parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.” The actual text of the enacted law was “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    The 14th Amendment did in fact change the Constitution, and it did NOT contain the words “not subject to any foreign power,” nor “owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.”

    The 14th Amendment said “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    It stopped both the states and the federal government from denying citizenship to all persons born under U.S. jurisdiction, including African Americans. It said nothing about owing allegiance to a foreign power, in the words of Bingham, nor anything about being subject to a foreign power.

    Bingham was not talking about the 14th Amendment, so his words carry no authority in interpreting the 14th Amendment.

    The ONLY requirements in the 14th Amendment were being (1) born, (2) in the United States, (3) subject to its jurisdiction.

    The framers of the 14th created a bright line test that has prevented racists from gutting its meaning down through the centuries. The Klan and the southern segregations were barred from claiming that African American infants were not citizens because of their African ancestry, or duke to the prior servitude of their parents. The Amendment prevented nativists who later passed the Chinese exclusion acts from denying citizenship to babies born to Chinese residents. It guaranteed that the children of the millions of immigrants seeking a better life in America would be citizens of their new country at birth.

    Now a new generation, known as birthers, wants to turn back the clock. Well, that is not going to happen.

    Obama was born on U.S. soil to a mother who was a natural born American citizen, and the daughter of natural born citizens. Her husband was an alien who had been lawfully admitted to the United States, and was subject to its plenary jurisdiction at all times while present in the United States. Obama was also subject to full American jurisdiction in all respects whatsoever. No other country had ANY civil or criminal power over him.

    He was born, not naturalized, in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, and therefore was and is a natural born citizen.

  161. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    MichaelN,

    Are you sure that you really want to argue against the protection of citizens’ franchise from racists? If so, why would you want to take such a heinous position?

  162. avatar
    MichaelN April 18, 2011 at 5:24 pm #

    The Magic M:
    > “Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright”
    > Procreation & birthright.= two qualities right? …………. your supposed to be good at math.
    > TWO qualities, now what do you suppose they are Kev?

    That “argument” again fails to distinguish between necessary and sufficient condition.
    For example, if I say “you are a citizen by virtue of §1 and §2‘, that does not say both §1 and §2 must be applicable to be a citizen. That is elementary grammar and elementary logic, both of which you have failed so many times here.

    If I say “you are my relative by being my cousin and being my brother-in-law”, I have not stated that you need to be both my cousin *and* my brother-in-law to be part of my family. Easy for a child. Easy for you, too?

    Since you did not even address whether Coke said that “procreation” *and* “birth-right” are required to make an NBS, your argument is inconsistent.

    On the contrary, it is true that both ius soli and ius sanguinis can make an NBC, but it is not required to have both.

    But it is required to have both, read Coke’s statement, where he says that if a child, even if born in the land (soli) & not born under the ligeance of a subject (not sanguinis), is not a born subject.

    One quality of two missing = not NBS

    Your ‘logic’ is deliberately built on misrepresentation.

    I will use your “1 & 2”

    To be a 3, it takes 1 & 2 , without either the 1 or 2, or both, the result cannot be 3.

    Coke doesn’t say ‘or’, he says “AND”.

    Coke:
    “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized (3) by procreation (1) AND birth right (2),”

    Here, this may help you to overcome your problem.

    Coke:

    “That ligeance, or obedience of the subject to the Sovereign, is due by the Law of nature”

    “Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign.

    Coke further stated that even if born soli, without a parent father with the ligeance of a subject, then the child of that father cannot not be a born subject.

    Lord Coke:
    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    “not born under the ligeance OF A SUBJECT”

    (it doesn’t matter WHY the parent father is not a subject, it is the fact that he is not a subject that matters)

    So as you can see, it is without any doubt, that the subject status of the father mattered to such an extent that the child can not be a NBS without the parent father being a subject, even if born soli.

    So it’s soli & sanguinis that makes a natural born subject.

    Coke:

    “There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; , etc , etc “

  163. avatar
    MichaelN April 18, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    Greg: And guess what?

    They cited Blackstone MORE!

    So?

    It is completely irrelevant – all you have demonstrated is that you are still addicted to fallacy.

    They sourced Vattel, were influenced by Vattel, Vattel had definition of born citizens that was consistent with a constitutional republic structure and it’s prolonged longevity via procreation though citizens betting citizens, much like the royal blood-line principle of the monarchies.

    Blackstone may well have been good for basics on English common law, but as I have shown you, SIR Blackstone was all about subjects and monarchs, not citizens; Blackstone had nothing to offer the framers on the subject of establishing and shaping a constitutional republic, forming a constitution, eligibility requirements for voting in elections, democratic process AND particularly Blackstone had NOTHING to offer regarding eligibility qualifications for president of a constitutional republic.

  164. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    MichaelN,

    Was Calvin’s father a subject? No, he was not. And once again, you have ignored all of the substantive attacks on your character (because you lack sufficient character to rebut them and and you lack the necessary character to admit your own shortcomings) and reposted long debunked crap.

    One comment you did post:

    MichaelN: Your logic’ is deliberately built on misrepresentation.

    was particularly ironic and, as I show below, would have been true if you were referring to yourself…

    I will use your “1 & 2‘

    To be a 3, it takes 1 & 2 , without either the 1 or 2, or both, the result cannot be 3.

    Coke doesn’t say or’, he says “AND”.

    Logically, Coke is saying:

    IF (1 AND 2) THEN 3

    You are saying that this means:

    IF (not 1 OR not 2) THEN not 3

    The two statements are NOT logically equivalent.

    STOP INSULTING EVERYONE’S INTELLIGENCE BY TRYING TO SAY THAT THEY ARE!

    Coke:
    “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized (3) by procreation (1) AND birth right (2),”

    So Coke says that Calvin is a subject by procreation and by birth right (which, I might add, he had despite the fact that his father was NOT a subject), but this doesn’t preclude a different person becoming a subject via different criteria, no matter how much you wish it did.

    You really appear to be a masochist Michael – you should probably seek professional help (either a psychiatrist or a dominatrix depending on your preference).

  165. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    MichaelN: So?

    So he showed, by the criterion that you were using, that your position is the incorrect one (as in, no credible legal authority of any sort agrees with you).

    It is completely irrelevant – all you have demonstrated is that you are still addicted to fallacy.

    Whatever you’re smoking must be amazing… something isn’t a fallacy because you say it is – if you want to accuse someone, then you must provide evidence to support your accusations (like I have). Otherwise, you are making a false accusation which, to me, goes beyond mere dishonesty to downright malevolence. I would really like to stop calling you names, so please stop earning them (or just go away…).

    They sourced Vattel, were influenced by Vattel, Vattel had definition of born citizens that was consistent with a constitutional republic structure and it’s prolonged longevity via procreation though citizens betting citizens, much like the royal blood-line principle of the monarchies.

    And stealing women if you needed some more citizen breeders? [That was an example of a non-sequitor argument – you do this ALL of the time {I’m doing it in this case to rub your nose in that fact as well as my refusal to debunk you inane point which has already been debunked 46,935 times in the past…}]

    Blackstone may well have been good for basics on English common law, but as I have shown you,[Lie] SIR [attempted jingoistic ad hominem] Blackstone was all about subjects and monarchs, not citizens; [non-sequitor] Blackstone had nothing to offer the framers on the subject of establishing and shaping a constitutional republic, forming a constitution, eligibility requirements for voting in elections, democratic process AND particularly Blackstone had NOTHING to offer regarding eligibility qualifications for president of a constitutional republic. [another non-sequitor to distract from what Blackstone DID offer the Founding Fathers (see below)]

    Blackstone (or, more accurately, the common law of the several states which descended from the English common law on which Blackstone is considered [I believe] to be the foremost authority) gave the founders the language with which to build their Constitutional Republic. The common law terms (modified and changed [and specifically noted] when necessary) formed the foundation upon which our Constitution was built. The logical implication of your ignorant ravings is that the Constitution is a house built upon sand – do you think the Founders were that stupid?

  166. avatar
    misha April 18, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    Slartibartfast: You really appear to be a masochist Michael – you should probably seek professional help (either a psychiatrist or a dominatrix depending on your preference).

    My vote is for a dominatrix. I know two here in Philly.

  167. avatar
    gorefan April 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    MichaelN: So it’s soli & sanguinis that makes a natural born subject.

    Chief Justice Cockburn disagrees with you,
    “Nationality by birth or origin depends, according to the law of some nations, on the place of birth; according to that of others on the nationality of the parents. In many countries both elements exist, one or other, however, predominating. Thus, by the law of England, the status of a subject depends generally on the place of birth: nevertheless, the descendants, of a natural-born subject, for two generations, though born out of the dominions of the Crown, are, to all intents and purposes, subjects.”

    And he writes<

    “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

    “The law of the United States of America agrees with our owm. The law of England as to the effect of the place of birth in the matter of nationality became the law of America as part of the law of the mother country, wdiich the original settlers carried with them.”

    But then I’m sure you think you know more about English Law then both Justice Blackstone and Justice Cockburn.

  168. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 7:14 pm #

    So Michael, can you respond to the substance of any of your critics here? I’m betting that you just repost the same nonsense that has been repeatedly debunked (unless you finally get smart enough to run away with your tail between your legs…).

  169. avatar
    obsolete April 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    MichaelN: Lord Coke:
    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    “not born under the ligeance OF A SUBJECT”

    (it doesn’t matter WHY the parent father is not a subject, it is the fact that he is not a subject that matters)

    This lie again MichaelN?

    MichaelN: It doesn’t matter WHY the father is not a subject’.

    It’s the fact that if the father is not a subject’ that causes the child not to be a natural born subject’.

    In this sentence you, in which you continue to dishonestly cut off the first part:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    it explains that it is an invading soldier we are talking about, therefore his child would not be considered “natural-born”. You cut off the part that explains he is an invading soldier.(“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”- is the part you ALWAYS cut off). Everyone knows that in the US, a child born here is considered “natural-born” UNLESS it is the child of a diplomat or an invading soldier.

    THIS is why you are dishonest. In fact, I am calling you a liar and bull$hit artist.

  170. avatar
    gorefan April 18, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I’m betting that you just repost the same nonsense

    That’s Mike’s MO, he will stop posting the Calvin nonsense and switch to his misinterpretation of Hawaiian Law, then when he thinks things have died down, it’s back to the Calvin nonsense.

  171. avatar
    Greg April 18, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    Michael, tell us again how you know that US law was different than English law? Something about how the US has a naturalization procedure and the British only had a naturalization process.

  172. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 7:56 pm #

    obsolete: This lie again MichaelN?

    MichaelN: It doesn’t matter WHY the father is not a subject’.

    It’s the fact that if the father is not a subject’ that causes the child not to be a natural born subject’.

    In this sentence you, in which you continue to dishonestly cut off the first part:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    it explains that it is an invading soldier we are talking about, therefore his child would not be considered “natural-born”. You cut off the part that explains he is an invading soldier.(“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”- is the part you ALWAYS cut off). Everyone knows that in the US, a child born here is considered “natural-born” UNLESS it is the child of a diplomat or an invading soldier.

    THIS is why you are dishonest. In fact, I am calling you a liar and bull$hit artist.

    Oh noes, Mikey! Someone else is calling yous’ nasty names after explaining why you so richly deserve them. Face it, mate, your behavior here shows you to be nothing but the worst sort of troll who can’t seem to make a single post without misrepresenting someone, lying about something, making a fallacious argument, exposing your own bigotry, or fomenting sedition against the Constitutionally legitimate POTUS (usually all of the above). Do you think that people will stop calling you names if you continue to prove that they are justified in doing so? I don’t.

  173. avatar
    Joey April 18, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    The Supreme Court of the United States has had several opportunities to look at the constitutional issues raised by the two American citizen parent/natural born citizen theory in Petitions for Writs of Certiorari submitted in “Hollister v Soetoro” and in “Kerchner v Obama.”
    The Roberts Court denied without comment Writs of Certiorari for those appeals and not one of the nine Justices asked for an appellee brief from attorneys representing President Barack Hussein Obama.

  174. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    gorefan: That’s Mike’s MO, he will stop posting the Calvin nonsense and switch to his misinterpretation of Hawaiian Law, then when he thinks things have died down, it’s back to the Calvin nonsense.

    I well know it. I’m trying to keep the heat on him (until he runs away for a while…) – I think that we should just point out all of the ways in which his arguments are dishonest – that way there is no need to debunk him until he can make an argument in good faith (I’m not holding my breath until he does, by the way… ;-))

    I believe that we should endeavor to teach birthers that fallacious arguments get lessons in honest, rational discourse and logical fallacies rather than (or in addition to) debunking.

    Mikey,

    Have you learned anything yet?

  175. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 18, 2011 at 9:03 pm #

    Hey Mikey! Governor Brewer just vetoed the latest birther ‘Great White Hope’ – how does that make you feel?

    As for her decision to veto this bill, Gov. Brewer said in part: “I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their ‘early baptismal or circumcision certificates’… this is a bridge too far. This measure creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona.”

  176. avatar
    Keith April 18, 2011 at 11:07 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Pauline Hanson may not like that one, Michael.

    Paul, MichaelN probably is Pauline Hansen (who fortunately lost the election for NSW Senate).

    For those who are not familiar with the lovely Ms. Hansen, she is a racist professional candidate. Her main electoral policies are to put the Aborigines on starvation diets because they were cannibals before white settlement, kick out the Asians, and sink the refugee boats before they enter Australian waters.

    She is basically loathed by the entire Australian public, but usually manages to get just enough votes to qualify for matching funds, and somehow manages to make a profit on it (she miscalculated once and had to pay back over $400K and went to jail for a while), or at least enough to keep her going to the next election or ‘Dancing with the Stars’ TV show.

  177. avatar
    MichaelN April 19, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

    MichaelN said:

    Lord Coke:
    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    “not born under the ligeance OF A SUBJECT”

    (it doesn’t matter WHY the parent father is not a subject, it is the fact that he is not a subject that matters)
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    obsolete said:

    In this sentence you, in which you continue to dishonestly cut off the first part:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    it explains that it is an invading soldier we are talking about, therefore his child would not be considered “natural-born”. You cut off the part that explains he is an invading soldier.(“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”- is the part you ALWAYS cut off). Everyone knows that in the US, a child born here is considered “natural-born” UNLESS it is the child of a diplomat or an invading soldier.

    THIS is why you are dishonest. In fact, I am calling you a liar and bull$hit artist.
    ——————————————————————————————-

    You got your wires crossed (as usual)…………EVERY CHILD born in US is NATIVE BORN of US soil.

    Now if ‘natural’ born means ( as you ‘patriots’ keep blurting out) the same as ‘native’ born, then it doesn’t matter that a child has an enemy or a diplomat as a parent, BECAUSE the child is ‘NATIVE’ born and therefore (according to your absurd reasoning) is a ‘natural’ born.

    What does it matter WHY the parent is not a subject?

    It’s the FACT that the parent is not a subject, that causes the child to not be a born subject.

    A can only be an A1, if B & C are combined.

    If there is an absence of either or both B & C then A can not be an A1

    It makes no difference WHY there might be an absence of B and/or C

    The subject status of the parent father matters, in determining whether a child born of that father is a NBS or not.

    And I am calling you a pathetic, conniving, misled traitor.

  178. avatar
    MichaelN April 19, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I well know it.I’m trying to keep the heat on him (until he runs away for a while…) – I think that we should just point out all of the ways in which his arguments are dishonest – that way there is no need to debunk him until he can make an argument in good faith (I’m not holding my breath until he does, by the way… )

    I believe that we should endeavor to teach birthers that fallacious arguments get lessons in honest, rational discourse and logical fallacies rather than (or in addition to) debunking.

    Mikey,

    Have you learned anything yet?

    That’s about the extent of your (in)ability, i.e. diversion, fallacy & run interference ………. you have no argument that addresses the point I have raised regarding the fact that your precious Calvin’s case has bitten you on your arse, because in Calvin’s case, Lord Coke makes it clear that it is the subject status of the parent father that matters.

    When you are faced with this truth of the matter, you bury your head in the sand and chant your ‘we hate birthers’ mantra.

  179. avatar
    gorefan April 19, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

    MichaelN: The subject status of the parent father matters, in determining whether a child born of that father is a NBS or not.

    Not according to Chief Justice Cockburn

    “Nationality by birth or origin depends, according to the law of some nations, on the place of birth; according to that of others on the nationality of the parents. In many countries both elements exist, one or other, however, predominating. Thus, by the law of England, the status of a subject depends generally on the place of birth: nevertheless, the descendants, of a natural-born subject, for two generations, though born out of the dominions of the Crown, are, to all intents and purposes, subjects.”

    And he writes,

    By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

    The law of the United States of America agrees with our owm. The law of England as to the effect of the place of birth in the matter of nationality became the law of America as part of the law of the mother country, wdiich the original settlers carried with them.”

    Are you saying you know more about English Law then Justice Blackstone and Chief Justice Cockburn?

  180. avatar
    MichaelN April 19, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    Slartibartfast: The common law terms (modified and changed [and specifically noted] when necessary) formed the foundation upon which our Constitution was built.

    Yep.

  181. avatar
    MichaelN April 19, 2011 at 5:51 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Was Calvin’s father a subject? No, he was not.

    He must have been ……………… like the other ante nati Scots & like the alien born visiting in amity (e.g. the Frenchman) ……….. simply because Calvin must by necessity be born ‘under the ligeance of a subject’ to be a NBS…………. otherwise ‘not a subject’.

  182. avatar
    gorefan April 19, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    MichaelN: Yep

    So Mike, in 1774 when the founders wrote the Declaration and Resolves on Colonial Rights of the First Continental Congress, and said,

    ‘That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights:

    Resolved, N.C.D. 2 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.

    Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were, at the time of their emigration from the mother-country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.”

    So the founders said that by the laws of nature, they were “natural born” subjects.

    So Mike, in 1774, what definition of “natural born” were the founders using?

  183. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 19, 2011 at 6:07 pm #

    MichaelN: You got your wires crossed (as usual)…………EVERY CHILD born in US is NATIVE BORN of US soil.

    You’re shouting again, you ignorant troll.

    Now if natural’ born means ( as you patriots’ keep blurting out) the same as native’ born, then it doesn’t matter that a child has an enemy or a diplomat as a parent, BECAUSE the child is NATIVE’ born and therefore (according to your absurd reasoning) is a natural’ born.

    Imagine the citizenship Venn diagram for the US: The vast majority of born citizens are BOTH natural AND native born. Consequently, the two terms are generally used interchangeably (and sometimes the exceptions like children born to citizens overseas [natural but not native] and children born to diplomats [native but not natural] are ignored because they are so rare). You want to start carving this diagram up like a Thanksgiving Turkey (Thanksgiving is an American holiday [although the Canadians celebrate it, too – just on a different day] in case you didn’t know [you clearly don’t know much about the US…]) based on legal theories that don’t exist outside of your small-minded, bigoted head.

    What does it matter WHY the parent is not a subject?

    For the same reason you don’t analyze a sentence by looking at what they mean individually – context matters. Or are you too stupid to realize that? Or dishonest enough to ignore it?

    It’s the FACT that the parent is not a subject, that causes the child to not be a born subject.

    No, you’re trying to make up a ‘non-subject subject’ (or a ‘subject non-subject’) in order to conflate the meanings of a word used differently in two different places. This is why you are an a$$hole (one of the reasons, anyway…).

    A can only be an A1, if B & C are combined.

    If there is an absence of either or both B & C then A can not be an A1

    It makes no difference WHY there might be an absence of B and/or C

    As I pointed out above, you are equating two statements that are not logically equivalent. In other words you are flat out lying. What a fine dishonest troll you are.

    The subject status of the parent father matters, in determining whether a child born of that father is a NBS or not.

    You’re either a liar who knows better or an idiot who refuses to believe it.

    And I am calling you a pathetic, conniving, misled traitor.

    And what evidence do you have to back up your charges you hypocritical, moronic, deceitful, bigoted troll? ‘Pathetic’ is a judgement call, but I’m guessing that most of the people reading this would be more likely to apply the term to you than to me. ‘Conniving’ – how have I been secretly plotting against you (or birthers in general)? What underhanded and deceitful tactics have I been guilty of? ‘Misled’ would imply that I was wrong on the law here and since every credible legal authority agrees with me, I’m pretty sure that is not the case. As for ‘traitor’, as opposed to the tiny hell-hole in birtherstan you call home, here in America that term has a specific meaning as defined in the Constitution which clearly requires two witnesses in open court in order to make such a charge. I wouldn’t expect an unAmerican pr!ck to know that, but any person should know that making accusations without evidence is unacceptable, shameful behavior. In the US we have a term for that – it’s called McCarthyism. So that makes you a hypocritical, lying, stupid, McCarthyist, bigoted, ignorant, seditious, unAmerican, unpatriotic, narrow-minded little pr!ck (my apologies for any I forgot).

  184. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 19, 2011 at 6:15 pm #

    MichaelN: He must have been ……………… like the other ante nati Scots & like the alien born visiting in amity (e.g. the Frenchman) ……….. simply because Calvin must by necessity be born under the ligeance of a subject’ to be a NBS…………. otherwise not a subject’.

    Repeating your logical fallacy of conflating differing meanings (in differing contexts) of the same term doesn’t make it any less of a pile of crap.

  185. avatar
    JoZeppy April 19, 2011 at 6:18 pm #

    MichaelN: You got your wires crossed (as usual)…………EVERY CHILD born in US is NATIVE BORN of US soil.

    You are confusing the definition of a legal term of art with common usage, much like those who claim evolution should not be taught because it is “only a theory.” Not every child born in the US is native born.

    MichaelN: Now if natural’ born means ( as you patriots’ keep blurting out) the same as native’ born, then it doesn’t matter that a child has an enemy or a diplomat as a parent, BECAUSE the child is NATIVE’ born and therefore (according to your absurd reasoning) is a natural’ born.

    It matters because diplomats are opertating under the legal fiction that they function under an extention of their nation’s sovereignty. They are considered be on their national soil where ever they are. That is why they are beyond the reach of US law (outside our jurisdiction).

    MichaelN: What does it matter WHY the parent is not a subject?

    See above.

    MichaelN: It’s the FACT that the parent is not a subject, that causes the child to not be a born subject.

    Typing the word fact in all captial letters does not make your incorrect statement correct. Sorry, you are wrong.

    MichaelN: A can only be an A1, if B & C are combined.
    If there is an absence of either or both B & C then A can not be an A1
    It makes no difference WHY there might be an absence of B and/or C
    The subject status of the parent father matters, in determining whether a child born of that father is a NBS or not.

    Blah, blah, blah. You can re-package it any way you want, and you’re still wrong. Funny how every real lawyer to have read Calvin’s case for the past 400 years has come to the exact opposite conclusion.

    MichaelN: And I am calling you a pathetic, conniving, misled traitor.

    And I’m calling you an illiterate idiot.

  186. avatar
    Greg April 19, 2011 at 6:18 pm #

    MichaelN: He must have been ……………… like the other ante nati Scots

    Still haven’t read the whole case, have you?

    …for as the Antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England…

    Remain aliens.

    Remain aliens.

    REMAIN aliens!

    Calvin’s dad was an alien.

    But, Michael, let’s play follow the bouncing ball:

    1. Alien comes into the country
    2. Alien has child
    3. Because [black box] alien’s child is a natural born subject.

    You can insert any magic into that black box you want, Michael, the fact remains that the US ADOPTED the same laws as England.

    That’s what Wong Kim Ark was about. Wong was only a citizen because the US wrote the Constitution to recognize natural born citizens which encompasses the same meaning as natural born subject. Wong is a citizen because he’s a natural born citizen!

    We can get bogged down on how badly you’ve misread Calvin’s Case, how no one in the history of the English language has ever misread it as badly as you, but it is beside the point. You are wrong AND irrelevant!

  187. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 19, 2011 at 6:26 pm #

    Greg: We can get bogged down on how badly you’ve misread Calvin’s Case, how no one in the history of the English language has ever misread it as badly as you, but it is beside the point. You are wrong AND irrelevant!

    At least Mikey’s the best at something… 😉

  188. avatar
    Suranis April 19, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    MichaelN: You got your wires crossed (as usual)…………EVERY CHILD born in US is NATIVE BORN of US soil.

    Oh brother.

    Lets see a case cited by PERKINS v. ELG, which Mario Apuzzo has been using to try and prove his NBC = 2 parents thesis.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

    “This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15.

    ‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; ”

    A Native Born, Dual American citizen born to a German father could have been President in 1875. Fancy that.

  189. avatar
    Scientist April 19, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

    These ridiculous disputes are among the many reasons to simply do away with the poorly conceived, badly-written “natural born citizen” nonsense. Who gives a rat’s behind what Lord Coke, John Jay,John Bingham or any of these long dead characters says? For Pete’s sake, it’s the 21 st century. Let’s decide what works for us in today’s world, put it in place and move on.

  190. avatar
    MichaelN April 19, 2011 at 6:49 pm #

    gorefan: So Mike, in 1774 when the founders wrote the Declaration and Resolves on Colonial Rights of the First Continental Congress, and said,

    That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights:

    Resolved, N.C.D. 2 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.

    Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were, at the time of their emigration from the mother-country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.”

    So the founders said that by the laws of nature, they were “natural born” subjects.

    So Mike, in 1774, what definition of “natural born” were the founders using?

    ‘within the realm of England’

  191. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 19, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    MichaelN: within the realm of England’

    And why do you think they radically changed the definition of this term a few years later?

  192. avatar
    Daniel April 19, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    MichealN:

    Keep whipping that dead horse. You’re halfway to horseburger

  193. avatar
    MichaelN April 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    Suranis: Oh brother.

    Lets see a case cited by PERKINS v. ELG, which Mario Apuzzo has been using to try and prove his NBC = 2 parents thesis.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=325

    “This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15.

    ‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; ”

    A Native Born, Dual American citizen born to a German father could have been President in 1875. Fancy that.

    “Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

    The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.”
    ———————————————-
    Suranis:

    “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.”
    ———————————————————————
    Correct, Steinkauler was a ‘natural born Citizen’ of US, because she was born on US soil (one of the two qualities to make a NBC), Steinkauler was called by Pierrepont a ‘native-born American citizen’.

    Steinkauler was in fact born soli and sanguinis.

    “The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis.”

    No problem there, we have a NBC being called a ‘native-born American citizen’
    ————————————————————————-
    Suranis:

    “There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States”

    Correct ……………………….. so?

  194. avatar
    gorefan April 19, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

    MichaelN: within the realm of England’

    So you agree that they were using the English definition of “natural born”. And this definition was as outlined in Blackstone.

    And reiterated by Chief Justice Cockburn.

  195. avatar
    Suranis April 19, 2011 at 7:57 pm #

    MichaelN: Suranis:

    “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.”
    ———————————————————————
    Correct, Steinkauler was a natural born Citizen’

    SO, Mr “They didn’t call them natural born subjects so english common law dues not apply. Natural Born Subjects are not the same as Natural Born Citizens” They were using the term “Natural born” and “Native born” synonymously in 1875. They meant the same thing.

    So when you say

    MichaelN: You got your wires crossed (as usual)…………EVERY CHILD born in US is NATIVE BORN of US soil.

    Now if natural’ born means ( as you patriots’ keep blurting out) the same as native’ born,

    That’s exactly what the legal community thought 100 years after the writing of the constitution. “Native Born” = “Natural Born” NATIVE BORN CITIZENS CAN BECOME PRESIDENT. Its what James Madison thought AT the writing of the constitution and that’s the way he explained it. And as you love to point out, there was no objections to Madisons definition. And its what people think today.

    Oh yeah there was no objections to the Native=Natural definition either as it was cited in other cases.

    And you still havent explained Spiro Agnew, who like Chester Arthur was born of a non naturalized father, yet still managed to become vice president to Nixon despite making the fact that he was from a non naturalized immigrant part of his election campaign. He was classed as an NBC. Those NBCs from non citizen parents just keep adding up…

  196. avatar
    MichaelN April 19, 2011 at 7:58 pm #

    Slartibartfast: And why do you think they radically changed the definition of this term a few years later?

    They didn’t ‘radically’ change anything………………… it meant soli & sanguinis in English common law & it meant soli and sanguinis for the framers.

    The reason they used that term NBC was to ensure security & protection for the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence, persuasion and claim.

    They sought the highest possible bond, loyalty and allegiance to the new constitutional republic (which had NO PRECEDENT in English common law)

    Conversely the term NBS as used by the English, did not have an aim as to describe eligibility for high office.

    Such was the framers high level of studious education and wisdom, that it’s plain to see there is no doubt that they read, studied and understood to a high degree (as well as Vattel) – stuff like this …..

    (from Lord Coke Calvin’s case & in light of the Coke quotes that I have been presenting here prior)

    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a

    [42. ][Ed.: natural, ABSOLUTE, PURE and UNLIMITED allegiance.]

    [42a. ][Ed.: HIGH allegiance.]

    You might also like to note that the framers would also have teken into account that the ‘local allegiance’ in English common law was …………….

    “[53. ][Ed.: local allegiance is something mean and small, and EXTREMELY UNCERTAIN.]”

    In light of there being NO DOUBT that the framers were VERY conversant with all this, AND Vattel, it is plain to see that the framers meant and intended NBC per Article II to mean born in the US to US citizen parents to achieve the “natural, ABSOLUTE, PURE and UNLIMITED allegiance.”

    Now YOU KNOW it is an ABSURD notion to propose the framers were derelict in ensuring suchmaximum security for office of POTUS.

    It is merely your political bias that causes you to be so absurd ………. try to be honest.

  197. avatar
    gorefan April 19, 2011 at 8:04 pm #

    MichaelN: it meant soli & sanguinis in English common law & it meant soli and sanguinis for the framers.

    NOt accord to Chief Justice Cockburn.

    I notice that you refise to address his statements, which is not surprising. Here it is again,

    “Nationality by birth or origin depends, according to the law of some nations, on the place of birth; according to that of others on the nationality of the parents. In many countries both elements exist, one or other, however, predominating. Thus, by the law of England, the status of a subject depends generally on the place of birth: nevertheless, the descendants, of a natural-born subject, for two generations, though born out of the dominions of the Crown, are, to all intents and purposes, subjects.”

    And he writes,

    By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

    “The law of the United States of America agrees with our owm. The law of England as to the effect of the place of birth in the matter of nationality became the law of America as part of the law of the mother country, wdiich the original settlers carried with them.”

    I completely understand why you are afraid to address Chief Justice Cocokburn. He totally destroys your hairbrain ideas. Read him and weep for your stupidity.

  198. avatar
    Greg April 19, 2011 at 8:07 pm #

    The child of an alien didn’t owe LOCAL allegiance, Michael. She was a natural born subject.

    You still haven’t given any evidence that NBC was different than NBS.

  199. avatar
    Greg April 19, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    They didn’t radically’ change anything………………… it meant soli & sanguinis in English common law & it meant soli and sanguinis for the framers.

    The alien in England gave birth to an English subject, a NATURAL BORN subject.

    The alien in America gave birth to an American citizen, a NATURAL BORN citizen.

    The English limited political office (like the Privy Council) to Natural born Subjects. America limited political office to Natural Born Citizens.

    Ever watch South Park? Underpants gnomes? You, like the gnomes, have an unknown step 2, plus you’re wrong on step 1 and step 3!

  200. avatar
    Suranis April 19, 2011 at 8:14 pm #

    MichaelN: They sought the highest possible bond, loyalty and allegiance to the new constitutional republic (which had NO PRECEDENT in English common law

    Uh, you do remember from your history the Commonwealth of England, right? You know, 1620 to 1649? 12 short years after Calvins case? You know, the commonwealth which was a REPUBLIC, with a Lord Protector, parliament, NO KING, and all that good stuff, right?

    And you have the gall to claim there was no precedent for the rights of people under a republic under English common law. Guess what there bloody well was. You really must think people the world over are ignorant as all hell.

  201. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 19, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    MichaelN: They didn’t radically’ change anything………………… it meant soli & sanguinis in English common law & it meant soli and sanguinis for the framers.

    So they changed the definition but didn’t tell anyone? Try again stupid troll.

    The reason they used that term NBC was to ensure security & protection for the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence, persuasion and claim.

    Gee, the way I remember it, John Jay wanted to ‘provide a strong check against foreigners’ for the office of POTUS. Where do you get the idea that they wanted to protect the office from ‘ANY foreign influence’? People who continually make statements that they cannot support are behaving stupidly, don’t you think? Why do you make statements when you cannot find a single legal scholar in the last 400 years that agrees with you? (not to mention that the posters here alone have found dozens, maybe hundreds who contradict you…)

    They sought the highest possible bond, loyalty and allegiance to the new constitutional republic (which had NO PRECEDENT in English common law)

    The first part is an assertion without proof (which is a juvenile way to argue – by the way, if you are a 10-year-old, I apologize for being mean to you, but you need to GROW UP!) and the second part is a non-sequitor (loyalty and allegiance having plenty of precedent in the law – precedents which were used to define loyalty and allegiance to the new Constitutional Republic (I also note that you repeatedly fail to capitalize ‘Constitution’ or it’s variants – how unAmerican…).

    Conversely the term NBS as used by the English, did not have an aim as to describe eligibility for high office.

    The term is not defined by the office that it is prerequisite for – the (already defined) term is used to set the prerequisite for the office. It takes a truly stupid person to not understand that.

    Such was the framers high level of studious education and wisdom, that it’s plain to see there is no doubt that they read, studied and understood to a high degree (as well as Vattel) – stuff like this …..

    Understood it a damn sight better than you do…

    If they were so enamored of Vattel, why didn’t they say that the president was required to be indigenous (which didn’t have that pesky history of a different prior definition…)? Your childish arguments make no sense to any rational person. You’re a stunning combination of ignorance, lack of intelligence, and dishonesty all rolled up into one.

    (from Lord Coke Calvin’s case & in light of the Coke quotes that I have been presenting here prior)

    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a

    [42. ][Ed.: natural, ABSOLUTE, PURE and UNLIMITED allegiance.]

    [42a. ][Ed.: HIGH allegiance.]

    You might also like to note that the framers would also have teken into account that the local allegiance’ in English common law was …………….

    “[53. ][Ed.: local allegiance is something mean and small, and EXTREMELY UNCERTAIN.]”

    Yet it is enough to make a natural born subject (or a natural born citizen). And all of your pathetic attempts to justify your bigotry just show you to be beneath contempt.

    In light of there being NO DOUBT that the framers were VERY conversant with all this, AND Vattel, it is plain to see that the framers meant and intended NBC per Article II to mean born in the US to US citizen parents to achieve the “natural, ABSOLUTE, PURE and UNLIMITED allegiance.”

    REPEATING LONG DEBUNKED CLAIMS USING A LOT OF CAPITAL LETTERS AND PRETENDING THAT YOU HAVE MADE YOUR CASE INSTEAD OF BEING HUMILIATED DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE A PATHETIC WRETCH WHO IS DESPERATELY SEARCHING (IN VAIN) FOR SOME KIND OF PITIFUL JUSTIFICATION FOR HIS PETTY AND IRRATIONAL FEAR AND HATE.

    Now YOU KNOW it is an ABSURD notion to propose the framers were derelict in ensuring suchmaximum security for office of POTUS.

    You’re the only person that I have ever heard argue that the Founders were looking for some kind of ‘maximum’ security – and you are one of the least credible sources I can imagine.

    It is merely your political bias that causes you to be so absurd ………. try to be honest.

    No, I’m pretty pissed off at President Obama right now (Libya, Bradley Manning’s torture (and failure to prosecute Bush-era torture [the United States that I believe in DOES NOT TORTURE – and prosecutes those who do], civil liberties, repeated snubs of the left, failure to get more concessions from Republicans, extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, etc. – but I’m going to vote for him in 2012 because any person who could win the Republican primary right now would be far, far worse for this country (which I love).

  202. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 19, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    Suranis: Uh, you do remember from your history the Commonwealth of England, right? You know, 1620 to 1649? 12 short years after Calvins case?You know, the commonwealth which was a REPUBLIC, with a Lord Protector, parliament, NO KING, and all that good stuff, right?

    And you have the gall to claim there was no precedent for the rights of people under a republic under English common law. Guess what there bloody well was. You really must think people the world over are ignorant as all hell.

    So, Mikey, do you have the balls to admit that your argument just went down the tubes? Or are you just going to wait for a while and then cut and paste it again and try to pretend that it hasn’t been completely debunked? What a completely useless turd you are.

  203. avatar
    Scientist April 19, 2011 at 8:55 pm #

    MichaelN: it is plain to see that the framers meant and intended

    Which ones have you spoken with personally?

    Listen, the framers did a lot of smart things, They were human and quite fallible and also did some major F-ups, They accepted slavery, Michael. Rather than deal with it and phase it out over some reasonable period they punted on it. Their failure on that issue led to the Civil War.

    I would say natural born citizen was another F-up of theirs. If they meant to say that both parents had to be citizens then they should have written, in clear, unambiguous English, “Born in the United States of 2 citiizen parents”. They didn’t write that. You can’t pretend they did. They screwed up, Mikey and that’s where things stand,

  204. avatar
    Daniel April 19, 2011 at 11:35 pm #

    Anybody for horse burgers?

    MichaelN has tenderized them real good.

  205. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 2:01 am #

    Greg: The alien in England gave birth to an English subject, a NATURAL BORN subject.

    The alien in America gave birth to an American citizen, a NATURAL BORN citizen.

    The alien in England was a subject of England by virtue of visiting in amity and by the Law of Nature.

    I have already shown you this and it has not been refuted.

    I have also already shown you that a child born In England, though born jus soli, cannot be a born subject unless the parent fatther is a subject.

    Your silly political bias has you so fixated on desperately holding on to the illegal power grab of government that has occured, that you have stooped to the lowest of the low & sold-out on your nation and constitution, by not being honest in facing and accepting the truth of the matter.

    For a child born in US to be a NBC, much as the same as England, where the parent father must be a subject, that child must be born to a US citizen.

  206. avatar
    gorefan April 20, 2011 at 2:17 am #

    MichaelN: I have also already shown you that a child born In England, though born jus soli, cannot be a born subject unless the parent fatther is a subject.

    Not according to Chief Justice Cockburn,

    “Nationality by birth or origin depends, according to the law of some nations, on the place of birth; according to that of others on the nationality of the parents. In many countries both elements exist, one or other, however, predominating. Thus, by the law of England, the status of a subject depends generally on the place of birth: nevertheless, the descendants, of a natural-born subject, for two generations, though born out of the dominions of the Crown, are, to all intents and purposes, subjects.”

    And he writes,

    By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

    The law of the United States of America agrees with our own. The law of England as to the effect of the place of birth in the matter of nationality became the law of America as part of the law of the mother country, which the original settlers carried with them.

    He is an expert on English Law and you are not.

  207. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 2:27 am #

    Scientist: Which ones have you spoken with personally?

    Listen, the framers did a lot of smart things,They were human and quite fallible and also did some major F-ups,They accepted slavery, Michael.Rather than deal with it and phase it out over some reasonable period they punted on it.Their failure on that issue led to the Civil War.

    I would say natural born citizen was another F-up of theirs.If they meant to say that both parents had to be citizens then they should have written, in clear, unambiguous English, “Born in the United States of 2 citiizen parents”.They didn’t write that.You can’t pretend they did.They screwed up, Mikey and that’s where things stand,

    It’s good that you are prepared to be honest and face the fact that the framers meant soli & sanguinis when they stated NBC in Art. II

    They didn’t write ‘subject’ either, nor did they make any reference to NB ‘subjec’t or English common law in the USC.

    They did study Vattel and being Englishmen themselves, with very high education, learned and wise, they had a thorough and comprehensive knowledge and understanding of English common law including Lord Coke’s report of Calvin’s case.

    English common law requires soli and sanguinis, so the framers use of NBC is right-on.

    It was only those who anti-constitutionalists and subsequent revisionists who started playing with words to establish a trail of ambiguous and misleading entries in congressional records and court-room dicta, that lead to the layer or veil of confusion and doubt, on the part of the gullible followers of the mis-information practitioners who established ‘precedents’ in the history of the system for furtherance of the revisions and dismantling campaigners, much to the delight of the conniving traitorous miscreants & enemies of the US republic who joined their ranks.

    Natural born Citizen’ is perfect description for a person born of the land to parents who are citizens of that same land in light of the imperative to secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion and claim.

    “Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel’s {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel’s influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.

    Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, “of great use to Judges,” that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and “his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}” James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.} Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and “Vattel’s {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.” Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most”

  208. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 2:33 am #

    Suranis: Uh, you do remember from your history the Commonwealth of England, right? You know, 1620 to 1649? 12 short years after Calvins case?You know, the commonwealth which was a REPUBLIC, with a Lord Protector, parliament, NO KING, and all that good stuff, right?

    And you have the gall to claim there was no precedent for the rights of people under a republic under English common law. Guess what there bloody well was. You really must think people the world over are ignorant as all hell.

    That’s odd, I can’t find ANYTHING about establishing a constitutional republic in England where there was an eligibility concern for a president that got elected by the people.

    Maybe you can show me Kev.

  209. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 2:42 am #

    MichaelN: The alien in England was a subject of England by virtue of visiting in amity and by the Law of Nature.

    No, the alien visiting in amity is subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign. Trying to conflate two different terms is dishonest and doing it repeatedly in the face of me (and others) pointing it out is pretty stupid, in my opinion.

    I have already shown you this and it has not been refuted.

    News flash, Brainiac – when someone shows how your argument is based on a logical fallacy, then that argument has been refuted (it takes a really special kind of moron not to understand that). Pretty much everything you’ve said here has been refuted by someone or other…

    I have also already shown you that a child born In England, though born jus soli, cannot be a born subject unless the parent fatther is a subject.

    No, once again, you are conflating two separate phrases and blatantly lying to imply that two different logical statements are equal. That kind of repeated behavior is nothing short of despicable…

    Your silly political bias

    Project much? You’re the one with the political bias – the only thing the rest of us agree on is that birthers like you are stupid, bigoted, unAmerican lying hypocrites.

    has you so fixated on desperately holding on to the illegal power grab of government that has occured,

    Calm down, Mikey – you’re headed towards word salad… President Obama doesn’t need help from any of us to keep the power that he seized in accordance with the Constitution (something an unAmerican schmuck like you obviously knows nothing about) – although he will need the support of a majority of the Electoral College to remain President for another term. And if you’re wondering just where that reek of desperation is coming from – I suggest you check the birther movement. After the past week or so (and the litany of birther fails they contained), I’m sure you – like most birthers – are feeling pretty desperate…

    that you have stooped to the lowest of the low

    All we’ve stooped to is calling birthers like you out for your lies, bigotry, and hypocrisy – I’m sure it’s uncomfortable to have your dishonest bigotry exposed, but if you don’t like it, then stop flaunting your duplicity. You really are one stupid lying bigot.

    & sold-out on your nation and Constitution [Corrected to show the respect to our founding document that MichaelN pays lip service to but completely disregards in practice – the unAmerican pr!ck], by not being honest in facing and accepting the truth of the matter.

    Seriously Michael – we’ve got every single commentary on Calvin’s case ever written on our side and you’ve got nothing but your own delusions. The only people not being honest here are you and your fellow birthers.

    For a child born in US to be a NBC, much as the same as England, where the parent father must be a subject, that child must be born to a US citizen.

    Not true and you’ve had the law and rulings that prove it repeatedly explained to you (although obviously you are far too stupid to understand written English [or conduct an intelligent, rational discussion for that matter]). What a worthless whackjob wingnut you are – if I was half as pathetic a human being as you appear to be, I think that I would die of shame.

  210. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 2:43 am #

    So you claim that ‘native’ born is the same as ‘natural’ born. ….. right?

    yes? or no?

  211. avatar
    gorefan April 20, 2011 at 2:43 am #

    MichaelN: English common law requires soli and sanguinis

    Wrong again. Don’t you get tired of being wrong.

    Look, I not unsympathetic. You invested alot of thought into this hairbrain idea. I get that, i cannot even imagine how hard it must be to read Chief Justice Cockburns words. They have got to be like a punch in the gut. Imean, your whole thesis turned to dust. That’s got to be painful.

    Anyway, here are Chief Justice Cockburn’s words again,

    “Nationality by birth or origin depends, according to the law of some nations, on the place of birth; according to that of others on the nationality of the parents. In many countries both elements exist, one or other, however, predominating. Thus, by the law of England, the status of a subject depends generally on the place of birth: nevertheless, the descendants, of a natural-born subject, for two generations, though born out of the dominions of the Crown, are, to all intents and purposes, subjects.”

    And he writes,

    By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

    The law of the United States of America agrees with our own. The law of England as to the effect of the place of birth in the matter of nationality became the law of America as part of the law of the mother country, which the original settlers carried with them.

    And now here is the question, when Chief Justice Cockburn said that place of birth determined the status of a subject, was he paraphrasing James Madison? Or was just a case of both countries appling the law in the same way?

    James Madison,
    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”

  212. avatar
    sfjeff April 20, 2011 at 2:51 am #

    Michaeln says:
    “It was only those who anti-constitutionalists and subsequent revisionists who started playing with words to establish a trail of ambiguous and misleading entries in congressional records and court-room dicta, that lead to the layer or veil of confusion and doubt, on the part of the gullible followers of the mis-information practitioners who established precedents’ in the history of the system for furtherance of the revisions and dismantling campaigners, much to the delight of the conniving traitorous miscreants & enemies of the US republic who joined their ranks.”

    So your position is that everyone for the last two hundred years has been misled and that we are all gullible- but you Michael- you are enlightened with the true knowledge- and you want to lead us back from our current common national consensus of the definition of natural born to a definition that only you and a few dozen others believe in.

    I just want to be sure I understand the breadth of your statements properly.

  213. avatar
    gorefan April 20, 2011 at 2:51 am #

    MichaelN: So you claim that native’ born is the same as natural’ born. ….. right?

    Actually, James Iredell, St. George Tucker, James Kent say it means the same thing,

    James Iredell, No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” North Carolina Debate on the Constitution, July, 1788

    James Iredell was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Washington.

    James Kent, “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States(Commentaries on American Law, 1826).

    James Kent was appointed by New York Governor John Jay to the New York Chancery.

    St. George Tucker, That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” (View of the Constitution, 1803).

    St. George Tucker was a Revolutionary War hero, wounded at the battle of Yorktown. He was appointed by President Madison to be a United States District Court judge.

    So the answer to your question is yes, native born and natural born mean the same thing. And we know that exceptions were made for children of ambassadors and invading armies, but you knew that since it is in both Blackstone’s Commentaries and Chief Justice Cockburn’s Nationality

  214. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 2:51 am #

    MichaelN: That’s odd, I can’t find ANYTHING about establishing a constitutional republic in England where there was an eligibility concern for a president that got elected by the people.

    Maybe you can show me Kev.

    Once again you show your illiteracy, you moron. The term ‘natural born citizen’ is not defined by being a qualification for the presidency – the presidential qualifications are described (in part) by the requirement that the president be a natural born citizen. The Constitutional requirement for the presidency in no way defines the term ‘natural born citizen’ and to try and say otherwise is indicative of an abysmally mediocre intellect (even more so if you expect your bogus argument to convince anyone that isn’t already brainwashed. You’re really quite the loser, Michael…

  215. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 2:57 am #

    Slartibartfast: MichaelN: The alien in England was a subject of England by virtue of visiting in amity and by the Law of Nature.

    No, the alien visiting in amity is subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign. Trying to conflate two different terms is dishonest and doing it repeatedly in the face of me (and others) pointing it out is pretty stupid, in my opinion.

    Crap!

    Lord Coke:
    “Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due TO HIS SOVEREIGN.”

    NOTHING TO DO WITH JURISDICTION

    “But between the Sovereign and the subject there is without comparison a higher and greater connexion: for as the subject oweth to the King his true and faithful ligeance and obedience….”

    To have ‘legal ligeance’, which is more to what you are referring to when you say ‘jurisdiction’, one must swear an oath of allegiance.

    Coke:
    “The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the Torn or Leet”

    Back to the alien in amity, that Kev got all screwed-up when he had his usual bold text hissy fit.

    Coke:
    “ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, HE OWETH UNTO THE KING a local obedience or ligeance”

    It really must piss you off Kev to be so WRONG all the time, especially with your blood-pressure going off the richter-scale & you to going ballistic with your hissy-fit bold texting … all that extra / and stuff.

    That’s what happens when you latch-on to lies and deceit and try to defend them in denial rage.

  216. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 3:02 am #

    MichaelN,

    If the founders were so keen on Vattel regarding citizenship, why didn’t they use his term (‘indigenes’)? And why have you been unable to come up with a single SCOTUS citation of Vattel on matters of citizenship (besides Dredd Scott, of course…)? Oh yeah, it’s because you’re a pathological lying bigot who’s seditious fantasies lead him to use the most deceitful, shameful (and pathetic) tactics to try and spread his despicable propaganda regarding the Constitutionally legitimate POTUS.

  217. avatar
    gorefan April 20, 2011 at 3:03 am #

    MichaelN: That’s what happens when you latch-on to lies and deceit and try to defend them in denial rage.

    Calm down, Michael, you are becoming a little unhinged, I understand, you’ve invested a lot of time into this theory of yours and it must suck to see it fall apart. But that is what happens. have you ever considered that maybe your talents lie elsewhere.

  218. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 3:18 am #

    MichaelN: That’s what happens when you latch-on to lies and deceit and try to defend them in denial rage.

    It’s funny that you think you upset me – I’m not the one resorting to lies and logical fallacies and getting upset when people wont buy the same crap I just repeated for the 20th time. I just like working on my writing by thinking up ways to insult verminous bigots like yourself. Personally, my thinking is that ridiculing birthers right now will help keep them riled up and get them to raise their profile as much as possible – The Donald has been a godsend, but every little bit helps – even needling foreign scumbags like yourself (just to be clear – you’re a scumbag who happens to be foreign [and is certainly unAmerican] not a scumbag BECAUSE* you’re foreign…).

    *Are you really too stupid to realize that I was MOCKING YOU BY TALKING IN ALL CAPS – YOU’VE BEEN DOING IT MORE AND MORE LATELY, WHY IS THAT? Anyway, it’s good to see that I’m causing a disgusting human being like yourself some discomfort – hopefully that’s just the beginning of an epiphany regarding the shame that you keep bringing upon yourself…

    Needless to say, your last comment was as full of bovine excrement as your usual fare.

  219. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 3:34 am #

    MichaelN: That’s odd, I can’t find ANYTHING about establishing a constitutional republic in England where there was an eligibility concern for a president that got elected by the people.

    Maybe you can show me Kev.
    ——————————————————————
    Kev:

    Once again you show your illiteracy, you moron. The term natural born citizen’ is not defined by being a qualification for the presidency – the presidential qualifications are described (in part) by the requirement that the president be a natural born citizen. The Constitutional requirement for the presidency in no way defines the term natural born citizen’ and to try and say otherwise is indicative of an abysmally mediocre intellect (even more so if you expect your bogus argument to convince anyone that isn’t already brainwashed. You’re really quite the loser, Michael…
    ———————————————————————-

    MichaelN:

    Translating Kev’s drivel into the actual …………

    (Kev) ………………… “I can’t show you, because it didn’t happen”

  220. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 3:39 am #

    MichaelN: It really must piss you off Kev to be so WRONG all the time, especially with your blood-pressure going off the richter-scale & you to going ballistic with your hissy-fit bold texting … all that extra / and stuff.

    I can’t think of anything I’ve said that is wrong in my exchanges with you (certainly I’ve justified how you deserve all of the epithets I’ve hurled at you [you narrow-minded coward*] with your dishonorable** behavior). I know it really burns you up that there’s a jungle bunny in the White House and you are impotent*** to do anything about it. Seriously, how many points does your blood pressure jump when you read ‘President Obama’? (you know that President Obama is the legitimate POTUS and there is nothing that a feebleminded fool**** like yourself can do about it, right?). Anyway, I’m glad to see I’m still getting to you, chump (I don’t think that needs an explanation).

    *narrow-minded is just another way of calling you a bigot (which you certainly are) and only a coward would ignore all their arguments being debunked and repost them again and again.

    **given your proclivities for lying, hypocrisy and bigotry I don’t think that ‘dishonorable’ is much of a stretch…

    ***you are clearly impotent to remove the darkie usurper like you and your buddies at Stormfront and the KKK fantasize about, but I’m guessing that impotence (along with incompetence) is probably a constant thread in your life.

    ****I just liked the alliteration of ‘feebleminded fool’, but you are obviously both feebleminded and a fool, so it’s okay…

  221. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 3:43 am #

    MichaelN:
    MichaelN: That’s odd, I can’t find ANYTHING about establishing a constitutional republic in England where there was an eligibility concern for a president that got elected by the people.

    Maybe you can show me Kev.

    ——————————————————————
    Kev:

    Once again you show your illiteracy, you moron. The term natural born citizen’ is not defined by being a qualification for the presidency – the presidential qualifications are described (in part) by the requirement that the president be a natural born citizen. The Constitutional requirement for the presidency in no way defines the term natural born citizen’ and to try and say otherwise is indicative of an abysmally mediocre intellect (even more so if you expect your bogus argument to convince anyone that isn’t already brainwashed. You’re really quite the loser, Michael…
    ———————————————————————-

    MichaelN:

    Translating Kev’s drivel into the actual …………

    (Kev) ………………… “I can’t show you, because it didn’t happen”

    What I showed you is that your argument is another non-sequitor you dishonest idiot – again, only an imbecile wouldn’t realize that their argument is no longer valid once it’s been shown to be based on a logical fallacy. Sorry, loser, but once again you’ve got nothing but a face full of fail…

  222. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 3:48 am #

    sfjeff: So your position is that everyone for the last two hundred years has been misled and that we are all gullible

    Well I wouldn’t say ‘everyone’.

    Of those who argue in favor of NBC meaning ‘native’ BC, there are those who want it to be so, there are those who believed those who wanted and argues in favor of the absurd notion, there were those in the mix who wished they were correct, it takes all kinds.

    But the fact is that it is a fallacy to propose that because of a duration of time, or because a belief or argument has ancient origins & was prior, or the number of times or the number of people believed or argued something, it doesn’t make it any more valid or true.

    e.g.

    “Before microscopes and theories of cells and germs, man had other ideas about the creation of living things. He bizarrely believed that life arose from inanimate matter (for example, maggots come spontaneously from rotting meat).

    Proponents of this view (VIRTUALLY EVERYONE) used the Bible as a source of evidence, due to the fact that God made man from dust.

    However, the view did exist before Christianity and Aristotle said, in no uncertain terms, that some animals grow spontaneously and not from other animals of their kind.

    Earlier believers had to come up with some pretty strange ideas to make their theory work: Anaximander (a Greek philosopher who taught Pythagoras) believed that at some point in man’s history, humans had been born from the soil spontaneously in adult form, otherwise they could never have survived.

    Before we laugh too hard at the ancients, we should note that many Scientists right up to the 19th century believed this, and some even wrote recipe books for making animals.
    One such recipe (to make a scorpion) calls for basil, placed between two bricks and left in sunlight.

    The theory was not finally put to rest until 1859, when Louis Pasteur proved it wrong once and for all.”

  223. avatar
    The Magic M April 20, 2011 at 5:07 am #

    > Your logic’ is deliberately built on misrepresentation.
    > I will use your “1 & 2‘
    > To be a 3, it takes 1 & 2 , without either the 1 or 2, or both, the result cannot be 3.
    > Coke doesn’t say or’, he says “AND”.
    > Coke:
    > “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized (3) by procreation (1) AND birth right (2),”

    So (1 & 2) => 3.

    That is *not* logically the same as ~(1 & 2) => ~3.

    You keep confusing necessary conditions (B => A) and sufficient conditions (A => B).

    “1 & 2 are sufficient for 3.” That does not imply *any* of the following:
    “1 is necessary for 3”, “2 is necessary for 3”, “nothing else implies 3”.

    “(1 & 2) => 3” does not rule out “1 => 3” nor “2 => 3” nor “4 => 3”.

    But as long as you fail such elementary logic, it is no wonder your arguments are laughable. You obviously have either the literacy of a 7-year-old or the intellectual dishonesty of a used car salesman.

  224. avatar
    Lupin April 20, 2011 at 5:28 am #

    MichaelN: In light of there being NO DOUBT that the framers were VERY conversant with all this, AND Vattel, it is plain to see that the framers meant and intended NBC per Article II to mean born in the US to US citizen parents to achieve the “natural, ABSOLUTE, PURE and UNLIMITED allegiance.”

    Let me stop you right there.

    As far as I’m concerned you are perfectly free to argue for your definition of NBC, but you can’t rely on Vattel to bolster your argument.

    First, there is a heap of doubt as to whether Vattel’s terminology actually translates & is therefore applicable to your term “NBC”.

    Second, if you understand period French & what Vattel wrote, he actually did not say what birthers make him say. Quite the contrary, in fact.

    Search for my posts on Vattel on this site for an accurate annotated translation.

    The gross distortion of Vattel’s writings by the US birther community is one of the most appalling impostures of this sorry situation.

  225. avatar
    Scientist April 20, 2011 at 6:07 am #

    MichaelN: Natural born Citizen’ is perfect description for a person born of the land to parents who are citizens of that same land

    Actually it’s a rather poor and imprecise description. A “natural born killer” is someone who was a killer from birth. One wouldn’t assume that both the person’s parents were killers. In fact, both parents could be prefectly nice people and an act of genetic mutation or recombination produced the murderous offspring. “Natural born fool” says nothing about the parents. It says the person was fool from birth.

    So if the actual words in the Constitution said “Only one born in the United States to citizen parents” then i would have no choice but to agree with you.

    However the actual words, “natural born citizen” mean citizen from birth. That is what the people, the Electoral College, the Congress, the Courts and legal scholars have always understood. They applied that standard to Obama, Spiro Agnew, Chester Arthur , etc. It was applied to citoyen Jefferson in ignoring his French citizenship Had they been elected it would have been applied to Goldwater, Romney Sr and McCain.

    Your attempts to mind read and ascribe motives to the dead are without any validity. Only the words and their plain English meaning matter.

  226. avatar
    Suranis April 20, 2011 at 6:19 am #

    MichaelN: That’s odd, I can’t find ANYTHING about establishing a constitutional republic in England where there was an eligibility concern for a president that got elected by the people.

    Maybe you can show me Kev.

    Y’know Bruce, its a sign that your stressed when you cant tell people apart and you start getting names confused, right bruce?

    And you know this, but jets make it clear. This was in response to some guy called bruce saying

    They sought the highest possible bond, loyalty and allegiance to the new constitutional republic (which had NO PRECEDENT in English common law

    Which was him saying that saying that there was no precedent for the rights of the children of A|lien children in a constitutional republic under english common law. Sadly, this is just not true, as the rights of Alien children were operated under English law in a Republic for 29 years.

    Your narrowing of the focus to just the eligibility of presidents is a desperate distraction, because that’s not the issue. Its the rights of the natural born children of alien parents that is the issue, because under US law the presidency is the only thing that is the purview of Natural Born citizenship, whereas in England at the time there were a whole host of rights that were the sole preview of natural born citizens, such as the right to own land. I’m sure you can find a ruling on that during the time of the commonwealth, Bruce.

  227. avatar
    Greg April 20, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    MichaelN: The alien in England was a subject of England by virtue of visiting in amity and by the Law of Nature.

    I have already shown you this and it has not been refuted.

    First, as I’ve shown, and which has not been refuted, the aliens in England, those born in Scotland before James became King, remained aliens.

    Second, it DOESN’T MATTER because you have not shown that it was DIFFERENT in the United States!

    We know for a fact that the aliens in amity in England weren’t true subjects, because, as you’ve admitted, they could not own property on the same terms as true subjects.

    That was the same for aliens in America.

    The US has a naturalization process.

    So does England. So did England in 1608. So did England in 1787.

    The alien in amity became a subject, you claim, but he still had to naturalize in England to be a subject.

    No different than the United States.

    Here’s England’s process:

    1. Alien comes into the country.
    2. Alien has child.
    3. [Something happened] and because of [Something] the child of alien is a natural born subject.

    It doesn’t matter whether [Something] is becoming a pseudo-citizen or owing allegiance to the King, or what…

    Because the United States adopted the WHOLE DARN THING, WITHOUT CHANGING A THING!

    All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law HAS EVER BEEN CHANGED in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

    Wong Kim Ark, quoting United States v. Rhodes.

    Michael, your argument about Calvin’s Case is a two-parter:

    1. Calvin’s Case means X
    2. The United States adopted something different than X

    You are wrong about both parts. You haven’t even TRIED to make a case for number 2.

  228. avatar
    Greg April 20, 2011 at 9:48 am #

    MichaelN: Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations

    1. Citizenship is a matter of municipal law, not the law of nations.
    2. Vattel was the 29th most popular author quoted by the founders. Blackstone was the third most popular author. Blackstone wrote about citizenship.

    The founders never once cited Vattel on citizenship. Not once.

    You want us to believe the Founders skipped down to the 22nd most cited author to adopt his version of citizenship. And your proof that they did so is not a cite from the Founders to his discussion of citizenship, since that doesn’t exist, but simply that they did cite him about stuff. Not citizenship, but other stuff. Even though they cited other people much more.

    Fallacy, thy name is MichaelN!

    MichaelN: Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.

    The Constitution was written in 1787. Puffendorf was the 10th most cited source by our Founders. Grotius was the 15th most cited source. Vattel was the 29th most cited source.

    Why would the Founders have skipped down to number 29 to define citizenship, without mentioning it, and skipped right over Puffendorf and Grotius, who also discuss citizenship? They also skipped over Lord Coke (11) and Francis Bacon (19). Bacon argued Calvin’s Case for the Crown, arguing that the children of aliens become natural born subjects.

  229. avatar
    The Magic M April 20, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    > Your attempts to mind read and ascribe motives to the dead are without any validity. Only the words and their plain English meaning matter.

    I’m just curious when the birthers will start claiming the big 200+ year conspiracy to “obfuscate the true meaning of NBC” did not just start a couple years *after* the Founders wrote the Constitution, but that the Founders *themselves* tried to obfuscate the Heavenly Decree of Natural Born Citizenship as laid out by Saint Vattel…

  230. avatar
    Greg April 20, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    I went back to the source material for a more numerical comparison between Blackstone and Vattel. In the Founding period, Blackstone was cited 7.9% of the time. Vattel was cited 0.5% of the time.

    The author compared 3,154 citations, so Vattel was cited about 16 times in the comparison set. Blackstone about 250 times.

    In the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates, Blackstone was cited 7% of the time overall, about equally between the two sides. Vattel was cited by the anti-Federalists 1% of the time (compared with 9% of the time for Blackstone). Vattel was not cited by the Federalists.

    Grotius and Mably were the only enlightenment scholars cited by the Federalists (5 and 6% respectively), while the anti-Federalists cited Delolme (6%), Beccaria (4%), Mably (2%), Price (2%), Pufendorf (1%) and Locke (3%).

    The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought – Donald Lutz, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 189-197

  231. avatar
    Greg April 20, 2011 at 10:17 am #

    MichaelN: But the fact is that it is a fallacy to propose that because of a duration of time, or because a belief or argument has ancient origins & was prior, or the number of times or the number of people believed or argued something, it doesn’t make it any more valid or true.

    You clearly don’t have any idea how the law works, do you?

    If you make a contract with someone, its terms are defined by what a reasonable person looking at the contract at the time it was created would understand them to mean.

    So, if everyone from 1608-1787 understood “natural born citizen” to mean X, then it means X. You don’t get to come along later and say, “Well, we’ve now discovered DNA, so natural born citizen now means someone born without any recombinant DNA.”

    The law does not operate outside the minds of mankind, Michael.

    If I make a contract with you for chickens and you deliver ducks, arguing that newly discovered DNA evidence suggests that ducks and chickens are 99.99% related, you can rest assured that I’ll present evidence that the common usage of the word chicken has always referred to chickens and not ducks.

    And I’ll win.

  232. avatar
    Sef April 20, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    Greg:
    I went back to the source material for a more numerical comparison between Blackstone and Vattel. In the Founding period, Blackstone was cited 7.9% of the time. Vattel was cited 0.5% of the time.

    The author compared 3,154 citations, so Vattel was cited about 16 times in the comparison set. Blackstone about 250 times.

    In the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates, Blackstone was cited 7% of the time overall, about equally between the two sides. Vattel was cited by the anti-Federalists 1% of the time (compared with 9% of the time for Blackstone). Vattel was not cited by the Federalists.

    Grotius and Mably were the only enlightenment scholars cited by the Federalists (5 and 6% respectively), while the anti-Federalists cited Delolme (6%), Beccaria (4%), Mably (2%), Price (2%), Pufendorf (1%) and Locke (3%).

    The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought – Donald Lutz, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 189-197

    But was there any citation of de Vattel in regards to citizenship?

  233. avatar
    The Magic M April 20, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    It doesn’t matter anyway. Even if the Founders had Vattel’s name tattooed on their foreheads, that still wouldn’t make “natural born citizen” mean what Vattel wrote when he talked about “les naturels ou indigènes”.

  234. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    Sef: But was there any citation of de Vattel in regards to citizenship?

    I believe that the only one is in the majority opinion from the Dredd Scott decision…

  235. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

    The Magic M:
    It doesn’t matter anyway. Even if the Founders had Vattel’s name tattooed on their foreheads, that still wouldn’t make “natural born citizen” mean what Vattel wrote when he talked about “les naturels ou indigènes”.

    And if the founders meant to use Vattel’s definition (which doesn’t seem to mean what they think it does in the first place), but instead of using his phrase, “les naturels ou indigènes” they used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ – a phrase which already had a well-established meaning – then one could only conclude that they were idiots. Which leaves us with the logical certainty that either the Founders were idiots or the birthers are…

  236. avatar
    Sef April 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I believe that the only one is in the majority opinion from the Dredd Scott decision…

    Thanks for that comment, but I meant during the Federalist discussions which Greg was citing.

  237. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    Sef: Thanks for that comment, but I meant during the Federalist discussions which Greg was citing.

    I would be curious to know the answer to that as well – I suspect that it is zero.

  238. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 4:38 pm #

    Lupin: MichaelN: In light of there being NO DOUBT that the framers were VERY conversant with all this, AND Vattel, it is plain to see that the framers meant and intended NBC per Article II to mean born in the US to US citizen parents to achieve the “natural, ABSOLUTE, PURE and UNLIMITED allegiance.”

    Let me stop you right there.

    As far as I’m concerned you are perfectly free to argue for your definition of NBC, but you can’t rely on Vattel to bolster your argument.

    First, there is a heap of doubt as to whether Vattel’s terminology actually translates & is therefore applicable to your term “NBC”.

    Second, if you understand period French & what Vattel wrote, he actually did not say what birthers make him say. Quite the contrary, in fact.

    Search for my posts on Vattel on this site for an accurate annotated translation.

    The gross distortion of Vattel’s writings by the US birther community is one of the most appalling impostures of this sorry situation.

    It is very clear what Vattel said & this was read & studied by the founding fathers.

    Vattel:

    § 212. Of the citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    As you are aware it is an absurd notion that the founding fathers were derelict in securing the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence, persuasion and claim.

    The framers would have said ‘native’ if they wanted it to mean ‘native’ ……….. but they didn’t for obvious reasons.

  239. avatar
    Greg April 20, 2011 at 4:43 pm #

    Michael, I’ve demonstrates how it is impossible to even pretend the clause eliminates ANY foreign influence since it allows people to run who have lived ALL BUT 14 YEARS ABROAD!

    Add to that the fact that, as Lupin has pointed out the Vattel you’re reading, which translation wasn’t available to the Founders (in 1787, the book said “indigenes” not natural born) doesn’t say what you claim it says.

    Add to that the fact that Vattel was a fraction as influential as Blackstone.

    Add all that up and we find that Michael’s got no argument!

  240. avatar
    Scientist April 20, 2011 at 4:44 pm #

    MichaelN: It is very clear what Vattel said & this was read & studied by the founding fathers.
    Vattel:
    § 212. Of the citizens and natives.
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens

    The founding fathers couldn’t have read that when they wrote the Constitution, since that phrase first appeared in 1797. The English translations available before 1788 said, “the natives, or idigenes”

    MichaelN: As you are aware it is an absurd notion that the founding fathers were derelict in securing the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence, persuasion and claim.

    It’s not absurd at all. They were derelict in dealing with slavery. They screwed up plenty. The Constitution is NOT a perfect document. Not even close. Are you saying they were infallible?? Now that’s absurd.

  241. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    MichaelN: It is very clear what Vattel said & this was read & studied by the founding fathers.

    MichaelN, you ignorant slut. You are quoting a translation (one not available to the Founding Fathers in their deliberations) to a native Frenchman (who also happens to be an attorney) who has posted his own detailed and annotated translation of the original French on this very website (which he pointed out in his comment). You are a very, very, very, very stupid person if you think this latest cut and paste of the same debunked crap has any credibility at all. You are a worthless, lying sack of dung who is in desperate need of professional help.

  242. avatar
    Scientist April 20, 2011 at 4:47 pm #

    MichaelN: The framers would have said native’ if they wanted it to mean native’

    If they meant to say “child of two citizen parents”, then that’s what they would and should have said.

  243. avatar
    Greg April 20, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I would be curious to know the answer to that as well – I suspect that it is zero.

    The author of the study doesn’t list the 16 citations of Vattel (out of 3,154 total) but reading Kettner’s study of the development of American citizenship, which shows Fiunders citing to Blackstone and Coke, but only mentions Vattel once, in passing as a part of one Founders library, I’d be surprised to find a single Founder citing Vattel on citizenship.

    I’m sure Michael, who has read stuff other than the two sentences out of Calvin’s Case he keeps Ctrl-v’ing into the comments here, can provide examples. Right, Michael?

    Oh wait, this is the point where Michael argues that just because the Founders are on record citing Blackstone and Coke about citizenship doesn’t mean they were influenced by them!

  244. avatar
    Suranis April 20, 2011 at 4:51 pm #

    Oh brother, now the lunatic is trying to argue with a french layer about what Vattel said in, you know, French.

    I guess not understanding English was getting too samy for him and he wanted to broaden his horizons.

  245. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    As an aside, being born in US apparently does not necessarily mean one is ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.

    As you can see in 14th Amendment ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ is a condition additional to ‘born’ or ‘naturalized’.

    14th Amendment
    Amendment XIV
    Section 1.

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  246. avatar
    Greg April 20, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    Duh! Ambassadors are not subject to the jurisdiction so their children are not citizens

    You’d know this if you’d read WKA.

  247. avatar
    Scientist April 20, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    MichaelN: As an aside, being born in US apparently does not necessarily mean one is subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.

    Yes and you know the exceptions. Those who can’t be prosecuted when they break US law-diplomats and invading armies. Do you believe that the children of aliens can kill someone and then when they get arrested say, “Ha, ha, my Dad isn’t a citizen, so you can’t touch me?”

  248. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 20, 2011 at 4:59 pm #

    MichaelN: It is very clear what Vattel said & this was read & studied by the founding fathers.

    Sherley the Frenchman doesn’t agree with you.

    If you don’t get the joke, see:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/hawaii-department-of-health-obama-faq/#comment-51659

  249. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    Slartibartfast: MichaelN: It is very clear what Vattel said & this was read & studied by the founding fathers.

    MichaelN, you ignorant slut. You are quoting a translation (one not available to the Founding Fathers in their deliberations) to a native Frenchman (who also happens to be an attorney) who has posted his own detailed and annotated translation of the original French on this very website (which he pointed out in his comment). You are a very, very, very, very stupid person if you think this latest cut and paste of the same debunked crap has any credibility at all. You are a worthless, lying sack of dung who is in desperate need of professional help.

    The framers (or at least a good number of them) read and understood French language.

    “In 1752, Jefferson began attending a local school run by a Scottish Presbyterian minister. At the age of nine, Jefferson began studying Latin, Greek, and French;
    A diligent student, Jefferson displayed an avid curiosity in all fields[22] and graduated in 1762 with highest honors.”

    “Ben Franklin taught himself to read French,/strong>, German, Italian, Spanish and Latin!”

    “Since so many of the Framers were lawyers, it is of note that besides the English common law they might be expected to study standard works of continental European law, sometimes available only in Latin or French.”

  250. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 20, 2011 at 5:06 pm #

    Scientist: Yes and you know the exceptions. Those who can’t be prosecuted when they break US law-diplomats and invading armies. Do you believe that the children of aliens can kill someone and then when they get arrested say, “Ha, ha, my Dad isn’t a citizen, so you can’t touch me?”

    Michael must also believe that anyone who visits our country can just break the law since according to Michael they wouldn’t be subject to the jurisdiction of.

  251. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    Greg:
    Duh! Ambassadors are not subject to the jurisdiction so their children are not citizens

    You’d know this if you’d read WKA.

    Duh ,where does it say ‘ambassadors’ in 14th?

  252. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 20, 2011 at 5:10 pm #

    MichaelN: The framers (or at least a good number of them) read and understood French language.“In 1752, Jefferson began attending a local school run by a Scottish Presbyterian minister. At the age of nine, Jefferson began studying Latin, Greek, and French; …A diligent student, Jefferson displayed an avid curiosity in all fields[22] and graduated in 1762 with highest honors.”“Ben Franklin taught himself to read French,/strong>, German, Italian, Spanish and Latin!”“Since so many of the Framers were lawyers, it is of note that besides the English common law they might be expected to study standard works of continental European law, sometimes available only in Latin or French.”

    If that were the case where are Jefferson and Franklin’s quotes on Vattel and his use when it came to citizenship law?

  253. avatar
    ballantine April 20, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    MichaelN: Duh ,where does it say ambassadors’ in 14th?

    I know you are a foreigner, but in this country it is the supreme court’s opinion that counts, not yours.

    “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”

    Of course, anyone who read the debates on the amendment would know that.

  254. avatar
    Scientist April 20, 2011 at 5:13 pm #

    MichaelN: The framers (or at least a good number of them) read and understood French language.

    Moi aussi, je parle tres courrament le francais. Jamais, je ne traduirais pas “les naturels, ou indigenes” comme “natural born citizen”. La meilleure traduction est “the natives, or indiginous peoples”.

  255. avatar
    gorefan April 20, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

    MichaelN: it is of note that besides the English common law

    One of the Framers, Charles C. Pinckney study law at Oxford under Justice Blackstone.

    But let’s look at what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and former President of the United States, William Howard Taft said,

    The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” in Ex Parte Grossman

    Now who should we believe, a guy who was both the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and President of the United States or Mike, a guy with reading comprehension issues?

  256. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 5:19 pm #

    “Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

    Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

    The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “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. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

    “Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

    [T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

  257. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    ‘Subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means subject fully to the jurisdiction.

    But of course the conniving, deceit mongering revisionists and traitors would say otherwise.

    “Indians were excluded because they owed allegiance to their tribes. The Citizenship Clause’s drafters were careful to exclude Indians —deep-rooted in this land— from U.S. citizenship because they were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

    http://www.mnforsustain.org/immg_case_against_birthright_citizenship_hamdi.htm

  258. avatar
    Scientist April 20, 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    Michael on a trip to the US is pulled over for speeding:

    Cop: Hey buddy, did you know you were doing 85? The speed limit here is 65.

    MichaelN: You can’t give me a ticket. I’m not a citizen. Sen Howard said so in 1866

    Cop: Listen wise guy, I don’t care if you’re the Queen of friggin’ England. I’m taking you to the station and booking you for recklless driving.

    MichaelN (as he’s handcuffed and put in the squad car): But I’m not a US citizen. i can drive as fast as i want.

    Michael kept it up until they got to the station and put him in the cell with Rocko and Bubba, at whiich point Michael shut up.

  259. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm #

    Greg: f you make a contract with someone, its terms are defined by what a reasonable person looking at the contract at the time it was created would understand them to mean.

    So, if everyone from 1608-1787 understood “natural born citizen” to mean X, then it means X. You don’t get to come along later and say, “Well, we’ve now discovered DNA, so natural born citizen now means someone born without any recombinant DNA.”

    Of course, at the time Vattel wrote his Law of Nations, the French word “parents” to well-educated French speakers meant “people related by blood”. It may still mean that today, by the way. At any other place where Vattel uses “parents”, he obviously means family, relatives. The modern, dominant, use of parents meaning “father and mother” was considered substandard and to be avoided in the 18th century.

    In English, the word “parents” according to the Oxford English Dictionary was used with the same meaning of “relatives”, under the influence of Latin languages, but the usage has died. So, it could be argued that the first English versions (before 1800) were not even mistranslations.

  260. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 5:31 pm #

    MichaelN: The framers (or at least a good number of them) read and understood French language.

    And once again the village idiot misses the point. Vattel said ‘indigenes’, not ‘natural born citizens’ – if you had read Vattel in the original and understood it (like the Founders and Lupin) you would know that Vattel does not support your position. In fact, it weakens it considerably (if they wanted to use Vattel’s definition, why didn’t they use Vattel’s term?). You are completely impotent to refute this charge which is probably why you are ignoring it (although you may just be too stupid to understand – which is it? are you and idiot or a liar?)

    No one here believes your bull$hit Michael – even Doc is using your own words to make fun of you (we’re all laughing at you, not with you). You are a pitiful fool who will probably never rise above their own small-minded inanity.

  261. avatar
    ballantine April 20, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    MichaelN:
    “Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

    Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

    The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “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. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

    .

    In your quote, Howard does not say who are born foreigners other than children of ambassadors. However, Howard does tell us the “subject to the jurisdiction” meant “subject to our laws” and that jus soli was the universal rule and that the President has to be native-born. Appears you are wrong about everything:

    “A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws….. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Senator Howard (author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment), Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

    “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 citizen of the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)

    Trumbull was talking about indians in that quote who were treated as having a foreign allegiance. He said over and over that children of aliens were citizens and that the President must be a native born citizen. He also equated “natural born citizen” to “natural born subject.” Need to do a lot more work.

    “birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)

    “And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons’s Veto), William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 254 (1868).

    “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?” Senator Trumbull, CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

    “I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”‘ Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)

    “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).

    “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

  262. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 20, 2011 at 5:35 pm #

    Evidence that the word “parents” did not mean “father and mother” at the time:

    http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=5019&hilit=Jesuit

    Strunk may not like that one.

  263. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    MichaelN: Subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means subject fully to the jurisdiction.

    You’re trying to use logical fallacies to disguise the double standard that that you want to use – sorry that just proves that you are a dishonest idiot (and an incompetent one at that).

    But of course the conniving, deceit mongering revisionists and traitors would say otherwise.

    Once again you make baseless charges without evidence to back them up – dishonoring the spirt of the Constitution. Why do you hate America, and her Constitution in particular, so much?

  264. avatar
    ballantine April 20, 2011 at 5:39 pm #

    The phrase “complete jurisdiction” was only defined by Senator Williams who applied it to indians and children of ambassadors. simply dishonest to say it was meant to apply to anyone else:

    “In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court.” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2897 (1866).

  265. avatar
    gorefan April 20, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    MichaelN: Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

    And we know from James Madison that in the United States place of birth determines allegiance.

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”

  266. avatar
    ballantine April 20, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

    gorefan: And we know from James Madison that in the United States place of birth determines allegiance.

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”

    As did Trumbull and everyone in such Congress. In fact one member cited Madison:

    “How is it that every person born in these United States owes allegiance to the Government? Every thing that he is or has, his property and his life, may be taken by the Government of the United States in its defense, or to maintain the honor of the nation. Senator Trumbull, William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 255 (1868)

    “The reason is this: the citizen is not responsible for the action of his government; and when his State, acting as a State, although she may act wrongfully, demands his obedience, he having been born upon her soil, she having the right to compel his obedience and to hang him if he refuses obedience, and the Federal Government not having the power to protect him from the consequences of disobedience, allegiance and protection behig reciprocal, he is justified if he obeys his State. This is no new doctrine. It is a doctrine recognized by the English law. It is a doctrine which was practiced upon and executed by the judgments of the courts in this country during your revolutionary war. It is the doctrine which Mr. Madison asserted in the case of William Smith in the First Congress of the United States.” Rep. Saulsbury, The congressional globe, Volume 58, Part 2, pg. 1450 (1867)

    “The honorable Senator from Kentucky…forgets this general process of nations and or nature by which every man, by his birth, is entitled to citizenship, and upon the general principle that he owes allegiance to the country of his birth, and that country owes him protection. That is the foundation, in my understanding, of all citizenship…” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

    “It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State. They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State. Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or nor. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law.” Rep. Thayer, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1152 (1866)

    “As a positive enactment this would hardly seem necessary….What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?” Congressman Broomall, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1262 (1866).

    “Blackstone says ‘The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.’ The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here… The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

  267. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

    Scientist: MichaelN: The framers (or at least a good number of them) read and understood French language.

    Moi aussi, je parle tres courrament le francais. Jamais, je ne traduirais pas “les naturels, ou indigenes” comme “natural born citizen”. La meilleure traduction est “the natives, or indiginous peoples”.

    “Found in the Library of Congress Website

    If you look at Article III in the body of the text below, you will see,

    Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d’autrui.

    Going down further to the end you will find under number 3,

    The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other

    Translation by Charles Thomson secretary of the Continental Congress

    This is pretty convincing proof that the framers did not need to wait for the 1797 translated edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
    It appears they were well apt to translate it themselves.

    This accepted translation of ‘naturel’ in 1781, predates John Jay’s 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.”

    Read the full article here ………….

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2604361/posts

    “Note by CDR K: This ‘naturels’ means ‘natural born’ translation in 1781 was subsequently confirmed by the 1797 translation of the part of the relevant sentence and paragraph in Vattel’s Law of Nation, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, that is, “natural-born Citizens, are those born in the country, to parents who are citizens”.
    Thus when the founders and framers wrote the Constitution in 1787 they clearly knew what “natural born Citizen” meant when they upgraded the Citizenship requirement in Article II from simply being a “born Citizen” as proposed by Hamilton to that of being a “natural born Citizen” as recommended by Jay as a strong check against foreign influence on the persons in the future who would be President and Commander of the military.
    And that meaning was understood to be a person born in the country to parents who are Citizens of the country.
    Such a person has sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to only the United States. That was the intent of the founders and framers for that legal term of art, natural born Citizen, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. T
    his restriction on the type of Citizen who could be President was a national security issue to them back then and it is still a national security issue to us now.”

  268. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 6:04 pm #

    Scientist: MichaelN: The framers (or at least a good number of them) read and understood French language.

    Moi aussi, je parle tres courrament le francais. Jamais, je ne traduirais pas “les naturels, ou indigenes” comme “natural born citizen”. La meilleure traduction est “the natives, or indiginous peoples”.

    You might like to read this ……..

    Translating Vattel’s works:

    http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1051/0586-01_Bk.pdf

    French text (about “natural” born citizens): “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
    ——————-
    To English, gives this: “the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens”

  269. avatar
    Suranis April 20, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    Great, to counter the people that wrote the 14th amendment and the constitution Mike brinks up Commander Kerchner, author with Mario Apuzzo of a frivolous court appeal and failed appeal to the supreme court.

  270. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm #

    MichaelN: French text (about “natural” born citizens): “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
    ——————-
    To English, gives this: “the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens”

    Lupin has pointed out that ‘parens’ is more properly translated as ‘ancestors’ rather than ‘parents’ – he’s more credible than a translation website.

  271. avatar
    Scientist April 20, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    MichaelN: To English, gives this: “the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens”

    In French, “natuu=rel’ is an adjective not a noun. Frankly, you could translate naturel as “naked” as in “au naturel” and indigenes cannot be anything but “indigenous”, whiich would mean native Americans. So really he was talking about naked Iroquois as best I can figure.

    The point is YOU CAN ONLY GUESS AT THE INTENT OF DEAD PEOPLE.

    We only have the actual words.

    natural born killer = killer from birth
    natural born fool = fool from birth
    natural born citizen = citizen from birth

  272. avatar
    gorefan April 20, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Scientist: at whiich point Michael shut up.

    Do you really think mike is smart enough to shut up?

  273. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    gorefan: Do you really think mike is smart enough to shut up?

    No. If he was, the loathsome garbage would have left long ago after having all of his inane ideas debunked a good dozen or so times…

  274. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 20, 2011 at 6:47 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means subject fully to the jurisdiction.

    But of course the conniving, deceit mongering revisionists and traitors would say otherwise.

    “Indians were excluded because they owed allegiance to their tribes. The Citizenship Clause’s drafters were careful to exclude Indians —deep-rooted in this land— from U.S. citizenship because they were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

    http://www.mnforsustain.org/immg_case_against_birthright_citizenship_hamdi.htm

    I love how mike the foreigner calls people traitors. Native Americans have their own government and are not technically apart of United States Soil.

  275. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I love how mike the foreigner calls people traitors.Native Americans have their own government and are not technically apart of United States Soil.

    But the native Americans are actually born soli.

    ‘NATIVE’ has only one meaning and it is a meaning that has no roots in municipal law and anyone who is a native of a place cannot have that status changed by any law of man.

    If you are born in a place, then you are native to that place, no one can change that condition.

    “Native:
    Noun: A person born in a specified place ….. ”

    “Native
    The word “native” (from Latin natus meaning “born”) has often been applied to ethnic groups to mean “a group who lived in some place before the arrival of other groups”; in this context, specifically, “before the arrival of the Europeans”.

    However, a more specific meaning of “native” is “born in,” and thus the term native American or native of the Americas could be applicable to anyone born in the Americas or in United States.”

    What is amusing is the law re: children of diplomats etc. who are exempt from being birthright US citizens but are born in US, are in fact actually ‘native’ to US, but are by an absurd exclusionary law, all of a sudden, not ‘native’ …………. it’s preposterous.

    So if ‘native’ born in US qualifies some people as citizens, then it must qualify all, otherwise it is an incorrect usage of the word ‘native’ to describe the former.

    If ‘native’ is the incorrect choice of word for those born in the land who have soli birthright citizenship & if ‘native’ means the same as ‘natural’ as the traitorous deceivers claim, then (with consideration of the exemption of the children of diplomats), so too is ‘natural’ the wrong word to describe those who are soli born citizens of the US.

    Ergo: ‘native’ and ‘natural’ by universal definition, do not mean the same thing & are not interchangeable.

  276. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 20, 2011 at 9:54 pm #

    MichaelN: But the native Americans are actually born soli.

    NATIVE’ has only one meaning and it is a meaning that has no roots in municipal law and anyone who is a native of a place cannot have that status changed by any law of man.

    If you are born in a place, then you are native to that place, no one can change that condition.

    “Native:
    Noun: A person born in a specified place ….. ”

    “Native
    The word “native” (from Latin natus meaning “born”) has often been applied to ethnic groups to mean “a group who lived in some place before the arrival of other groups”; in this context, specifically, “before the arrival of the Europeans”.

    However, a more specific meaning of “native” is “born in,” and thus the term native American or native of the Americas could be applicable to anyone born in the Americas or in United States.”

    What is amusing is the law re: children of diplomats etc. who are exempt from being birthright US citizens but are born in US, are in fact actually native’ to US, but are by an absurd exclusionary law, all of a sudden, not native’ …………. it’s preposterous.

    So if native’ born in US qualifies some people as citizens, then it must qualify all, otherwise it is an incorrect usage of the word native’ to describe the former.

    If native’ is the incorrect choice of word for those born in the land who have soli birthright citizenship & if native’ means the same as natural’ as the traitorous deceivers claim, then (with consideration of the exemption of the children of diplomats), so too is natural’the wrong word to describe those who are soli born citizens of the US.

    Ergo: native’ and natural’ by universal definition, do not mean the same thing & are not interchangeable.

    No Michael this may seem odd to you being an australian but Native American lands are not US Soil and aren’t taxed by the feds. Maybe you have more experience with your aborigines?

  277. avatar
    MichaelN April 20, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    Slartibartfast: MichaelN: French text (about “natural” born citizens): “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
    ——————-
    To English, gives this: “the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens”

    Lupin has pointed out that parens’ is more properly translated as ancestors’ rather than parents’ – he’s more credible than a translation website.

    Maybe you can translate this into English then

    “qui avait lance nos lointains ancytres sur la voie”

    Seems like the French word for ancestors is either or both “ancytres’ and/or ‘ancentres’

    Here’s a link to an ancestry site, so you can validate this for yourself.

    http://www.nosancetreslesgaulois.com/UK/

    http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/french-word-ancytre.html

  278. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 10:03 pm #

    MichaelN: Ergo: native’ and natural’ by universal definition, do not mean the same thing & are not interchangeable.

    Hey onionhead – I already explained to you that although the groups of people in each of those sets is not exactly the same, the vast overlap between the two (due to the rarity of exceptions – especially in the founders’ day) leads many people to use the terms as synonymous (although they technically are not). Once again you are trying to use logical fallacies to play tricks with definitions in a completely dishonest way (as well as in a manner contradictory to the way that everyone has understood the law to be for the past 200 years…). This is just the same $hit on a different day.

  279. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 10:21 pm #

    MichaelN: Maybe you can translate this into English then

    I’m not the one pretending he understands a French law book better than a french lawyer – I know it is a common tendency of amateurs to overestimate their expertise, but you take this to ridiculous extremes. Are you really that stupid?

  280. avatar
    Joey April 20, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    Both Hollister v Soetoro and Kerchner v Obama made the two citizen parents required for natural born citizen status arguments in their Petitions for Writs of Certiorari at the Supreme Court of the United States.
    Not even ONE of the nine justices asked attorneys representing President Obama to submit a brief responding to Hollister or Kerchner.
    Both petitions were denied without comment.
    So much for that failed legal theory with the Roberts Court
    And there have been NO congressional hearings held in the House of Representatives (with a Republican majority) on the two citizen parent theory applied to President Obama.
    If this was any kind of a “constitutional crisis,” there would be hearings.

  281. avatar
    Scientist April 20, 2011 at 10:30 pm #

    MichaelN: Seems like the French word for ancestors is either or both “ancytres’ and/or ancentres’

    Neither word exists in French. The word for ancestors is “ancetres” with a circumflex over the first e (indicating that there used to be an s; i.e., ancestres).

    Regardless, the Constitution was written in English. In English natural born means “from birth”. No Swiss philosopher writing in French changes the meaning of English words..

    There is only 1 way to say “born of 2 citizen parents” in Engliish, and that is “born of 2 citizen parents”

  282. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 20, 2011 at 10:52 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I’m not the one pretending he understands a French law book better than a french lawyer – I know it is a common tendency of amateurs to overestimate their expertise, but you take this to ridiculous extremes.Are you really that stupid?

    Slarti if you have to ask the question, you already have your answer.

  283. avatar
    Scientist April 20, 2011 at 10:56 pm #

    MichaelN: Here’s some French for you. See if you can translate it.

    Australien stupide, je pete dans votre direction generale!!

  284. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 20, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Slarti if you have to ask the question, you already have your answer.

    You’re right.

    Scientist:
    MichaelN:Here’s some French for you.See if you can translate it.

    Australien stupide, je pete dans votre direction generale!!

    I think I know what that means, but if he wont go away, you shall have to insult him a second time…

  285. avatar
    Greg April 20, 2011 at 11:57 pm #

    Michael, here’s Garrett Epps 75 pages on why you’re wrong about the 14th Amendment. And here’s James Ho on the same topic.

    When you’ve read them, you can respond to those. Until then, you can talk to the hand.

  286. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 12:16 am #

    Scientist: MichaelN: Seems like the French word for ancestors is either or both “ancytres’ and/or ancentres’

    Neither word exists in French. The word for ancestors is “ancetres” with a circumflex over the first e (indicating that there used to be an s; i.e., ancestres).

    Regardless, the Constitution was written in English. In English natural born means “from birth”. No Swiss philosopher writing in French changes the meaning of English words..

    There is only 1 way to say “born of 2 citizen parents” in Engliish, and that is “born of 2 citizen parents”

    My typo in ‘ancetres’ doesn’t change the fact that your reliance on Lupin’s attempt at deception was ill placed & verging on dishonest.

  287. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 12:19 am #

    MichaelN: My typo in ancetres’ doesn’t change the fact that your reliance on Lupin’s attempt at deception was ill placed & verging on dishonest.

    Lupin has made no attempts at deception nor dishonesty.

    You however, seem to do nothing but. …yet FAIL every time.

  288. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 12:22 am #

    MichaelN: My typo in ancetres’ doesn’t change the fact that your reliance on Lupin’s attempt at deception was ill placed & verging on dishonest.

    Did you know that the United States Constitution was written in 1787?

    You don’t seem to, since you cite French definitions from 2011.

    Or, maybe you don’t realize that the 2011 comes AFTER 1787.

    How to explain the complete ineptitude of your arguments?

    It’s a conundrum.

  289. avatar
    sfjeff April 21, 2011 at 12:52 am #

    It is hopeless to argue with a person that believes that a 17th century swiss philosopher decided who can be our President, and that everyone since the writing of the Constitution has been willfully ignoring Vattel.

    i don’t care what Vattel said. And neither do any real Americans. We believe in the Constitution and we know what natural born citizen means.

  290. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 12:55 am #

    Greg: MichaelN: My typo in ancetres’ doesn’t change the fact that your reliance on Lupin’s attempt at deception was ill placed & verging on dishonest.

    Did you know that the United States Constitution was written in 1787?

    You don’t seem to, since you cite French definitions from 2011.

    Or, maybe you don’t realize that the 2011 comes AFTER 1787.

    How to explain the complete ineptitude of your arguments?

    It’s a conundrum.

    You said:

    “since you cite French definitions from 2011.”
    ———————————————————————-

    No I didn’t.

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ancestor

    “Etymology

    Middle English ancestre, auncestre, ancessour; the first forms from Old French ancestre, French ancêtre, from the Latin nominative antecessor one who goes before; the last form from Old French ancessor, from Latin accusative antecessorem, from antecedo (“to go before”); ante (“before”) + cedo (“to go”). See cede, and compare with antecessor.”

  291. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 1:02 am #

    What is the French word for parents?
    I
    les parents

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_French_word_for_parents#ixzz1K8AujmtR

  292. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 1:05 am #

    What a bout this, how many times should I prove you WRONG?

    http://dictionary.reverso.net/french-english/grands-parents

    http://dictionary.reverso.net/french-english/ancetre

  293. avatar
    gorefan April 21, 2011 at 1:06 am #

    MichaelN: verging on dishonest

    Talk about dishonest. Mike your whole made up argument is dishonest.

    You still haven’t explain Chief Justice Cockburn’s complete rejection of your intellectually dishonest theory about English Common Law.

  294. avatar
    sfjeff April 21, 2011 at 1:07 am #

    I am not a linguist, nor do I speak another language fluently.

    But I do know that there is more to translation than translating a phrase with a dictionary word for word.

    If you want to know what a phrase in french means, ask a native french speaker.

  295. avatar
    gorefan April 21, 2011 at 1:13 am #

    MichaelN: What a bout this,

    what is the etymology of this “vous êtes merde d’tete”

  296. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 1:16 am #

    MichaelN: No I didn’t.

    Yes you did. Wiktionary was not written in 1787, now, was it? As a matter of fact, it even gives a copyright date at the bottom of the page: “This page was last modified on 13 April 2011, at 14:33.”

    It is, in fact, a 2011 source.

    Also, have you heard the word “synonym?” Apparently not, since you seem to think that a definition of a word as meaning something means that it is the exclusive word that means that.

    Words have multiple definitions, M, and words have overlapping definitions. For example, as the fogbow cite above points out, “parent” hasn’t even always been exclusively parent in English (and that this “blood relative” meaning came from French)

    Oxford English Dictionary (the paper version, the online one is too succinct) says English parent was often used with the same meaning of blood relative in English under French influence, but that usage is obsolete now.

  297. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 1:17 am #

    sfjeff:
    I am not a linguist, nor do I speak another language fluently.

    But I do know that there is more to translation than translating a phrase with a dictionary word for word.

    If you want to know what a phrase in french means, ask a native french speaker.

    I suspect Monsieur Lupin, Esq. will weigh in on the matter shortly and I’m sure that MichaelN will, once again, turn out to have been the idiot…

  298. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 1:24 am #

    Greg: Yes you did. Wiktionary was not written in 1787, now, was it? As a matter of fact, it even gives a copyright date at the bottom of the page: “This page was last modified on 13 April 2011, at 14:33.”

    It is, in fact, a 2011 source.

    Also, have you heard the word “synonym?” Apparently not, since you seem to think that a definition of a word as meaning something means that it is the exclusive word that means that.

    Words have multiple definitions, M, and words have overlapping definitions. For example, as the fogbow cite above points out, “parent” hasn’t even always been exclusively parent in English (and that this “blood relative” meaning came from French)

    Oops, I was a little late – Greg just showed your career as a translator to be an enormous FAIL (which is only to be expected – you are an incompetent birther [or is that an oxymoron?], after all…)

  299. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 1:26 am #

    I’ll point this out again, Michael, since you seem to want to distract from it. The Founders never, not once, cited Vattel on citizenship. He was the 29th most cited source, far less influential than Blackstone, who they did cite on citizenship.

    You love these rat-hole arguments, where you spin nonsense out into more nonsense, but the fact always remains that they’re nonsense.

    The Founders knew of Vattel. They cited him, 1/19th as often as Blackstone, and never about citizenship.

    There is zero evidence that they adopted Vattel’s argument.

    And, guess what? BEFORE your argument about what Vattel means has any relevance, you have to show that Vattel’s meaning had relevance to the Founders!

  300. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 1:39 am #

    Here are a bunch of things Vattel said that were completely uninfluential for the Founders.

    The Founders didn’t ban the free press, they didn’t ban guns, they didn’t establish a national religion. They didn’t allow the carrying off of women. Etc.

    Vattel was influential in certain areas of the law, specifically international relations. There is no evidence he was influential at all on the subject of citizenship.

    Michael’s evidence for Vattel’s influence on citizenship, namely that the Founders knew of Vattel and were familiar with Vattel and could read Vattel could be used just as easily to argue that the Founders wanted us to be able to carry off the women of our enemies and establish a national church for the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

  301. avatar
    Daniel April 21, 2011 at 1:42 am #

    sfjeff:
    I am not a linguist, nor do I speak another language fluently.

    But I do know that there is more to translation than translating a phrase with a dictionary word for word.

    If you want to know what a phrase in french means, ask a native french speaker.

    You are correct. Languages do not have a direct one-for-one translatable meaning for words. Even a native speaker of any language can be confused by it, if he stumbles into a different cultural context.

    A person from Hyde Park, London would have a confusing and difficult time understanding bar talk in The Bronx.

  302. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 1:43 am #

    James Madison = “He was the principal author of the United States Constitution, and is often called the ‘Father of the Constitution.'”

    James Madison: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; IT IS WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES

    Wait, the principal author of the United States Constitution, the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION believed that place is what matters in the United States?

    How did Vattel influence him again?

  303. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    Daniel: Even a native speaker of any language can be confused by it, if he stumbles into a different cultural context.

    Compare and contrast Michael’s continued struggle with the English language. He interprets Calvin’s Case to mean X, an interpretation at odds with every other writer/scholar who has looked at the case in the 403 years since it was decided!

  304. avatar
    misha April 21, 2011 at 1:52 am #

    Daniel: A person from Hyde Park, London would have a confusing and difficult time understanding bar talk in The Bronx.

    I got your birth certificate right here.

  305. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 2:06 am #

    Daniel: You are correct. Languages do not have a direct one-for-one translatable meaning for words. Even a native speaker of any language can be confused by it, if he stumbles into a different cultural context.

    To point out the one exception that proves the rule, there is a language where everything has exactly one meaning – mathematics. But French is not the language of Mathematics… MichaelN’s naive, juvenile belief that he has a better understanding than experts in, apparently, any field that he’s ever read a Wikipedia entry on or some such is a pathetic conceit that he should have out grown by age 12 (if he’s under 12, his parents should be ashamed of themselves [note that this statement doesn’t say that his parents shouldn’t be ashamed of themselves if MichaelN is over the age of 12 {and they should (do you see how that logic works, Mikey? Do you understand that words have precise meanings when used as jargon or ‘terms of art’? And that you are using different meanings which makes your interpretations completely invalid? Or is it all just too confusing for you?)}]).

  306. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 2:42 am #

    MichaelN: § 212. Of the citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    This is an incorrect translation of Vattel used by birthers.

    This is not what Vattel actually wrote. I’ll give you just one example: the word you translate by “parents” actually means “blood relatives” (ie: an uncle for example) There are other mistranslations.

    I have provided a correct & annotated translation of Vattel’s articles on this site; please search for them instead of repeating inaccurate information.

  307. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 2:44 am #

    Greg: Here are a bunch of things Vattel said that were completely uninfluential for the Founders.

    The Founders didn’t ban the free press, they didn’t ban guns, they didn’t establish a national religion. They didn’t allow the carrying off of women. Etc.

    Vattel was influential in certain areas of the law, specifically international relations. There is no evidence he was influential at all on the subject of citizenship.

    Michael’s evidence for Vattel’s influence on citizenship, namely that the Founders knew of Vattel and were familiar with Vattel and could read Vattel could be used just as easily to argue that the Founders wanted us to be able to carry off the women of our enemies and establish a national church for the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

    Yes, they chose what they thought was useful to them.

    Here’s a reality check, seeing as you are getting into semantics & your default silly contorting word games, trying to squeeze your deceitful juice from any wishy-washy comment that was ever made, when you know damn well that the framers meant in USC Article II, NBC to be a protective measure for the office of POTUS & to secure said office from any foreign influence, persuasion & claim.

    You whole pathetic dishonest argument is rooted in the absurd notion to the contrary, driven by petty partisan political agenda which keeps you dwelling in the darkness of your deception.

    i.e. you are trying to suppress the truth at any cost .. it’s really disgusting & disgraceful behavior.

    Reality check:

    “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State ”

    “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;” Bingham, Congressional Record”

    No amount of word games or juggling, or duration of time that the word games have persisted can, or does change this very basic principle stated by Bingham which was unopposed and thus taken as the generally accepted definition of NBC.

  308. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 2:49 am #

    I’d like to add that it’s not just poor old me. Paul reads Vattel the same way I do and frankly any French person with a modicum of legal & historical knowledge would.

  309. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 2:56 am #

    Slartibartfast: Lupin has pointed out that parens’ is more properly translated as ancestors’ rather than parents’ – he’s more credible than a translation website.

    To be accurate, the word “parents” can be construed, even today, as meaning blood relatives, living or dead.

    For instance if I say, “j’ai des parents qui vivent en Corse” (which is true in my case, by the way) the proper English translation is not “my parents live in Corsica” but “I have family living in Corsica”.

    If I said, “Mes parents viennent d’Alsace”, it may indeed mean “my parents come Alsace” but only as a subset of the larger meaning which is “my family come from Alsace”. In effect there is no way to determine if, when you say this, you actually mean your parents, your grand-parents, great-grandparents, etc.

    This is immediately intuitive to any native French speaker. You can verify this with anyone French.

  310. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 2:56 am #

    Lupin: I’ll give you just one example: the word you translate by “parents” actually means “blood relatives” (ie: an uncle for example)

    Of course it means ‘blood relative’ …….. that’s what a natural father is.

    It is clear that the use of ‘parens’ by Vattel was referring the the ‘blood relative’ father of the child.

    Ergo: Vattel was not referring to any uncle.

    Vattel:

    Ҥ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
    As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
    ——————————————————–

    http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    “Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English.”

    http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

  311. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 3:01 am #

    MichaelN: Lupin’s attempt at deception

    Bollocks! You’re the one who’s attempting a deception here by using a fraudulent translation.

    As I have mentioned, there is no way to equate with certainty Vattel’s terminology with the term “natural-born citizen”. I’m not saying that you can’t do it; I’m just saying it’s highly debatable.

    Two, if you do equate Vattel’s terminology to “NBC”, then using Vattel correctly, you will conclude that Obama is an NBC because of his relatives on his mother’s side.

    The alleged “two citizen parents” stipulation is another mistranslation of a group plural.

  312. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 3:12 am #

    Lupin.

    Do you suppose this guy did his homework?

    THE
    LAW OF NATIONS
    OR
    PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE
    APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS
    OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

    FROM THE FRENCH OF
    MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.

    FROM THE NEW EDITION, BY
    JOSEPH CHITTY, Esq. Barrister At Law
    WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES,
    By EDWARD D. INGRAHAM, Esq.

    PHILADELPHIA:
    T. & J. W. JOHNSON & CO., LAW BOOKSELLERS,
    No. 535 CHESTNUT STREET.
    1883.

    http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Documents/LawOfNations,Vattel.htm

    Quoting from the translation of JOSEPH CHITTY, Esq. Barrister At Law

    Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. “

  313. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 3:12 am #

    MichaelN: Of course it means blood relative’ …….. that’s what a natural father is.

    It is clear that the use of parens’ by Vattel was referring the the blood relative’ father of the child.

    Ergo: Vattel was not referring to any uncle.

    Vattel:

    Ҥ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
    As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
    ——————————————————–

    http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    “Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English.”

    http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    No you’re utterly and completely wrong.

    The only room for argument here is whether or not Vattel’s terms can be connected to the framers’ terminology, and indeed whether Vattel is at all relevant on the issue at hand. (I would think not but you can make the argument.)

    But there is no doubt as to what Vattel meant — and it is not what you say (which has already been debunked, and not just by me).

    Honestly, I couldn’t care less about Obama’s qualifications, I never argue here about WKA or other arcane US constitutional issues because it is not my field of expertise, but I do have 30+ years of legal experience in France, I actually read other works by Vattel, I knew Vattel before the poor man got dragged into the birthers’ web of lies, and I arrived here precisely because of this, so when I say that I know the issue, I do mean just that.

    Just accept that you’re wrong on this specific point: Vattel does NOT help disqualify Obama, period.

    Basically, you’re like a compass pointing to the south, arguing the letter “S” really means North.

  314. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 3:17 am #

    MichaelN: Lupin.

    Do you suppose this guy did his homework?

    I suppose your feeble point is that the previous translators did a competent job?

    Well, I’m sorry to say, in this instance, they did not.

    The world is full of poorly translated books. Most of Jules Verne’s “classic” translation in English are terrible. My wife happens to be a translator/editor and she has worked with English scholar Brian Stableford to retranslate a bunch of classic texts (such as PHANTOM OF THE OPERA) just because the original English translations are fairly bad.

    That seems to be a hallmark of translations made in the 19th and early 20th century, by the way.

  315. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 3:18 am #

    Lupin: MichaelN: Lupin’s attempt at deception

    Bollocks! You’re the one who’s attempting a deception here by using a fraudulent translation.

    As I have mentioned, there is no way to equate with certainty Vattel’s terminology with the term “natural-born citizen”. I’m not saying that you can’t do it; I’m just saying it’s highly debatable.

    Two, if you do equate Vattel’s terminology to “NBC”, then using Vattel correctly, you will conclude that Obama is an NBC because of his relatives on his mother’s side.

    The alleged “two citizen parents” stipulation is another mistranslation of a group plural.

    Vattel says FATHER (pere) so there goes your contorted theory .. there ain’t no wiggle room.

    The wife of the father took on the citizen/subject status of her husband.

  316. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 3:20 am #

    Dr. C:

    Perhaps — but only if you feel it is worth it? — you might find the post where I had provided a correct translation of the article in question, with footnotes, and provide a link to it. I am unable to find it myself.

    But only if you think it is worth repasting here. Except for the benefit of MichaelN, who persists in his delusion and is likely beyond reason, I don’t think I need to do this again.

  317. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 3:20 am #

    Lupin: The world is full of poorly translated books

    Yeah right.

    Take the USC for an example, on the part of the revisionists who did it deliberately.

  318. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 3:21 am #

    Lupin:
    Dr. C:

    Perhaps — but only if you feel it is worth it? — you might find the post where I had provided a correct translation of the article in question, with footnotes, and provide a link to it.I am unable to find it myself.

    But only if you think it is worth repasting here. Except for the benefit of MichaelN, who persists in his delusion and is likely beyond reason, I don’t think I need to do this again.

    Well? does Vattel refer to the FATHER as the ‘parent’?

    Yes or no?

  319. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 3:25 am #

    MichaelN: Vattel says FATHER (pere) so there goes your contorted theory .. there ain’t no wiggle room.

    The wife of the father took on the citizen/subject status of her husband.

    You REALLY do not understand what you read, do you? There’s no mutual exclusion here. No one (certainly not Vattel) is saying that Obama could not have inherited his father’s citizenship as well. The issue of dual citizenship (or more accurately potential dual citizenship) is a different issue altogether. What Vattel says is that Obama is a naturel or indigene because of his blood relatives. That’s all that matters.

  320. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 3:27 am #

    MichaelN: Well? does Vattel refer to the FATHER as the parent’?

    Yes or no?

    Not exclusively, no. You ARE an idiot.

  321. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 3:27 am #

    Lupin: To be accurate, the word “parents” can be construed, even today, as meaning blood relatives, living or dead.

    For instance if I say, “j’ai des parents qui vivent en Corse” (which is true in my case, by the way) the proper English translation is not “my parents live in Corsica” but “I have family living in Corsica”.

    If I said, “Mes parents viennent d’Alsace”, it may indeed mean “my parents come Alsace” but only as a subset of the larger meaning which is “my family come from Alsace”. In effect there is no way to determine if, when you say this, you actually mean your parents, your grand-parents, great-grandparents, etc.

    This is immediately intuitive to any native French speaker. You can verify this with anyone French.

    Yeah ………………. up can be interpreted as down, depending whether you are standing on your head or not.

    Vattel refers and assigns the FATHER as the ‘parent’ in the context of 212

    You are cherry-picking and playing silly word games and as such, trying to contort what actually is being said by Vattel.

    Try to be honest, maybe consideration of Occam’s razor would be helpful to you.

  322. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 3:32 am #

    Lupin: Not exclusively, no. You ARE an idiot.

    I was correct in saying you are dishonest.

    Here’s link to the French text, where it clearly says ‘la condition de leurs peres’

  323. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 3:33 am #

    ooops

    here’s the link

    http://www.birthers.org/img/Vattel.jpg

  324. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 3:35 am #

    MichaelN: Vattel refers and assigns the FATHER as the parent’ in the context of 212

    You are cherry-picking and playing silly word games and as such, trying to contort what actually is being said by Vattel.

    Try to be honest, maybe consideration of Occam’s razor would be helpful to you.

    As I said I have no stake in this, other than defending the integrity of a dead writer whose works I like very much and who is being misquoted and misused by a bunch of delusional cretins like you.

    Trying to reason with you is like trying to explain something to a kid with Asperger.

    It is quite obvious to any French legal scholar that the circumstances of Obama’s birth & parentage would make him a naturel according to Vattel’s definition. There would be no doubt, no arguments about it.

    If you don’t believe me, I invite you to contact other French legal scholars at the Sorbonne (my alma mater) and put the same question to them. You’ll get the same answer you get from me.

    No one will go as far as saying how this question may or may not relate to the US constitution, so that aspect of the question remains arguable, but certainly if we stay 100% within Vattel’s historical framework, you’ll get the same answer.

    I’m sorry it’s not the answer you want, but that’s a fact. To argue against it just makes you look even more foolish.

  325. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 3:35 am #

    Lupin: You REALLY do not understand what you read, do you? There’s no mutual exclusion here. No one (certainly not Vattel) is saying that Obama could not have inherited his father’s citizenship as well. The issue of dual citizenship (or more accurately potential dual citizenship) is a different issue altogether. What Vattel says is that Obama is a naturel or indigene because of his blood relatives. That’s all that matters.

    Vattel refers EXCLUSIVELY to the FATHER of the child.

  326. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 3:37 am #

    MichaelN: I was correct in saying you are dishonest.

    Here’s link to the French text, where it clearly says la condition de leurs peres’

    No it is you who do not understand the entirety of the article. As I said for the hundredth time, that a subset of the larger determination which has to do with parentage. In effect Obama is a native AND he inherits his father’s citizenship.

  327. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 3:38 am #

    MichaelN: Vattel refers EXCLUSIVELY to the FATHER of the child.

    No he does not. Just repeating it doesn’t make it so. It just makes you sound mentally handicapped.

  328. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 3:55 am #

    Another aspect of the French language that is not understood in relation with this Vattel article is that of gender. Unlike English, French, German, etc. have gender-based vocabulary and the grammatical rule is “le masculin l’emporte” which means that the default option is always the male gender in terms of grammar and syntax.

    Historically, of course, men have always played a more significant role than women, which is why we speak of “Founding Fathers” or the “Fathers of the Church” and not “Founding Fathers and Mothers” etc. In a gender-based language, even if you had Founding Fathers and Mothers, you would still likely say just Founding Fathers anyway, the word “Father” in that context describing the entire parental unit.

    Which is is why when a French scholar reads Vattel, he starts with the overall common sense definition that citizens are born from & into the families of citizens, and the subsequent use of “father” (which by the way was footnoted to include mothers in the second edition, as i have mentioned before) can be construed either as a subset of the general principle or an application of the rule “le masculin l’emporte”, but in no way as an exclusionary principle.

    If Obama has been born in the 17th century in Geneva from a Swiss mother and a traveling British salesman, there is absolutely no doubt that he would have been considered by Vattel and indeed the Swiss as a Swiss native, unless of course he chose to go to England to be with his father, in which case then British law would have applied.

    This, really, is not a controversial reading of Vattel, but pretty much obvious.

  329. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 4:02 am #

    Lupin: No he does not. Just repeating it doesn’t make it so. It just makes you sound mentally handicapped.

    It’s nice to know that MichaelN mangles the French as badly as he does the English – I guess he figured that since we were pointing out his logical fallacies in English, he would try to see if he could take a French quote out of context and trick you into answering ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’. He isn’t a very clever troll, but he more than makes up for it with ignorance, bigotry, and hypocrisy.

    By the way, I thought your comments were a tour de force – it’s too bad MichaelN is too stupid to realize just how dishonest and ignorant he is…

  330. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 4:15 am #

    Lupin: In effect Obama is a native AND he inherits his father’s citizenship.

    That makes Obama a British subject, just like he himself said. (i.e. IF he was actually born in US)

    Obama has NEVER claimed (publicly) to be a NBC, he HAS claimed to be ‘native’, and born subject to English nationality Act.

  331. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 4:19 am #

    Slartibartfast: By the way, I thought your comments were a tour de force – it’s too bad MichaelN is too stupid to realize just how dishonest and ignorant he is…

    Considering how truly tenuous and likely irrelevant this all is to the US constitutional issue, I wish they would stop dragging poor Vattel out if his pine box. 🙂

    And merci for the tour de force!

  332. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 4:24 am #

    MichaelN: That makes Obama a British subject, just like he himself said. (i.e. IF he was actually born in US)

    Obama has NEVER claimed (publicly) to be a NBC, he HAS claimed to be native’, and born subject to English nationality Act.

    That’s another issue entirely. (Moving the goal posts, eh?)

    First, Obama was POTENTIALLY a British subject, meaning he was ENTITLED to British citizenship (or so I suppose), but in order to actually obtain it, he (or his family) would have had to fill in various paperwork, applications, etc. Otherwise it remains virtual.

    Since he didn’t do it (from what I understand) then he was NOT a dual citizen. The fact that he had the POTENTIAL to become one dies not mean that he WAS one.

    As a subsidiary question, while you may indeed argue that a dual citizen should be ineligible to run for President, I don’t believe that there’s anything in US Law that actually states that — although I’ll be happy if someone else jumps in.

    So basically you have nothing.

  333. avatar
    The Magic M April 21, 2011 at 4:29 am #

    > which means that the default option is always the male gender in terms of grammar and syntax

    The birfers with their 1750-based perception of “how the world should be” also like to refer to the Declaration of Independence with its “that all *men* are created equal” and are quoting it as a reference that the mother cannot convey citizenship.
    Doubleplus-Super-Birther-fool Jedi Pauly even takes the DoI as “scientific proof” that only the male part of the family matters. I have repeatedly called him out for that until even my best stealth account at the Pee and Eee was banned.

    > Vattel refers EXCLUSIVELY to the FATHER of the child.

    The funny thing is you birthers can’t even be consistent. Actually, the hardcore birther NBC answer to this is: “Since Vattel speaks of ‘de parents citoyens’ when talking about ‘les naturels ou indigènes’, he says two citizen parents are required. So either he is contradicting himself later when talking only about the father *or* the paragraph where he’s talking about the father refers to citizenship only (‘pour être d’un pays’) and not natural born citizenship”. Not that that makes any sense in the real world, though. 😉

    > which is why we speak of “Founding Fathers” or the “Fathers of the Church” and not “Founding Fathers and Mothers” etc

    Depends. In German, we used to speak of the “Fathers of the Constitution” (referring to 1949) until political correctness became commonplace, so today we’re using “Fathers and Mothers of the Constitution” almost everywhere.
    This has led to lots of clumsiness because some people believe they have to mention both the male and the female form everywhere. At one time, an attempt was made to merge the two forms using the “Binnen-I” (“intermediate capital i”) so that e.g. “Student” (male student) and “Studentin” (female student) would be merged to “StudentIn” (the vast majority of German nouns is brought into female form by appending “in”). This only had a short life in the 80s, though.

  334. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 4:31 am #

    MichaelN: That makes Obama a British subject, just like he himself said.

    Which has no possible relevance to President Obama’s natural born status – you may be willing to throw away US Sovereignity, but most Americans aren’t (and we react badly to those who try to take it away from us…).

    Lupin: Considering how truly tenuous and likely irrelevant this all is to the US constitutional issue, I wish they would stop dragging poor Vattel out if his pine box.

    And merci for the tour de force!

    Bitte schoen (German is the only other language [besides English, math, and Python] that I learned to any degree [I certainly can’t remember any Latin from high school…]) The birthers love Vattel because he gives the perfect opportunity to get bogged down in abstruse details (all the better to avoid looking at the big picture that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever…) that most people wont have the fortitude to debunk (that was certainly MichaelN’s M.O. with Calvin’s case, anyway). They seem to have no idea how transparent their attempts to conceal their bigotry and ignorance with stupidity and dishonesty are.

  335. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 4:35 am #

    Lupin: As a subsidiary question, while you may indeed argue that a dual citizen should be ineligible to run for President, I don’t believe that there’s anything in US Law that actually states that — although I’ll be happy if someone else jumps in.

    My understanding is that the US doesn’t cede its Sovereignity to any country who would like to take it, but birthers have a different (and stoopider) opinion.

  336. avatar
    Majority Will April 21, 2011 at 5:08 am #

    Slartibartfast: (German is the only other language [besides English, math, and Python]

    Then you know there are only 10 kinds of people in the world. There are those who understand binary and those who don’t. Then there are those who understand trinary, those who don’t understand trinary and those who mistake it for binary.

    But the true method is to value those who have class as an objective, see?

  337. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 5:12 am #

    Majority Will: Then you know there are only 10 kinds of people in the world. There are those who understand binary and those who don’t. Then there are those who understand trinary, those who don’t understand trinary and those who mistake it for binary.

    But the true method is to value those who have class as an objective, see?

    There are three kinds of mathematicians, those that can count and the other kind.

  338. avatar
    Suranis April 21, 2011 at 6:07 am #

    Well, we can definatly see Mike has learned his lesson. He just spouted his John Binham nonsense on Orly Taitz’s fake “Recall Governer Brewer” online petition.

    But seriously Lupin, that was the most vicious taunting by a Frenchman I have seen since Monty Python and the Holy Grail. *respect*

  339. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 6:31 am #

    Suranis: But seriously Lupin, that was the most vicious taunting by a Frenchman I have seen since Monty Python and the Holy Grail. *respect*

    I suspect his mother smells of elderberry too! 🙂

  340. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 8:24 am #

    Lupin: As a subsidiary question, while you may indeed argue that a dual citizen should be ineligible to run for President, I don’t believe that there’s anything in US Law that actually states that — although I’ll be happy if someone else jumps in.

    Nothing in US law would prevent even holding another citizenship while in the White House. Of course, any opponent is certainly free to raise that as a campaign issue for the voters consideration. In Obama’s case, it is unclear that he ever actually held British nationality as opposed to having a right to claim it if he chose. I would analogize it to holding a call option on a stock; it gives you a right to acquire shares, but you are not a shareholder until you exercise the option. Obama’s option was converted to Kenyan citizenship at independence and expired when he turned 23. Since he never set foot in Kenya until well after that, he was never under British or Kenyan jurisdiction. It’s a total non-issue in his case.

    In regards Vattel, what he wrote is irrelevant. What someone guesses the framers meant to say is irrelevant. Only the actual words voted on and approved matter. Taken free from all Ouija board attempts to mind read the dead, the plain English meaning of “natural born citizen” is citizen from birth. All other commentary is nothing but mental masturbation. Mike is just stroking as it were.

  341. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2011 at 8:28 am #

    Lupin: Perhaps — but only if you feel it is worth it? — you might find the post where I had provided a correct translation of the article in question, with footnotes, and provide a link to it. I am unable to find it myself

    But of course, Monsieur Lupin.

    This is one of the blog’s most treasured comments, and a link to it may be found through the menu under Features | Comments.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/freepers-score-one-gotcha-on-the-doc/#comment-75911

    I offer my sincere apologies for the really cheesy French accent I am thinking as I write this note.

  342. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 8:42 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is one of the blog’s most treasured comments, and a link to it may be found through the menu under Features | Comments.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/freepers-score-one-gotcha-on-the-doc/#comment-75911

    Actually, that’s not the post I was thinking of.

    I know a few months ago I was so fed up with having the very same type of argument that I did a literal translation of that Vattel article verbatim, adding footnotes like (1), (2), (3), (4) etc into the text, and then,right after the translation, the footnotes discussed the various meanings of certain key words.

    That’s the post I was looking for. Perhaps you can find it.

    I do appreciate the time taken on a rather quixotic enterprise, tho.

  343. avatar
    Keith April 21, 2011 at 8:48 am #

    OK, don’t spoil it for me yet.

    I’ve not been on the computer much today, and I’m just scanning this thread. I’ve just got to the part where Slarti has exhausted the Dictionary of Slang and resorted to invoking routines from 30yo SNL episodes.

    I’ve got to go pop some popcorn, in anticipation of Lupin going off… back in a moment…

    I know this doesn’t make a lot of sense being tagged on to the end, but I’ve had most of a bottle of wine (Wild Duck Creek Estate 1998 Springflat Shiraz if you must know), and I don’t really care

  344. avatar
    Keith April 21, 2011 at 8:57 am #

    MichaelN: “Indians were excluded because they owed allegiance to their tribes. The Citizenship Clause’s drafters were careful to exclude Indians —deep-rooted in this land— from U.S. citizenship because they were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

    Are Roman Catholics excluded because they owe allegiance to the Pope?

    Just asking.

  345. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 9:15 am #

    Re Bingham, Michael, I posted Garrett Epps article above. I’m not going to recapitulate his 75 pages about why you’re wrong. But, I’d point out that Bingham didn’t write the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. James Madison, by contrast is the author of the Constitution, and as I pointed out above, his definition of citizenship – jus soli – is at odds with your Vattel theory.

  346. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    Lupin: Not exclusively, no. You ARE an idiot.

    § 212. Citizens and natives.

    Two types of citizens – one type, the generic, but not necessarily native or natural born.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”

    The other type of citizen, distinct by qualities of nativity and natural born, yet a sub-set of the generic ‘citizens’.

    Per Lupin, these are those who are born in the country, of a citizen parent father who can be mom’s husband, bonk-buddy, uncle, cousin, grand-father or brother whoever bonked the child’s mom.

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    The society would fade out to extinction without procreation of native or natural born citizens that come via the fathers, (Vattell uses French for father here i.e. peres and not ‘parens’) but that don’t matter as long as it is some bloke who is a citizen, who gives a heck about potential genetic mutations risks.

    So if hubby, bonk buddy, grand-dad, cousin, uncle or brother bonk mom, thats ok, Vattel is advocating family incest, according to Lupi, and society will perpetuate itself with all these genetically mutated ‘special children’, oh let’s go hug a tree together. …. kumbaya , society’s perpetuating just fine and dandy.

    They even get to inherit all their rights, like bonk mom, granny, aunty, & sister…. whoooopie

    Meanwhile the local Dept of Vital Statics pulls-up stakes and mass exoduses to Hawaii.

    “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

    This is what EVERY one wants, one great big natural incestuous happy society of ‘special children’, but no problemo, they can all go to ‘special schools’ and kumbaya all day long ……….. and hug trees and count who’s got the most finger and heads.

    One big happy society, where it doesn’t matter who’s ya daddy, you still get to be a natural born citizen no matter who’s ya daddy and be a part of it all and preserve it.

    “The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”

    ‘Incestland’ that who’s ya daddy is a citizen, is land of the ‘special childrens’ land & they get to be citizens of ‘Incestland’, to to preserve the incestuous free for all, having three-legged races & wipe ya butt with ya chin competitions. … but hey your a ‘natural born’ sumfin’, that’s what really matters.

    “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

    But who knows, the ‘special children’, when they get a bit older, might get to like bonking some other thingy or just can’t figure out where it goes or renounce their incestuous backgound or go sterile or gay or just go huggin’ trees or sumfin’.

    “We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

    But incest rules in ‘Incestland’ and if who’s ya daddy comes from there, the ‘special child belongs their too as a member to perpetuate the society, like just go bonk mom, sis, gran, aunty, don’t matter they can be a parent with ya, but ya don’t get ta be a member, unless who’s ya daddy is a member of ‘Incestland’ coz if who’s ya daddy is from some other place then tuff titties, ya can’t be a member of the free for all mob, ya just gotta be a local fringe dweller or go back to who’s ya non-citizen daddy’s land.

    “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

  347. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 10:04 am #

    Bottom line is that it is the citizen status of the father and born in the land that the father is a citizen of, that makes a natural born citizen.

  348. avatar
    Keith April 21, 2011 at 10:05 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): No Michael this may seem odd to you being an australian but Native American lands are not US Soil and aren’t taxed by the feds. Maybe you have more experience with your aborigines?

    (begin off topic rant)

    Indiginous Australians (Aborigines) are legally not human beings.The entire justification for white settlement is that the land was empty (terra nullius) when Cook arrived. Since the land was clearly heavily populated, it follows that that population was not human; how else could the land be terra nullius?

    At first the natives were hunted down like animals, but gradually they were subjected to assimilation policies similar to those of the American Indian and Saami.

    Some progress has been made in overturning this. Aborigines were granted citizenship in 1949 (actually the same time as white Australians since previously they had been British, due to a quirk in the independence law) and the right to vote in the various States in the 1960s’. A 1967 Constitutional referendum removed all mention of Aborigines from the Constitution and allowed that Federal Parliament could make laws with respect to “The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws” (that phrase previously assigned responsibility for Aborigines to the States). So now they are discriminated against in the same way in all States and Territories.

    Then in the 1990’s the Mabo case (named after the main litigant Eddie Mabo and pronounced Mar-bow) the High Court of Australia ruled that Native Title did exist and could co-exist with modern title. Mabo was a direct strike against terra nullius, however, the Howard Government immediately legislated to make it virtually impossible for Native Title to be established.

    In the mid 2000’s the Howard Government, with the express approval of the major opposition party, imposed an ‘intervention’ on Aboriginal Communities, especially in the Northern Territory, but extended to other states as well. Ostensibly the intervention was ordered to investigate supposed rampant child sex abuse in remote communities and provide a focus on children’s health in general.

    In fact little abuse was identified (I know 1 case is too many), less than in the white population, and after the initial wave of health checks, almost zero follow-up has occurred.. The main result was to put Indigenous run businesses out of business because the Community organizations were defunded and shut down and to impose an almost impossible regime of financial controls that most parents would not inflict on their 10yo offspring. Their dole money (which they are now 100% dependent upon) is deposited into a debit card which can only be used at Government approved stores which are often hundreds of miles from the community requiring expensive expeditions to buy food. When they do find a store, their discretion on how they spend their own money is restricted. Humiliation at this patronizing treatment is driving the suicide rate to record levels.

    The new Rudd/Gillard governments continue to defend this indecent abomination of a policy.

    (end of off-topic rant)

  349. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 10:06 am #

    Even if your dad’s your uncle.

  350. avatar
    JoZeppy April 21, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    MichaelN: Bottom line is that it is the citizen status of the father and born in the land that the father is a citizen of, that makes a natural born citizen.

    Bottom line is you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, andyou’re dead wrong.

  351. avatar
    ballantine April 21, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    MichaelN:
    Bottom line is that it is the citizen status of the father and born in the land that the father is a citizen of, that makes a natural born citizen.

    Well that settles it. Who cares what the the supreme court has said, or Madison or every legal scholar in the founding period. I guess the framers themselves were wrong as they used the term “native” repeatedly in the Constitutional Convention. If they were following Vattel they would have thought “native” meant the same thing as “natural born citizen” as from your quote ““The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Of course, the version the framers read only had “native.” However, the framers clearly used “native” in reference to place of birth alone, i.e., the Blackstone meaning of the word that was equated to natural born subject, and only the framers only debated whether the foreign born should be precluded from holding office. So there were two definition of “native” in such period, Vattel’s and Blackstone’s. The framers used the Blackstone definition when discussing eligibility. Pretty much end of story.

    So, let’s see, the supreme court has embraced the jus soli meaning, the framers themselves only talked of place of birth when discussing eligibility and no birther can find a single person in the first 80 years of our republic defining “natural born citizen” by Vattel’s definition. I really would like to see these arguments laughed out of court if only the birthers can find an attorney smart enough understand standing. Would be very amusing to see the sanctions fly.

  352. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 10:22 am #

    Michael’s truly gone off the deep end with that incest rag. The surest way to prevent an incestuous society is to bring in people from elsewhere and make their children full members of the society. It’s Michael that believes in incest; i.e. limiting full membership in the society to a very narrowly-based group. In fact, incest might explain Michael’s mental defects.

  353. avatar
    Keith April 21, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    Lupin: No you’re utterly and completely wrong.

    Bingo!

  354. avatar
    The Magic M April 21, 2011 at 10:33 am #

    > Michael’s truly gone off the deep end with that incest rag.

    I don’t even get what he wants to say with that post. When I read it, I thought this is another lunatic telling the birthers that “NBC = two citizen parents” is a bad idea because it makes children from incestuous relationships NBC also. However I don’t see what “natural born citizen” (in whatever definition) should have to do with incest.

  355. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 10:37 am #

    Keith: Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): No Michael this may seem odd to you being an australian but Native American lands are not US Soil and aren’t taxed by the feds. Maybe you have more experience with your aborigines?

    I have had enough experience with aborigines of (what we call) Australia, to appreciate their predicament and highly respect their spiritual state of being.

    Have you ever been here and had first-hand experience with any of these people?

    It’s interesting to note, approximately 40,000 years and they didn’t ‘advance’ or ‘progress’ with technology, even to construct permanent abodes, use wheels, farm land (agriculture as we know it) form governments as a united nation of people & most importantly, they basically left only their foot-prints, some rock carvings and paintings, they kept the place pristine and lived with and in nature as there ‘home’.

    Whether native American ‘lands’ are legally considered US soil doesn’t alter the fact that anyone born in the geographical USA as a whole, and any part within it, is a native of geographical USA.

    Native born doesn’t mean citizen born.

    Natural born, aside from being usable as a term to say born without artificial aid or process, appears to only be usable in a context of society membership.

    That’s why ‘native born citizen’ does not mean the same as ‘natural born Citizen’ yet a NBC is a native of the land he is a NBC of.

  356. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    Scientist:
    The surest way to prevent an incestuous society is to bring in people from elsewhere and make their children full members of the society.

    Immigration and naturalization does that.

    The surest way to have incestuous society, increase health risk, crime & send the nation broke is to have undocumented illegal aliens move in.

  357. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    Oh , and add to that, have the usurper, hate USA, Obama at the helm.

  358. avatar
    Keith April 21, 2011 at 10:47 am #

    Scientist: In fact, incest might explain Michael’s mental defects.

    How could I have missed the clues that Michael is from Tasmania?

  359. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 10:51 am #

    The Magic M: > Michael’s truly gone off the deep end with that incest rag.

    I don’t even get what he wants to say with that post. When I read it, I thought this is another lunatic telling the birthers that “NBC = two citizen parents” is a bad idea because it makes children from incestuous relationships NBC also. However I don’t see what “natural born citizen” (in whatever definition) should have to do with incest.

    It’s just a silly rant to address Lupin’s word-twisting Vattel’s 212, stating that ‘parens’ in French, means anyone can be the fathers (mentioned in French as ‘peres’) Lupin citing uncles as possibly being the fathers.

  360. avatar
    Keith April 21, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    MichaelN:
    I have had enough experience with aborigines of (what we call) Australia, to appreciate their predicament and highly respect their spiritual state of being.

    Are you trying to tell me that some of your best friends are Aborigines? I’ve heard that before.

    Have you ever been here and had first-hand experience with any of these people?

    Yes.

    I have lived in Australia for almost 30 years.

    In two weeks I am leaving on yet another driving/camping trip through the centre (to see Lake Eyre in flood, mostly). We will be staying with Aborigine communities in most places.

  361. avatar
    JD Reed April 21, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    Unless I missed it, Michael keeps dodging the James Madison observation about jus soli prevailing in the infant United States of America. C’mon, Michael — explain away Madison. And while you’re at it, explain how you would get Justice Scalia’s vote for your Vattel argument, since he says that only the text matters, not what those who wrote the text intended. Nowhere in the text of the constitutioin, nor in the debate of the constitution — not that Scalia gives much credence to legislative debate; again it’s the text that matters — do the founders advance the Vattelist theory. Or so I’ve read; so far I haven’t found the time or the inclination to slog through the notes made by Madison and others on the constitutional convention. But if there had been any support for the Vattelist theory in said constitutional deliberatlons, I’m sure a birther would have found it. And I have read the constitution with some frequency, and therre’s no requirement of citizen parents there. None.

  362. avatar
    Keith April 21, 2011 at 11:05 am #

    MichaelN: Native born doesn’t mean citizen born.

    It does in the United States, for anyone who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    And that means everyone except foreign diplomats, members of invading armies, and maybe Reservation Indians who are still untaxed.

  363. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    MichaelN:
    Bottom line is that it is the citizen status of the father and born in the land that the father is a citizen of, that makes a natural born citizen.

    Not in the US, no. If the child is born here, an the parents aren’t ambassadors or invading armies then the child is a natural born citizen.

    Maybe in Australia. I don’t know and I don’t pretend that I’m a legal expert on Australian law.

  364. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    MichaelN: the usurper

    That term implies that somewhere out there is the rightful holder of the office of President, a sort of President-in waiting,, like Bonnie Prince Charlie or one of the Roman Popes in the latter years of the Avignon Popes. An office can only be usurped if the rightful holder is deprived of it.

    So,, Mikey, who is actually the rightful President today?

  365. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    MichaelN: The other type of citizen, distinct by qualities of nativity and natural born, yet a sub-set of the generic citizens’.

    Per Lupin, these are those who are born in the country, of a citizen parent father who can be mom’s husband, bonk-buddy, uncle, cousin, grand-father or brother whoever bonked the child’s mom.

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    The society would fade out to extinction without procreation of native or natural born citizens that come via the fathers, (Vattell uses French for father here i.e. peres and not parens’) but that don’t matter as long as it is some bloke who is a citizen, who gives a heck about potential genetic mutations risks.

    So if hubby, bonk buddy, grand-dad, cousin, uncle or brother bonk mom, thats ok, Vattel is advocating family incest, according to Lupi, and society will perpetuate itself with all these genetically mutated special children’, oh let’s go hug a tree together. …. kumbaya , society’s perpetuating just fine and dandy.

    They even get to inherit all their rights, like bonk mom, granny, aunty, & sister…. whoooopie

    That’s it. He’s finally gone off the deep end. Word salad plus long repressed sexual inhibitions erupting to the surface.

    I can almost feel the spittle through the screen.

    I’ve been accosted by smelly men wearing raincoats and insisting on handing me greasy fliers in the metro that made more sense than you.

    I’ve listened to more coherent rants from individuals dressed in yellow bird suits on Hyde Park Corner.

    If I had a big fish, I would slap you with it until you fell into the canal of your own xenophobic delusions.

    What Vattel meant to say is relatively clear, if not terribly well expressed, to any French legal scholar. You don’t have to take my word for it either. It is just what I said: if Obama had been born in Geneva to a British traveler and a Swiss mother and stayed in Switzerland, he would have been considered a Swiss naturel or indigene by Vattel and anyone else.

    That is a FACT.

  366. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 11:36 am #

    MichaelN: It’s just a silly rant to address Lupin’s word-twisting Vattel’s 212, stating that parens’ in French, means anyone can be the fathers (mentioned in French as peres’) Lupin citing uncles as possibly being the fathers.

    Of course I never said that as everyone here realizes.

    But to discern the truth you’d first have to stop digging and climb out of your pungent hole.

  367. avatar
    Lupin April 21, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    MichaelN: The surest way to have incestuous society, increase health risk, crime & send the nation broke is to have undocumented illegal aliens move in.

    Ding! Ding! Ding!

    The hood comes out!

    Pushed against the wall, the ugly truth is blurted out.

    Scary black people, miscegenation, booga booga.

    As i always say (ad nauseam, apologies to everyone else) birthers are basically racists.

  368. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    Keith:
    OK, don’t spoil it for me yet.

    Oh, but I must…

    I’ve not been on the computer much today, and I’m just scanning this thread. I’ve just got to the part where Slarti has exhausted the Dictionary of Slang

    It’s Possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It’s conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I’m only replying to you because I lack the vocabulary to further insult Mikey. But, then again… perhaps I have the verbiage after all.

    DROP… YOUR… KEYBOARD!

    and resorted to invoking routines from 30yo SNL episodes.

    If I wanted to do a whole routine about Mikey…

    Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. No Blackstone! Vattel! No Subject! Subject! Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad. Calvin’s dad…

    I’ve got to go pop some popcorn, in anticipation of Lupin going off… back in a moment…

    It was, as I said above, a tour de force (which only improved after that…).

    I know this doesn’t make a lot of sense being tagged on to the end, but I’ve had most of a bottle of wine (Wild Duck Creek Estate 1998 Springflat Shiraz if you must know), and I don’t really care

    Well, comparatively speaking, it is crystal-clear compared to the incestuous word salad that Mikey has descended into… like the inbred maggot that he is.

  369. avatar
    Joey April 21, 2011 at 3:04 pm #

    Greg: Not in the US, no. If the child is born here, an the parents aren’t ambassadors or invading armies then the child is a natural born citizen.

    Maybe in Australia. I don’t know and I don’t pretend that I’m a legal expert on Australian law.

    As a three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals already unanimously ruled: “…we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes REGARDLESS OF THE BIRTHPLACE OF THEIR PARENTS.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et.al. v The Governor of Indiana, November 12, 2009
    No higher court has overruled the decision in Ankeny. No other court has ruled differently from the court in Ankeny with regard to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to be the 44th President of the United States
    The 12th Amendment to the US Constitution states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electoral College and has those votes counted and certified by the Vice President of the United States in his role as President of the Senate at a joint session of Congress held to count and certify the electoral college vote without written objection from at least one US Senator and one member of the House of Representatives “SHALL BE PRESIDENT.”
    Barack Hussein Obama II received 365 Electoral College votes, a clear majority. Those votes were counted and certified without objection by Vice President Dick Cheney. Barack Hussein Obama II then met the only other constitutional requirement to be president, he took the Oath of Office administered by Chief Justice John Roberts on Inauguration Day.

  370. avatar
    Joey April 21, 2011 at 3:08 pm #

    MichaelN: Immigration and naturalization does that.

    The surest way to have incestuous society, increase health risk, crime & send the nation broke is to have undocumented illegal aliens move in.

    The most politically conservative president in recent history, Ronald Wilson Reagan, is also the only US President to ever sign a bill into law which granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens back in 1986. The US has had periods of prosperity and even years of annual budget surplus since 1986.

  371. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    MichaelN: It’s just a silly rant to address Lupin’s word-twisting Vattel’s 212, stating that parens’ in French, means anyone can be the fathers (mentioned in French as peres’) Lupin citing uncles as possibly being the fathers.

    Michael do you speak fluent french?

  372. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 4:06 pm #

    MichaelN: I have had enough experience with aborigines of (what we call) Australia, to appreciate their predicament and highly respect their spiritual state of being.

    Have you ever been here and had first-hand experience with any of these people?

    It’s interesting to note, approximately 40,000 years and they didn’t advance’ or progress’ with technology, even to construct permanent abodes, use wheels, farm land (agriculture as we know it) form governments as a united nation of people & most importantly, they basically left only their foot-prints, some rock carvings and paintings, they kept the place pristine and lived with and in nature as there ‘home’.

    Whether native Americanlands’ are legally considered US soil doesn’t alter the factthat anyone born in the geographical USA as a whole, and any part within it, is a native of geographical USA.

    Native born doesn’t mean citizen born.

    Natural born, aside from being usable as a term to say born without artificial aid or process, appears to only be usable in a context of society membership.

    That’s why native born citizen’ does not mean the same as natural born Citizen’ yet a NBC is a native of the land he is a NBC of.

    So in other words you’re just going to somehow pretend that what you say is correct. We know you hate the aborigines. The fact is Native American lands are not US soil period. The tribal nations are separate from the US Government. Now how about your focus on your own country instead of trying to tell everyone here how our country is run.

  373. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 21, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

    Lupin:
    I’d like to add that it’s not just poor old me. Paul reads Vattel the same way I do and frankly any French person with a modicum of legal & historical knowledge would.

    Oh, I do not even have that modicum I am afraid. I am convinced we are right because I looked at other instances where Vattel used the word “parens” and indeed, he’s fairly consistent in using it in that meaning.

    But the fact that there was a mistranslation here (false friends, like actually and actuellement) dawned on me only when I was on this very blog and reading the whole paragraph for the 5th time I think (no, Doc, you do not have to retrieve that message of mine – it is too embarrassing) – I wondered why Vattel used parents here, while everywhere else he used père (yes, Michael, you got close but being a birther, you went in the wrong direction). That is when it dawned on me that this sentence with parens was introductory -it is the start of a chapter after all – setting out a general principle based on the law of nature: “look heer folks, before we start let me say it is only normal, natural, yes, that children brought up into the citizenship of the country where they were born and where their parens were citizens already.” Hm, I thought, something does not sound well there: Vattel did not reallly think of women as citizens. And that is when it dawned on me that “parens” had to mean something else than the normal meaning of English “parents”. It meant “relatives” – a NATURAL thing to say in a country which had young men as it main export product, fighting other countries’ wars.

    Gradually, I found out that there was a stylistical difference and that, based on Bouhours, it was normal for Vattel to prefer “relatives, ancestors” – in fact people related to you genetically, as the meaning of “parens”.

    Of course, it would be funny if Dominique Bouhours (l”je vais mourir ou je vas mourir, l’un et l’autre se dit ou se disent” – he was not a linguistic bigot) were cited in a US supreme court decision, but it is not going to happen, because Vattel is irrelevant here. What is paramount is how American (and perhaps even the best English) lawyers interpreted Calvin’s case at the moment when the constitution was written. It is not me saying that, it is the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.

  374. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

    MichaelN: The surest way to have incestuous society, increase health risk, crime & send the nation broke is to have undocumented illegal aliens move in.

    Wow…you’ve really got things quite backwards in terms of incest and health.

    You really don’t understand the basics of biology or genetics as applied to populations do you?

    A limited gene pool over time leads to increased probability of incest, not the other way around. Similarly, a limited gene pool is more susceptible to transmitting and perpetuating gene-related health risks carried within that limited pool to the next generation. Also, a limited population has limited immunity to pathogens and disease from outside its population set.

    The healthiest thing for long term healthy population growth is to have access to a sufficient stream of “new blood” added to the mix, so to speak.

    Therefore, immigration and social interaction between population groups is healthy and beneficial to the long-term survivial of the human race.

  375. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 6:16 pm #

    It’s more of Michael’s insistence that words mean what he thinks they mean. Incestuous doesn’t mean incest, it means “general social ills.” close is good enough. Lightning is the same as lightning bug.

  376. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 6:16 pm #

    G: MichaelN: The surest way to have incestuous society, increase health risk, crime & send the nation broke is to have undocumented illegal aliens move in.

    Wow…you’ve really got things quite backwards in terms of incest and health.

    You don’t get it.

    If you have undocumented people flooding into the country, there is a greater risk of an incestuous society because the official vital records would not be as accurate as those records that had more accurate records.

    Putting it simply there would be no reliable way of checking the genealogical background of many people.

    As far as crime and health goes, go here and see some statistics for yourself.

    http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/illegal-immigration-statistics-that-might-shock-you/

  377. avatar
    The Magic M April 21, 2011 at 6:26 pm #

    > there is a greater risk of an incestuous society because the official vital records would not be as accurate as those records that had more accurate records

    You are joking, right? You mean in your parallel universe, if two people decide to have sex, they first compare their ancestry records to determine whether they are related? Idiot.

    On the contrary, the more a society stays closed, the bigger the probability of “inbreeding” becomes. Just look at the extreme example of a society consisting only of two couples. Without “immigration”, the third generation will inevitably have genes in common with both families. You fail again.

  378. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 21, 2011 at 6:29 pm #

    The Magic M: At one time, an attempt was made to merge the two forms using the “Binnen-I” (“intermediate capital i”) so that e.g. “Student” (male student) and “Studentin” (female student) would be merged to “StudentIn” (the vast majority of German nouns is brought into female form by appending “in”). This only had a short life in the 80s, though.

    That one is dead and buried as far as the singular is concerned. BUT strangely, it is certainly alive in the plural:

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student#Studenten.2C_StudentInnen_oder_Studierende.3F

    Strangely, Austria seems to clearly prefer gender neutrality here, more than Germany

  379. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    MichaelN: As far as crime and health goes, go here and see some statistics for yourself.
    http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/illegal-immigration-statistics-that-might-shock-you/

    The site you reference is barely written in intelligible English. Did you write it yourself?

    Here are FBI crime statistics. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

    They show the crime rate is lower now than at any point since 1970

    You can’t even read a simple table, buddy. Do you really expect us to listen to your legal opinions?

  380. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): MichaelN: I have had enough experience with aborigines of (what we call) Australia, to appreciate their predicament and highly respect their spiritual state of being.

    Have you ever been here and had first-hand experience with any of these people?

    It’s interesting to note, approximately 40,000 years and they didn’t advance’ or progress’ with technology, even to construct permanent abodes, use wheels, farm land (agriculture as we know it) form governments as a united nation of people & most importantly, they basically left only their foot-prints, some rock carvings and paintings, they kept the place pristine and lived with and in nature as there ‘home’.

    Whether native Americanlands’ are legally considered US soil doesn’t alter the factthat anyone born in the geographical USA as a whole, and any part within it, is a native of geographical USA.

    Native born doesn’t mean citizen born.

    Natural born, aside from being usable as a term to say born without artificial aid or process, appears to only be usable in a context of society membership.

    That’s why native born citizen’ does not mean the same as natural born Citizen’ yet a NBC is a native of the land he is a NBC of.

    So in other words you’re just going to somehow pretend that what you say is correct. We know you hate the aborigines. The fact is Native American lands are not US soil period. The tribal nations are separate from the US Government. Now how about your focus on your own country instead of trying to tell everyone here how our country is run.

    ‘native’ has nothing to do with any government, it is a fact of birth in a place.

    How do you arrive at the false conclusion that I ‘hate aborigines’?

    It is a disgracefull, fabricated intentional lie, without ANY basis, in other words, crap!

    You’re full of it.

    You couldn’t be more wrong on this issue.

    The truth is that I consider the aboriginal people of ‘Australia’ in their purest form, to be the most unique, sincere, uncorrupted & naturally attuned people on the planet, I respect them highly and have fought to protect their wealth of culture and well being for decades …………… I can say with complete sincerity and without any reservation that I deeply love & respect aboriginal people, I consider them as family and they me. (who know me)

  381. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 7:06 pm #

    Lupin: MichaelN: The surest way to have incestuous society, increase health risk, crime & send the nation broke is to have undocumented illegal aliens move in.

    Ding! Ding! Ding!

    The hood comes out!

    Pushed against the wall, the ugly truth is blurted out.

    Scary black people, miscegenation, booga booga.

    As i always say (ad nauseam, apologies to everyone else) birthers are basically racists.

    Here’ come the race-card crap again.

    Fact is, [Gratuitous obscene insult deleted. Doc.], I have no problem with any race of people.

    I have a problem with illegal aliens coming into a country and jumping the queue, no matter what their race.

    I was brought-up with immigrant people and have no problem inter-acting, enjoying and embracing the rich culture of immigrants of any race, even the illegals, but that still doesn’t negate my opposition to those jumping the queue.

    And by the way, Vattel, in 212, wasn’t referring to uncles as the fathers, but that is an aside, the point that Vattel was making, is that ….

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    It’s really simple stuff ……………… Bingham re-affirmed this widely understood common sense principle, unopposed and this was before the 14th Amendment.

    In light of Bingham stating this principle,the 14th Amendment said ‘citizens’ of which the NBC were a sub-set & NOT NBC.

    It was deliberate and no error of grammar or over-sight, that ONLY ‘citizen’ was used in 14th Amendment.

    Look, your entire argument relies on the absurd notion that the framers were derelict in seeking to secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion and claim, which as you know is an absurdity.

    In other words your entire argument as regards the meaning of Article II NBC, is absurd.

    But you know that, you have a silly political agenda and not a truth agenda.

  382. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 7:11 pm #

    The Magic M: On the contrary, the more a society stays closed, the bigger the probability of “inbreeding” becomes. Just look at the extreme example of a society consisting only of two couples. Without “immigration”, the third generation will inevitably have genes in common with both families. You fail again.

    Who’s advocating a ‘closed society’ or no immigration? ……………. not me you are dreamin’.

    Try to stay focused and get your facts right, before running-off at the mouth with your crazy concocted assumptions.

  383. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

    MichaelN: If you have undocumented people flooding into the country,

    Are undocumented people, in fact, flooding into this country (that ‘Merica for furriners like you Mikey…)? I believe that the statistics suggest that the problem, if anything, has gotten slightly better in the last few years. But you would never let the truth get in the way of perfectly good fear-mongering, would you?

    If you have undocumented people flooding into the country, there is a greater risk of an incestuous society because the official vital records would not be as accurate as those records that had more accurate records

    This bit of word salad is too precious not to take a look… To start with, you’ve got your conclusion and your logical implication backwards in your second clause (not necessarily wrong, but given your disconnect from reality, not a good sign…). If we correct this, we get:

    “If you have undocumented people flooding into the country, the official vital records would not be as accurate as those records that had more accurate records, therefore there is a greater risk of an incestuous society”

    So logically, if:

    A=’undocumented people are flooding into the country’

    B=’the official vital records would not be as accurate as those records that had more accurate records’

    and

    C=’there is a greater risk of an incestuous society’

    then your statement becomes: IF A THEN B THEN C. We can further bread ‘B’ down thusly:

    B1=’office vital records are not as accurate [as other records]’

    B2='[other] records are more accurate [than office vital records]’

    which gives us: IF A THEN (IF B1 THEN B2) THEN C

    Now, no justification is given for ‘IF A THEN B’, so, ordinarily, it would be a non-sequitor (and, in fact, it is…), but in this case (since B1=B2), statement ‘B’ is a tautology (and hence always true) so any statement of the form ‘IF A THEN B’ is logically true (let A=’Mikey is less intelligent than a house cat’, for instance – still true!). Finally, the statement ‘IF B THEN C’ is another non-sequitor (Mikey can’t be bothered to justify his claims – the hallmark of an 8-year-old’s arguing style…). So what we’ve got is a non-sequitor who’s premise consists of another non-sequitor who’s conclusion is a tautology.

    That may be the most inane logical error that I’ve ever seen. In fact, I’m nominating Mikey for the ‘Biggest Douche in the Universe’ award – does anyone second the motion?

  384. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    MichaelN: native’ has nothing to do with any government, it is a fact of birth in a place.

    How do you arrive at the false conclusion that I ‘hate aborigines’?

    It is a disgracefull, fabricated intentional lie, without ANY basis, in other words, crap!

    You’re full of it.

    You couldn’t be more wrong on this issue.

    The truth is that I consider the aboriginal people of Australia’ in their purest form, to be the most unique, sincere, uncorrupted & naturally attuned people on the planet, I respect them highly and have fought to protect their wealth of culture and well being for decades …………… I can say with complete sincerity and without any reservation that I deeply love & respect aboriginal people, I consider them as family and they me. (who know me)

    Your previous statements show otherwise Michael

  385. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    Slartibartfast: That may be the most inane logical error that I’ve ever seen. In fact, I’m nominating Mikey for the Biggest Douche in the Universe’ award – does anyone second the motion?

    Sorry Slart you can’t do that John Edward the tv psychic already holds that honor. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153799/there-he-is

  386. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 7:39 pm #

    The Magic M: > there is a greater risk of an incestuous society because the official vital records would not be as accurate as those records that had more accurate records

    You are joking, right? You mean in your parallel universe, if two people decide to have sex, they first compare their ancestry records to determine whether they are related? Idiot.

    On the contrary, the more a society stays closed, the bigger the probability of “inbreeding” becomes. Just look at the extreme example of a society consisting only of two couples. Without “immigration”, the third generation will inevitably have genes in common with both families. You fail again.

    Look, incestuous relations was a taboo from way, way back for very good reason and that reason still exists to this day.

    In today’s world we have record keeping that provides for people to check if they might wisely choose, but without the records there is a lesser chance that information is as reliable.

    Prior to written records people relied on word of mouth, totems, clan stories, etc.

    Go here [Gratuitous obscene remark deleted. Doc.] ……..

    http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Marriage-Records-Can-Help-Resolve-Pre-marital-Problems/409409

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424337.stm

  387. avatar
    MichaelN April 21, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    The Magic M: > there is a greater risk of an incestuous society because the official vital records would not be as accurate as those records that had more accurate records

    You are joking, right? You mean in your parallel universe, if two people decide to have sex, they first compare their ancestry records to determine whether they are related? Idiot.

    On the contrary, the more a society stays closed, the bigger the probability of “inbreeding” becomes. Just look at the extreme example of a society consisting only of two couples. Without “immigration”, the third generation will inevitably have genes in common with both families. You fail again.

    Look, incestuous relations was a taboo from way, way back for very good reason and that reason still exists to this day.

    In today’s world we have record keeping that provides for people to check if they might wisely choose, but without the records there is a lesser chance that information is as reliable.

    Prior to written records people relied on word of mouth, totems, clan stories, etc.

    Go here [Gratuitous obscene remark deleted. Doc.]……..

    http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Marriage-Records-Can-Help-Resolve-Pre-marital-Problems/409409

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424337.stm

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): MichaelN: native’ has nothing to do with any government, it is a fact of birth in a place.

    How do you arrive at the false conclusion that I ‘hate aborigines’?

    It is a disgracefull, fabricated intentional lie, without ANY basis, in other words, crap!

    You’re full of it.

    You couldn’t be more wrong on this issue.

    The truth is that I consider the aboriginal people of Australia’ in their purest form, to be the most unique, sincere, uncorrupted & naturally attuned people on the planet, I respect them highly and have fought to protect their wealth of culture and well being for decades …………… I can say with complete sincerity and without any reservation that I deeply love & respect aboriginal people, I consider them as family and they me. (who know me)

    Your previous statements show otherwise Michael

    Such as?

  388. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

    MichaelN: I have a problem with illegal aliens coming into a country and jumping the queue, no matter what their race.
    I was brought-up with immigrant people and have no problem inter-acting, enjoying and embracing the rich culture of immigrants of any race, even the illegals, but that still doesn’t negate my opposition to those jumping the queue.

    Obama’s father was present in the US legally. His mother was a citizen. No queue was jumped.

    I think after all the nonsense posts you’ve made, you owe us an explanation of what your angle and agenda is. Do you think if you can overturn Calviin’s Case that will somehow remove Australiian citizenship from all the non-aboriginal people and they will all go back to Europe or Asia?

    And yes, the framers made plenty of errors. Is it your position they were infallible? That is what is absurd.

  389. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    MichaelN: native’ has nothing to do with any government, it is a fact of birth in a place.

    Most people (who are, from time to time, less than 100% precise in their statements…) make use of the fact that 99.99% (or thereabouts – likely higher in the past) of citizens are both ‘native born’ and ‘natural born’ and conflate the two terms. I would think that you wouldn’t have a problem with this since you are trying to conflate two terms (‘subject of’ and ‘subject to’) which have less of an overlap (and you’re doing it in a way that is explicitly dishonest, as well…). Face it, chump, you’ve tied yourself in knots so badly that you can’t address any point that any of us has raised without implicitly admitting that you are full of $hit. Enjoy your own excrement being flung back in your face – this is what happens when you go by the 3 “I”s: incompetence, ignorance, and idiocy. I’m glad you’re nowhere near my country.

    How do you arrive at the false conclusion that I ‘hate aborigines’?

    Presumably, he looked at your obvious bigotry against the first African-American POTUS and jumped to the conclusion that it was racially based. It might not be true, but if you’re going to be a bigot who pals around with racists, you’re going to get painted with the same brush…

    It is a disgracefull, fabricated intentional lie, without ANY basis, in other words, crap! You’re full of it.

    Sorry Mikey, but you’re the one who’s full of it – you’ve displayed your bigotry here for all to see, and even if you are not a racist, you’re an imbecile and a liar and a pathetic excuse for a human being.

    [‘Some of my best friends are…’ deleted.]

  390. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 7:52 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Sorry Slart you can’t do that John Edward the tv psychic already holds that honor.http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153799/there-he-is

    I contend that he has been usurped!

  391. avatar
    Scientist April 21, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    By the way, the natural born citizen clause, to which 388 (and counting) posts have been dedicated on this thread alone is not worth defending:

    In a symposium of distinguished constitutional scholars, the combination of unintelligibility, interference with democratic choice and suspicion of naturalized citizens made Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy and Yale Law School Dean Robert Post nominate the clause as the “stupidest” in the Constitution.

    It is the “stupidest” clause in the Constiitution. That’s what you hold sacred Michael. Very fitting the stupidest clause for the stupidest poster.

    Get rid of it. Stop all the arguments. All citizens can run. Let the voters decide.

  392. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    MichaelN: Here’ come the race-card crap again.

    Sorry, dude, but you’re the one who’s wallowing with the pigs, don’t be surprised that you’ve come out covered with mud…

    Fact is, [Gratuitous obscene insult deleted. Doc.], I have no problem with any race of people.

    The unsupported ad-hominem – a sure sign of irritation (and lack of a rational argument…).

    [more ‘some of my best friends are…’ nonsense deleted]

    And by the way, Vattel, in 212, wasn’t referring to uncles as the fathers, but that is an aside, the point that Vattel was making, is that ….

    Please tell us the point Vattel was making… but first, tell us how you come by your expertise on the French language and what qualifies you to translate centuries-old legal texts… and when you’ve done that, please explain why Vattel is relevant to US citizenship law even though the only available SCOTUS citation of Vattel is by the majority in the Dredd Scott decision (generally consider the worst SCOTUS decision ever…) and then you can explain why the founders chose to use Vattel’s definition for a term when said definition was not connected to said term when the Constitution was written and when said term was clearly defined via a source that was commonly cited in cases involving citizenship law… and then explain how you were dropped on your head as a child or spent your adolescence huffing glue, because it is a real puzzle how you could get to be so stupid…

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    It’s really simple stuff

    Yes – the Founders didn’t have access to that quote, so it was not a part of their Constitutional deliberations.

    ……………… Bingham re-affirmed this widely understood common sense principle, unopposed and this was before the 14th Amendment.

    As has been repeatedly explained, that means nothing – or do you think that anything someone says to an empty Congressional chamber is co-equal to the Constitution? I just asserted (to my roommate’s cat) that MichaelN hangs around in alleys performing fellatio for a nickel. No one objected and my statement was unopposed – does that mean it’s true, Mikey?

    In light of Bingham stating this principle,the 14th Amendment said citizens’ of which the NBC were a sub-set & NOT NBC.

    Sorry, but just because you made something up to feed your bigoted, seditious fantasies doesn’t make it true – I’m starting to think that you are too stupid to convince other birthers that President Obama isn’t a great guy…

    It was deliberate and no error of grammar or over-sight, that ONLY citizen’ was used in 14th Amendment.

    Where’s your evidence (in US law and jurisprudence)? Oh yeah, you have none…

    Look, your entire argument relies on the absurd notion that the framers were derelict in seeking to secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion and claim, which as you know is an absurdity.

    No, your argument relies on an unsupported assertion that the Founders must have used an unnecessarily high standard while pretending a reverence for the Founders that sounds a lot like worship while simultaneously attempting to desecrate the ideas which they fought and died for. You really are a shameful piece of unAmerican scum.

    In other words your entire argument as regards the meaning of Article II NBC, is absurd.

    Which is why every single judge, Constitutional scholar, and competent lawyer for the past 200 years disagrees with you… sure.

    But you know that, you have a silly political agenda and not a truth agenda.

    Hmmm… a ‘truth agenda’ – sounds like the kind of think a propagandist would say. Sorry, buddy-boy but if you weren’t so protected from the truth in your tinfoil hat you would realize that any reasonable, objective person (hell, anyone who isn’t a total whackjob) reading this thread thinks that you are a sniveling, lying, bigoted, ignorant, moronic, seditious, illiterate, incompetent, impotent loser and wishes that you would just STFU so they wouldn’t have to read any more of your drivel.

  393. avatar
    Majority Will April 21, 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    Slartibartfast: . . . a sniveling, lying, bigoted, ignorant, moronic, seditious, illiterate, incompetent, impotent loser and wishes that you would just STFU so they wouldn’t have to read any more of your drivel.

    I would add psychotic, sociopathic, delusional and cowardly but it’s an accurate assessment.

  394. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 8:52 pm #

    Majority Will: I would add psychotic, sociopathic, delusional and cowardly but it’s an accurate assessment.

    I don’t believe that it is possible to describe the full extent of MichaelN’s shortcomings in a finite amount of time, but your additional characterizations are apt.

  395. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 9:23 pm #

    MichaelN: Look, incestuous relations was a taboo from way, way back for very good reason and that reason still exists to this day.

    You really love the non-sequitor, don’t you? This argument is completely wrong because dinosaurs and humans didn’t live together. (MichaelN was confusing the creation museum with reality again…)

    In today’s world we have record keeping that provides for people to check if they might wisely choose, but without the records there is a lesser chance that information is as reliable.

    Give a single circumstance where poor record keeping results in risky consanguinuity. Are Jose and Rita going to call it off because her dad is Jesus Morales and his mom is Maria Morales and therefore they must be brother and sister? I see the stupid is still strong with you. Genetically speaking, procreating with a first cousin is risky and reproducing with a sibling is more so – anything else probably isn’t worth worrying about. So how many fewer defective babies will better records (records that are better than other records that they are better than) produce? The answer is zero (that is true because the sun is primarily made of Hydrogen).

    Prior to written records people relied on word of mouth, totems, clan stories, etc.

    And no one knew who their siblings and cousins were, apparently… Personally, I find it appalling that you are no more than a 50th cousin of mine (considerably closer if you are white [as your {possibly racist} bigotry would suggest]) – I guess that’s what they mean by the ‘shallow end’ of the gene pool (or are you still in the kiddie gene pool looking longingly at the shallow end?)

    Go here [Gratuitous obscene remark deleted. Doc.{Did Mikey say some bad things? What a vulgar, hypocritical, stupid, ignorant, dishonest troll you are.}]……..

  396. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 9:24 pm #

    The Magic M: > there is a greater risk of an incestuous society because the official vital records would not be as accurate as those records that had more accurate recordsYou are joking, right? You mean in your parallel universe, if two people decide to have sex, they first compare their ancestry records to determine whether they are related? Idiot.On the contrary, the more a society stays closed, the bigger the probability of “inbreeding” becomes. Just look at the extreme example of a society consisting only of two couples. Without “immigration”, the third generation will inevitably have genes in common with both families. You fail again.

    You beat me to the punch in replying, so I’ll just say “ditto”.

  397. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 9:32 pm #

    MichaelN: I have a problem with illegal aliens coming into a country and jumping the queue, no matter what their race.
    I was brought-up with immigrant people and have no problem inter-acting, enjoying and embracing the rich culture of immigrants of any race, even the illegals, but that still doesn’t negate my opposition to those jumping the queue.

    On just this we agree. However, I fail to see your connection between those seemingly rational positions and the irrational connections you’ve made to incest and such (purely backwards, not to mention reprehensible) as well as the issue of NBC, which is not directly connected.

    Birth on US soil here grants NBC. The parents may be illegal, but if their child is born here, that child is US NBC and could run for President if they remained here and met the age & years in US requirements and were able to get enough voters to support their candidacy. Simple as that. You may not like it and that is a topic of debate, but that is how our laws work. To change it to exclude this scenario would require a Constitutional Amendment.

  398. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 9:35 pm #

    MichaelN: And by the way, Vattel, in 212, wasn’t referring to uncles as the fathers, but that is an aside, the point that Vattel was making, is that ….

    ??? Where do you even come up with this stuff? I’ve read the threads and so far the only one making these weird bizarre statements of “uncles as fathers” and incest is you.

    I don’t see any of that in anything Lupin wrote. What on earth is wrong with how your mind works??? Ugh!

  399. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 9:42 pm #

    MichaelN: Look, your entire argument relies on the absurd notion that the framers were derelict in seeking to secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion and claim, which as you know is an absurdity.

    FALSE. Again, you try to twist things to make up a straw man argument, by inserting the word “any”, as if no situations were spelled out that addressed the issues of foreign influence.

    Nobody is making the argument as you are trying to portray it.

    They are simply pointing out that your interpretations of what “foreign influence” entails are wrong and that your views go way beyond the actual intent of that language as well as the actual restrictions on “foreign influence” that were put in.

  400. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 9:44 pm #

    Slartibartfast: That may be the most inane logical error that I’ve ever seen. In fact, I’m nominating Mikey for the Biggest Douche in the Universe’ award – does anyone second the motion?

    Second!

  401. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    MichaelN: Look, incestuous relations was a taboo from way, way back for very good reason and that reason still exists to this day.
    In today’s world we have record keeping that provides for people to check if they might wisely choose, but without the records there is a lesser chance that information is as reliable.
    Prior to written records people relied on word of mouth, totems, clan stories, etc.

    Huh??? Look Michael… if you don’t have a clue who your “nearest kin” are without consulting recorded records… well.. then you’ve got some “special” problems.

    Most people know who their immediate and close family members are. Further, most people are able to detect family resemblence.

    Let me give you a hint Michael – those “mysterious people” that raised you and lived with you when you were growing up – DON’T sleep with them! (or if this warning comes too late for you…please stop.) Ditto for those “mysterious people” that showed up at family gatherings… *sheesh*

    Honestly, I don’t know where you come up with this stuff…you’re getting weirder and creepier by the post!

  402. avatar
    JoZeppy April 21, 2011 at 10:20 pm #

    Slartibartfast: and when you’ve done that, please explain why Vattel is relevant to US citizenship law even though the only available SCOTUS citation of Vattel is by the majority in the Dredd Scott decision (generally consider the worst SCOTUS decision ever…)

    Actually, it wasn’t even the opinion of the court. It was the separate opinion of J. Daniel. Although every justice wrote a separate opinion, Chief Justice Taney’s opinion is considered the Opinion of the Court, because just because he was the Chief.

  403. avatar
    Rickey April 21, 2011 at 10:21 pm #

    MichaelN:

    That’s why native born citizen’ does not mean the same as natural born Citizen’ yet a NBC is a native of the land he is a NBC of.

    Wrong.

    Even right-wing Constitutional scholars disagree with you.

    W. Cleon Skousen founded the conservative National Center for Constitutional Studes in 1971. He was a law and religion professor at Brigham Young University and he was a supporter of the John Birch Society. In 1985 he wrote a textbook entitled “The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution.” Here is what it says about Article II, Section 1:

    “This provision gave the American people the right to have a President who would always be one of their own native-born fellow citizens.” (p. 528)

    Get it? Until Obama was elected, conservatives agreed that there is no difference between a native-born citizen and a natural-born citizen.

    We are still waiting for birthers to produce a single history, civics, or law textbook which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. Do you know of one?

  404. avatar
    JoZeppy April 21, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    MichaelN: Whether native American lands’ are legally considered US soil doesn’t alter the fact that anyone born in the geographical USA as a whole, and any part within it, is a native of geographical USA.
    Native born doesn’t mean citizen born.
    Natural born, aside from being usable as a term to say born without artificial aid or process, appears to only be usable in a context of society membership.
    That’s why native born citizen’ does not mean the same as natural born Citizen’ yet a NBC is a native of the land he is a NBC of.

    And what you are doing is taking a legal term of art, “native born” and equating it with a common usage of the word “native.” All this does is shine a spot light on your utter ignorance of the subject. It’s the same thing as denying evolution because it is only “a theory” equting the common usage of the word “theory” with the use of the term of art “scientific theory.”

    Originally, a “native American” was not “native born” for the purposes of citizenship (I’m pretty sure that has changed, but I really don’t know the current status of Indian Law). Native Americans were considered a sovereign nation, with their relations dictated by treaties with the US (although the US pretty much felt free to ignore those treaties). Thus, they were not native born, nor natural born, or even citizens.

  405. avatar
    MichaelN April 22, 2011 at 6:10 am #

    G: Birth on US soil here grants NBC. The parents may be illegal, but if their child is born here, that child is US NBC and could run for President if they remained here and met the age & years in US requirements and were able to get enough voters to support their candidacy. Simple as that. You may not like it and that is a topic of debate, but that is how our laws work. To change it to exclude this scenario would require a Constitutional Amendment.

    According to 14th Amendment, birth on US soil grants ‘citizen’ & ‘citizen’ only and there is no law that ‘grants’ NBC, it is a state of being that is initiated at birth.

    This is supported by English common law and leaves no doubt.

    Coke – Calvin’s case:
    “That ligeance, or obedience of the subject to the Sovereign, is due by the Law of nature: 2. That this Law of nature is part of the Laws of England: 3. That the Law of nature was before any judicial or municipal Law in the world: 4. That the Law of nature is immutable and cannot be changed”\

    It is a futile exercise to try and have this changed by constitutional amendment.

    Coke – Calvin’s case:
    “Whatsoever is due by the law or constitution of man, may be altered: But natural ligeance or obedience of the subject to the Sovereign cannot be altered; ergo natural ligeance or obedience to the Sovereign is not due by the law or constitution of man”

    “though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    The reason this has further weight than your absurd, partisan driven notion is the fact that the framers were diligent in the aim to secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion.
    and claim.

    This is a fact you cannot reasonably or sincerely deny from a non-partisan position.

    This is the position that I stand at.

    Originally, from my non-partisan position, I would rather Obama did have genuine credentials and can prove Article II NBC qualification, but as time passes, and from his performance of non-transparency, deliberate lies (Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers etc), sealing of all his past records, NDP shabby certificates of nomination fiasco and his obstinate fight to oppose genuine calls for him to verify his eligibility, I stand convinced he is a fraud.

    If Obama believed as you do, that born in USA is all that is required to be NBC, and that premise is true, then he would openly argue that point and should win, but he won’t even argue that point.

    Surely this must tell you something if you take off your partisan hat.

    You are bound and shackled by your partisan color, having the basis of your argument rooted in absurdity.

    Kindly save your personal attacks and try to be civil and most importantly, honest.

  406. avatar
    MichaelN April 22, 2011 at 6:15 am #

    Rickey: “This provision gave the American people the right to have a President who would always be one of their own native-born fellow citizens.” (p. 528)

    Get it? Until Obama was elected, conservatives agreed that there is no difference between a native-born citizen and a natural-born citizen.

    Rickey.

    Of course a NBC is a native-born fellow citizen.

    I have never thought or said otherwise.

    But a native born is not necessarily a NBC.

    Get it?

  407. avatar
    MichaelN April 22, 2011 at 6:23 am #

    G: MichaelN: Look, your entire argument relies on the absurd notion that the framers were derelict in seeking to secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion and claim, which as you know is an absurdity.

    FALSE. Again, you try to twist things to make up a straw man argument, by inserting the word “any”, as if no situations were spelled out that addressed the issues of foreign influence.

    Nobody is making the argument as you are trying to portray it.

    They are simply pointing out that your interpretations of what “foreign influence” entails are wrong and that your views go way beyond the actual intent of that language as well as the actual restrictions on “foreign influence” that were put in.

    Look, there is either foreign influence or there is not.

    Your partisan driven contorting of words and reliance on semantics is really a worn out and tired ploy.

    The framers didn’t want any foreign influence, persuasion or claims to affect the office of POTUS, there is no doubt on this, and you want me to believe that they thought that ‘some’ foreign influence was OK, that is preposterous, you have lost your objective reasoning, you’re tainted by partisanship and being ridiculous.

  408. avatar
    MichaelN April 22, 2011 at 6:44 am #

    JoZeppy: And what you are doing is taking a legal term of art, “native born” and equating it with a common usage of the word “native.” All this does is shine a spot light on your utter ignorance of the subject.

    Would you like to point out were there is any provision or mention of ‘native’ citizen in USC ?

    All there is is ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born Citizen’.

    As you appear to agree there are only two ways to citizenship, i.e. born & naturalized ……….. right? …………… all else are aliens …………… right?

    There is nothing I can find that states native born Americans are aliens.

    14th Amendment states …..

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Now can you show me where in USC that Indian lands were not considered United States?

    Can you show me how the Indians were not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’, either when they were on their ‘reservations’ or outside of same, said ‘reservations’ defined and designated by the ‘jurisdiction of the US?

  409. avatar
    MichaelN April 22, 2011 at 6:52 am #

    G: Most people know who their immediate and close family members are. Further, most people are able to detect family resemblence.

    Let me give you a hint Michael – those “mysterious people” that raised you and lived with you when you were growing up – DON’T sleep with them! (or if this warning comes too late for you…please stop.) Ditto for those “mysterious people” that showed up at family gatherings… *sheesh*

    Honestly, I don’t know where you come up with this stuff…you’re getting weirder and creepier by the post!

    Sheesh this is creepy and weird ……

    “Significance Of Premarital Body Check-Up

    A pair of lovers, if they want to be partners always, except for the wedding registration, they also need to do premarital testing. Some people do not understand the medical examination and deem that superfluous. In fact, this view is not correct, and the pre-marital check-up have the following three meanings.
    First, it is beneficial to both partners and the next generation’s health. Through a comprehensive physical examination before marriage, you can find some anomalies and diseases, so as to achieve the early diagnosis, a positive correction purposes, if you have found the disease which will have a temporary or permanent effects on marriage or maternity in the physical examination you can make decisions and arrangements under the guidance of a doctor to benefit both parties and the next generation health.
    Second, it is conducive to excellent health and improving national qualities.

    ,strong>Asking of the family history, family surveys, genealogical analysis, combined with physical examination proceeds, the doctor can make a definite diagnosis of certain genetic defects, and in accordance with its transfer law, projecting the degree of risk “impacting the next generation of eugenics” to help the newlyweds in the formulation marriage and child rearing decisions to reduce or avoid inappropriate mating and genetic sick child’s birth.”

    I don’t feel so alone in my creepyness

  410. avatar
    Scientist April 22, 2011 at 6:53 am #

    MichaelN: Look, there is either foreign influence or there is not.
    Your partisan driven contorting of words and reliance on semantics is really a worn out and tired ploy.
    The framers didn’t want any foreign influence, persuasion or claims to affect the office of POTUS, there is no doubt on this, and you want me to believe that they thought that some’ foreign influence was OK, that is preposterous, you have lost your objective reasoning, you’re tainted by partisanship and being ridiculous

    YOU are a “foreign influence”. Would the framers want Australians telling Americans who their leaders should be? That is preposterous and ridiculous.

  411. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2011 at 8:29 am #

    Look, there is either foreign influence or there is not.

    And, since a person can live abroad for their entire life, ALL BUT FOURTEEN YEARS the eligibility clause OBVIOUSLY allows for some foreign influence!

  412. avatar
    Keith April 22, 2011 at 8:32 am #

    MichaelN: Sheesh this is creepy and weird ……

    “Significance Of Premarital Body Check-Up

    A pair of lovers, if they want to be partners…

    Geeze, I was gonna say something about Google is your friend, but obviously you already know that.

    Don’t you know it is bad form to quote with out giving the attribution? It is called plagiarism, dude.

    Premarital blood tests are no longer required in most states. Most of the tests your plagiarized article describes are standard health check that everyone should do periodically; getting married or not. STD tests are are basically no longer needed unless you engage in unsafe practices. You don’t engage in unsafe practices do you, Michael? The Australian Government is a world leader in educating about those unsafe practices. I’m sure you are hip to the idea of “if it’s not on, it’s not on” aren’t you Michael?

    Here is a discussion: What’s the purpose of premarital blood testing?

    And another: The Truth About Premarital Blood Testing

  413. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2011 at 8:34 am #

    Greg:
    Michael, here’s Garrett Epps 75 pages on why you’re wrong about the 14th Amendment. And here’s James Ho on the same topic.

    When you’ve read them, you can respond to those. Until then, you can talk to the hand.

    You obviously haven’t read these articles yet, Michael. Epps discusses, inter alia, the extensive debate when enacting the 14th Amendment about how Indian nations were semi-sovereign.

    By the way, can you show me in the Constitution where it says that Australia is a sovereign nation? I can’t find it, so I’m assuming you’ll soon start having to pay US taxes.

  414. avatar
    Keith April 22, 2011 at 8:37 am #

    I should have included a pertinent quote from that second article (‘The Truth About…)

    Some people believe that the premarital blood test is to check blood types to be sure you and your future spouse are biologically compatible. (So far, there is no test to determine whether you are otherwise compatible!) While checking the blood type may be helpful in the event of pregnancy — and it is routinely checked then in case a transfusion is needed and to check the Rh type — it is not part of the routine premarital blood test. It is perfectly safe and acceptable for a person of one blood type to marry another with the same or a different blood type. Another myth is that the required blood testing is to make sure you and your betrothed are not related.

    So the tangent you have gone off on has no foundation.

    Quite a habit with you, it seems.

  415. avatar
    Keith April 22, 2011 at 8:42 am #

    Greg: By the way, can you show me in the Constitution where it says that Australia is a sovereign nation? I can’t find it, so I’m assuming you’ll soon start having to pay US taxes.

    OK, I know you are making fun of MichaelN here, but this particular strawman has got me stumped.

    The First Fleet arrived in Australia in 1788; the Constitution was adopted in 1787. Why would the Constitution mention Australia? 😎

  416. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2011 at 8:47 am #

    Keith: OK, I know you are making fun of MichaelN here, but this particular strawman has got me stumped.

    The First Fleet arrived in Australia in 1788; the Constitution was adopted in 1787. Why would the Constitution mention Australia?

    It was discovered by the Dutch in the 1600s, and it was formally claimed by the British in 1770. Just because it took them 18 years to formally establish a colony there doesn’t mean that the Constitution shouldn’t have mentioned it. Probably in the section on which parts of the world weren’t the US.

  417. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 22, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    sfjeff: I am not a linguist, nor do I speak another language fluently.

    But I do know that there is more to translation than translating a phrase with a dictionary word for word.

    If you want to know what a phrase in french means, ask a native french speaker.

    Which I am not. I do not even have French in my package, but as a translator and as a Belgian who hears French practically every day, I know how to use a French dictionary.

    There is such a thing as false friends – words that look the same in two languages because of common etymology, but that do not mean the same – the nasty bit is when there is a stylistic difference involved, as with this French word “parens”. When Vattel wrote, linguists of the day considered it not done to use “parens” purely with the meaning “father+mother”. You don’t expect “ain’t it?” in a serious scientific book today, either, “aren’t you”? Note that in other passages where Vattel uses “parens” it clearly means “relatives”. When an Athenian got killed abroad, “les parens” of the victim could take a citizen of that country living in Athens hostage until the other country executed the murderer – says Vattel. That obviously cannot mean “father and mother” because it would mean Athenian orphans can be killed abroad without fear of punishment.

    Now to come back to our sheep, I mean “word for word translation”. We know today’s French translation of “natural born citizens”. It is in the Canadian constitution: “citoyens de naissance”. However, the French Royal Edict of 1790 about the Huguenots, said “Toutes personnes qui, nées en pays étranger, descendant, en quelque degré que ce soit, d’un Fran§ais ou d’une Fran§aise expatriés pour cause de religion, sont déclarés NATURELS fran§ais et jouiront des droits attachés cette qualité s’ils reviennent en France, y fixent leur domicile, et prêtent le serment civique.” It was later changed to allow the serment civique in a French embassy abroad. In the 1920s a nativist movement caused a change in the law taking the status of “francais de naissance” away from Huguenots who would still claim French citizenship. (In 1945, the right to French citizenship was taken away altogether to stop nazi war criminals living in Brandenburg from trying to escape prosecution for war crimes by claiming French citizenship.)

    Considering the wording of the 1790 edict, I would think that “naturels” was another way of saying “from birth”. “Although born abroad, if they swear allegiance, they will be French citizens as if from birth”.

    Not sure whether this helps Michael, but history does amply suggest “naturel” means citizen from birth. Since it is rather difficult to get from naturel or indigène to “natural born citizen” I would almost be tempted to claim that the later translation “Natural born citizen” was based on the American constitution. And not the other way around, as birfers claim.

  418. avatar
    Northland10 April 22, 2011 at 11:03 am #

    Is it me or is Michael starting to sound more and more like Jedi Pauley. Is this where he has been doing his studying lately?

  419. avatar
    Lupin April 22, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    The thing about the word “parens” (old French) or “parents” (modern-day form) is that, as I pointed out earlier, it is still commonly employed to mean “family”.

    Even in English, I might argue that the sentence “I have parents who live in Corsica” would be commonly understood as having family (cousins, etc.) who live there, not just Mom and Dad.

  420. avatar
    Lupin April 22, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: as a translator and as a Belgian who hears French practically every day

    Is that what they speak in Belgium? 🙂 🙂

  421. avatar
    ballantine April 22, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    Greg: You obviously haven’t read these articles yet, Michael. Epps discusses, inter alia, the extensive debate when enacting the 14th Amendment about how Indian nations were semi-sovereign.

    By the way, can you show me in the Constitution where it says that Australia is a sovereign nation? I can’t find it, so I’m assuming you’ll soon start having to pay US taxes.

    Will Michael’s idiocy ever cease? The author of the citizenship clause on indian tribes:

    “The Government of the United States have always regarded and treated the Indian tribes within our limits as foreign powers…They have always been regarded, even in our ante-revoluntionary history, as independent nations, with whom the other nations of the earth have held treaties…” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866).

    Also, it is simply dishonest to say the framers didn’t want any foreign influence. In fact, the most important framers like Madison and Hamilton didn’t fear it at all and wanted no limitations on naturalized citizens. A few framers feared the foreign attachments of foreign-born, naturalized citizens. That’s it. Claiming they feared foreign interest of a native born citizen is simply making stuff up.

  422. avatar
    G April 22, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    MichaelN: If Obama believed as you do, that born in USA is all that is required to be NBC, and that premise is true, then he would openly argue that point and should win, but he won’t even argue that point.
    Surely this must tell you something if you take off your partisan hat.
    You are bound and shackled by your partisan color, having the basis of your argument rooted in absurdity.
    Kindly save your personal attacks and try to be civil and most importantly, honest.

    Ah, more false concern troll strawman arguments.

    Simple answer: NO and you are completely wrong.

    You keep twisting in the wind, incorrectly fluttering about what people wrote hundreds of years ago and trying to create your own unique interpretation to it. That is a fruitless and meaningless excercise, as your huffing and puffing doesn’t have anything to do with our laws and how they have been applied.

    There are ONLY two types of US Citizens as clarified in the 14th Amendment. Born and Naturalized. Simple as that.

    NBC is a Born Citizen not a Naturalized one. End of story.

  423. avatar
    G April 22, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    MichaelN: But a native born is not necessarily a NBC.

    In terms of US Law, YES it is – with only a very few clearly carved out exceptions for children born here of foreign ambassadors, diplomats, etc.

    MichaelN: Look, there is either foreign influence or there is not.

    There isn’t.

  424. avatar
    G April 22, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    MichaelN: ,strong>Asking of the family history, family surveys, genealogical analysis, combined with physical examination proceeds, the doctor can make a definite diagnosis of certain genetic defects, and in accordance with its transfer law, projecting the degree of risk “impacting the next generation of eugenics” to help the newlyweds in the formulation marriage and child rearing decisions to reduce or avoid inappropriate mating and genetic sick child’s birth.”

    So? Your original argument was about incest and specifically linking immigration to it, claiming that somehow incest would increase if more immigrants came here – YOUR ARGUMENT, NOT MINE.

    What you’ve posted above is simply about individuals genetic histories and has NO CONNECTION to your original claims and statements about incest and immigration.

    You are trying to distract by changing the argument.

    You are a very creepy and sick individual. Seek help.

  425. avatar
    Greg April 22, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    If Obama believed as you do, that born in USA is all that is required to be NBC, and that premise is true, then he would openly argue that point and should win, but he won’t even argue that point.
    Surely this must tell you something if you take off your partisan hat.

    If Obama believed as we did, who would he make the argument to? And when would he make it?

    Seems to me that he’s actually president. He has never, not once, made the argument that his dad was actually a citizen. He has repeatedly said he was born in Hawaii.

    If he believed like you did, that two citizen parents were required, what would his argument look like?

    The fact that he hasn’t engaged with your nonsense tells me that 69 million people voted for him despite it being common knowledge that his dad was a non-citizen – that it is universally believed in the US (except for a handful of uber-birthers, more birthery than even Berg, whose birther ID has badge number 0001) that if you’re born here you’re a natural born citizen and eligible for the Presidency!

  426. avatar
    G April 22, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    Greg: Seems to me that he’s actually president. He has never, not once, made the argument that his dad was actually a citizen. He has repeatedly said he was born in Hawaii.

    Obama makes and wins that argumement every single day by actions that speak louder than words – waking up and performing the job of POTUS day after day after day.

  427. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 22, 2011 at 1:16 pm #

    MichaelN: Sheesh this is creepy and weird ……

    Why did you bring it up? YOU were the one who mentioned this issue in one of your desperate non-sequitor segues that you do whenever one of your theories has been completely debunked. Given the tendency towards projection that you’ve repeatedly shown, I shudder to think of what motivated you to use incest in your latest non-sequitor argument about illegal immigration, but what is undeniable is that YOU were the one who brought it into the conversation (in the barely-literate manner which you always use for your non-sequitors and other fallacious arguments). Since you’re a birther and by birtherstani law, accusations are true until they have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false, we can now add ‘incestuous freak’ to your list of epithets until you demonstrate that you are not now and have never been married to (or had sexual relations with) any sibling or cousin (even though it’s only first cousins that are a big deal, per ‘Mikey’s rule of legal definitions’, I’m assuming that means ‘cousin to any degree’ – therefore, if you have ever been married, had sexual relations with another human being [or any mammal, for that matter {although you’re probably more closely related to some sort of slime mold or fungus…}], or procreated in any fashion then you are guilty of incest by your own reasoning). So the question becomes: Are you guilty of incestuous relations or are you a virgin? (note: it is possible for MichaelN to be both… I know he cares about details like this…)

  428. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 22, 2011 at 1:48 pm #

    MichaelN: Sheesh this is creepy and weird …… [And you brought us here – what do you think that indicates?]

    I wonder if you will explain (with your vast legal and lingual expertise) the fact that, using only the ‘reasoning’ principles you’ve demonstrated, one is forced to conclude that you are either a virgin or have committed incest (I imagine you’ll ignore it like you do every valid criticism of your positions that you are impotent to rebut…). What is it Michael? Are you a virgin, have you had incestuous relations, or does your ‘reasoning’ bear the same resemblance to actual critical thinking that a rotting, maggot-infested skunk you found on the side of the road does to a steak dinner?

  429. avatar
    MichaelN April 22, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    Lupin: The thing about the word “parens” (old French) or “parents” (modern-day form) is that, as I pointed out earlier, it is still commonly employed to mean “family”.

    Even in English, I might argue that the sentence “I have parents who live in Corsica” would be commonly understood as having family (cousins, etc.) who live there, not just Mom and Dad.

    Vattel in 212, refers the fathers (peres) as the ‘parens’.

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, <strong?those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children ….”

  430. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 22, 2011 at 7:13 pm #

    MichaelN[Stuff I didn’t even read deleted – I’m sure it was more of Mikey’s dishonest crap…]

    Mikey,

    You didn’t tell us – are you a virgin, are you incestuous, or is your understanding of the law complete and utter bull$hit? (or did you get the trifecta?)

  431. avatar
    MichaelN April 22, 2011 at 7:14 pm #

    Greg: Look, there is either foreign influence or there is not.

    And, since a person can live abroad for their entire life, ALL BUT FOURTEEN YEARS the eligibility clause OBVIOUSLY allows for some foreign influence!

    Not at birth they ain’t. …………. and the all important formative years under the nurturing and guidance of their citizen parents.

    Additionally the child, wherever they are, are considered as minors up to approximately 21 years of age & under the control and influence (since NBC birth) of their citizen parents.

    Ergo: it’s at the time of birth that the child is NBC, and the influence, persuasion & claim of them is that of their US Citizen parents, at least for approximately 21 years, no matter where they live after the NBC child is born.

  432. avatar
    MichaelN April 22, 2011 at 7:28 pm #

    G: There are ONLY two types of US Citizens as clarified in the 14th Amendment. Born and Naturalized. Simple as that.

    NBC is a Born Citizen not a Naturalized one.

    I know, state the obvious why don’t you.

    The blanket statement in 14th that all children born in US are ‘citizens of the united states’ in no way changes the definition of a NBC which was clearly defined in the Congress by Bingham in 1866 UNOPPOSED (which was before 14th, and agreed by consensus of the Congress) it was further stated & confirmed later in 1875 in Minor v. Happersett and again in Perkins v. Elg, with also ‘citizen’ under 14th made again distinct from NBC in Wong Kim Ark, where the decision was ‘citizen’ and ‘citizen’ ONLY & not NBC

  433. avatar
    Scientist April 22, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    MichaelN: Not at birth they ain’t. …………. and the all important formative years under the nurturing and guidance of their citizen parents

    So you think someone who was born in the US to US citizen parents and taken abroad at the age of 1 month and lived abroad until the age of 50, attending schools there, working there. marrying someone there and then came to the US and ran for President at 65 would have less foreign influence then someone who was born to a US citizen mother and a non-citizen father whom they saw for a total of 1 month in their entire life and grew up in the US, went to school here, lived most of their life here and married an American spouse.?

    Michael you are insane.

    Here is how foreign governnments gain influence. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The other stuff is b.s.. Where your born, who;s your daddy? Meaningless. Show me the money.

  434. avatar
    Scientist April 22, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    MichaelN: in no way changes the definition of a NBC which was clearly defined in the Congress by Bingham in 1866 UNOPPOSED

    Congress found Barack Obama eligible in January 2009 UNOPPOSED.

  435. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 22, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    MichaelN: Ergo [I deleted all of Mikey’s dishonest (I know it is dishonest in the same way I know water is wet…) cut and paste except for the word ‘Ergo’ (apropos of nothing) ]

    Sorry Mikey, you’re lying again you deceitful little incestuous troll.

  436. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 22, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

    Scientist: MichaelN: in no way changes the definition of a NBC which was clearly defined in the Congress by Bingham in 1866 UNOPPOSED

    Congress found Barack Obama eligible in January 2009 UNOPPOSED.

    Hey Mikey,

    Can you explain why this doesn’t completely destroy your ‘Bingham UNOPPOSED’ argument? In a logical way? I didn’t think you could…

  437. avatar
    Keith April 22, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

    ballantine: “The Government of the United States have always regarded and treated the Indian tribes within our limits as foreign powers…They have always been regarded, even in our ante-revoluntionary history, as independent nations, with whom the other nations of the earth have held treaties…” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866).

    Which is the funamental reason that the Brits decided that Australia was terra nullius. They didn’t have to make treaties with the original owners if there were no original owners.

    That just leaves the question of what to do about the problem of the hundreds of thousands original owners who don’t exist.

  438. avatar
    G April 22, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    MichaelN: I know, state the obvious why don’t you.The blanket statement in 14th that all children born in US are citizens of the united states’ in no way changes the definition of a NBC which was clearly defined in the Congress by Bingham in 1866 UNOPPOSED (which was before 14th, and agreed by consensus of the Congress) it was further stated & confirmed later in 1875 in Minor v. Happersett and again in Perkins v. Elg, with also citizen’ under 14th made again distinct from NBC in Wong Kim Ark, where the decision was citizen’ and citizen’ ONLY & not NBC

    I have to state the obvious to you…because you are in denial of the simple truth.

    Sorry, but US Born Citizen = NBC. As of the 14th Amendment, they are synonymous.

    The ONLY other type of US Citizen is naturalized.

    Your desperate traipse through ancient history to misinterpret ancient texts has no applicability to the application of US laws today.

  439. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 12:01 am #

    I notice Micheal hasn’t blathered that 338-06 proved something in the past week. I wonder what happened.

  440. avatar
    Greg April 23, 2011 at 12:20 am #

    MichaelN: Not at birth they ain’t. …………. and the all important formative years under the nurturing and guidance of their citizen parents.

    Do you see anything in there about being RAISED by citizen parents?

    Nope. It isn’t there.

    Even under MichaelN’s crazy theory, one can be born in the United States to two citizen parents, given away to North Koreans, raised in North Korea during the “all important formative years,” live in North Korea until you’re 60, then move to the US and run at age 74.

    The qualification clause simply DOES NOT ELIMINATE ALL POSSIBLE FOREIGN INFLUENCE!

    It doesn’t even try.

    MichaelN: Bingham in 1866 UNOPPOSED

    I’ve pointed to the article by Garrett Epps, which spends 75 pages explaining why you’re wrong.

    Here’s just one snippet.

    The 1866 law was vetoed by President Johnson.

    Because it made the children of Chinese people into citizens.

    Now, at the time, Chinese people could NOT become citizens. They were, by definition subject to a foreign power, yet, according to Trumbull and the Congress that overrode Johnson’s veto, this bill would give them citizenship.

    Let’s compare:
    Civil Rights Act: ““[A]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States . . . .”

    Bingham: “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.”

    Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked whether the children of Chinese (who could never NOT owe allegiance to China, since they could not become citizens) and Trumbull, who wrote the 1866 act said, “Undoubtedly!”

    If being a citizen of another country made one owe allegiance to that country or be subject to that country, then Trumbull (and the entire Congress that overrode Johnson’s veto) are idiots!

    It was not read that way, it was not intended that way. An honest reading of the debates shows that they intended to exclude Indians, who were viewed as semi-autonomous nations within the United States. From Epps article:

    In 1866, Indian relations were still largely governed by treaties between individual tribes and the United States, which treated the tribes as quasi-sovereign and accorded tribal members something much like extraterritoriality. For example, whites could not enter or remain on reservations without permission of the United States, buy weapons
    or hunting items from, or sell them to, tribal Indians, or purchase or lease lands from tribal Indians without federal permission. Foreigners needed both a valid passport and federal permission to enter Indian country and were subject to removal if found to be attempting to conduct negotiations with tribal governments. If tribal Indians stole the horses or property of whites—whether the depredation occurred on or off the reservation—the aggrieved party had no recourse against the thieves but had to apply to the United
    States to conduct diplomatic proceedings with the tribe to obtain recompense and persuade the tribe to punish the thieves. If negotiations failed, the victim would be compensated by the United States, which might then conduct military operations against the tribe and apprehend and punish the raiders.Finally, federal criminal statutes governing exclusive federal territory were in force within Indian country but did “not extend to crimes committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian.

    Ambassadors, invading armies, and Indians. Those were who Bingham was talking about. That’s who the Civil Rights Act was talking about. That’s who the Founders of the 14th Amendment were talking about.

    MichaelN: The blanket statement in 14th that all children born in US are citizens of the united states’ in no way changes the definition of a NBC

    1. It’s NOT a blanket statement that all children born here are “citizens.” It is a blanket statement that all children born here AND all people naturalized here are citizens. It didn’t say “natural born citizen” because those who are naturalized here are not natural born citizens!

    2. As Wong Kim Ark explained, it didn’t CHANGE The definition of NBC, it was declaratory of the long-standing definition – everyone born here, except those born to ambassadors, are natural born citizens!

  441. avatar
    MichaelN April 23, 2011 at 12:20 am #

    Scientist: So you think someone who was born in the US to US citizen parents and taken abroad at the age of 1 month and lived abroad until the age of 50, attending schools there, working there. marrying someone there and then came to the US and ran for President at 65 would have less foreign influence then someone who was born to a US citizen mother and a non-citizen father whom they saw for a total of 1 month in their entire life and grew up in the US, went to school here, lived most of their life here and married an American spouse.?

    Look, you can make-up all sorts of hypothetical scenarios, but it doesn’t change the fact that the framers’ imperative was to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion & claim, to the best they could imagine and to the best of their ability, by using the term NBC in Art. II of USC.

    Vattel’s writings were EXTREMELY popular amongst the framers at the time.

    There is no doubt of the framers intention & what NBC was intended to mean.

    Bingham re-affirmed the meaning of NBC UNOPPOSED on the floor of Congress, therefore it was agreed to by tacit approval in the Congress, Minor v. Happersett re-affirmed the definition, Perkins v. Elg re-affirmed the definition and WKA re-affirmed the definition also by making distinct a born citizen, and adjudging WKA, who was native-born in US as a ‘citizen’ ONLY ………….. no nbC for WKA.

    It was no accident, typo, error or slip of the tongue that 14th & WKA said ‘citizen’.

    Your entire partisan driven argument is not to get to the truth, it is merely a desperate effort to hold-on to political power which was gotten by fraud and deception.

    Your argument is absurd at it’s very core & an insult to the wisdom & intelligence of the founding fathers.

    Mr. Transparency has let you down big-time, while ‘Rome burns’ he fiddling with bringing your nation down, off playing golf with his commie mates & his wife prancing around on junkets.

    You should have voted for Billiary …………… fools.

  442. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 12:37 am #

    MichaelN: Look, you can make-up all sorts of hypothetical scenarios, but it doesn’t change the fact that the framers’ imperative was to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion & claim, to the best they could imagine and to the best of their ability, by using the term NBC in Art. II of USC.

    *yawn* You’ve been beating this nonsense drum and getting nowhere.

    The only one trying to twist the past to make up hypothetical scenarios is you. You’ve been endlessly debunked and mocked for months now. Give it a rest.

    Nothing changes the fact that your alternative notions have no real support or basis in how our laws are applied.

    None of your nonsense changes what a US NBC is and the reality that we only have 2 types of citizens here – born (NBC) and naturalized.

    You are a tiresome broken record, who does nothing but repeat the same bunk over and over again. Get a new hobby.

  443. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2011 at 12:37 am #

    MichaelN: Your entire partisan driven argument is not to get to the truth, it is merely a desperate effort to hold-on to political power which was gotten by fraud and deception.

    That sounds like a good exit line [Doc crosses fingers.]

  444. avatar
    Greg April 23, 2011 at 12:48 am #

    MichaelN: Look, you can make-up all sorts of hypothetical scenarios, but it doesn’t change the fact that the framers’ imperative was to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, persuasion & claim, to the best they could imagine and to the best of their ability, by using the term NBC in Art. II of USC.

    So, you’re arguing that they could not possibly imagine that someone might LIVE ABROAD?

    Okay, whatever.

    MichaelN: Vattel’s writings were EXTREMELY popular amongst the framers at the time.

    He was 1/18th as popular as Blackstone!

    The Founders quoted Blackstone about citizenship. They quoted Coke about citizenship. They didn’t quote Vattel about citizenship.

    They quoted 28 authors more extensively than Vattel, Michael. Grotius and Pufendorf, for example. Do you know what they say about citizenship?

    Your argument boils down to:

    1. The Founders read Vattel
    2. I like what Vattel said about citizenship
    3. Therefore the Founders must have liked Vattel, too.

    MichaelN: There is no doubt of the framers intention & what NBC was intended to mean.

    Of course there was no doubt, Michael! That’s why every scholar (but three) that has ever looked at this has said that the children of aliens are eligible for the Presidency.

    It’s why Rawle wrote in 1825, less than 40 years after the founding that “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges ”

    That’s why Lynch v. Clarke said it was universally accepted among the legal community that the children of aliens could run for President.

    That’s why 69 million people voted for Obama despite the common knowledge that his father was Kenyan.

    That’s why it wasn’t until October 2008 that the first lawsuit was filed that contemplated this two-citizen parent stuff.

    That’s why you birthers are 76-0.

    That’s why the appeals court in Ankeny said: “…we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes REGARDLESS OF THE BIRTHPLACE OF THEIR PARENTS.”

    If it’s so clear that 200 years of scholarship has missed it, Michael, one wonders what an unclear meaning would be!

    MichaelN: Bingham re-affirmed the meaning of NBC UNOPPOSED on the floor of Congress, therefore it was agreed to by tacit approval in the Congress,

    Garrett Epps disproves your thesis, as does James Ho. You cannot even bring yourself to peak at those articles. Afraid? Terrified that they’ll destroy your confidence in birther logic?

    MichaelN: It was no accident, typo, error or slip of the tongue that 14th & WKA said citizen’.

    Nor was it an accident that Gray quoted US v. Rhodes:

    All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

    It wasn’t an accident that the argument proceeded from the fact that the US had adopted British Common Law.

    It wasn’t an accident. Wong Kim Ark is a citizen because he’s a natural born citizen.

    MichaelN: Mr. Transparency has let you down big-time, while Rome burns’ he fiddling with bringing your nation down, off playing golf with his commie mates & his wife prancing around on junkets.

    You should have voted for Billiary …………… fools.

    And this, this bile, is the HEART of your argument, Michael.

    “I don’t like Barack, so therefore, he must be ineligible.”

    You will go to inordinate lengths to twist, distort and mangle the law in order to call his eligibility into question.

    You don’t give a shite about American constitutional law any more than the snippets you can cut and paste out of other birther websites.

  445. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2011 at 12:57 am #

    Greg: If it’s so clear that 200 years of scholarship has missed it, Michael, one wonders what an unclear meaning would be!

    I think Michael is biased.

  446. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 23, 2011 at 12:59 am #

    This thread is being closed, as a large number of comments results in long page generation times, slowing down the site.