Main Menu

The Doc got layers

I’ve already mentioned a few times, I scanned my own birth certificate using Adobe Acrobat and an HP scanner, and I got layers. Of course President Obama’s long form birth certificate PDF wasn’t scanned using Adobe software, but the similarity in the results are striking. I think it is appropriate that I provide this information, since certain profoundly uninformed people still think that scanned PDF’s don’t have layers.

What I did

The hardware and software were: Adobe Acrobat Standard 9.0 and an HP Photosmart Premium C309g-m combination printer/scanner. In Acrobat, I selected File | Create PDF | From scanner | Color Document. Acrobat scanned the image. Then I selected Document | Optimize Scanned PDF (taking the default options). Finally I selected Advanced | Document Processing | Export All Images. That’s all I did – no Illustrator, no Photoshop, no manual fiddling with anything.

Twelve files were exported, most of them were of the piece of cardboard I used to mask the bottom half of the certificate where my personal information is. Two of the images are of particular interest and I will include them here. The first (Fig. 1) is the background layer, and the second (Fig. 2) has most of the printing.

 

Untitled_Page_1_Image_0004
Fig. 1

Untitled_Page_1_Image_0012

Fig. 2

Results

There are three things that I would like to point out. The first is that layers were created. The second is that parts of words are found in the background layer, for example “We,” while the rest of the word, “bb” is in Fig. 2. (Webb is the name of the doctor who delivered me.) When one zooms in on my PDF one can see that the two parts of the word look distinctly different. This is the same thing we see on the Obama PDF. The third thing is that part of a signature (of the state registrar) is in one layer and part in another, as is the signature of President Obama’s mother on his certificate.

Anyone with the software and a scanner can to exactly the same thing I did. You don’t have to take my word for it. Normal optimized scanning of a document to a PDF creates layers in standard Adobe software. If I had a Mac, I have no doubt I could show you the same thing.

Here is the PDF file created in this experiment.

Print Friendly

186 Responses to The Doc got layers

  1. avatar
    Wayne July 9, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

    Your BC must be a forgery! The two r’s in “State Registrar” are the same pixel for pixel. lol.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 9, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

    No, the two “b” characters in “Webb” are different, so that proves it’s a forgery.

    Wayne: Your BC must be a forgery! The two r’s in “State Registrar” are the same pixel for pixel. lol.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 9, 2011 at 8:13 pm #

    Check out this new article: President Obama’s Birth Certificate: Chromatic Aberration Theory Debunked at the Decoded Science web site.

  4. avatar
    Wayne July 9, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    I bet if your BC were printed on darker paper, then we would see white haloing similar to that on Obama’s BC.

  5. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny July 9, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Check out this new article: President Obama’s Birth Certificate: Chromatic Aberration Theory Debunked at the Decoded Science web site.

    The comments are hilarious. Crazy birthers. Of course she is inviting them by writing “some have claimed the birth certificate is a fake …”

    Even this girl who at her what looks like tender age has ten times more experience in her finger tips than all the fake birther “experts” combined, falls into the Polarik trap.

    I call it the Polarik trap because that “expert” once famously claimed that his analysis (of a compter image” finally proved that there was no original.

    Of course, this PDF is not the actual birth certificate – how often does that have to be repeated?

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 10, 2011 at 8:04 am #

    The Adobe software seems to work a little differently than the Mac software. Adobe leaves behind the gray outline of the letters in the background layer, while the Mac doesn’t. Both convert the form data into a black and white bitmap. When the two layers are combined to show the final image, the Mac shows a white halo where the gray has been converted to white, while with Adobe the gray-scale outline remains part of the background layer.

    Wayne: I bet if your BC were printed on darker paper, then we would see white haloing similar to that on Obama’s BC.

  7. avatar
    DCH July 10, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    “Of course, this PDF is not the actual birth certificate – how often does that have to be repeated?”

    It never occured to the idiot birthers to simply scan a large sampling documents printed on security paper and then examine the PDFs and compare the results the WH PDFs. That would be too scientific! It would have told them to forget the ‘forgery’ claim.
    Instead they simply jumped to a pre-determined conclusion of a “forgery” from the WH and DoH. This LFBC release confirmed the predictions (made in on this site long ago that the birthers would immedaitely declare the Hawaii LFBC a forgey.
    The WH anticipated this and throughly presented a complete chain of evidence from the Hawaii DoH. Trump provided the attention and played the fool. He was arrogant enough to show up at the correspondant’s annual dinner – to die by his own sword. He was always on Obama’s turf and spent 10 days insulting Obama’s mother. Obama struck back with a coolheaded and calculated response that derailed the WND/Corsi WTBC book marketing push. Corsi was left having to explain why his book was news. LOL.

  8. avatar
    y_p_w July 10, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    DCH:
    “Of course, this PDF is not the actual birth certificate – how often does that have to be repeated?”

    It never occured to the idiot birthers to simply scan a large sampling documents printed on security paper and then examine the PDFs and compare the results the WH PDFs.That would be too scientific!It would have told them to forget the forgery’ claim.
    Instead they simply jumped to a pre-determined conclusion of a “forgery” from the WH and DoH.This LFBC release confirmed the predictions (made in on this site long ago that the birthers would immedaitely declare the Hawaii LFBC a forgey.

    Still, the operating principle of some birthers seems to be that the PDF on the WH must be the source document. Of course it doesn’t make sense given that there’s a higher res B&W photocopy version that was handed out to the WH press corps. I’m actually impressed that someone at the WH managed to scan a color 8.5″x11″ document as a readable PDF under 400 KB.

    Of course it must be a forgery when the starting point is that Obama could not have been born in Hawaii.

  9. avatar
    marshman508 July 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    His farther was born in Kenya so the socialist Obama should not be able to run in next election.

  10. avatar
    Tarrant July 10, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

    Furthermore, they have no interest in seeking out other examples because they make the rhetoric inconvenient. As long as one maintains that the things seen are unique and provide no counterexamples, it’s easy to maintain the fiction.

    On freep not long ago someone make a thread about the Registrar Lee that signed his certificate, stating that it was (of course) a forgery because there isn’t a single other certificate signed by said registrar. When someone posted some examples, of other birth certificates that had indeed been signed by the same person, at first they were called an Obot, then they were accused of forging all those other certificates. When that was shot down, some posters decided that the Vast Obama Conspiracy took a bunch of birth certificates from the time period and replaced ALL OF THEM with fake registrars to give cover to Obama’s certificate.

    If you never accept nor present alternate evidence, there’s no need for such inconvenient vast conspiracies. Deny, deny, deny.

  11. avatar
    Reality Check July 10, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    I think that is why they chose the “optimize” function. The rest is history.

    y_p_w: I’m actually impressed that someone at the WH managed to scan a color 8.5‘x11‘ document as a readable PDF under 400 KB.

  12. avatar
    dch July 10, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    “As long as one maintains that the things seen are unique and provide no counterexamples, it’s easy to maintain the fiction.”

    Trump was a tool for the WND/Corsi that made use of Trump’s TV persona to prep for the launch of book WTBC. WND and Corsi were attempting to profit by insulting the mother of the most powerful political figure on the planet by lying about the circumstances of his birth – Obama now had to respond. Trump was perfect, He was famous and rich and could be taken down brutally. Obama used that against them and simply revealed the truth by actually releasing the LFBC. He then crushed the ultra-rich Trump with his comedy routine at the correspondence dinner. Brillant. Trump got totally owned,
    Nobody cares about the birthers now, The GOP has dropped them, has any state rep brought up a birther bill since Trump took a round through the forehead? (nope)
    No one from the GOP will ever listen to these deluded fools ever again. No news organization has paid attention to this since Trump flamed out. Losers.

  13. avatar
    Grasshopper July 11, 2011 at 12:15 am #

    Hi Professor C.

    Mahalo for the Fall semester of CS9001: Editing a .pdf Document. I really liked the course.

    I hate code too, but I thought I’d send this in for extra credit, ok? I can get you a student-price license for a hex editor at the bookstore so you can follow along. Just say the word.

    Looking at the code for your BC, those “HiddenHorzOCR” fonts that your scanner software made all custom just for you are right there where I thought they’d be, with the system fonts that it matched to your document. How amazing is it that a sweet little $99 WalMart all-in-one together with not quite the latest version of Acrobat figured out that your document used Helvetica and Times New Roman and replaced 66 of your letters with the Helvetica and 20 with the Times New Roman?

    And, as a bonus it made you not just one but two whole custom fonts based on the typeface in your document, and one lists in its library 359 possible letters and glyphs. If your personal composition needs call for some matching letters to, well, “update” a document with an authentic-looking font you could be sitting pretty.

    And, while we’re talking about sweet, I’ve been looking forever for a filter that I can use in Photoshop, GIMP, or even a high-end medical imaging system that will grab a type layer out of its background, clean it up so nice and pretty, and make it editable like this one is. Who says college is a waste of money? You’ve shown us all how, and at WalMart prices!! Save money, live better.

    So, no need for us to worry that this is a crude cut and paste. It’s something infinitely better, the actual type layer isolated about as well as can be, made editable, with the fonts to edit it with. It’s like having this thing in Word. Wordlife! Good thing we’re not up to something evil because we could almost make birth certificates with this. Just sayin’.

    Now, we know that with you being Prof. C. and all, you don’t have to stoop to going into the code and changing “true” to “false” and 0 to 1 in all those special places to jailbreak those custom fonts. Among other things, you would have to read the Acrobat API and it’s 1,000 pages long. And, there’s that hex editor. But, I’m sure the U. would pop for a copy of Font Maker if you had trouble with the code.

    So, next semester? Once you’ve edited the type layer you still have a lot of separate images that you have to put back together. And that means you have to layer the edited type over a different background, make a TIFF in Photoshop and export it to a .pdf, and oh, boy how many ways will that show up in the code? Looks like we’ve got our plate full.

    In fact, I see now that one of the lab notes for the Spring says “sanitize the OCR fonts when you’re done editing so nobody catches on”. But one of the seniors told me that’s the stupidest thing you could do because how are you going to explain the identical letters if there aren’t any embedded OCR fonts to blame them on? I see they’ve given us a document here for lab that has a couple of hundred such letters and no OCR fonts in the code. You don’t have to be Manager at the Jiffy-Lube to know that somebody is going to be so busted if anyone notices! There’s got to be a less obvious way.

    I don’t know why this course became core for my American Civics degree, does it have something to do with the new Dean? Whatever, I’m heading out to WalMart for one of those scanners right now. Aloha.

  14. avatar
    straight-shooter July 11, 2011 at 7:09 am #

    It’s far from identical, but it shows the most important similarity to the WH PDF, and that’s the appearance of some text elements that remained in gray-scale instead of being converted to pure black. That’s further proof that the Obama PDF anomalies are not the result of human manipulation but of a software program that doesn’t produce a perfectly uniform result. When people point to things in the PDF that seem like they shouldn’t exist or can’t be the result of anything other than deliberate alteration, they never point to a reason for making the meaningless alterations that they perceive. Of course there are no reasons and other explanations have to be the truth of why odd things are seen, rather than deliberate but meaningless fakery. Common sense was the first victim of the COLB being released as a PDF instead of a JPG. Of course no one has an answer as to why the heck that was done. Could the clerk that made the PDF have done it out of force of habit? Maybe he/she routinely saved documents as PDFs instead of JPGs, and just followed the usual routine without thinking of the result of releasing a multi-layered mystery document-image on the uninformed public.

  15. avatar
    Reality Check July 11, 2011 at 7:59 am #

    The government is in the business of publishing documents and they use Portable Document Format files almost exclusively for that. PDF’s are generally smaller and more secure than other formats. Remember, they knew this document was going to be downloaded millions of times. It made sense to make the file small but still as readable as possible. Before these self proclaimed “experts” appeared who gave a flip that a PDF could have layers when opened in Adobe Illustrator?

    straight-shooter: Could the clerk that made the PDF have done it out of force of habit?

  16. avatar
    Majority Will July 11, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    Reality Check:
    The government is in the business of publishing documents and they use Portable Document Format files almost exclusively for that. PDF’s are generally smaller and more secure than other formats. Remember, they knew this document was going to be downloaded millions of times. It made sense to make the file small but still as readable as possible. Before these self proclaimed “experts” appeared who gave a flip that a PDF could have layers when opened in Adobe Illustrator?

    Are these paranoid birther bigots busy searching for hidden messages in their 1040 form?

    IRS.GOV

    Welcome to the forms and publications resource page, the official source of IRS tax products. The links below provide methods to access and acquire both electronic and print media.

    Frequently Downloaded Forms and Publications (PDF)

    http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/index.html

    Let me know if they find a smiley face.

    Idiots.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 11, 2011 at 8:35 am #

    People doing what they usually do explains most of the world and I think what you suggest is the most likely explanation here. It has also been speculated that it was done to meet accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Workforce Rehabilitation Act, but since there is on OCR data, this doesn’t seem as likely.

    straight-shooter: Could the clerk that made the PDF have done it out of force of habit? Maybe he/she routinely saved documents as PDFs instead of JPGs, and just followed the usual routine without thinking of the result of releasing a multi-layered mystery document-image on the uninformed public.

  18. avatar
    The Magic M July 11, 2011 at 8:39 am #

    straight-shooter: Common sense was the first victim of the COLB being released as a PDF instead of a JPG. Of course no one has an answer as to why the heck that was done.

    Ask the people who send me screenshots in PDF format. Or in Word.

  19. avatar
    Thrifty July 11, 2011 at 9:49 am #

    THERE
    IS
    NOTHING
    WRONG
    OR DEFICIENT
    OR SNEAKY
    OR INSIDIOUS
    ABOUT THE PDF FORMAT.

    It’s another idiotic red herring. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts* that these birfoons didn’t even know what a PDF was before the release of the LFBC.

    Weren’t the published images of the COLB in JPEG format?

    *I realize that expression doesn’t make a lot of sense, particularly given the price of donuts these days, but I like the sound of it.

  20. avatar
    J.Potter July 11, 2011 at 9:57 am #

    Anyone seriously think the birthers would have been saitisfied with a plain ole’ JPG? Right. Might have given them less to obsess over, but they still would have jumped straight to “FORGERY!” If it isn’t a forgery, then they must say they was wrong, fold up the tent, and go home to the trailer. What fun would that be? And wouldn’t we have been disappointed in them if they had called it a day? A true nut never recants.

  21. avatar
    HistorianDude July 11, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    I want to point out another very, very, very importnat feature of Doc’s PDF.

    Several of the letters ended up being pixel identical!!!

    This has been perhaps the hardest phenomenon to find replicated in other scanned and optimized PDFs… and here it is in all its unambiguous glory!!!

  22. avatar
    HistorianDude July 11, 2011 at 11:57 am #

    Damn… Wayne noticed first!

    :-(

  23. avatar
    grasshopper July 11, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Prof. C.

    What’s with these other students, they don’t know code?

    But you’re not only smart, you’re extremely smart. And I think you’re ready to fire that mind of yours up. Which is good, because usually the thinking comes before the answer. At least that’s what they said at orientation. Funny, but I guess the prof’s all missed that day because it all seems to be about the answer here.

    I was down around Punchbowl and they were handing out free programs and one that they had looked totally perfect for you. Much better than either Acrobat or a hex editor with a .pdf template.

    You can download it for free at http://sourceforge.net/projects/itextrups/

    Kind of a combination hex editor for .pdf’s, API translator, and object inspector. You can’t use it to change anything but you can with the itext project, which lets you address any kind of .pdf structure programmatically.

    Load some .pdf’s in there and have a look-see. Don’t worry if it’s a little skittish loading some, it’s freeware.

    I think we ought to use this next semester.

    I popped for the HP6500 at $129. You can’t take it with you.

    Aloha

  24. avatar
    Thrifty July 11, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

    The cake I had on my 27th birthday was a layer cake. Does that mean that it was a forgery and that I am, in truth, only 29 rather than 30?

  25. avatar
    Thrifty July 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm #

    J.Potter: Anyone seriously think the birthers would have been saitisfied with a plain ole’ JPG? Right. Might have given them less to obsess over, but they still would have jumped straight to “FORGERY!” If it isn’t a forgery, then they must say they was wrong, fold up the tent, and go home to the trailer. What fun would that be? And wouldn’t we have been disappointed in them if they had called it a day? A true nut never recants.

    Of course not. To reiterate my earlier point, the COLB was a JPG, and that was frequently called a forgery. Most of the criticism there was that it didn’t provide enough information (which is of course wrong).

    Were the LFBC released as a JPG, I imagine there wouldn’t be this bellyaching about file formats, and the “experts” would claim the evidence of forgery in other non-issues, like TXE or the curvature of lines or the straightness of certain letters or some such rot.

  26. avatar
    Majority Will July 11, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    Thrifty: Of course not.To reiterate my earlier point, the COLB was a JPG, and that was frequently called a forgery.Most of the criticism there was that it didn’t provide enough information (which is of course wrong).

    Were the LFBC released as a JPG, I imagine there wouldn’t be this bellyaching about file formats, and the “experts” would claim the evidence of forgery in other non-issues, like TXE or the curvature of lines or the straightness of certain letters or some such rot.

    Exactly right.

  27. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 3:42 pm #

    Amazing! An entire website created to “debunk” all the
    crazy Obama conspiracies and while you and your minions,
    Dr. Conspiracy, are straining your talents to refute particles,
    pixels, and chromatic halos, you are missing the point. For
    all the fraud Mr. Obama is unleashing on our country, you
    would blindly chuckle that your knowledge is superior and
    crushing. Obama himself is evil, lying fraud and you have
    not a shred of wisdom to see it. You see layers and bumbling
    birthers. The document is doctored and you know it. But that
    is precisely my point – You specialize in minutiae while the larger
    and more important concept eludes you.

    “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel.”

    Obama lied about the troops coming home, what he’d do with
    Guantanamo Bay, he is violation of his oath to defend the
    Constitution and rule of law (ObamaCare, DOMA), he lied about
    his faith, he has a Social Security number from Connecticut that
    hasnt been explained. He lied about his birth, his upbringing, his
    father’s role. He is blocking every attempt the states make to
    protect themselves against crime (illegal aliens in Arizona) and his
    TSA’s criminal behavior (Texas). He is hiding every record (BC was
    finally forced out) of importance that might help determine if
    he is what he claims. GM, bailouts (yeah Bush started that crap)
    ACORN, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, etc.He reeks of corruption
    if for no other reason than his appointees, his czars, his Supreme
    Court choices, etc.

    Meanwhile you stay buried in layered PDF’s. One thing is for
    certain, no one will ever mistake you for a patriot.

  28. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

    Argue away at the authenticity of the birth certificate while this socialist worm
    eats his fill of our sovereignty. In the end, its not what has been altered at the
    digital level, its what’s staring you right in the face – The BC states that his father
    was, at his birth, a Kenyan (citizen of Kenya) so he CANNOT be President of the
    United States. He is NOT eligible. I wish you arrogant “debunkers” would do as
    much research on what the Founders intended regarding “natural born” as a
    prerequisite to holding this office as you do on these digital inconsistencies.
    What are you going to say for defending this corrupt socialist when the world
    finds out the truth of what his is?

  29. avatar
    Bovril July 12, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    Poor old bile filled, “Brent”

    Do tell “Brent” just exactly how many Supreme Court Justices, SC rulings, Case law, Constitutional scholars etc agree with your wholly cretinous opinion on the eligibility of the President…?

    That would be ZERO

    Just how many Birfoon cases of the 80+ that have occurred since the inauguration have you fools won…? That would be ZERO

    Just how stupid are you….?

    Well that one is plain even for a Birfoon to see.

    Guess what, stupid, seditious, anti-American fools like you are the reason sites like this exist.

    Obots rule alas Birfoons drool

  30. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

    Brent James: I wish you arrogant “debunkers” would do as
    much research on what the Founders intended regarding “natural born” as a
    prerequisite to holding this office as you do on these digital inconsistencies.

    I wish lazy birthers would bother reading the links on this site before spewing political dysentery, fright wing squawking points, asinine illogic, erroneous revisionism and idiotic bigotry.

    I seriously doubt you have even the slightest clue as to the various historical definitions and philosophies behind the concepts of socialism. AM talk radio will rot your brain.

    But heck, Rufus! It sure sounds so smart to squawk like that! Is that an Alinsky tactic?

    Raging lunatic birthers aren’t known for much except for being an embarrassment to the U.S.

    And questioning someone’s faith is the epitome of hypocrisy and arrogance.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 12, 2011 at 4:51 pm #

    Mr. James, in all fairness, there are 136 articles on this website dealing with citizenship. While there continue to be new crank claims made about birth certificate images, there really isn’t much more on the issue of “natural born citizen” than there was when Leo Donofrio came up with his crank “two citizen parent” theory in 2008, and when I published my first article on the subject.

    I think this issue is thoroughly covered on this site, and that any legitimate questions have been dealt with. Should you want to read the 136 articles, this link will point you to them.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/?cat=6

    The topic is also covered in the Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/

    Brent James: I wish you arrogant “debunkers” would do as
    much research on what the Founders intended regarding “natural born” as a
    prerequisite to holding this office as you do on these digital inconsistencies.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 12, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    Certainly your comment invites a sarcastic response, but I’ll forbear.

    I think that your remarks are more reflections of your own biases than objective reality. However, this website is a blog about Obama conspiracy theories. It is not a general political forum — there are plenty of those elsewhere.

    Brent James: Meanwhile you stay buried in layered PDF’s. One thing is for
    certain, no one will ever mistake you for a patriot.

  33. avatar
    J.Potter July 12, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    @Brent James
    “What are you going to say for defending this corrupt socialist when the world
    finds out the truth of what his is?”

    I think that, as I enjoy the second term of this more thoughtful Presidency, I’ll go with an occasional “God bless America” and follow it up with a fine rendition of “America the Beautiful”. Doubly so if a better candidate is found, and another peaceful transition of power is completed for the 45th consecutive time. America may be corrupt and flawed to a degree, but its guarantees, freedom, and basic mechanics and beautiful.

  34. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    Bovril –

    Pearls before swine.
    You asked how many Supreme Court cases, etc? Zero, as you have answered.
    Why? Because they are many cowards in this land, like you. People, who when
    they have the knowledge and the chance, choose to do nothing. They are either
    afraid or corrupt, like you. How stupid am I? Keep your front row seat and just keep
    watching. Apologists for Obama will still be calling him a great president when he
    is no longer relevant. Our country is great despite your best efforts. Regarding
    sedition, I suppose if when we have to throw off these tyrants, you’ll be laughing
    while everyone else does the work.

    Majority Will –

    You sound like a liberal sissy. So proud of your historical references and
    not-so-clever phrasing. Slightest clue? Funny thing is, while your’re being
    mr. tough guy liberal (joke) Obama is ripping our country to shreds under
    the guise of supreme intelligence, of which he has none. And speaking of
    stupid……………….you just cant see this, can you? I guess you voted for
    him so you kinda have to pretend he was worth the vote. Questioning
    someone’s faith? There isnt a question, MW, it is a matter of behavior.
    Nothing Christian about him. Nothing.

    And Finally, Dr. Conspiracy –
    Once the reading has been done, it is clear “why” the founders did
    not want people of dual loyalties presiding as commander-in-chief.
    You seem to want, as many on the left (sorry, had to deduce that
    from your take on these issues), to act as if there is no answer.
    On we go blindly along. 136 articles? Who wrote them? Liberal
    bloggers who dont believe in absolute truth? Or truth at all for
    that matter? I would tell you to read the personal writings of so
    many who, by virtue of their office, became embroiled in these
    matters. It’s time to impeach this man.

    You are working way too hard dismissing that which should be
    embraced.

  35. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Mr. Potter –

    What do you think of God? (as in the Christian deity, Christ) Seriously. How can a man believe such things as you have said and believe in God?
    You wrote, “enjoy the second term of this more thoughtful Presidency.”
    That is stunning in light of what you say in the last part of your comments,
    “America may be corrupt and flawed to a degree, but its guarantees, freedom, and basic mechanics and beautiful.”
    Should the corruption continue (and it shows every indication it will), these
    guarantees and freedoms you speak of will be gone, because the Constitution
    on which they are based (except those endowed by The Creator “inalienable”)
    is being trampled underfoot by this “thoughtful” President.

  36. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 12, 2011 at 6:36 pm #

    Brent James:
    said a bunch of word salad:

    Brent I find it funny you come in here ranting and raving and then going on about leftists and liberals. This isn’t a political blog. This deals with citizenship questions and conspiracies related to Barack Obama. Dr Conspiracy hasn’t even opined to you where he stands on social or economic issues for you to even gauge where he fits on the political spectrum. This is broad overreaching on your part and shows a complete lack of honesty.

    Tell me Brent if the founders were so intent on dual loyalties why is it one of our first Presidents Thomas Jefferson was a dual french and american citizen. Remember he gained French citizenship after the constitution was ratified. One of the main reasons Jefferson stepped down as Washington’s Secretary of State was because of how deeply embedded he was in French politics. Jefferson felt we should have taken the French side in the French-English conflict in 1793. Jefferson’s loyalties were so divided he resigned and later helped write the precursor to the French constitution with Lafayette. If anything Jefferson had a dual loyalty as an adult as opposed to the imagined one you think Obama had when he was a child.

    Jefferson became president. Then there was Chester A Arthur whose father was naturalized after his birth and most likely had dual citizenship at birth. He was President. Then we have Spiro Agnew who had dual citizenship at birth and was Vice President. So you have 3 right there who had so-called divided loyalties and yet served in the Executive Branch of government. It’s obvious you have no idea about what the founding fathers wanted and your claims are contrary to established longtime caselaw.

  37. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Brent James:
    Mr. Potter –

    What do you think of God? (as in the Christian deity, Christ) Seriously. How can a man believe such things as you have said and believe in God?
    You wrote, “enjoy the second term of this more thoughtful Presidency.”
    That is stunning in light of what you say in the last part of your comments,
    “America may be corrupt and flawed to a degree, but its guarantees, freedom, and basic mechanics and beautiful.”
    Should the corruption continue (and it shows every indication it will), these
    guarantees and freedoms you speak of will be gone, because the Constitution
    on which they are based (except those endowed by The Creator “inalienable”)
    is being trampled underfoot by this “thoughtful” President.

    Ah yes more irrational paranoia. Tell me Brent which guarantees and freedoms you speak of have been removed under this President?

  38. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 12, 2011 at 7:09 pm #

    Brent James:
    What do you think of God? (as in the Christian deity, Christ)
    You mean the one that said that it’s followers should give everything that they have to the poor, and then come follow him? You mean the one that said that it is harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter heaven? The one that said that you should take care of the poor, and that you will know your actions by how you treat them? The one that said that faith without works is dead? Read Matthew 19 before answering.

  39. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 12, 2011 at 7:17 pm #

    Matthew 19:21 – Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

  40. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    Brent James: Nothing Christian about him. Nothing.

    That’s not for you to judge and it certainly has nothing to do with eligibility or did you wipe yourself with that part of the Constitution as well?

    ” . . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    But then flaming birther idiots never have had any respect for the law.

  41. avatar
    J.Potter July 12, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    The Constitution is far stronger than you seem to believe, BJ … I say the country is flawed and corrupt to a degree because it is run as a collective effort by mere mortals, who often unintentionally–and sometimes intentionally–fall short. You asked what we would say, and I told you what I would say, and the best place to say it would be on a Colorado mountaintop, enjoying the vista of the Great Plains, literally well above the run-of-the mill, “sky is falling”, partisan swill this country has survived for 220 years. It’s a beautiful country, and I appreciate my freedom to continue enjoying it in relative peace. I pray you are able to do the same, free of an unnecessarily troubled mind.

    Brent James:
    Mr. Potter –

    What do you think of God? (as in the Christian deity, Christ) Seriously. How can a man believe such things as you have said and believe in God?
    You wrote, “enjoy the second term of this more thoughtful Presidency.”
    That is stunning in light of what you say in the last part of your comments,
    “America may be corrupt and flawed to a degree, but its guarantees, freedom, and basic mechanics and beautiful.”
    Should the corruption continue (and it shows every indication it will), these
    guarantees and freedoms you speak of will be gone, because the Constitution
    on which they are based (except those endowed by The Creator “inalienable”)
    is being trampled underfoot by this “thoughtful” President.

  42. avatar
    Obsolete July 12, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    Brent James,
    If you think our President is a fraud and corrupt, if you think our courts our corrupt, and if you think our whole Congress and Senate are corrupt, why do you wish to stay here in such a country whose opinion you hold so low?
    It is obvious you hate America, and you hate your fellow Americans who think differently from you.
    Please leave my beloved country before you do it any more damage. Or has Obama “taken away” this right from you too?

  43. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    Hello Ken Noise Bob Ross.

    Ranting and Raving, huh? That’s the trouble with writing, no way to tell the
    emotion, if any. Actually, I write my madness with a quiet confidence. You
    types always like to make your opposition sound crazy. Guess it makes you
    feel better.

    You say its not a political blog. Dr C said something similar, but
    you know what? It is. Really. Do you believe for a second that righting so called
    conspiracy theories about Obama is not directly related to the political views
    you hold? Nonsense. Its all political. Proof? The way responders here protect
    at all costs a man bent on their downfall. Your worldview has nothing to do with
    your response to birthers? Hmmm. So this is just about fact vs. paranoia?
    Obama is a political figure, so conspiracies related to him are “apolitical”?
    Whatever you say.

    Dr C doesnt HAVE to tell me where he stands on social or economic issues for me to gauge where he fits on the political spectrum. I can deduce. Not difficult, Ken. You say it shows a “complete lack of honesty”? No, it doesnt.

    You speak of Jefferson so as to protect what? Obama?
    The Founders intent? Meanwhile, on goes the slouching
    toward Gomorrah. I guess the best thing to do is raise more
    gifted and well trained citizens because Obama apologists
    usually dont have many. Heck, its working for the Muslims.
    Obama is not natural born. So just keep making excuses for
    the process. Goes something like this “Since we really dont
    know what ‘natural born’ is or what was originally meant, we
    can just about allow anything”. And so we have. Obama
    was not vetted. Not by any agency, department or persons.

    That’s outrageous in a society that is based on lawful conduct.

    Your citing several examples of those supposedly holding office
    with dual citizenship status proves nothing about my not knowing
    what the “founding fathers wanted.” Poor reasoning for a Dr.

    The destruction is well underway, Ken. But since you ask “which
    guarantees and freedoms you speak of have been removed under
    this President?”. The question is telling. When one sees a termite-
    eaten house, does one observe “The house has not collapsed,
    therefore it is sound”?

  44. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    Hey Dung Street,

    I can hardly begin to imagine what you want to say. I know the
    passages well. Your point could be one of many. Speak.

  45. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    Brent James: Your citing several examples of those supposedly holding office
    with dual citizenship status proves nothing about my not knowing
    what the “founding fathers wanted.”

    Can you quote a single statement from any of the founders regarding the question of dual citizenship?

    Brent James: The destruction is well underway, Ken.

    So, everything was just perfect until January 20, 2009, right? And you believe everything has been destroyed in the 2.5 years since then. Wow! That is powerful! You have me convinced (of something).

    Brent James: Obama
    was not vetted. Not by any agency, department or persons.

    He was vetted by approximately 130 million voters, of whhom approximately 69 million chhose him. According to the Coonstiituution (which you pretend to love) that is who “vets” candidates for offiice. Certainly neiither the Constitution nor statutes, nor precedents speak of “vetting” candidates.

  46. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 7:58 pm #

    Major Wilt –

    It is for me to judge. I never made the point that it was an eligibility criteria. I said that
    because Obama is a fraud. He even lies about what he believes. Maybe that doesnt
    concern you.

    We “flaming birther idiots” are compelled by the Constitution and its preservation to speak up when it is violated. You should be calling the White House and asking why he is lawless. Then again, that might say something about you.

  47. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2011 at 8:04 pm #

    Brent James: It is for me to judge.

    No. It isn’t.

    And you’re moving the goal posts like a good little birther. So predictable.

  48. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 8:04 pm #

    J.Potter:
    The Constitution is far stronger than you seem to believe, BJ … I say the country is flawed and corrupt to a degree because it is run as a collective effort by mere mortals, who often unintentionally–and sometimes intentionally–fall short. You asked what we would say, and I told you what I would say, and the best place to say it would be on a Colorado mountaintop, enjoying the vista of the Great Plains, literally well above the run-of-the mill, “sky is falling”, partisan swill this country has survived for 220 years. It’s a beautiful country, and I appreciate my freedom to continue enjoying it in relative peace. I pray you are able to do the same, free of an unnecessarily troubled mind.

    Okay, you want to be left alone. Good, but you will not be. Why? Because your idea, that you would enjoy a 2nd Obama term, indicates you cannot see a storm when it is coming.

  49. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Brent James: You say its not a political blog. Dr C said something similar, but
    you know what? It is. Really.

    More hubris. Good luck with that.

  50. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    Major Wilt –

    Sorry to have forgotten, but you said “That’s not for you to judge………”

    Yes, it is.

    If you see a rotten apple hanging on the tree and you pluck
    if off and toss it, what else is there to be done? It shows all the
    signs of being deficient and worthless. It is “self evident.”

  51. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 8:16 pm #

    Obsolete –

    Your screen name, Obsolete, is that a smear on your integrity?
    Didnt say any of what you claim. Nice try. You’ve got the Spin Factor.

  52. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    Scientist: Can you quote a single statement from any of the founders regarding the question of dual citizenship? Go study this for yourself.

    Not hard to find, unless you dont want to believe.

    So, everything was just perfect until January 20, 2009, right?And you believe everything has been destroyed in the 2.5 years since then.Wow!That is powerful!You have me convinced (of something).

    Didnt say any of that.

    He was vetted by approximately 130 million voters, of whhom approximately 69 million chhose him.According to the Coonstiituution (which you pretend to love) that is who “vets” candidates for offiice.Certainly neiither the Constitution nor statutes, nor precedents speak of “vetting” candidates.

    Voters dont vet anyone. Sorry, these last comments are too unworthy.

  53. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 12, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

    Giving all you have to the poor sounds very socialistic to me, Brent. Maybe you don’t know the Bible as well as you think.

  54. avatar
    JoZeppy July 12, 2011 at 8:30 pm #

    Brent James: more meaningless birther babble.

    Actually, Mr. James, a few of us are here because we love the law. We spent years of our lives and a small fortune to study the law. Contrary to your claims, we don’t say we don’t know what the founders meant when they used the words “natural born citizen.” In fact we have a pretty good idea of it’s core meaning. And unfortunately for you, the meaning you want, has no support in the law. To top it off, there’s not even any debate on the subject in the legal community. “Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens.” 107 Mich L. Rev. First Impressions 1 (2008).
    You see, the law means a lot to me. I made a lot of sacrifices to study it. And nothing gets my dander up more than when a bunch of self proclaimed experts, who don’t have the first clue on how to read a judicial opinion, or much less understand what makes binding precident, purport to tell me they know the law better than anyone currently on the bench, praciting law, teaching law, or anyone who has done so for the past century. I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Not even just a little bit wrong. You are off the resevation wrong. This isn’t about politics. This isn’t about having a “fair and balanced” discussion on an issue. This is a matter where the law is clear. You are born on US soil. Neither of your parents are diplomats (or part of an invading army). You are a natural born citizen. End of story.

  55. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2011 at 8:34 pm #

    Brent James: Yes, it is.

    No. It isn’t.

    Wait. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

  56. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    Dung Street –

    Nope. I wouldnt have expected that you’d understand what
    Jesus was talking about in this passage. Socialism. What
    a joke.

  57. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

    Brent James: Not hard to find, unless you dont want to believe

    How about you humor us and show us since it’s so easy. Where did any founder mention dual citizenship? Surely you can come up with a quote or 2.

    Brent James: Voters dont vet anyone

    Did you hear of this thing called “elections”? Someone runs and their opponents can hiire a bunch of folks to dig into their background. Given that a crediible presidential candidate these days raise a few $100 million , surely they can affrd to dig a bit.

    In fact, you vetted Obama and decided not to vote for him. That is your riight. Others vetted him and decided to vote for him. That is their right.

  58. avatar
    Scientist July 12, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

    Brent James: What
    a joke.

    Yes, you are.

  59. avatar
    Bovril July 12, 2011 at 9:10 pm #

    Poor old Burnt Toast

    Here you go you sad little man, here’s the the words from the ONLY case against the President that got to be heard on the merits, Ankeny v Governor of Indiana

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

    Oops, you FAIL….again

  60. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 12, 2011 at 9:17 pm #

    Brent James:
    Hello Ken Noise Bob Ross.

    Ranting and Raving, huh? That’s the trouble with writing, no way to tell the
    emotion, if any. Actually, I write my madness with a quiet confidence. You
    types always like to make your opposition sound crazy. Guess it makes you
    feel better.
    [/quote]
    A quiet confidence? But a false confidence nonetheless. Actually I can tell by your writing style. You came in here insulting various people you don’t know. That’s not the habit of a balanced individual. Normal rational individuals when they make new introductions reserve judgment instead of just blasting out at any and everyone. It doesn’t make you seem like you have a sound mind. What’s “our types”? See there’s that prejudgment thing again. You haven’t had much time to gauge the people here and yet you’ve already made a decision. We don’t have to make anyone sound crazy; you do that all by yourself. This is the problem you seem to have, you consider us as your enemy.

    Brent James:

    You say its not a political blog. Dr C said something similar, but
    you know what? It is. Really. Do you believe for a second that righting so called
    conspiracy theories about Obama is not directly related to the political views
    you hold? Nonsense. Its all political. Proof? The way responders here protect
    at all costs a man bent on their downfall. Your worldview has nothing to do with
    your response to birthers? Hmmm. So this is just about fact vs. paranoia?
    Obama is a political figure, so conspiracies related to him are “apolitical”?
    [/quote]

    No it actually isn’t related to politics. People from the left, right and center all think you birthers are crazy. This whole the President being the legal president thing isn’t politics; it’s something called reality. Reality stands firmly against you at this point. You seem to confuse, like most birthers, saying rightfully that the President is the Legal and Lawful President is somehow tantamount to tacit support. It’s not. People of all different stripes post here many didn’t vote for Obama, many aren’t going to vote for him and yet they live in the Reality based community.

    Brent James:

    Whatever you say.
    [/quote]
    It’s not whatever I say, it’s what is. You seem to have that distinct problem with the real world.

    Brent James:

    Dr C doesnt HAVE to tell me where he stands on social or economic issues for me togauge where he fits on the political spectrum. I can deduce. Not difficult, Ken. You say it shows a “complete lack of honesty”? No, it doesnt.
    [/quote]
    Well then that’s a mistake only an idiot would make. Do you overcompensate with other things in your life Brent? You can’t deduce. People are classified in their politics by where they stand on social and economic issues if you don’t have the data to determine that then you tell where they stand politically. I got news for you but birthers only are at about 10% that means most Americans regardless of their political leanings are against you.

    Brent James:

    You speak of Jefferson so as to protect what? Obama?
    The Founders intent? Meanwhile, on goes the slouching
    toward Gomorrah.
    [/quote]
    What does Gomorrah have to do with this country and the separation of church and state this country enjoys. Jefferson was a founder, I think he knew more than you on what the intent of the founders were. So it looks like you have no foundation for what you’re claiming about them and as with most birthers have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Brent James:
    I guess the best thing to do is raise more
    gifted and well trained citizens because Obama apologists
    usually dont have many.
    [/quote]
    Gifted and well trained? Again you don’t fall into that category and instead look like a doofus who uses birtherism as a fall back for why you hate him. Come on attack the guy on the issues, birtherism is stupid.

    Brent James:
    Obama is not natural born. So just keep making excuses for
    the process. Goes something like this “Since we really dont
    know what natural born’ is or what was originally meant, we
    can just about allow anything”. And so we have. Obama
    was not vetted. Not by any agency, department or persons.
    [/quote]
    Yes he is. He’s president. Congress seemed to think so. Chief Justice Roberts seemed to think so. The majority that voted for him seemed to think so. The courts also seem to think so since they’ve shot down over 100 cases. We know what natural born citizen means. That was settled over 100 years ago in Wong Kim Ark. No textbook or school system ever taught the two citizen parent rule that the birthers came up with in 2008. We have an adversarial system: Obama was vetted in the primaries and in the general election. If there was an issue it would have been found by any of his opponents including the establishment candidates McCain and Clinton.

    Brent James:

    That’s outrageous in a society that is based on lawful conduct.
    [/quote]
    What’s outrageous is how you continue spouting on about things you know nothing about.

    Brent James:

    Your citing several examples of those supposedly holding office
    with dual citizenship status proves nothing about my not knowing
    what the “founding fathers wanted.” Poor reasoning for a Dr.
    [/quote]
    It’s not supposedly holding office with dual citizenship, it was them holding office with Dual Citizenship. Jefferson had dual citizenship that was gained after the Constitution was ratified. If it mattered to the founders they would have stopped Jefferson. So I think its pretty clear what their intent was.

    Brent James:

    The destruction is well underway, Ken. But since you ask “which
    guarantees and freedoms you speak of have been removed under
    this President?”.[/quote]
    Where is this said destruction that is well under away? Enough empty platitudes, present something tangible.

    Brent James:
    The question is telling. When one sees a termite-
    eaten house, does one observe “The house has not collapsed,
    therefore it is sound”?
    [/quote]
    So in other words you have nothing and can’t answer the question. You’re just rambling on with random word salad. It’s good to know.

  61. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 12, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

    Doc is there any chance you can clean up the quotes on my previous post?

  62. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 12, 2011 at 9:19 pm #

    Brent James:
    Dung Street –

    Nope. I wouldnt have expected that you’d understand what
    Jesus was talking about in this passage. Socialism. What
    a joke.

    Funny considering Jesus said “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and Jesus was a socialist.

  63. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm #

    JoZlippy –

    So you studied law and spent a lot doing it. That means that you
    studied it. That’s all – until you start to practice – only then will
    we know what kind of respect you have for the law. Do you know
    why lawyers and one of the most contemptible professions in
    the US? Most of the lawyers I hear about and read about do
    their best to circumvent the law for a string of court victories.

    Nice folk, those lawyers.

    Its no use arguing with a lawyer who thinks the core understanding of “natural born citizen” is “Those born in the United States”. You are either deceived or a poor student.
    When a case provides end all judgements like the one youve mentioned (107 Mich L. Rev. First Impressions 1 2008) they do not sit idle, rather, they are challenged and overturned. That ruling is itself spurious and by no means set.

    Self proclaimed expert? That’s what you and your buddies on this website pretend to be. Right? You tell everyone how smart you are with your opinions and mocking because people who dont believe or trust this President and just plain nuts. I dont consider myself an expert. Why do I have to be?

    So the law really means a lot to you, eh?me. Maybe your many sacrifices to study it are in vain if you can, with all sincerity, turn your back on its enforcement. You say it does not set well with you when people dont know “how to read a judicial opinion, or much less understand what makes binding precedent” but it just that – an OPINION.

    Dont make such a big deal out of people who study the law. its what they eventually do with it that counts. Do they have integrity? Will they put the cause of truth ahead of their own ego?

    Many lawyers are dishonest. Many are disbarred and some are even in jail. My point: No one has to be a law expert to know the truth of a matter or understand when grave miscarriages of justice occur. Being born on US soil makes you a “native born” citizen NOT a “natural born” citizen which carries more specificity. And stop telling me that’s the end of the story. its still being written.

  64. avatar
    Bovril July 12, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    Still being stupid I see

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

    Yep, the President is a Natural Born Citizen and you are a sad little failure.

  65. avatar
    Ballantine July 12, 2011 at 9:56 pm #

    Gee, Brent James, another worthless troll visits and after a dozen silly posts has yet to make a legal argument. Par for the course. Simply stating over and over that one needs citizen parents to be a NBC will only convince mindless birthers. People on this blog know the supreme court rejected such theory a century ago and there is not a shred of evidence that the founders thought differently. In all your posts you make no argument to the contrary because you cannot. You could cite the idiots Donofrio and Apuzzo, but even birthers have to acknowledge such persons have no qualifications as constitutional scholars and their birther cases were laughed out of court. I suggest you actually read real constitutional treatises or the debates to the Constitutional Convention, something I suspect no birther has actually done. It is pretty clear the framers rejected the defintion of Vattel in favor of the definition of Blackstone, but again, you do not really care. The bottom line is that anyone knowlegible in law understands that the supreme court has endorsed the English common law definition of “natural born citizen” and all your whining will not change that. Now go home and actually do some research.

  66. avatar
    Northland10 July 12, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    Brent James: Nothing Christian about him. Nothing

    Brent James: It is for me to judge.

    Do you realize the irony of your words? I get the feeling you really have not read scripture very fully and that which you have, you did not wisely “read, mark and inwardly digest” the meaning. Your use of “labels” as insults devoid of meaning shows your lack of interest in the same faith you seem fond of quoting.

    Your actions here, bearing false witness, insulting others with worthless labels all of these actions are an affront to Christ. Have you chosen to be a slave to your anger and hatred of Obama?

  67. avatar
    Bovril July 12, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    Not to forget Ballantine, the dear sainted Vattel also stated in his booklet of fun that his OPINION was only valid in some countries and explicitly names England as a country where Jus Soli is the rule.

    Now why oh why do Birfoons not mention that little fact I wonder….. 8-)

  68. avatar
    Ballantine July 12, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

    Bovril: Not to forget Ballantine, the dear sainted Vattel also stated in his booklet of fun that his OPINION was only valid in some countries and explicitly names England as a country where Jus Soli is the rule.Now why oh why do Birfoons not mention that little fact I wonder…..

    Yes, but even worse, the birfoons cite the passage from Vattel equating a “natural born citizens” to a “native” (even though such translation didn’t exist until 1797). But even assuming such translation did exist in 1787, the framers in the Convention used the term “native” in accordance with Blackstone use of such term (as equivalent to “natural born subject” under the common law) rather than Vattel’s definition. So both Blackstone and Vattel used the term “native” and equated it with “natural born.” The framers in the Convention used such term as used by Blackstone. Pretty much the end of any argument for a rational person. But we know birthers are not rational.

  69. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 11:28 pm #

    Major Wilt, Bollweevil, Northland01, ballastime, joZlippy, and Ken Noisewater (drip), and pseudo-scientist: Mr. Conspiracy is tolerable. The rest? Knuckleheads All. Your neighborhood needs some fresh air as bad as it needs wisdom. Good thing you guys are not the guardians of truth. We’d be even worse off. Nice slumming with you, though.

  70. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 12, 2011 at 11:31 pm #

    Brent James:
    Major Wilt, Bollweevil, Northland01, ballastime, joZlippy, and Ken Noisewater (drip),and pseudo-scientist: Mr. Conspiracy is tolerable. The rest? Knuckleheads All. Your neighborhood needs some fresh air as bad as it needs wisdom. Good thing you guys are not the guardians of truth. We’d be even worse off. Nice slumming with you, though.

    Round and around you go. You’re still making absolutely no sense and bringing nothing to the discussion. It’s really sad the quality of birthers as of late. We don’t even have to try and you make a complete fool of yourself.

  71. avatar
    Majority Will July 12, 2011 at 11:38 pm #

    Brent James: Your neighborhood needs some fresh air as bad as it needs wisdom.

    Enjoy.

  72. avatar
    Brent James July 12, 2011 at 11:42 pm #

    Ken Noisywaters Bob Ross –

    Well, I guess I have proven one thing and one thing only:
    Youve got nothing better to do than sit around watching the
    comments post. And you call me sad.

    Oh, I almost forgot your line “Jesus was a socialist”. Youve
    proven one more thing – you have not grasped even the simplest
    of truths. Now, go do something about the debt ceiling unless, of
    course, you think that type of spending befits our socialist president’s
    agenda.

  73. avatar
    Ballantine July 12, 2011 at 11:51 pm #

    Brent James: Major Wilt, Bollweevil, Northland01, ballastime, joZlippy, and Ken Noisewater (drip), and pseudo-scientist: Mr. Conspiracy is tolerable. The rest? Knuckleheads All. Your neighborhood needs some fresh air as bad as it needs wisdom. Good thing you guys are not the guardians of truth. We’d be even worse off. Nice slumming with you, though.

    Brent James: Major Wilt, Bollweevil, Northland01, ballastime, joZlippy, and Ken Noisewater (drip), and pseudo-scientist: Mr. Conspiracy is tolerable. The rest? Knuckleheads All. Your neighborhood needs some fresh air as bad as it needs wisdom. Good thing you guys are not the guardians of truth. We’d be even worse off. Nice slumming with you, though.

    Very impressive. No legal argument. No argument at all. Simple name calling and nothing more. Seems you are out of you league here. Why not go back to free republic where actual law and rational arguments are not necessary.

  74. avatar
    straight-shooter July 13, 2011 at 12:59 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Jefferson became president. Then there was Chester A Arthur whose father was naturalized after his birth and most likely had dual citizenship at birth. He was President. Then we have Spiro Agnew who had dual citizenship at birth and was Vice President. So you have 3 right there who had so-called divided loyalties and yet served in the Executive Branch of government. It’s obvious you have no idea about what the founding fathers wanted and your claims are contrary to established longtime case law.

    Your reasoning ability is defective. Jefferson’s devoting was NOT to Louis the 14th, King of France, but to the goal of freeing the French people from tyranny. He had no allegiance to the French government. Then you refer to 3 cases you mistakenly think prove your point, but they prove nothing since they have no connection at all to the thinking and intent of the framers of the Constitution. The only point you have that’s legitimate is that the strong concern of the founders was based on conditions that no longer exist, mostly. It was based on a theoretical possibility that wasn’t likely to happen.

  75. avatar
    straight-shooter July 13, 2011 at 1:38 am #

    JoZeppy: This is a matter where the law is clear. You are born on US soil. Neither of your parents are diplomats (or part of an invading army). You are a natural born citizen. End of story.

    You thiknking is defective and delusional. The definition of the phrase “natural born citizen” was not decided in any court case ever. Don’t ramble on as though it is something settled in law when it is not found in any law. It is not defined in law nor used in law since it is pre-law. It was written before the Constitution was ratified, before Congress existed or had written any laws.
    How would this strike the ear?: Article II Presidential requirement alternate wording:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a natural born Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;” That would be lamely redundant. And impossible since there were no natural born citizens when the Constitution was written. The first one was the first child born after ratification.

    Example 2. “No Person except a Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
    Redundant again, but with more inclusion since even naturalized citizens could be President.

    Example 3. “No Person except a native born Citizen…” I may be wrong, but I doubt there was such an expression as native-born-citizen. Using that phrase would include almost any person born on US soil, including those with British citizen fathers loyal to the Crown. Does anyone in their right mind think the framers were not intent on preventing that?
    Natural born citizenship includes the aspect of native birth. But a requirement of native born citizens does NOT include the aspect of birth to citizen parents. Birth to alien fathers would be included. The framers loathed and feared the possibilities inherent in such divided loyalty due to dual-citizenship. They wanted “pure-blooded Americans” only.

  76. avatar
    J. Potter July 13, 2011 at 2:19 am #

    And the point of your rewriting of the Constitution is? At least you are more blatant and upfront than the typical revisionist. Rather than merely push a creative new misinterpretation, you’re just rewriting to suit your desires! Can I suggest a few changes too? How about a billion dollars for anyone born on Mother’s Day, to be granted on said citizen’s 35th birthday?

    You can rewrite all you want …. through the amendment process. Hey, how about writing your Congresspersons, suggesting an amendment that let’s you, and you alone, rewrite the Constitution? Good luck. In the meantime:

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

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    The meaning was not decided in any court case EVER? Really? Run a search for “natural born citizen” at books.google.com and focus on the law review hits. The earliest opinion, and one of the most interesting, I have found thus far, is the chancery case of Lynch v. Clarke & Lynch, decided Nov 5., 1844, opinion written by a Judge Sandford. Found in Volume 3 of the New York Legal Observer from 1845.

    I like this case because because the judge notes that to his knowledge the question had not, as of that time, come before an American court. It’s a very detailed, 23-page opinion. Very detailed, centuries of history on American ideas of citizenship and its influences. Even specifically mentions Article II, Section 1 and ties it’s meaning directly to English common law. It ultimately concludes that an Irishwoman, born on American soil to temporary residents (Irish citizens), who returned to Ireland as a child and never returned (apparently), was still a “natural born citizen” of these United States.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=natural+born+citizen&hl=en&ei=ajQdTu7EMsHLgQeAmdXCCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=natural%20born%20citizen&f=false

    Now, this was 167 years ago, not a Supreme Court ruling, and there’s been plenty of jurisprudence and Congressional action since. But to say it was NEVER defined by a court is clearly a fail.

  77. avatar
    straight-shooter July 13, 2011 at 2:29 am #

    Ballantine: So both Blackstone and Vattel used the term “native” and equated it with “natural born.” The framers in the Convention used such term as used by Blackstone.

    You’re making a logic error in conflating the two, just as they did. That is the natural result of the fact that they overlapped 99.999%. All natural born citizens were native born, but not all native born persons were natural citizens. Natural citizens are only those who are born to citizens, they receive their citizenship naturally, not via any law or statute. As an almost universal rule the two terms referred to the same class of people, but now and then there was an exception. Children born to alien fathers who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States were not natural born citizens, nor citizens of any kind. Only children born to resident aliens were citizens, per the 14th amendment because their parents were considered to be subject to US jurisdiction. Visiting aliens, and aliens working for their own government were not subject to US jurisdiction. The father of Obama was not a resident alien, but was a visiting alien. Obama is a citizen only because of the citizenship of his mother. But if he had been born outside the US, by US law at that time, he would not even be considered a US citizen.
    As for the quote about “natural born British subjects”, bare in mind that you could substitute the word native for the word natural and it would make no difference in 99.999% of cases because any child born to an alien father was almost universally born to a resident alien father, and not a visiting alien father, nor mother.

  78. avatar
    gorefan July 13, 2011 at 2:37 am #

    straight-shooter: I may be wrong, but I doubt there was such an expression as native-born-citizen.

    You are wrong.

    Here is what Revolutionary War Hero, St. George Tucker wrote in 1803,

    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.”

    And here is what William Rawle wrote in 1829

    “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”

    William Rawle was appointed by President Washington to be the United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania.

    So this is what the Founders understood the term “natural born Citizen” to mean. Anyone born in the United States.

  79. avatar
    straight-shooter July 13, 2011 at 2:46 am #

    J. Potter: Now, this was 167 years ago, not a Supreme Court ruling, and there’s been plenty of jurisprudence and Congressional action since. But to say it was NEVER defined by a court is clearly a fail.

    Your understanding of the meaning of “defined” is insufficient. I didn’t say the phrase was never used nor abused, I said “defined”. That is the fact of the matter. Saying erroneously that such-n-such a person is by their reckoning a NBC is not providing a definition of what a NBC is. They erred is using the term because it has no place in US
    law and won’t have one until a case of Presidential eligibility is adjudicated by the Supreme Court. But that won’t ever happen. The misguided statement/opinion of the court you quoted is completely unaltered in its meaning by dropping the “natural born” adjective phrase from preceding the word “citizen”. It was US citizenship that the court was deciding, NOT what the definition was of natural born citizenship when the phrase was written into the
    Constitution.

  80. avatar
    J. Potter July 13, 2011 at 2:48 am #

    “… make no difference in 99.999% of cases because any child born to an alien father was almost universally born to a resident alien father, and not a visiting alien father, nor mother.”

    Now you definitely need to look up the Lynch case!

    Of course, the birthers have already tried to dismiss the case, saying it wasn’t a SCOTUS case, and therefore unimportant (comments on Puzo’s blog) …. despite the fact that the Supreme Court cited Lynch in everyone’s favorite case … Wong Kim Ark. Seems they thought it of note at that time. And since many (most?) cases are referred to the Supreme Court from lower courts, and the Justices take a pass letting the “lower” judgments stand, I’d say standing decisions not yet appealed or superceded are indeed significant, no matter at what level they are decided.

    Birthers also try to dismiss Lynch by making yet another citizenship distinction, that of “citizen at time of birth”. Riiiiight.

  81. avatar
    J. Potter July 13, 2011 at 2:51 am #

    Just keep on tapdancing, sir! Faster, faster! Can you read the case and tap at the same time?

    straight-shooter:

    The misguided statement/opinion of the court you quoted is completely unaltered in its meaning by dropping the “natural born” adjective phrase from preceding the word “citizen”.It was US citizenship that the court was deciding, NOT what the definition was of natural born citizenship when the phrase was written into the Constitution.

  82. avatar
    straight-shooter July 13, 2011 at 3:10 am #

    gorefan: And here is what William Rawle wrote in 1829

    “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”

    “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” This statement reflects the usual wide-spread logic error of statements that are generally true but not true in 100% of situations. He erred in added the word “every” which includes all Ambassadors and foreign government agents whose wives gave birth in the US. They were NOT natural born Americans, so the use of “every” reveals the defectiveness of the statement. He should have written “almost all persons born within…” Why do I have to point out what any clear thinking person can easily grasp?
    Also, the Constitution does not give any emphasis about the subject of what a natural born citizen is and speaking of citizenship as if it’s interchangeable with the phrase “natural born citizen” reveals muddled thinking. The phase should never be used, ever, except in regard to the Presidency. It should never be connected to United States citizenship because US citizenship is not dependent on being a natural born citizen. Nothing is dependent on it, except eligibility to the Presidency.

  83. avatar
    J. Potter July 13, 2011 at 4:46 am #

    If you must be hit over the head with it:

    “It is a necessary consequence … that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States. … If there had been any diversity on the subject in state laws, it might have been difficult to ascertain which of the conflicting state rules was to become, or did become, the national principle. And if any such diversity had existed, it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constituion as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any doubt he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

    That’s from section 5 of the Lynch decision, which you call misguided, but SCOTUS, in Wong, did not. I suppose you are looking for a more literal, dictionary-style, “definition”?

    Also of interest, this decision counts–and dismisses–Vattel among several “writers on public law” who were “by no means in agreement on the question” of citizenship. The other sources, all quoted in this decision, are Pufendorf, Schmier, Domat, Burlamaqui, and Hall’s American Law Journal. The plaintiff’s case, disputing Lynch’s citizenship, referenced some of these sources. The court found that, “These references show that the rule which the complainant derives from the writers on public law, is not even in theory, clearly defined or uniformly held.” Oh, birther snap.

  84. avatar
    Bovril July 13, 2011 at 5:59 am #

    So, “Straightshooter”/Burnt Toast

    Care to answer?

    Here’s the the words from the ONLY case against the President that got to be heard on the merits, Ankeny v Governor of Indiana

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

    According to the law The President meets all the necessary NBC requirements

    Oops, you FAIL….again

  85. avatar
    Ballantine July 13, 2011 at 7:31 am #

    straight-shooter: You’re making a logic error in conflating the two, just as they did. That is the natural result of the fact that they overlapped 99.999%. All natural born citizens were native born, but not all native born persons were natural citizens. Natural citizens are only those who are born to citizens, they receive their citizenship naturally, not via any law or statute. As an almost universal rule the two terms referred to the same class of people, but now and then there was an exception. Children born to alien fathers who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States were not natural born citizens, nor citizens of any kind. Only children born to resident aliens were citizens, per the 14th amendment because their parents were considered to be subject to US jurisdiction. Visiting aliens, and aliens working for their own government were not subject to US jurisdiction. The father of Obama was not a resident alien, but was a visiting alien. Obama is a citizen only because of the citizenship of his mother. But if he had been born outside the US, by US law at that time, he would not even be considered a US citizen.As for the quote about “natural born British subjects”, bare in mind that you could substitute the word native for the word natural and it would make no difference in 99.999% of cases because any child born to an alien father was almost universally born to a resident alien father, and not a visiting alien father, nor mother.

    You don’t know you are talking about. As with most birthers, you cite no authority, just make assertions. “Native” was actually generally defined in the early republic the same as “natural born citizen” by excluding children of ambassadors. Try reading Kent where the two terms are defined the same. Since such exception is de minimus, the exception sometimes wasn’t mentioned and both terms were defined by place of birth alone. I suggest you reaad Kent, Bouvier, Story, tucker, Rawle and on and on. It is simply a fact that there is more 19th century authority that says the President must be a native born citizen than a natural born citizen as they were understood by everyone to mean the same thing with the excpetion of children of ambassadors. You cannot cite one early authority that says natural born citizenship required citizen parents as there is none. You cannot cite any framer making any statement to support your statement. Why do you make such a claim with no authority to back it up? You are right that the natural born didn’t get their citizenship from statute, they got it from the common law rule incorporated into the Constitution. I suggest you read Wong Kim Ark where it explains all this, but, I suspect like most birthers you will not understand how it defined “natural born citizen.” However, it clearly did, and despite the delusional thinking of the birther bar, Wong Kim Ark is binding precedent. Now, go do some actual research.

  86. avatar
    Ballantine July 13, 2011 at 7:53 am #

    Also, the Constitution does not give any emphasis about the subject of what a natural born citizen is and speaking of citizenship as if it’s interchangeable with the phrase “natural born citizen” reveals muddled thinking. The phase should never be used, ever, except in regard to the Presidency. It should never be connected to United States citizenship because US citizenship is not dependent on being a natural born citizen. Nothing is dependent on it, except eligibility to the Presidency.

    Uh, wrong again. The term “natural born citizen” was used in contexts unrelated to eligibility before and after the ratification of the Constitution. Since “naturalization” by definition only applied to foreign-born aliens, there needed to be a rule to define who was born a citizen on US soil and in the United States it was the common law rule which was adopted which denoted them as natural born or native born as the terms were used interchangably both in the US and in England. Simply an historical fact. Almost all states had adopted statutes providing certain rights for natural born subjects or citizens that had nothing to do with eligiblity as they were deemed one of the two classes of citizens. Really not that hard.

  87. avatar
    Majority Will July 13, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    straight-shooter: Your reasoning ability is defective.

    You’re projecting.

  88. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 13, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    Brent James: Ken Noisywaters Bob Ross – Well, I guess I have proven one thing and one thing only:Youve got nothing better to do than sit around watching thecomments post. And you call me sad. Oh, I almost forgot your line “Jesus was a socialist”. Youveproven one more thing – you have not grasped even the simplestof truths. Now, go do something about the debt ceiling unless, ofcourse, you think that type of spending befits our socialist president’sagenda.

    Ah here we go again. When are you actually going to post a response? Thus far all I’ve seen out of you is “common Alinsky like” tactics when you’re backed into a corner. Actually what I said is accurate, if you’ve bothered reading your bible. Jesus and his disciples shared common ownership of their belongings amongst the group. Forgive me if I’m wrong but the loaves and fishes story where jesus fed the 40,000 I don’t think he told those gathered; get your own damned fish and bread you lazy bums. Jesus also said the meak would inherit the earth. Why is it that the modern conservative movement is totally antithetical to the actual teachings of jesus? I don’t expect you to respond in any rational intelligent way. Which socialist President are you talking about? We don’t have one.

  89. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 13, 2011 at 8:39 am #

    straight-shooter: Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)Your reasoning ability is defective. Jefferson’s devoting was NOT to Louis the 14th, King of France, but to the goal of freeing the French people from tyranny. He had no allegiance to the French government. Then you refer to 3 cases you mistakenly think prove your point, but they prove nothing since they have no connection at all to the thinking and intent of the framers of the Constitution. The only point you have that’s legitimate is that the strong concern of the founders was based on conditions that no longer exist, mostly. It was based on a theoretical possibility that wasn’t likely to happen.

    Projection on your part. Birthers said that having dual citizenship disqualifies one from the Presidency. I gave you three examples of people who served in the executive branch who had dual citizenship. Jefferson’s allegiance was to both france and america. This showed a divided loyalty that the birthers seem to think Obama had. Obama at no time from 0 to 23 showed any allegiance to the government, people, or country of Kenya. So if you think Jefferson didn’t show any allegiance then you can’t disqualify Obama based on some phony idea of what jurisdiction is. The three cases do prove my point. Dual citizenship has never been a barrier to serving in the executive branch of government.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 13, 2011 at 9:19 am #

    Your uninformed and historically inaccurate opinions are not supported by the courts, who very specifically noted that the phrase “natural born citizen” in the Constitution did have implications for citizenship in general, such as this citation from Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884):

    The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

    straight-shooter: Also, the Constitution does not give any emphasis about the subject of what a natural born citizen is and speaking of citizenship as if it’s interchangeable with the phrase “natural born citizen” reveals muddled thinking. The phase should never be used, ever, except in regard to the Presidency. It should never be connected to United States citizenship because US citizenship is not dependent on being a natural born citizen. Nothing is dependent on it, except eligibility to the Presidency.

  91. avatar
    Lupin July 13, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    straight-shooter: Jefferson’s devoting was NOT to Louis the 14th, King of France, but to the goal of freeing the French people from tyranny.

    I don’t understand this bit.

    First, you mean “devotion”, non? not “devoting” surely?

    Second, you probably mean : allegiance” anyway, not “devotion”? I don’t think “devotion” is relevant here.

    Three, Louis the 14th was long dead by the time of your Revolution, so you probably mean Louis the 16th?

    Your incoherent babble is so riddled with errors and malapropisms that I strongly suggest that you marshal your thoughts and check your facts before pressing on with your case.

  92. avatar
    Ballantine July 13, 2011 at 10:03 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Projection on your part. Birthers said that having dual citizenship disqualifies one from the Presidency. I gave you three examples of people who served in the executive branch who had dual citizenship. Jefferson’s allegiance was to both france and america. This showed a divided loyalty that the birthers seem to think Obama had. Obama at no time from 0 to 23 showed any allegiance to the government, people, or country of Kenya. So if you think Jefferson didn’t show any allegiance then you can’t disqualify Obama based on some phony idea of what jurisdiction is. The three cases do prove my point. Dual citizenship has never been a barrier to serving in the executive branch of government.

    What is amazing is that anyone with any ability to think critically would think dual citizenship is a barrier when any nation in t he world could make any US citizen a dual citizen. Please don’t let this get out as foreign countries will figure out how to make it so that no one in the US can be President. How can any rational person think we would let foreign countries determine who can be our President? Just really, really dumb.

    In actuality, it would take a great deal of research to actually figure out all our Presidents who had dual citizenship. I believe Wilson did. Andrew Johnson probably did, but we are not even sure where his father was born. The English case law is confusing in Buchanon’s case, so i am not sure he was a dual citizen. The point is that no one ever cared and there is no evidence at all that any framers cared.

  93. avatar
    Welsh Dragon July 13, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    straight-shooter: The phase should never be used, ever, except in regard to the Presidency. It should never be connected to United States citizenship because US citizenship is not dependent on being a natural born citizen. Nothing is dependent on it, except eligibility to the Presidency.

    The founding generation used the term in other contexts – in legislation, court cases, law books, newpaper articles, pamphlets, state constitutions. Who are you to say they were wrong?

  94. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 13, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    Ballantine: What is amazing is that anyone with any ability to think critically would think dual citizenship is a barrier when any nation in t he world could make any US citizen a dual citizen. Please don’t let this get out as foreign countries will figure out how to make it so that no one in the US can be President. How can any rational person think we would let foreign countries determine who can be our President? Just really, really dumb. In actuality, it would take a great deal of research to actually figure out all our Presidents who had dual citizenship. I believe Wilson did. Andrew Johnson probably did, but we are not even sure where his father was born. The English case law is confusing in Buchanon’s case, so i am not sure he was a dual citizen. The point is that no one ever cared and there is no evidence at all that any framers cared.

    Well that’s the tick isn’t it? We know they don’t think critically. Just look at the latest two birthers they seem cut from the same cloth with the same nonsense posts. I still don’t get what the guy was trying to say that yes Jefferson was a dual citizen but somehow that didn’t discount him for the Presidency while at the same time they say Obama was ineligible for some nonexistent allegiance?

  95. avatar
    JoZeppy July 13, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    straight-shooter: You thiknking is defective and delusional. The definition of the phrase “natural born citizen” was not decided in any court case ever.

    No, my writings reflect the clear understanding of the legal community. The definition was defined in Wong Kim Ark, at least for the core (there is debate whether a person born abroad can be a natural born citizen). The phrase “natural born” has a very long history in common law, and there is no doubt that a person born on the soil, not to diplomats, is a natural born citizen.

    straight-shooter: Don’t ramble on as though it is something settled in law when it is not found in any law. It is not defined in law nor used in law since it is pre-law. It was written before the Constitution was ratified, before Congress existed or had written any laws.

    This just shows you don’t have the first clue how the law works in the United States. Your statement is utterly meaningless as well as being incoherent and clueless. “The law” is not merely statutory law in a common law system such as our own (and the UK, Canada, and pretty much all former British colonies). “The law” includes the common law, consisting of judicial opinions, including the English common law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The statement that those born on US soil, not to diplomat parents, are uncontroversially natural born citizens is a statement of settled law. The phrase “natural born” has a very long history, and it’s meaning is well understood, and it is not what you claim it to be.

    So if you don’t know at the very basic level what is “law” includes in the United States, it is wise to read up a little (and perhaps something besides birther websites…maybe start with “Law for Dummies” or something on that level), before trying to engage in a debate that includes many people who have actually formally studied the law. It will spare you from making these utterly meaningles ramblings about “pre-law” that don’t have any basis in reality.

  96. avatar
    Keith July 13, 2011 at 10:37 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Why is it that the modern conservative movement is totally antithetical to the actual teachings of jesus?

    Because he chased the moneychangers out of the temple.

    (OMG Jesus said that commercialism and God can’t coexist! We need to find a different Jesus or Glen Beck and Tammy Faye Bakker will never be able to buy the makeup they need!)

  97. avatar
    Keith July 13, 2011 at 10:45 am #

    Ballantine: In actuality, it would take a great deal of research to actually figure out all our Presidents who had dual citizenship.

    (you mean “wouldn’t” I think)

    It has been done and is probably on the Doc’s site somewhere. There are more than 10 of them, including Eisenhower, and probably a dozen or more VP including Agnew. Jefferson took French citizenship as an adult which says a lot more about his ‘allegiance’ than a baby being born with dual citizenship.

  98. avatar
    J.Potter July 13, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    Don’t forget Jackson was tempted to cash his in for Spanish, over the right of deposit. That was Jackson, wasn’t it, Google? Yes, yes it was, Frontier politicians, Spanish Conspiracy, 1784-1790. That was under the Articles of Confederation, and he was young …. but still, money above citizenship looks pretty poor. Especially coming from a Revolutionary War veteran. I thought the founders were all selfless patriots; no chance the Revolution was in part a crass commercial enterprise, is there?

    Keith: (you mean “wouldn’t” I think)

    It has been done and is probably on the Doc’s site somewhere. There are more than 10 of them, including Eisenhower, and probably a dozen or more VP including Agnew. Jefferson took French citizenship as an adult which says a lot more about his allegiance’ than a baby being born with dual citizenship.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 13, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    There have been various comments offered on this topic. Frankly, I’m not qualified in international law, and wouldn’t attempt to give a general opinion. Certainly Jefferson who accepted French citizenship and Chester Arthur whose father was an Irish subject. Eisenhower is mentioned, although others have said that he lost his dual citizenship when he joined the US Army.

    Keith: It has been done and is probably on the Doc’s site somewhere. There are more than 10 of them, including Eisenhower, and probably a dozen or more VP including Agnew. Jefferson took French citizenship as an adult which says a lot more about his allegiance’ than a baby being born with dual citizenship.

  100. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 13, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There have been various comments offered on this topic. Frankly, I’m not qualified in international law, and wouldn’t attempt to give a general opinion. Certainly Jefferson who accepted French citizenship and Chester Arthur whose father was an Irish subject. Eisenhower is mentioned, although others have said that he lost his dual citizenship when he joined the US Army.

    But Doc we know that wouldn’t matter to the birthers because Obama lost his dual citizenship at 23.

  101. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny July 13, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    Lupin: I don’t understand this bit.

    First, you mean “devotion”, non? not “devoting” surely?

    Second, you probably mean : allegiance” anyway, not “devotion”? I don’t think “devotion” is relevant here.

    Three, Louis the 14th was long dead by the time of your Revolution, so you probably mean Louis the 16th?

    Your incoherent babble is so riddled with errors and malapropisms that I strongly suggest that you marshal your thoughts and check your facts before pressing on with your case.

    Someone put a picture of a laissez-passer for Thomas Jefferson signed by the King of France on the Internet, in a clever attempt to prove Thomas Jefferson was NOT a French citizen (a French citizen would not have needed a laissez-passer, it is implied, but even that is not really true).

    However, Thomas Jefferson was offered French citizenship by the French Republic. Though there is no definite record of him actually accepting, there are contemporary sources saying he also had French citizenship. Someone here quoted one commentator who after his death said dual citizenship is no obstacle to become President since Jefferson was also French.

  102. avatar
    obsolete July 13, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    Stupid birthers insulted my screen name. I’m all busted up inside.

  103. avatar
    Majority Will July 13, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    obsolete:
    Stupid birthers insulted my screen name. I’m all busted up inside.

    Devastating, isn’t it?

  104. avatar
    straight-shooter July 14, 2011 at 3:46 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Jefferson’s allegiance was to both france and america

    France is/was a name denoting both the name of a country and the name of a nation. America is the name of a country, The United States is the name of a nation. Jefferson was devoted to American and The United States of America, as well as devoted to the people, or country of France, NOT the nation of France, which was a political entity ruled by a despotic monarchy. He did not have dual political allegiance. Also, you would know if you actually understood the principle of natural law, that Jefferson was NOT a natural born American. His eligibility for the Presidency was due to being grand-fathered in by the secondary type of eligibility, namely, being a citiz

    JoZeppy: So if you don’t know at the very basic level what is “law” includes in the United States,

    en at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.
    At the basic level you need to grasp what you read. “It is not defined in law nor used in law since it is pre-law. It was written before the Constitution was ratified, before Congress existed or had written any laws.” I could have written “It is not defined in US law nor used in US law, since it was written before Congress passed any laws.” Clearly I was referring to fundamental laws, meaning those passed by Congress and signed by the President. Now do you really want to tell me that Congress has defined “natural born citizen”? Please inform me because I don’t know anything.
    “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God…” Misconstrued and conflated concepts that are nearly universally perpetuated are the source of much misunderstanding. No “legal expert” that ever lived was infallible nor incapable of accepting a common and widely held misconception. Natural born citizenship does not originate in the realm of common law, but in the philosophical realm of natural law, following the laws of nature. Like begets like. Eagles beget Eagles, Tigers beget Tigers, Americans beget Americans. Pairing a horse with a zebra does not produce a natural born horse, nor a natural born zebra because the off-spring has a dual-nature and that is not the principle of natural law. It’s Uniformity, not Duality that is natural and normal.
    It has nothing to do with written US law and is not embodied in any law. The 14th Amendment wasn’t written to clarify the citizenship of natural born Americans but that of those who were born to parents who were not natural born Americans. It declares them to be citizens. It does NOT declare them to be natural born citizens, and any pontificating court or congressman that felt an urge to conflate the two was acting out of common ignorance.

  105. avatar
    Ballantine July 14, 2011 at 7:34 am #

    Natural born citizenship does not originate in the realm of common law, but in the philosophical realm of natural law, following the laws of nature. Like begets like. Eagles beget Eagles, Tigers beget Tigers, Americans beget Americans. Pairing a horse with a zebra does not produce a natural born horse, nor a natural born zebra because the off-spring has a dual-nature and that is not the principle of natural law. It’s Uniformity, not Duality that is natural and normal.It has nothing to do with written US law and is not embodied in any law. The 14th Amendment wasn’t written to clarify the citizenship of natural born Americans but that of those who were born to parents who were not natural born Americans. It declares them to be citizens. It does NOT declare them to be natural born citizens, and any pontificating court or congressman that felt an urge to conflate the two was acting out of common ignorance.

    Do you think that repeating the same nonsense over and over citing no authority at all to support you assertions. What legal authority in the founding period or the early republic ever said natural born was based upon natural law rather than the common law. No one. Oh, I get it. They borth have the word “natural” in them and you put 2 and 2 together. What a genius. Of course, completely contrary to history. And why would you think the framers would not think jus soli was the rule of natural law since Coke himself said so and is, in fact, the only writer to connect the term “natural born” to natural law. Duh.

    And why talk about the 14th Amendment since you obviously have done no research on the issue as everyone who spoke in such Congress said they were simply re-stating pre-exisitng law.

    Now you can just re-state your unsupport opinion again thinking it somehow means something.
    Making stuff up is pretty easy.

  106. avatar
    Majority Will July 14, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    straight-shooter: Like begets like. Eagles beget Eagles, Tigers beget Tigers, Americans beget Americans. Pairing a horse with a zebra does not produce a natural born horse, nor a natural born zebra because the off-spring has a dual-nature and that is not the principle of natural law. It’s Uniformity, not Duality that is natural and normal.

    Which species name is the American animal?

    Would you label them Homo Caucasus but not Homo Africanus?

    Americans beget Americans? Your deep seated racism and bigotry is apparent and extremely vile.

    How are your eugenics experiments working out? :evil:

  107. avatar
    Bovril July 14, 2011 at 7:53 am #

    Betcha BentShooter doesn’t believe in evolution either.

    ps Still waiting muppet

    So, “Straightshooter”/Burnt Toast

    Care to answer?

    Here’s the the words from the ONLY case against the President that got to be heard on the merits, Ankeny v Governor of Indiana

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

    According to the law The President meets all the necessary NBC requirements

    Oops, you FAIL….again

  108. avatar
    Ballantine July 14, 2011 at 7:55 am #

    Oh, and if you actually did some research you would see that the evidence indicates grandfather clause was for foreign born framers like Hamilton and Wilson, not natives of the states. Has any birther ever actually read the debates to the Convention? I guess not. I guess your made-up assertion that “uniformity, not duality is natural” is more important than what the framers actually said and did.

  109. avatar
    Scientist July 14, 2011 at 7:56 am #

    straight-shooter: Natural born citizenship does not originate in the realm of common law, but in the philosophical realm of natural law, following the laws of nature. Like begets like. Eagles beget Eagles, Tigers beget Tigers, Americans beget Americans

    What a bunch of arrant nonsense!! Genetic analysis can tell an eagle from other birds and a tiger from other large cats. What genes make an American? Can I take a cheek swab and tell an Ameican from a Canadian or a Ghanian or a Turk? Even so-called native Americans are not unique to the geographical boundaries of the present-day United States as many tribes had territories that spanned the borders.

    ALL countries and all citiizenship are purely human constructs. There is not a speck of anything natural about them. Most of the boundaries of the United States are pure lines on a map that don’t even follow any natural features. They are just lines on a map. The mountains, forests and deserts on either side are identical. The vegetation is the same. Birds and animals cross the borders without knowing they passed from one country to another. I defy you to tell the pine forests of northern Maine from those of New Brunswick or Quebec or the Rockies of Montana from those of Alberta or British Columbia or the Sonoran Desert of Arizona vs Sonora, Mexico. In fact, if I took away the flags and a few street signs, I doubt you could tell a town in Montana from one in Alberta or Britiish Columbia or one in Maine and from one in New Brunswick.

    Human constructs, pure and simple, nothing “natural” in the slightest.

  110. avatar
    Keith July 14, 2011 at 7:59 am #

    Wow. So much fail in so few words.

    straight-shooter: France is/was a name denoting both the name of a country and the name of a nation.

    Yes, interestingly, this is the only thing you got right.

    America is the name of a country, The United States is the name of a nation.

    “Cherokee” is the name of a nation, “Tohono O’odham” is a nation; neither is the name of a country. The “United States of America” is both the name of a nation and a country. The American Nation, however, is not a ‘natural’ one as it is made up of many nationalities. The motto “E Pluribus Unum” means “From Many, One”; thus from many nations, one nation.

    The pledge of allegiance describes “The United States of America” as “one nation”.

    “America” is the name of a continent (two actually). The “United States” is the name of a political grouping. “The United States of America” is the name of both a country and a nation. Just like “France”.

    Jefferson was devoted to American and The United States of America, as well as devoted to the people, or country of France, NOT the nation of France, which was a political entity ruled by a despotic monarchy.

    Since the nation and the country are one entity, this assertion is dumb. You are trying very hard to try to pick nits that don’t exist in order to make yourself feel good. Don’t waste the effort, it really is a lot easier to acknowledge your previous ideas as incorrect.

    He did not have dual political allegiance.

    Well, yes actually, he did. He personally chose, as an adult, to take French citizenship. It is quite possible that he personally felt that it was ‘honorary’ on his part, a sign of respect for the French people, but it was non-the-less a conscious act of taking on full political participation in France.

    Also, you would know if you actually understood the principle of natural law, that Jefferson was NOT a natural born American. His eligibility for the Presidency was due to being grand-fathered in by the secondary type of eligibility, namely, being a citiz

    Wrong. Jefferson was most certainly a natural born American. He was born in Virginia, one of the founding American States. That makes him a natural born citizen.

    The grandfather clause applied to people like Alexander Hamilton who was born in the Bahamas. It did not apply to those who were born in one of the founding states.

    The rest of your word salad has no information content what-so-ever. I understand you think you are being clever trying to equate the word “natural” used in one context with the word “natural” used in a completely different context. Unfortunately for you, the world doesn’t work that way and it just makes you look foolish and devalues any valid opinion you may have.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 14, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    Sounds very much like something my Daddy told me to support racial segregation.

    straight-shooter: Like begets like. Eagles beget Eagles, Tigers beget Tigers, Americans beget Americans. Pairing a horse with a zebra does not produce a natural born horse, nor a natural born zebra because the off-spring has a dual-nature and that is not the principle of natural law. It’s Uniformity, not Duality that is natural and normal.

  112. avatar
    JoZeppy July 14, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    straight-shooter: At the basic level you need to grasp what you read.

    It was utter non-sense. The type of non-sense that can only be written by a pseudo-intellectual who has not the slightest clue about our legal system and its history.

    straight-shooter: It is not defined in law nor used in law since it is pre-law. It was written before the Constitution was ratified, before Congress existed or had written any laws.” I could have written “It is not defined in US law nor used in US law, since it was written before Congress passed any laws.” Clearly I was referring to fundamental laws, meaning those passed by Congress and signed by the President. Now do you really want to tell me that Congress has defined “natural born citizen”? Please inform me because I don’t know anything.

    Well, at least you did get one thing right. you clearly don’t know anything. I think by “fundamental laws” you mean statutory or codified law. If you’re going try to enter a debate on a subject, at least learn the terms of art used in it. It makes you seem slightly less clueles. However, as I stated before, codified law only reflects a portion of the body of law in our legal system. Congress has no need to define a term that has an accepted common law definition. Our founders were aware of that. You’ll note that they felt no need to define “natural born” which had a well known common law definition, but where they did not want to go with the common law definition, such as with the term treason, they defined it in the Consitution.

    straight-shooter: “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God…” Misconstrued and conflated concepts that are nearly universally perpetuated are the source of much misunderstanding. No “legal expert” that ever lived was infallible nor incapable of accepting a common and widely held misconception.

    Meaningless and irrelevant bunk.

    straight-shooter: Natural born citizenship does not originate in the realm of common law

    We could stop right here as you are 100% wrong. The courts don’t agree with you. The legal community does not agree with you. Finally, there is no support whatsoever in the entire body of American jurisprudence that supports such a statement. The most obvious cititation is to Wong Kim Ark to show that the term “natural born” is taken directly from the common law.

    straight-shooter: but in the philosophical realm of natural law, following the laws of nature. Like begets like. Eagles beget Eagles, Tigers beget Tigers, Americans beget Americans. Pairing a horse with a zebra does not produce a natural born horse, nor a natural born zebra because the off-spring has a dual-nature and that is not the principle of natural law. It’s Uniformity, not Duality that is natural and normal.

    All meaningless garbage that you cannot cite to. You see, in the real world of law, we need to support what we say with citations to legal authority. Your waxing poetic of what you wish the law was is a complete waste of everyone’s time. And finally, the real kicker, everyone who matters, the judges who decide the cases, the academics who actually study the law and write scholarly articles on the law, and finally 99% of the bar, all disagree with you. That makes you, simply put, unquestionably wrong.

    straight-shooter: It has nothing to do with written US law and is not embodied in any law.

    Yeah….a phrase in the Constitution, the law of the land, with very distinct legal implications, has nothing to do with the law? I’ve heard a lot of stupid birther comments, but this one is up there. “Natural born” is a legal term of art that every court and every scholar that has examined the term, had concluded comes from the common law.

    straight-shooter: The 14th Amendment wasn’t written to clarify the citizenship of natural born Americans but that of those who were born to parents who were not natural born Americans. It declares them to be citizens. It does NOT declare them to be natural born citizens, and any pontificating court or congressman that felt an urge to conflate the two was acting out of common ignorance.

    funny how the vast majority of people who have actually put pen to paper, you know, the people who have actually studied law, devoted their lives to it, worked with it from day to day, are all acting out of common ignorance, but you, the crack pot on the internet, who doesn’t even know the most basic concepts about our law, knows better than everyone else? Do you see how genuinely absurd that comment is?

    Somehow I think it is far more likely that all those judges, scholars, and folks with JDs are probably right, and the crackpot on the internet is probably wrong.

  113. avatar
    J.Potter July 14, 2011 at 10:21 am #

    All the early authorities I have read all say or imply that the meaning of natural born citizen is universally understood and self-evident. So obvious it doesn’t require definition. Leave it to the fringe to deny the obvious and try to take advantage of it by filling a non-existent hole!

  114. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 14, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    straight-shooter: France is/was a name denoting both the name of a country and the name of a nation. America is the name of a country, The United States is the name of a nation. Jefferson was devoted to American and The United States of America, as well as devoted to the people, or country of France, NOT the nation of France, which was a political entity ruled by a despotic monarchy. He did not have dual political allegiance. Also, you would know if you actually understood the principle of natural law, that Jefferson was NOT a natural born American. His eligibility for the Presidency was due to being grand-fathered in by the secondary type of eligibility, namely, being a citiz

    Wow you just said a whole bunch of nothing. Yes he was devoted to two different countries showing a dual allegiance. An actual real dual allegiance. As opposed to the imagined one birthers claim Obama had with Kenya. So dual citizenship does not preclude a person from the Presidency.

  115. avatar
    obsolete July 14, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    Who begets Natural Born Killers?

  116. avatar
    Thrifty July 14, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    straight-shooter: France is/was a name denoting both the name of a country and the name of a nation. America is the name of a country, The United States is the name of a nation. Jefferson was devoted to American and The United States of America, as well as devoted to the people, or country of France, NOT the nation of France, which was a political entity ruled by a despotic monarchy.

    That may just be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard in regards to the crank legal theory of “must have two citizen parents to be natural born citizens”.

    Maybe when we refer to the “country” of France, we are referring to the mountains, dirt, and grass; when we refer to the “nation” of France, on the other hand, we are referring to the water, the air, and the non-grass plants. That makes about as much sense as what you’re saying.

  117. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 14, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

    obsolete: Who begets Natural Born Killers?

    Woody from Cheers

  118. avatar
    G July 14, 2011 at 11:51 pm #

    LOL! Good one!

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Woody from Cheers

  119. avatar
    straight-shooter July 15, 2011 at 1:13 am #

    Ballantine: What legal authority in the founding period or the early republic ever said natural born was based upon natural law rather than the common law. No one. And why would you think the framers would not think jus soli was the rule of natural law

    Legal authorities made pronouncements and decisions based on the concepts that they held. Those concepts had their roots in something. Either it was common sense judgement, or historical law, religious law, or natural law. All of which are based on human judgements about what is right, moral, logical, and practical. Common law evolved from such judgements of the courts and in applying it no reference was required as to which root(s) were most relied upon in making court rulings. Any of those two forms of ancient law, or the analogous concepts of natural law would not be referred to when discussing common law except perhaps in opinions explaining judicial rulings.

    In the real world words have literal meanings. The idea of natural citizenship is not a concept derived from nor defined in any statutory US law or court ruling because it pre-dates them considerably, thus it was almost never a subject of discussion. Only the eligibility of the President brought up the subject/concept. John Quincy said:
    “The matter at hand is “natural born citizen”, not citizen. Only natural born citizens are eligible, any other form of citizenship is inadequate.”

    Consider the implications of “any other form of citizenship”. It means that there are other forms (plural), and in calling them “inadequate” he made it clear that only the most maximal form of citizenship was acceptable.

    Aside from quotes on one side or the other, you need to lay aside your myopic focus solely on the statements and opinions of men who were just as subject to the misconceptions of their day as any man on the street, and focus on refuting the logic of what I wrote. You didn’t attempt to refute even a single point. I take that to mean that you concede the validity of what I wrote even though you refuse to acknowledge or accept it. So without “point-counterpoint” how does any discussion proceed? Discussion by attack is not a form of refutation nor an advancement of a greater, wiser point of view. Simply regurgitating the thoughts of others is not equivalent to having any thought of your own. So far you have presented none. I expect that won’t change since you lack a single original thought. You’re like a mirror, you reflect the perceived light of others, but you have none of your own. A pathetic abdication of your human potential.

  120. avatar
    straight-shooter July 15, 2011 at 3:53 am #

    gorefan: “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen

    Wow! The confused and ignorant use of the word “native” in place of “natural” is all the evidence one needs to realize that the grasp of the subject was clearly distorted and confused by ignorance of the actual words used and their true meaning. That is due to there being no Lord & Master that required anyone to actually study and understand what they were talking about. Talk is cheap and came naturally to people, especially Alpha males, who were accustomed to being listened to with reverence. The words and thoughts came quickly to their minds and mouths but without any contemplation as to the their validity.

  121. avatar
    straight-shooter July 15, 2011 at 4:02 am #

    Thrifty: Maybe when we refer to the “country” of France, we are referring to the mountains, dirt, and grass; when we refer to the “nation” of France, on the other hand, we are referring to the water, the air, and the non-grass plants.

    Your grasp of reality is about as deep as water in a saucer. When Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait, the nation of Kuwait fled the country of Kuwait. The nation was the people and their government/rulers. The country was the land of Kuwait. The country is not a nation, and a nation exists even if it is in exile from the country. Comprendes?

  122. avatar
    Ballantine July 15, 2011 at 8:06 am #

    straight-shooter: Legal authorities made pronouncements and decisions based on the concepts that they held. Those concepts had their roots in something. Either it was common sense judgement, or historical law, religious law, or natural law. All of which are based on human judgements about what is right, moral, logical, and practical. Common law evolved from such judgements of the courts and in applying it no reference was required as to which root(s) were most relied upon in making court rulings. Any of those two forms of ancient law, or the analogous concepts of natural law would not be referred to when discussing common law except perhaps in opinions explaining judicial rulings.In the real world words have literal meanings. The idea of natural citizenship is not a concept derived from nor defined in any statutory US law or court ruling because it pre-dates them considerably, thus it was almost never a subject of discussion. Only the eligibility of the President brought up the subject/concept. John Quincy said:“The matter at hand is “natural born citizen”, not citizen. Only natural born citizens are eligible, any other form of citizenship is inadequate.” Consider the implications of “any other form of citizenship”. It means that there are other forms (plural), and in calling them “inadequate” he made it clear that only the most maximal form of citizenship was acceptable.Aside from quotes on one side or the other, you need to lay aside your myopic focus solely on the statements and opinions of men who were just as subject to the misconceptions of their day as any man on the street, and focus on refuting the logic of what I wrote. You didn’t attempt to refute even a single point. I take that to mean that you concede the validity of what I wrote even though you refuse to acknowledge or accept it. So without “point-counterpoint” how does any discussion proceed? Discussion by attack is not a form of refutation nor an advancement of a greater, wiser point of view. Simply regurgitating the thoughts of others is not equivalent to having any thought of your own. So far you have presented none. I expect that won’t change since you lack a single original thought. You’re like a mirror, you reflect the perceived light of others, but you have none of your own. A pathetic abdication of your human potential.

    So you don’t care what the framers themselves said, for everything they said disagrees with you. You don’t care what the courts, dictionaries, scholars and legislatures of the time said as you think you can just make up your own definition through common sense. Interesting argument, rather than look up what words are to mean by everyone, you think you can simply reason out your own definition. Of course, back in the real world, legal terms have meaning defined by their usage by courts and legal authorities and the meaning of terms in a legal sense are not necessarily the same as a novice would think outside of law. To understand what “habeaus corpus” means you do not reason out what the original latin translates to but how such term has been defined by legal authorities for 7 centuries. The same is true of ‘natural born” which has been uniformly defined in legal terms for at least 5 centuries. The bottom line is no thinking period would believe they can simply make up their own definition that they cannot show anyone in history agreeing with. Wouldn’t try such argument with a judge as they wouldn’t be amused.

    And what is the quote of John Quincy supposed to mean? Do you mean John Quincy Adams? Anyway, in the early republic, there were natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, citizens from treaties and persons who were citizens since they adhered to the American cause during the revolution regardless of their previous status. Doesn’t help your argument.

    “His original idea was adverse to the limitation to natural-born citizens, as superfluous; but, as it stood, the terms upon which Louisiana was acquired had rendered a change necessary, for it appeared to him that there was no alternative, but to admit those born in Louisiana as well as those born in the United States to the right of being chosen for President and Vice President.” John Quincy Adams, 11/23/1803, ABRIDGMENT OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS, FROM 1789 TO 1856, Volume III, John Rivers, pg. 21, (1857)

    Looks like jus soli to me. Now, if you want anyone to take you seriously, provide any evidence at all that the framers agreed with you. Simply saying it is common sense is not evidence as no one cares what you think is common sense. The, provide evidence that any framer would have thought natural law was not jus soli as one the framers heroes, Lord Coke, said. Gee, you or Lord Coke. Tough decision. Tell me, why do you try to make legal arguments when clearly you show you have no understanding or law or legal terms?

  123. avatar
    J.Potter July 15, 2011 at 8:22 am #

    @straight-shooter
    “Aside from quotes on one side or the other, you need to lay aside your myopic focus solely on the statements and opinions of men who were just as subject to the misconceptions of their day as any man on the street, and focus on refuting the logic of what I wrote.”

    … disregard all of human history! Pay attention to me! me! me! They were all in error! only i have the truth!

    How do you propose the law profession, which proceeds on precedent, would operate on such a mentality?

    Since your pinning your argument on “they were all wrong”, who do you suppose is in charge of picking and choosing what they were right and wrong about? Let me guess …

    Please take the wannabe cult leader act elsewhere. Or remain and continue to entertain us on the understanding you have no credibility. Kool-Aid isn’t big here. Got any pink lemonade?

  124. avatar
    Bovril July 15, 2011 at 8:46 am #

    We have another MichaelN in the building….”I’m right and the centuries of jurisprudence are ALL WRONG!!!!”

  125. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2011 at 8:52 am #

    straight-shooter: Your grasp of reality is about as deep as water in a saucer. When Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait, the nation of Kuwait fled the country of Kuwait. The nation was the people and their government/rulers. The country was the land of Kuwait. The country is not a nation, and a nation exists even if it is in exile from the country. Comprendes?

    So it’s pretty much agreed that Obama was completely eligible for the Presidency since he did not have dual citizenship as an adult and even if he did it wouldn’t matter since Spiro Agnew, Chester Arthur and Thomas Jefferson had citizenship to a nation and not a country.

  126. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2011 at 8:53 am #

    straight-shooter: Wow! The confused and ignorant use of the word “native” in place of “natural” is all the evidence one needs to realize that the grasp of the subject was clearly distorted and confused by ignorance of the actual words used and their true meaning. That is due to there being no Lord & Master that required anyone to actually study and understand what they were talking about. Talk is cheap and came naturally to people, especially Alpha males, who were accustomed to being listened to with reverence. The words and thoughts came quickly to their minds and mouths but without any contemplation as to the their validity.

    Except for the fact that the courts have used the words native and natural born citizen interchangeably. Do you have a point or are you just trying to crap in the punch bowl?

  127. avatar
    Ballantine July 15, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    How do you propose the law profession, which proceeds on precedent, would operate on such a mentality?Since your pinning your argument on “they were all wrong”, who do you suppose is in charge of picking and choosing what they were right and wrong about? Let me guess …Please take the wannabe cult leader act elsewhere. Or remain and continue to entertain us on the understanding you have no credibility. Kool-Aid isn’t big here. Got any pink lemonade?

    I see it as more than ego. We see over and over from these people the inabilityh to think logically or critically. How can any thinking person think that what he thinks is common sense or natural law is what the framers thought was common sense or natural law when you were not taught what they were taught, you have not read what they read, you have no knowledge of the law they practiced or their use of legal terms, you have no knowledge of what they actually said about citizenship or natural law and on and on. Simply a lack of logical thinking ability.

    Since the Constitution is full of legal terms of art from the common law, perhap straight shooter can use his imagination and devine all the meanings of those terms as well. Or perhaps, he could look up how they were defined at the time. Nope, let’s go for his imagination.

  128. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    straight-shooter: Your grasp of reality is about as deep as water in a saucer.When Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait, the nation of Kuwait fled the country of Kuwait.The nation was the people and their government/rulers.The country was the land of Kuwait.The country is not a nation, and a nation exists even if it is in exile from the country.Comprendes?

    By your argument the “Nation of Israel” shouldn’t get all hung up over a piece of dirt in the Levant.

  129. avatar
    G July 15, 2011 at 10:34 am #

    Ah, you beat me to it! The same comparison came immediately to mind.

    The astounding level of ego on display by some of these seething ignorants is quite entertaining in its sheer audacity. The true sign of the paranoid conspiracy nut – the entire world is wrong except for them….the clue never sinks in that everyone disagrees with them (including most of history) because they are flat out wrong.

    Bovril: We have another MichaelN in the building….”I’m right and the centuries of jurisprudence are ALL WRONG!!!!”

  130. avatar
    gorefan July 15, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    straight-shooter: The confused and ignorant use of the word “native” in place of “natural” is all the evidence one needs to realize that the grasp of the subject was clearly distorted and confused by ignorance of the actual words used and their true meaning.

    WOW, you really are a traitor to the United States. St. George Tucker was a war hero, wounded at the the Battle of Yorktown. He fought for this country.

    Unlike, you who only wants to tear it down.

    Are you also going to tell us that you are smarter then James Iredell and James Kent?

    No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” James iredell, 1788.

    James Iredell was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Washington.

    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States James Kent(Commentaries on American Law, 1826).

    James Kent was appointed by John Jay to the New York Chancery.

    Men like Tucker, Iredell and Kent help to build this country and no matter how hard you try to destroy it, we will defeat you. Because we have 235 years of history and men like Tucker, Iredell and Kent on our side. And because God is on our side.

    These brave American heros can rest in peace, knowing that we will protect their legacy from the likes of you and other members of Satan’s army.

  131. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    straight-shooter: Legal authorities made pronouncements and decisions based on the concepts that they held. Those concepts had their roots in something. Either it was common sense judgement, or historical law, religious law, or natural law. All of which are based on human judgements about what is right, moral, logical, and practical. Common law evolved from such judgements of the courts and in applying it no reference was required as to which root(s) were most relied upon in making court rulings. Any of those two forms of ancient law, or the analogous concepts of natural law would not be referred to when discussing common law except perhaps in opinions explaining judicial rulings.

    Meaningless word salad.

    straight-shooter: In the real world words have literal meanings.

    Yes they do. And sometimes, those meanings aren’t same meanings when used as a term of art in a specific field. Take, for example, the word Theory has a different meaning when used by lay people than when used as a term of art by the scientific community. Same thing applies when discussing a legal term of art.

    straight-shooter: The idea of natural citizenship is not a concept derived from nor defined in any statutory US law or court ruling because it pre-dates them considerably, thus it was almost never a subject of discussion. Only the eligibility of the President brought up the subject/concept. John Quincy said:
    “The matter at hand is “natural born citizen”, not citizen. Only natural born citizens are eligible, any other form of citizenship is inadequate.”

    The term :”natural born” when used in reference to citizens/subjects is a legal term of art that has some 500 years of history to it, and has been discussed to some reasonable lengths, at least enough that those who are interested are familiar with the key cases. And I hate to break it to you, the courts can address and define concenpts that predate the Constittution. You see, they are the authorities that clarify, and if necessary provide a clear definition of a subject when the statutory law is unclear. And they gave us at least the core of NBC…born on US soil not to a diplomat.

    straight-shooter: Consider the implications of “any other form of citizenship”. It means that there are other forms (plural), and in calling them “inadequate” he made it clear that only the most maximal form of citizenship was acceptable.

    And natural born citizenship had a clear and accepted definition that everyone knew…born on the soil, not to a diplomat or invading amy. Your point is?\

    straight-shooter: Aside from quotes on one side or the other, you need to lay aside your myopic focus solely on the statements and opinions of men who were just as subject to the misconceptions of their day as any man on the street, and focus on refuting the logic of what I wrote.

    I hate to break it to you, but that’s how the law works. Based on the “statements and opinions of men.” In the legal community, that’s known as precident. Perhaps if this were a novel subject that has never been before a court, and it was a never before defined term, you could make an argument. But you are trying to argue that a term that has a long, and clear legal history, should mean something different because you say so? Sorry, you just aren’t that important. None of us are. You no more get to change the law by fiat than the President does. You’re free to argue the law should be change, but you’re not entitled to change it on your own personal whim.

    straight-shooter: You didn’t attempt to refute even a single point. I take that to mean that you concede the validity of what I wrote even though you refuse to acknowledge or accept it.

    You haven’t made a point worthy of serious discussion. Get it through your head that your pronouncements just aren’t worth anything. It is enough to simply say your pronoucements have no basis in the law. The universally accepted definition of natural born is born on the soil not to a dipolmat or invading army. We then simply point to Wong Kim Ark and Calvin’s Case, and we’ve successfully refuted your unsupported drivel. We’re talking about the law here, not a undergrad intro to philosophy class here.

    straight-shooter: So without “point-counterpoint” how does any discussion proceed?

    We’re still waiting for you to make a point. Here’s a hint. If you want to make a legal point, try referencing something in the law. Then we’ll have something to make a counterpoint on.

    straight-shooter: Discussion by attack is not a form of refutation nor an advancement of a greater, wiser point of view.

    Who’s attacking? We’re still waiting for you to make a valid point, and we’re just pointing that out.

    straight-shooter: Simply regurgitating the thoughts of others is not equivalent to having any thought of your own. So far you have presented none. I expect that won’t change since you lack a single original thought. You’re like a mirror, you reflect the perceived light of others, but you have none of your own. A pathetic abdication of your human potential.

    Again, learn how the law works. You are trying to have a discussion about the law of the United States. You are not in a Freshman philosophy class. In the world of law, words mean very specific things. Those definitions primarily come from either statutory law, or judicial interpretation. Despite what your hippy parents may have told you, no one cares what you personally think about a subject. It is utterly meaningless, and it’s not worth our time. This isn’t a question about “human potential” or “original thought[s]” you’re talking about what the LAW means. In order for the law to have meaning, it must have a single and standard application to all persons. Each individual is not, under any circumstances, entitled to make their own personal definitions of the law. That would be utter chaos. If you want others to take you seriously in a discussion of the law, learn how it works.

  132. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    straight-shooter: That is due to there being no Lord & Master that required anyone to actually study and understand what they were talking about.

    And there goes another irony meter.

    Please, take your own advice.

  133. avatar
    Scientist July 15, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    The Earth is a disc, not a sphere. Look out the window-does it look curved?? Use your common sense. Yes, I know about Magellan’s circumnavigation of the globe and the pictures from space-who cares? I am right and all these people who have studied it and actually done the experiments over the last 500 years are wrong. Why? Because I say so.

  134. avatar
    JoZeppy July 15, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    straight-shooter: Your grasp of reality is about as deep as water in a saucer. When Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait, the nation of Kuwait fled the country of Kuwait. The nation was the people and their government/rulers. The country was the land of Kuwait. The country is not a nation, and a nation exists even if it is in exile from the country. Comprendes?

    So let me get this right…you’re claiming that Jefferson’s French citizenship, which he took as an adult, and made a conscious decision to accept, somehow means his allegiance was to the soil, not government of France, and thus his dual citizenship is not a problem, or somehow doesn’t count (how exactly did you come to this conclusion, BTW? Did he come back from the grave and tell you?), but President Obama’s potential citizenship from his birth (which he has long since unquestionably lost), to either the UK, which he lost at whatever point in his life (I don’t care to wade into those reeds), a country, which as far as I can tell, he never visited until he was President of the US, or Kenya, a Country which didn’t even exist at the time of his birth, and he only visited much later in life, does create allegiance, and should disqualify him?

    Yeah…..that makes plenty of sense. Again, what exactly do you base this convoluted conclusion on….Well, beside the starting from the conclusion that President Obama has to be ineligible, and we need to make all the pieces fit that conclusion.

  135. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    Scientist:
    The Earth is a disc, not a sphere.Look out the window-does it look curved??Use your common sense.Yes, I know about Magellan’s circumnavigation of the globe and the pictures from space-who cares? I am right and all these people who have studied it and actually done the experiments over the last 500 years are wrong.Why?Because I say so.

    Besides, Planet Frisbee sounds so much cooler than Earth.

  136. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    JoZeppy: So let me get this right…you’re claiming that Jefferson’s French citizenship, which he took as an adult, and made a conscious decision to accept, somehow means his allegiance was to the soil, not government of France, and thus his dual citizenship is not a problem, or somehow doesn’t count (how exactly did you come to this conclusion, BTW?Did he come back from the grave and tell you?), but President Obama’s potential citizenship from his birth (which he has long since unquestionably lost), to either the UK, which he lost at whatever point in his life (I don’t care to wade into those reeds), a country, which as far as I can tell, he never visited until he was President of the US, or Kenya, a Country which didn’t even exist at the time of his birth, and he only visited much later in life, does create allegiance, and should disqualify him?

    Yeah…..that makes plenty of sense.Again, what exactly do you base this convoluted conclusion on….Well, beside the starting from the conclusion that President Obama has to be ineligible, and we need to make all the pieces fit that conclusion.

    Here is straight-shooter’s rationalization:

    “Natural born citizenship does not originate in the realm of common law, but in the philosophical realm of natural law, following the laws of nature. Like begets like. Eagles beget Eagles, Tigers beget Tigers, Americans beget Americans. Pairing a horse with a zebra does not produce a natural born horse, nor a natural born zebra because the off-spring has a dual-nature and that is not the principle of natural law. It’s Uniformity, not Duality that is natural and normal.”

    So by this perversion of reasoning, President Jefferson was a purebred Horse and President Obama is the son of a Horse and a Zebra and therefore does not fit into straight-shooter’s concept of the perfect, loyal and genetically pure American Master Race.

  137. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 15, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    Majority Will: Besides, Planet Frisbee sounds so much cooler than Earth.

    Where is Tron when you need him?

  138. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2011 at 12:42 pm #

    Majority Will: Besides, Planet Frisbee sounds so much cooler than Earth.

    I always chuckle at`science fiction stories where the inhabitants of another world have given their planet some exotic name. Does it ever occur to these writers that in all probability these people would name their world something that translates to “Earth”?

  139. avatar
    Majority Will July 15, 2011 at 1:14 pm #

    Sef: I always chuckle at`science fiction stories where the inhabitants of another world have given their planet some exotic name. Does it ever occur to these writers that in all probability these people would name their world something that translates to “Earth”?

    Our dolphins don’t call this planet Oceania. They call it “enh enh enh enh enh enh enh enh enh”. Works for me.

  140. avatar
    G July 15, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    I agree! I’ve always felt the same way about that too. Only a colony planet would get some other name.

    Sef: I always chuckle at`science fiction stories where the inhabitants of another world have given their planet some exotic name. Does it ever occur to these writers that in all probability these people would name their world something that translates to “Earth”?

  141. avatar
    Sef July 15, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    Majority Will: Our dolphins don’t call this planet Oceania. They call it “enh enh enh enh enh enh enh enh enh”. Works for me.

    Or “What a dull name”.

  142. avatar
    straight-shooter July 17, 2011 at 8:25 am #

    J. Potter: The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since.

    You don’t get it, there was NO standard, one didn’t exist in common law because the phrase “natural born citizen” was not derived from common law, but pre-dates common law, having its origin in natural law. It pre-dates all law, British law, Roman law, Egyptan law. It dates back to the tribal age of mankind. If you were born to a member of the tribe, then you were naturally a member also. It didn’t matter where you were born. In recent times, the same could be said about the Eskimos who were born on Arctic ice. The off-spring were members of the tribe because of who they were born to, not because of where they were born. There was no common law standard then and there is no legal standard now since it has never been adjudicated.

    If you were born 200 years ago to citizen parents would you have ever asked yourself, “I’m I a citizen because I was born here or because I’m born of citizens?” If you had, you wouldn’t know “THE ANSWER” because there was none, there was only each individual’s opinion which might not have figured that it might be because both were true. Confusion prevailed but men who strongly believed in principles also believed in certainly, so they formed a most certain opinion and often declared it as a fact, even though they could not point to any firm basis for any strong opinion. Exactly like today, when no one can make any rational argument for their case, relying instead on the similarly baseless opinions of “experts”. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any doubt he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

    Things firmed up in a legal sense with the passage of the 14th Amendment. It laid-out some principles that could be applied but not without first inferring what they were. That was done in the Wong Kim Ark decision when citizenship for alien children was affirmed based on the residency of the parents being evidence of meeting the requirement of being subject to US jurisdiction.

    But consider this hypothetical case. A resident alien mother-to-be delivers one twin on one day, the next day she completes the US naturalization process, followed by delivering the second twin after that. Both twins would be US citizens, but only the second one would be a natural born citizen because by then the mother had been natural-ized. Without natural-ization, off-spring of resident aliens are citizens in all respects except in regard to Presidential eligibility.

    “What genes make an American?” Seriously? You don’t know what an analogy is? Then you sure can’t grasp the meaning of a political analogy. It’s related to “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” -Declaration of Independence.
    “Human constructs, pure and simple, nothing “natural” in the slightest.” Exactly, borders are NOT natural, only biology is natural, and the political analogy of inheriting human nature is inheriting parental citizenship.

    “The “United States of America” is both the name of a nation and a country” What ignorance. The name America is representative of the people and the earth they live on, regardless of the current borders or political constitution. The political name, representing the governments of all 50 states and federal is United States of America. America is a people and a place, not a political entity. Same with Mexico, the nation of Mexico is The United States of Mexico, but they call us The United States because we were that before them. And they call their country simply “Mexico”.

    The devotion that Jefferson felt toward the French people was NOT a form of allegiance to the King of France. The allegiance of Barack Obama toward Kenya or Britian is pure fiction. His only allegiance is to his own country, the United States, though his allegiance to his Progressive ideology is almost as strong.

    “Jefferson was most certainly a natural born American. He was born in Virginia, That makes him a natural born citizen. ” Yes, of Virginia, NOT the United States -which didn’t even exist when he was born. None of the founding fathers and their generation were natural born citizens of the United States because they were born as subjects of the British Empire, -which the colonies were part of.

    “The most obvious cititation is to Wong Kim Ark to show that the term “natural born” is taken directly from the common law.” You fail to define the meaning of your use of “taken”. It is certainly cited in common law, but it does not originate in common law since it pre-dates common law by a few millenium. And there is no reason to believe that its true meaning was never distorted by misconceptions and conflation.

    “in the real world of law, we need to support what we say with citations to legal authority” You’re like someone who’s lived his whole life in a box, and upon being told that he’s in a box replies; “What box, I don’t see any box? That’s just a silly concept. You can’t prove I’m in a box!” All legal authorities can do is express opinions, sometimes thayt are fact-based, sometimes not. The “legal authorities” that sit as Supreme Court justices can’t agree on hardly anything, commonly splitting 5-4. So how do you describe them? Five geniuses of Law vs five morons? Opinions, it’s been said, are like A-holes, everyone’s got one. As for the whole legal world arrayed against me, who was right? Columbus? or everyone else?

  143. avatar
    straight-shooter July 17, 2011 at 8:35 am #

    Bovril: Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

    Throwing in worthless superfluous verbiage does not increase the clarity nor the profundity of pompous pronouncements. Drop the “natural-born” phraseology and both statements mean the exact same thing! How can that be? It’s called pomposity. There’s a lot of that around here.

  144. avatar
    Sef July 17, 2011 at 8:53 am #

    straight-shooter: You don’t get it, there was NO standard, one didn’t exist in common law because the phrase “natural born citizen” was not derived from common law, but pre-dates common law, having its origin in natural law. It pre-dates all law, British law, Roman law, Egyptan law.

    I’m afraid that you are the one who doesn’t “get it”. Our system of laws uses the most recent definition, not the earliest. The most recent is the statement in WKA that NBC means jus soli, and if you don’t like it you can lump it. If there is a Constitutional Amendment which modifies this definition/requirement or a SCOTUS opinion which changes things that will be what we use until someone changes it again. All this originialism crap is just that.

  145. avatar
    straight-shooter July 17, 2011 at 8:58 am #

    JoZeppy: Those definitions primarily come from either statutory law, or judicial interpretation. you’re talking about what the LAW means. In order for the law to have meaning, it must have a single and standard application to all persons. If you want others to take you seriously in a discussion of the law, learn how it works.

    And if you want others to take YOU seriously in a discussion of the law, learn how it DOESN’T work. There is NO statutory nor SCOTUS definition of natural born citizen, so please stop deluding yourself that there is! Lots of presumptuous conclusions have been issued in plenty of overly-confident statements which bring to mind the quote of the status quo embracing establishment sheeple; “I may not be right…but I’m certain!”

  146. avatar
    Majority Will July 17, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    “Throwing in worthless superfluous verbiage does not increase the clarity nor the profundity of pompous pronouncements.

    Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation!

    (We’re going to need A WHOLE LOT more Irony Meters.)

  147. avatar
    Majority Will July 17, 2011 at 9:02 am #

    Sef: Or “What a dull name”.

    I thought it was something about “thanks for all the fish”!

  148. avatar
    straight-shooter July 17, 2011 at 9:12 am #

    Keith: Jefferson was NOT a natural born American

    I mis-constructed that sentence. He WAS a natural born American, having been born in America. What I meant was that he was not a natural born citizen of the United States. since he was not born in the United States (which didn’t exist).

  149. avatar
    Sef July 17, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    straight-shooter: And if you want others to take YOU seriously in a discussion of the law, learn how it DOESN’T work.There is NO statutory nor SCOTUS definition of natural born citizen, so please stop deluding yourself that there is!Lots of presumptuous conclusions have been issued in plenty of overly-confident statements which bring to mind the quote of the status quo embracing establishment sheeple; “I may not be right…but I’m certain!”

    Methinks El Putzo has a new sock puppet.

  150. avatar
    Ballantine July 17, 2011 at 10:14 am #

    straight-shooter: I mis-constructed that sentence. He WAS a natural born American, having been born in America. What I meant was that he was not a natural born citizen of the United States. since he was not born in the United States (which didn’t exist).

    I guess we now have another of your unsupported assertions. Now, if you are interested in what actually happened, you can go look and see what the framers themselves actually said about this in the Convention. You can go see why the grandfather clause was suggested. You can go see who were called natural born citizens of the United States prior to 1789. Plenty written on this site about this if you are too lazy to do research. Oh, that is right, you don’t do research you just devine the meaning of terms.

  151. avatar
    Keith July 17, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    straight-shooter: I mis-constructed that sentence.He WASa natural born American, having been born in America.What I meant was that he was not a natural born citizen of the United States. since he was not born in the United States (which didn’t exist).

    Wrong again, even after your correction.

    The citizens of a State became citizens of the United States with the same attributes they had as citizens of their home State.

    Thus Jefferson was a natural born citizen of Virginia before the Constitution, and thus a natural born citizen of the United States when Virginia joined the Union. Citizens naturalized in Virgina before the Constitution became naturalized citizens of the United States of America.

    Alexander Hamilton was a naturalized citizen of New York before the Constitution. When New York joined the Union, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. As such, he was ineligible to be President (or Vice President or course), except for the grandfather clause.

    The point of the grandfather clause was to provide for those foreign born patriots who had served in the founding of the nation; that and nothing else.

  152. avatar
    Arthur July 17, 2011 at 10:19 am #

    straight-shooter:

    Your interpretation of what it means to be a natural-born citizen of the United States is heartfelt, but it doesn’t represent the accepted customs, standards, and legal traditions of America.

    There’s really nothing more to say about your view of things. Every point you’ve presented has been debunked on this site dozens of times for over two and a half years (check the archives). If you want your ideas to be put into action, rather than posting them here, you should talk to your political representatives in Congress. I’m sure they’ll be intrigued by what you have to say and will give your argument the consideration it deserves

  153. avatar
    Ballantine July 17, 2011 at 10:45 am #

    straight-shooter: You don’t get it, there was NO standard, one didn’t exist in common law because the phrase “natural born citizen” was not derived from common law, but pre-dates common law, having its origin in natural law. It pre-dates all law, British law, Roman law, Egyptan law. It dates back to the tribal age of mankind. If you were born to a member of the tribe, then you were naturally a member also. It didn’t matter where you were born. In recent times, the same could be said about the Eskimos who were born on Arctic ice. The off-spring were members of the tribe because of who they were born to, not because of where they were born. There was no common law standard then and there is no legal standard now since it has never been adjudicated.

    Again, everything you state is wrong. It doesn’t matter where the term originated. The framers did not look to Roman law on any issue, they looked to the common law. You can keep repeated over and over your unsupported opinions, yet they ar simply that. It is simply a fact that all uses of the natural born citizen under founding period and for more than a half century after was tied to the English common law. You can stomp your feet all you want but those are the historical facts.

    If you were born 200 years ago to citizen parents would you have ever asked yourself, “I’m I a citizen because I was born here or because I’m born of citizens?” If you had, you wouldn’t know “THE ANSWER” because there was none, there was only each individual’s opinion which might not have figured that it might be because both were true.

    Again, wrong as a matter of history. There is a ton of early authority on citizenship at both the state and federal level and no one connected citizenship to parentage. Seriously, no one. When there was no statute to make children of citizens born overseas citizens, the leading scholars and Congress itself recognized that such persons were aliens unless Congress naturalized them. It is clear you have done no research at all.

    Things firmed up in a legal sense with the passage of the 14th Amendment. It laid-out some principles that could be applied but not without first inferring what they were. That was done in the Wong Kim Ark decision when citizenship for alien children was affirmed based on the residency of the parents being evidence of meeting the requirement of being subject to US jurisdiction.

    Of course, a requirement of being a birther is not reading what the framers of the 14th Amendment said and not being able to understand Wong Kim Ark. The 14th goal was simply to re-state what was in the original Constitution, but to make it color-blind. But why read what its framers actually said when you can make stuff up. This of course is what Wong Kim Ark said as well after the defined natural born citizen by the common law. And, you clearly don’t know how to read case law. Wong’s parents were residents but the rationale of his citizenship was based upon the adoption of the common law which is what is binding precedent. Why do you write on things you have no understanding of. Now, since we know you can’t understand all the pages of Wong Kim Ark, here is a summary written by the Chief Justice that all justices on the court including Justice Gray would have read before publication. I think even you might understand it.

    “The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established; and that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”

    Even my 6 year old can understand that. Oh, but you are right and everyone, even the members of the Wong Kim Ark court itself, are wrong.

  154. avatar
    JoZeppy July 17, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    straight-shooter: And if you want others to take YOU seriously in a discussion of the law, learn how it DOESN’T work. There is NO statutory nor SCOTUS definition of natural born citizen, so please stop deluding yourself that there is! Lots of presumptuous conclusions have been issued in plenty of overly-confident statements which bring to mind the quote of the status quo embracing establishment sheeple; “I may not be right…but I’m certain!”

    And saying the wrong thing over and over again, does not make it less wrong. WKA did give the most common definition of NBC. There is some debate on the fringes of those born abroad, but the core of being born on the soil is defined there. Additionally, even if SCOTUS didn’t address it, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a generally accepted definition. If all the lower courts are in agreement, and there is not doubt on the subject in the legal community, it will never make it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court doesn’t grant cert to cases where the law is decided, and there is no chance of a reversal. And actually, not only am I certain, but I am certain I am right.

  155. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 17, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    straight-shooter: There is NO statutory nor SCOTUS definition of natural born citizen, so please stop deluding yourself that there is!

    If that is the case, then clearly there is no reason to conclude that Obama is not eligible for the office he now occupies, since he would be presumed to be eligible unless it can be proven otherwise. (That’s just how our Constitution and election laws work — you can’t challenge an office-holder based on a legal interpretation established *after* he took office.)

  156. avatar
    Rickey July 17, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    straight-shooter: What I meant was that he was not a natural born citizen of the United States. since he was not born in the United States (which didn’t exist).

    Simple arithmetic proves you wrong.

    The Founders considered those who were born in the 13 colonies to be natural-born citizens of the United States. We know this in part because of the 14-year residency requirement found in Article I, Section 2.

    The colonists declared independence on July 4, 1776. The Constitution requires that the President be a resident of the United States for 14 years. George Washington was inaugurated the first President of the United States on April 30, 1789. As of that date, the United States had existed for only 12 years, 9 months. How then did George Washington (or anyone else, for that matter) meet the 14-year residency requirement?

    The answer is obvious – the Founders considered the colonies to be the United States, meaning that Washington was a natural-born citizen who had lived in the United States for 57 years when he was inaugurated. The “grandfather clause” in Article I, Section 2 applied to citizens such as Alexander Hamilton who were not born in the colonies.

  157. avatar
    Bovril July 17, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    straight-shooter: straight-shooter
    July 17, 2011 at 8:35 am straight-shooter(Quote)
    #

    Bovril: Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
    Throwing in worthless superfluous verbiage does not increase the clarity nor the profundity of pompous pronouncements. Drop the “natural-born” phraseology and both statements mean the exact same thing! How can that be? It’s called pomposity. There’s a lot of that around here.

    Typical moronic borfoon, take a quote, strip out the parts yiu don;t like and proclaim the New Truth

    THE WHOLE QUOTE by a real set of Constutional Experts about the President

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

    See what happens when you read the WHOLE quote? The judges say, “Bent Shooter, bleeding muppet, he’s full of the bovine excretary matter he is”

  158. avatar
    Sef July 17, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    Ballantine: “The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established; and that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”

    If this were not true there could be no Representatives or Senators prior to the 14th, except for naturalized citizens, as US citizenship was a requirement and the Constitution did not define how to become a U.S. citizen. I don’t think that is quite what the founders would have wanted.

  159. avatar
    straight-shooter July 18, 2011 at 12:49 am #

    Keith: The point of the grandfather clause was to provide for those foreign born patriots who had served in the founding of the nation; that and nothing else.

    That all makes perfect sense. Not having researched it, I’ll not contest what sounds perfectly reasonable. While there is a logic error is calling the founders natural born US citizens, they had the right to deem their generation to be so via political inheritance. While it wouldn’t be logically correct it would be legally correct. And it made sense to do so to avoid an unnecessary and pointless complication.

  160. avatar
    straight-shooter July 18, 2011 at 12:59 am #

    Expelliarmus: If that is the case, then clearly there is no reason to conclude that Obama is not eligible for the office he now occupies, since he would be presumed to be eligible unless it can be proven otherwise.(That’s just how our Constitution and election laws work — you can’t challenge an office-holder based on a legal interpretation established *after* he took office.)

    That is the inescapable truth. Obama is not Constitutionally eligible but not being so is not a crime, is not an impeachable offense, and is not even a legally established “fact”. Just as there is no controlling authority to determine Presidential eligibility, there also is none to determine the truth after the fact.

  161. avatar
    straight-shooter July 18, 2011 at 1:32 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): So it’s pretty much agreed that Obama was completely eligible for the Presidency since he did not have dual citizenship as an adult

    Having a legal alien father who is a legal resident of the US would have made Obama a natural born citizen in some people’s minds, even though, with an alien father, he would not fit the description of a natural born citizen. But for better or worse, his father seems to have been married to his mother, thus putting him legally in the picture as the reason his son was not born as a natural citizen. If they hadn’t married, then only her citizenship would be conveyed to her son, not the father’s. Would that have made him a natural born citizen? There’s no answer since there is no established legal definition of “natural born citizenship” It’s all way out in the far-off legal weeds where there’s no trail to follow. I’ve written a lot about the subject in my blog at http://obama–nation.com,

    Adding to the problem was the fact that the father was a mere visitor, and not a legal permanent resident, and therefore “not “subject to the jurisdiction of the Untied States”. So if his mother had given birth outside the limits of the US, Obama would not even be a US citizen. Those are the facts, but most people don’t care.

  162. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2011 at 1:40 am #

    Continuing to say Obama is not eligible does not make it so. The “controlling authority” on Presidential eligibility is Congress, as specified in the 20th amendment following:

    3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    straight-shooter: Obama is not Constitutionally eligible but not being so is not a crime, is not an impeachable offense, and is not even a legally established “fact”. Just as there is no controlling authority to determine Presidential eligibility, there also is none to determine the truth after the fact.

    Because Barack Obama’s election was certified by the Congress in the manner specified by law, we know that he qualified. Not only is Obama eligible according to the authorities, he is certified eligible by the only body that matters, the Congress. And you, “straight-shooter”, are a crackpot.

  163. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    Saying this doesn’t make it so. The Courts have said that temporary residents are in the jurisdiction of the United States because “subject to the jurisdiction” is deemed to be subject to the laws — and temporary and permanent residents are equally subject to the law. Since you are a crackpot, providing the link to the court decisions would be a waste of my time.

    straight-shooter: Adding to the problem was the fact that the father was a mere visitor, and not a legal permanent resident, and therefore “not “subject to the jurisdiction of the Untied States”.

  164. avatar
    straight-shooter July 18, 2011 at 1:48 am #

    Ballantine: you have no knowledge of the law they practiced or their use of legal terms, you have no knowledge of what they actually said about citizenship or natural law and on and on.

    All true. But it doesn’t follow that therefore everything I’ve surmised is erroneous. I’ll have the sense to go with logic until someone can point out a factual error. Some have done that and enlightened me. Others just vomit infantile insults while not having the intelligence to offer an actual factual rebuttal.

    “Since the Constitution is full of legal terms of art from the common law,…” Not having read the Constitution yet I hope someone can point out some of the terms of art that it is supposedly so “full of”. Cause I’m thinking that it only contains one, and the claim that it’s full of them seems quite bogus.

  165. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2011 at 1:51 am #

    I cannot understand how a person could argue that there is no legal definition, and then turn around and assert with certainty that Obama doesn’t fit the definition.

    It appears to me that your only purpose here is to assert that Obama is ineligible, whether it is true or not. If that is the case, then your only effect is to cause trouble which is against the rules. For this reason, you are no longer welcome on this website.

    straight-shooter: There’s no answer since there is no established legal definition of “natural born citizenship”

  166. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2011 at 1:56 am #

    Bill of attainder and felony for two. Bye Troll.

    straight-shooter: Not having read the Constitution yet I hope someone can point out some of the terms of art that it is supposedly so “full of”.

  167. avatar
    J. Potter July 18, 2011 at 2:19 am #

    After a weeklong diatribe of Constitutional foolishness, he finally admits “Not having read the Constitution yet….” Surprisingly honest admission of what was terribly obvious.

  168. avatar
    Keith July 18, 2011 at 3:32 am #

    J. Potter:
    After a weeklong diatribe of Constitutional foolishness, he finally admits “Not having read the Constitution yet….” Surprisingly honest admission of what was terribly obvious.

    Hey, I scored a win too. Somehow. And obviously begrudgingly. But at least he/she admitted the (probable) error of their ways.

  169. avatar
    straight-shooter July 18, 2011 at 3:47 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Bill of attainder and felony for two. Bye Troll.

    Two? That’s really “full”!

    [It is not my problem that you are too lazy to do your own research. Asking questions is one thing, but a petulant child who just repeats "why" is just annoying. Three attorneys here have attempted to explain to you how the law works, and you have not given them the respect of trying to read and understand. Rather you just keep repeating the same unfounded assertions. You present no argument; you just annoy.

    Here are other common law terms not defined in the Constitution: citizen, impeachment, felonies, treason, bribery, bankruptcy, warrants, grand jury and attainder. See SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U. S. 465 (1888).

    And just so you understand, "not welcome here" means I delete your comments. Doc.]

  170. avatar
    J. Potter July 18, 2011 at 6:34 am #

    Keith, I wasn’t trying to take credit or keep score; I hadn’t been back to this discussion all week, and was noting my shock over it’s latest salvos!

    Keith: Hey, I scored a win too. Somehow. And obviously begrudgingly. But at least he/she admitted the (probable) error of their ways.

  171. avatar
    Ballantine July 18, 2011 at 6:55 am #

    straight-shooter: All true. But it doesn’t follow that therefore everything I’ve surmised is erroneous. I’ll have the sense to go with logic until someone can point out a factual error. Some have done that and enlightened me. Others just vomit infantile insults while not having the intelligence to offer an actual factual rebuttal.“Since the Constitution is full of legal terms of art from the common law,…” Not having read the Constitution yet I hope someone can point out some of the terms of art that it is supposedly so “full of”. Cause I’m thinking that it only contains one, and the claim that it’s full of them seems quite bogus.

    How about Habeus corpus, bill of attender, ex post facto, privilege and immunities, impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors, felony, grand jury, indictment, presentment, due process. The language of the 2nd amendment, the 8th amendment, legislative immunity and many other provisions come from the English bill of rights which was considered part of the common law. The prerogatives of the Exectutive all come from the common law such as the pardon power.

    According to Scalia (who has cited Blackstone more often than Madison):

    “I use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase “the right to be confronted with witnesses against him” — what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time. And that isn’t so for every provision of the Constitution. The one you mentioned — what does sovereignty consist of? — that is probably one on which I would consult English law, because it was understood when the Constitution was framed that the states remained, at that time in 1789, separate sovereigns. Well, what were the prerogatives of a sovereign, as understood by the framers of the Constitution? The same as was understood by their English forebears. So that’s why I would use English law — not at all because I think we are still very much aligned legally, socially, philosophically with England. That’s not the reason.”

    How about Chief Justice Taft:

    “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 Convention 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.”

    I know. Everyone is wrong.

  172. avatar
    ballantine July 18, 2011 at 7:21 am #

    straight-shooter: Having a legal alien father who is a legal resident of the US would have made Obama a natural born citizen in some people’s minds, even though, with an alien father, he would not fit the description of a natural born citizen.But for better or worse, his father seems to have been married to his mother, thus putting him legally in the picture as the reason his son was not born as a natural citizen. If they hadn’t married, then only her citizenship would be conveyed to her son, not the father’s. Would that have made him a natural born citizen?There’s no answer since there is no established legal definition of “natural born citizenship”It’s all way out in the far-off legal weeds where there’s no trail to follow.I’ve written a lot about the subject in my blog at http://obama–nation.com,

    Adding to the problem was the fact that the father was a mere visitor, and not a legal permanent resident, and therefore “not “subject to the jurisdiction of the Untied States”.So if his mother had given birth outside the limits of the US, Obama would not even be a US citizen.Those are the facts, but most people don’t care.

    Sorry, you still don’t understand that you simply repeating this nonsense means nothing. I have pointed out that the Supreme court has said both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment are declaratory of the English common law. It was not dicta and hence is the law. If you can’t understand that, go to law school. The common law of course included children of resident aliens (which applied to Wong Kim Ark), but it also included children of temporary visitors. It is the rationale, not just the holding, of a decision that is precedent. No court has every said that parents need to be residents “to be subject to the jurisdiction.” Such argument was specifically rejected in the 14th Amendment congress. Again, it helps if you actually research. Thus, unless the court re-visits the issue, the law is that anyone included under the common law definition is a natural born citizen and a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

  173. avatar
    Keith July 18, 2011 at 7:46 am #

    J. Potter:
    Keith, I wasn’t trying to take credit or keep score; I hadn’t been back to this discussion all week, and was noting my shock over it’s latest salvos!

    Me either. I was just noting my shock that the trool actually responded to a rational discussion with a reasonable acknowledgment. I didn’t mean it to sound like I was counting coup.

  174. avatar
    Scientist July 18, 2011 at 8:43 am #

    straight-shooter: If you were born to a member of the tribe, then you were naturally a member also. It didn’t matter where you were born. In recent times, the same could be said about the Eskimos who were born on Arctic ice. The off-spring were members of the tribe because of who they were born to, not because of where they were born

    If you wish to pretend that the nation state doesn’t exist and that humans live under the laws of hunter-gatherer bands, then the concepts of “the United States of America” and “President of the United States” are totally meaningless and the discussion is a waste of time. If nation states exist, then they can make laws that may, of necessity, be different from those amongst hunter-gatherers. Furthermore, even among hunter-gatherers there was no uniformity. Some had no chiefs at all, some had heriditary chiefs and some had chiefs elected based on their wisdom. So, the American people (if they are a tribe) are free to follow the electoral model and pick a chief without regard to who his parents were.

    Anyway, to speak of tribal people separate from the place they live is meaningless. If an Inuit (they prefer that term to Eskimo, which is a Cree perjorative) couple left the Arctic and moved to the Brazilian rainforest, would their children be Inuit? Whatever the legalities, the question is foolish because they couldn’t possibly live as Inuit in that environment. In fact each Inuit group is adapted to the particular place they live and cannot necessarily thrive even in a different part of the North. This was tried in the 1950s when the Canadian government moved some Inuit from Hudson’s Bay (which is sub-arctic0 to the high Arctic and it was a total disaster.

  175. avatar
    Majority Will July 18, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    straight-shooter: Others just vomit infantile insults while not having the intelligence to offer an actual factual rebuttal.

    Infantile insults like these?

    From straight-shooter:

    “Your reasoning ability is defective.”

    “You thiknking is defective and delusional.”

    “Discussion by attack is not a form of refutation nor an advancement of a greater, wiser point of view. Simply regurgitating the thoughts of others is not equivalent to having any thought of your own. So far you have presented none. I expect that won’t change since you lack a single original thought. You’re like a mirror, you reflect the perceived light of others, but you have none of your own. A pathetic abdication of your human potential.”

    “Your grasp of reality is about as deep as water in a saucer.”

    “It’s called pomposity. There’s a lot of that around here.”

    Isn’t hypocrisy the primary sensor trigger for Irony Meters?

    But this was my favorite:

    “And if you want others to take YOU seriously in a discussion of the law, learn how it DOESN’T work.”

    This from someone who admits, “Not having read the Constitution yet I hope someone can point out some of the terms of art that it is supposedly so ‘full of’.”

    Really sad, utterly clueless and a complete waste of bits and bandwidth:

    “There’s no answer since there is no established legal definition of “natural born citizenship” It’s all way out in the far-off legal weeds where there’s no trail to follow. I’ve written a lot about the subject in my blog at http://obama–nation.com,”

  176. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2011 at 9:15 am #

    I tried to figure out what the guy’s web site really is, but couldn’t confidently come up with one.

    Here’s one similar:
    http://www.obamanation.com/Obama_Nation.html

    This one is “coming soon:”
    http://www.obama-nation.com/

    Majority Will: “There’s no answer since there is no established legal definition of “natural born citizenship” It’s all way out in the far-off legal weeds where there’s no trail to follow. I’ve written a lot about the subject in my blog at http://obama–nation.com,”

  177. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 18, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    straight-shooter: Having a legal alien father who is a legal resident of the US would have made Obama a natural born citizen in some people’s minds, even though, with an alien father, he would not fit the description of a natural born citizen. But for better or worse, his father seems to have been married to his mother, thus putting him legally in the picture as the reason his son was not born as a natural citizen. If they hadn’t married, then only her citizenship would be conveyed to her son, not the father’s. Would that have made him a natural born citizen? There’s no answer since there is no established legal definition of “natural born citizenship” It’s all way out in the far-off legal weeds where there’s no trail to follow. I’ve written a lot about the subject in my blog at http://obama–nation.com, Adding to the problem was the fact that the father was a mere visitor, and not a legal permanent resident, and therefore “not “subject to the jurisdiction of the Untied States”. So if his mother had given birth outside the limits of the US, Obama would not even be a US citizen. Those are the facts, but most people don’t care.

    It would have made him NBC in reality. Several members of the executive branch had resident alien fathers including Spiro Agnew and Chester A. Arthur. There is no two citizen parent requirement in the constitution. That’s just absurd. Imagine if a woman was raped by an unknown assailant and a child was born of the rape. Now one day the child becomes President. How exactly would you determine if the father was a citizen? I’ve asked many birthers this and they come to the conclusion somehow that because the father’s citizenship is unknown then the child would not be eligible. It’s ridiculous. The father was under the full jurisdiction of the United States

  178. avatar
    Paper July 18, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    Oh great, now I’m never going to get my taxes done!

    Majority Will: Are these paranoid birther bigots busy searching for hidden messages in their 1040 form?

  179. avatar
    Paper July 18, 2011 at 10:22 am #

    I am thinking Yanamamo Inuit for the Fall Collection.

    Scientist:

    Anyway, to speak of tribal people separate from the place they live is meaningless.If an Inuit (they prefer that term to Eskimo, which is a Cree perjorative) couple left the Arctic and moved to the Brazilian rainforest, would their children be Inuit?Whatever the legalities, the question is foolish because they couldn’t possibly live as Inuit in that environment.In fact each Inuit group is adapted to the particular place they live and cannot necessarily thrive even in a different part of the North.This was tried in the 1950s when the Canadian government moved some Inuit from Hudson’s Bay (which is sub-arctic0 to the high Arctic and it was a total disaster.

  180. avatar
    Judge Mental July 18, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    …..Imagine if a woman was raped by an unknown assailant and a child was born of the rape.Now one day the child becomes President.How exactly would you determine if the father was a citizen?I’ve asked many birthers this and they come to the conclusion somehow that because the father’s citizenship is unknown then the child would not be eligible.It’s ridiculous.The father was under the full jurisdiction of the United States

    As the rapist would undoubtedly have found out were he to be caught, charged, tried and found guilty.

  181. avatar
    katahdin July 18, 2011 at 11:11 am #

    Paper:
    I am thinking Yanamamo Inuit for the Fall Collection.

    Birthers prove over and over again that they have no clue about the meaning of America.
    What makes people really American is not some tribal or cultural identity, but the common acceptance of the principle that each individual has inherent worth and that it can’t be taken away by any government or any community.
    Birthers want to make “American” an ethnicity. But the moment it becomes that, it ceases to be American. That’s why someone can be French or Japanese or Kenyan, and still be American. Because it’s something we choose, not something we just are.

  182. avatar
    Majority Will July 18, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): It would have made him NBC in reality.Several members of the executive branch had resident alien fathers including Spiro Agnew and Chester A. Arthur.There is no two citizen parent requirement in the constitution.That’s just absurd.Imagine if a woman was raped by an unknown assailant and a child was born of the rape.Now one day the child becomes President.How exactly would you determine if the father was a citizen?I’ve asked many birthers this and they come to the conclusion somehow that because the father’s citizenship is unknown then the child would not be eligible.It’s ridiculous.The father was under the full jurisdiction of the United States

    Here’s a fun, little exchange from yesterday with straight-shooter who is pressing on with more abject nonsense:

    http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=235&pageNo=1

  183. avatar
    JoZeppy July 18, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    Majority Will: Here’s a fun, little exchange from yesterday with straight-shooter who is pressing on with more abject nonsense:http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=235&pageNo=1

    I find it genuinely shocking how people who don’t have the first clue about what they’re talking attempt to speak from some sort of authority. If there’s a topic that I don’t know anything about, I’m not going to stand up and start make b.s. up, based on nothing by my fantasies, and pretend that it is some how authoritative. Does this nutter walk into his doctor’s office and tell his doctor how to perform surgery? What is it about the law that makes people think they can just pull b.s. out of their backsides and pretend it has any value?

  184. avatar
    Majority Will July 18, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    JoZeppy: What is it about the law that makes people think they can just pull b.s. out of their backsides and pretend it has any value?

    Fear, ignorance and bigotry.

    “Does this nutter walk into his doctor’s office and tell his doctor how to perform surgery?”

    “Medical science has its roots in ancient tribal rituals. Bleed these evil humors from me. Yeah. Let’s go with that, doctor.”

  185. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) July 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm #

    Majority Will: Fear, ignorance and bigotry.“Does this nutter walk into his doctor’s office and tell his doctor how to perform surgery?”“Medical science has its roots in ancient tribal rituals. Bleed these evil humors from me. Yeah. Let’s go with that, doctor.”

    Wasn’t that Sarah Palin’s former Preacher?

  186. avatar
    Scientist July 18, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    Majority Will: “Does this nutter walk into his doctor’s office and tell his doctor how to perform surgery?”
    “Medical science has its roots in ancient tribal rituals. Bleed these evil humors from me. Yeah. Let’s go with that, doctor

    The birthers are much worse-they not only want the doctor to bleed them, they insist the doctor bleed everybody else as well. i have few problems with a birther who says, “I don’t think Obama is eligible and will not vote for him. However, my fellow citizens and the courts and Congress believe otherwise and so he is the President.”

    But of course, they say, “I am right and everyone else is wrong. Why? Because i say so!!”