Main Menu

Birther precedents

While I was mowing grass today, the phrase “binding precedent” came to mind. It’s one of those slogans that birthers repeat to avoid having to take the time to understand the issues. The two precedents the birthers cling to have something in common.

imageThe first birther precedent comes from Scott v Sandford, more commonly known as Dred Scott. Scott (pictured right) was a slave who was taken by his owner into a state where slavery was not legal and Scott sued saying that this made him a free man. Rather than considering the case on the merits, the US Supreme Court decided that Scott could not bring suit in federal court because he was not a citizen. There were several opinions written by the various justices; however, the thing that came out of the case was a decision that not only were slaves not citizens, but Congress did not have the constitutional authority to make them naturalized citizens, nor could any descendant of a slave ever be a citizen.

The second is from the case of Minor v Happersett. Virginia Minor tried to register to vote, but was refused because she was a woman. Minor argued that the Privileges and Immunities  Clause made her eligible to vote just as much as a man. The Court said no. They said that even though Minor was a citizen, citizenship doesn’t imply the right to vote.1

What these two decisions have in common is that they were so repugnant to the country that the Constitution of the United States was eventually amended to obliterate them both. The 14th Amendment restored the status of those born in the United States to where it was before the decision from the Court in Scott. The 19th Amendment now prohibits denying the right to vote on the basis of sex.


1The part of the Minor decision that birthers cling to is not what was done away with by the 19th Amendment. The Court said that women born in the United States of citizen parents are themselves citizens. The Court did not say that citizen parents were a requirement (and indeed a later court in US v Wong affirmed that it was not). So in this case the “precedent” that birthers tout never actually existed.

, , , ,

100 Responses to Birther precedents

  1. avatar
    Atticus Finch September 4, 2011 at 9:53 pm #

    The Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162(1875) case that the birthers
    believed to be the “be all and end all” of case law in defining who is a natural born citizen misconstrued Chief Justice Waite’s language reference to natural born citizens. The birthers assumed that Chief Justice Waite’s opinion about natural born citizens was germane or crucial to the case. However, this assumption is misplaced since the status of Ms. Minor’s citizenship had nothing to do with her seeking the right to vote under the 14th Amendment.

    In fact, Chief Justice Waite noted that Ms. Minor “ has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” Id at 170. Moreover, Chief Justice Waite made no reference as to the citizenship status of Minor’s parents.

    Therefore, Chief Justice Waite’s gratuitous comment about “natural born citizenship” had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the court. In fact, he himself remarked “[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [citizens children born without reference to citizenship of their parents].” Id at 168.

    In other words, even Chief Justice Waite himself admitted that for the purposes of deciding whether or not Ms. Minor had the right to vote as a citizen under the 14th Amendment that he didn’t need to solve these doubts as to the status of children born to parents other than citizen parents.

    That is why Chief Justice Waite’ language regarding natural born citizen is dicta because it was not necessary in determining that citizen women did not have the right to vote under the 14th Amendment.

    Chief Justice Marshall long ago cautioned against reliance on dicta:

    “It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the Court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it, are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.” Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. 264, 399-400, 6 Wheat. 264, 399-400 (1821)

    Ms. Minor’s right to vote wasn’t contingent if she were a natural born citizen but rather if United States CITIZENS both natural born or naturalized had a right to vote based on the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.

    The Court concluded that no such right exists to United States citizens under the 14th Amendment.

  2. avatar
    gorefan September 4, 2011 at 10:11 pm #

    Atticus Finch: Therefore, Chief Justice Waite’s gratuitous comment about “natural born citizenship” had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the court. In fact, he himself remarked “[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [citizens children born without reference to citizenship of their parents].” Id at 168.

    It is obvious from the first paragraph in the opinion,

    “The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.”

    If citizenship were an issue, the court would have listed it as a question to be determined.

    I always tell birthers to take that one sentence (“These were natives, or natural-born citizens…”) out of the Minor opinion and see how it changes the decision or even that particular paragraph. It’s removal doesn’t change anything about the opinion.

  3. avatar
    Arthur September 4, 2011 at 10:13 pm #

    Thanks Dr. C and Atticus Finch for your straightforward discussion of Minor vs. Happersett; I especially appreciated Atticus’ explanation of “dicta.”

  4. avatar
    john September 4, 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    Finch has tried his luck at Mario’s blog and got quite beat up. I guess finch has decided he will better luck on Doc C’s blog.

  5. avatar
    Daniel September 5, 2011 at 12:56 am #

    If I ask a court to rule whether or not this red polygon with four equal length sides and four right angles is a square, and the court rules that it is, in fact, a square, am I then entitled to state that the courts have ordered that all squares must be red?

  6. avatar
    US Citizen September 5, 2011 at 6:23 am #

    Daniel:
    If I ask a court to rule whether or not this red polygon with four equal length sides and four right angles is a square, and the court rules that it is, in fact, a square, am I then entitled to state that the courts have ordered that all squares must be red?

    Birther answer: No, you’re not entitled. You’re a communist!
    All this talk about states and red squares!
    Wake up America!

    😉

  7. avatar
    ballantine September 5, 2011 at 7:42 am #

    And Mario has been beaten up so badly here he has learned to stay away and not embarrass himself further. At this point he has been reduced to re-defining words out of thin air to try to make his theories work. There is no dispute that the language of Minor is dicta and that such dicta did not address the citizenship status of children of aliens. Trying to say it did would likely subject a lawyer to sanction. Ant the silly argument that calling someone a “citizen” means they are not “natural born citizen” as Justice Waite actually says a natural born citizen is a type of citizen and only actually only calls Virginia Minor a citizen. It is simply dishonest to say the court says one needs citizen parents.

    The birthers don’t cite the majority in Dred Scott as there is nothing there to help them. They cite a concurring opinion of Justice Daniel which quotes the Vattel passage they worship. Of course, no real lawyer would claim that Justice Daniel was adopting Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen as they would know one has to look at the context of the quote. Daniel cited Vattel to show that the writers on public law all agreed that citizens must have equal rights and privledges, highlighting the part of the paragraph on equal privledges. After citing Vattel, Daniel thus concluded slaves could not be citizens since they did not enjoy equal rights. Citation had nothing to do with who was “natural born” and cannot be cited as so. Unless one wants to breach his duty of candor to the court. Courts are not amused by this nonsense though I guess it works for people on birther threads with no legal knowledge at all.

  8. avatar
    Scientist September 5, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    In reading these 2 decisions, I have to take issue with the very notion of “binding precedent”. The courts in both cases put precedent ahead of logic and reason and, as a result, made monumental errors. The Scott court said that blacks hadn’t been citizens in 1776 (actually untrue, since free blacks had been citizens, able to own properrty, including slaves) therefore they can’t be citiizens in 1856. The Minor court (aptly named) said that women lacked the right to vote in 1776, so they can’t vote in 1874.

    By this logic, man can’t reach the moon, Everest cannot be climbed,smallpox cannot be eliminated and information cannot be sent around the world in a microsecond. There are indeed precedents, but none of them are binding. A legal system that refuses to recognize changes in objective reallity is of little worth and is bound to err over and over again as the Scott and Minor courts did.

  9. avatar
    ballantine September 5, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    The question in Minor was whether the 14th amendment conferred the right to vote on citizens. Pretty simple decision since if it had, there would have been no need for the 15th amendment. The framers of the 14th Amendment made clear that it didn’t apply to political rights, only civil rights. The language in early drafts of the 15th Amendment would seem to have conferred the right to vote on women. However, the final language does not. Not sure if they ever actually discussed the status of women in arriving at the final language.

  10. avatar
    Horus September 5, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    Long after Obama is out of the White House, these idiots will still be arguing about his citizenship status.

  11. avatar
    The Magic M September 5, 2011 at 11:09 am #

    Horus: Long after Obama is out of the White House, these idiots will still be arguing about his citizenship status.

    My guess is: only if he is followed by a Democrat (who they will claim cannot be a legitimate president by following an unconvicted usurper) or one of the Republicans they deem ineligible, too (Rubio, Jindal).
    The main fuel for their fire is the utter incapability of having a black president. Once that’s over, their anger will subside and they will return to their daily business of everyday hating everything that’s “different”.

  12. avatar
    Northland10 September 5, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    Daniel:
    If I ask a court to rule whether or not this red polygon with four equal length sides and four right angles is a square, and the court rules that it is, in fact, a square, am I then entitled to state that the courts have ordered that all squares must be red?

    Of course, your case would be dismissed on the following:

    1. This is not a conflict arising under the laws, Constitution or treaties. Therefore, the court does not have jurisdiction over the red polygon.

    2. You have not shown particular injury from the lack of a red polygon being a square. Therefore, you do not have standing.

    3. You have not stated how a red polygon being a square will resolve your “injury.” Therefore, you have not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.

    In other words, congratulations, you have a perfect birther case.

    Now, the question… is “red” dicta?

  13. avatar
    Scientist September 5, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    Just a further comment regarding Scott and Minor. Not only are they not binding precedent, they aren’t even precedent, since their essential findings (that blacks aren’t citizens and that women cannot vote) were wrong and have been overturned. Quoting them in any contemporary legal analysis is akin to quoting phlogiston theory in a chemistry paper.

  14. avatar
    Atticus Finch September 5, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    John wrote: “Finch has tried his luck at Mario’s blog and got quite beat up. I guess finch has decided he will better luck on Doc C’s blog.”

    Response:

    Apuzzo has a novel legal theory in which he believes that there exists a third type of citizenship he referred to as “naturalized at birth citizen”. This type of citizenship is different from those who natural born citizens and those who are naturalized citizens. These “naturalized at birth” citizens are who are born in the United States but whose parents are not United States Citizens. It is his theory that these “naturalized at birth” citizens were created by the 14th Amendment and as such can never be considered natural born citizens even though they are born in the United States. Apuzzo contends that prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment that children born in the United States of non-citizen parents were they themselves aliens.
    The problem with Apuzzo’s “naturalized at birth citizen” is that the courts have never recognized this third type of citizenship. On the contrary, the courts have always recognized two types of citizenships, native/natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. There are only two types of citizens: those who are native born and those who are naturalized. Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States 45 F.Supp. 61,66 (D. MD 1942). There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)

    Moreover, courts prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 had recognized that there is no legal distinction between those persons born in the United States to those born to citizen parents and non-citizen parents.

    In 1844, a judge in New York noted that a child born in New York of aliens parents during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. He held that she was a citizen of the United States by noting:
    “The term citizen, was used in the Constitution 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 President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the 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 REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? I THINK NOT. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Court of Chancery, State of New York, Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 656 (1844) (emphasis added)
    Justice Curtis in his dissent in the Dred Scott decision observed: “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 576 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting)
    In 1858, a court in New York reaffirmed the citizenship status of those born of non-citizen parents “It is further contended, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff himself is an alien. He was born in Ballston Spa, in this state, while his father was a resident of Canada, and returned to his father’s domicil, with his mother, within a year after his birth. . . . In Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. R. 583,) the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth. That case, if law, would seem to be decisive of the present question.” Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barb. (N.Y.) 383. 400-401, (1858)
    In the debate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Senators noted that children born in the United States to non-naturalized parents (i.e. foreign nationals) were citizens of the United States.
    Senator Trumbull observed: “I understand that under naturalization laws children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it at the present time.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (January 30, 1866)
    Senator Trumbull further added “There has been no time since the foundation of the government when an American Congress could by possibly have enacted such a law, or with propriety have made such a declaration. What is this declaration? All persons born in this country are citizens.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 570 (February 1, 1866)
    The executive departments of our government have repeatedly affirmed that children born of foreign parents are citizens.
    Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, in an instruction to Mr. Mason, United States Minister to France, said: “In reply to the inquiry which is made by you, . . . whether ‘the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country to which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their fathers country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,’ I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship.” Mr. Marcy to Mr. Mason, June 6, 1854, MSS. Inst. France.

    Attorney General Black, in 1859, held that “a free white person born in this country of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.” 9 Ops. Atty. Gen. 373.

    Attorney General Bates, in 1862, held that a child born in the United States of alien parents who have never been naturalized is, by the fact of birth, a native-born citizen of the United States, entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. 10 Ops. Atty. Gen. 382.

    Noted legal scholar, William Rawle, wrote in 1829:
    “The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. William Rawle, A view of the Constitution of the United States (2nd ed. 1829) page 86

    As such, Apuzzo’s theory that children born in the United States prior to 14th Amendment to alien parents were considered aliens is not supported by case law, executive orders and legal scholars.

  15. avatar
    Joey September 5, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    john:
    Finch has tried his luck at Mario’s blog and got quite beat up.I guess finch has decided he will better luck on Doc C’s blog.

    That’s nice but irrelevant to the issue under discussion. Minor v Happersett has been presented as precedent to the Roberts Supreme Court in the Certiorari briefs submitted in Hollister v Soetoro, et. al. and Kerchner v Obama.

    Not even one of the nine current US Supreme Court Justices was interested enough to ask the Solicitor General to respond on behalf of the government and not one of the current nine Justices was persuaded by Minor v Happersett as precedent to put a “birther” eligibility appeal on the “discuss list” at a Justices’ Cert conferences.
    The Roberts Court isn’t interested. All told they have denied 11 different Obama eligibility appeals, all without comment.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 5, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Mario got beat up pretty bad when he came here.

    john: Finch has tried his luck at Mario’s blog and got quite beat up. I guess finch has decided he will better luck on Doc C’s blog.

  17. avatar
    MaryMitch September 5, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    A while back I found this quote:
    .
    As Chief Justice Morrison Waite noted in Minor v. Happersett (1874):
    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
    .
    I don’t see any 3rd option.

  18. avatar
    JD Reed September 5, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Hey John, about 80 years passed between the adoption of the constitution and the adoption of the 14th Amendment. If, prior to the adoption of that amendment, children born here of alien parents were themselves aliens, then it logically follows that to become citizens, they would have had to to naturalize. Otherwise, they would remain aliens, and THEIR children would be born aliens who needed naturalizatiion. Due to the heavy immigration into the US during the 19th Century, probably hundreds of thousands, if not millionis, of people’s births fell into this category, There would necessarily be whole rows of bound volumes containing the official naturalization papers of people born in the USA.
    If this be the case, surely there are people on your side of the issue, including your hero lawyer, capable of researching and finding such documents and publishing them to the world.
    Any takers?

  19. avatar
    ballantine September 5, 2011 at 3:48 pm #

    Of course, the Supreme Court has said Mario is wrong on the law prior to the 14th Amendment. The Court’s most express statement on the issue from Justice Gray:

    “Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or 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.”

    And, of course, he is wrong on the definition of naturalization. According to the Supreme Court and every other legal authority of the time, only the foreign born could be naturalized.
    This is one reason we have the 14th amendment as it was repeatedly pointed out that native born blacks could not be naturalized.

    “The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 417

    “It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth.” Justice Curtis, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 478 (1857)

    “But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.”. Justice Swayne, US v. Rhodes (1866)

    ” I maintain that a negro can not be made a citizen by Congress ; he can not be made a citizen by any naturalization laws, because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone. No man can shake the legal truth of that position. They apply to foreigners alone; and a negro, an Indian, or any other person born within the United States, not being a foreigner, can not be naturalized; therefore they can not be made citizens by the uniform rule established by Congress under the Constitution, and there is no other rule. Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they are made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of their birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution.” Sen. Davis, quoted in History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, William Horatio Barnes, pg. 208, (1868)

    NATURALIZATION. The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America. Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 189 (1843)

    ALIEN, persons. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, who has not since been naturalized under their constitution and laws. To this there are some exceptions, as this children of the ministers of the United States in foreign courts. See Citizen, Inhabitant. Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

  20. avatar
    ballantine September 5, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    JD Reed:
    Due to the heavy immigration into the US during the 19th Century, probably hundreds of thousands, if not millionis, of people’sbirths fell into this category, There would necessarily be whole rows of bound volumes containing the official naturalization papers of people born in the USA.
    ?

    Good point. Cite any legal authority who ever said someone born on US soil was ever “naturalized.” Good luck.

  21. avatar
    ballantine September 5, 2011 at 6:35 pm #

    MaryMitch:
    A while back I found this quote:
    .
    As Chief Justice Morrison Waite noted in Minor v. Happersett (1874):
    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
    .
    I don’t see any 3rd option.

    “Citizen.—A person born within the United States, or who has become naturalized under their laws.” Elisha P. Hurlbut, Civil office and political ethics: with an appendix, containing familiar law, pg. 204 (1840)

    “Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)

    “At the time the Constitution was adopted, the Citizens of each State, collectively, constituted the Citizens of the United States ; and were either Native Citizens, or those born within the United States, or naturalized Citizens, or persons born elsewhere, but who, upon assuming the allegiance, had become entitled to the privileges, of native Citizens.” Wiiliam Duer, A course of lectures on the constitutional jurisprudence of the United States, pg. 231, (1845);

    “by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.” Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206 (February 1854)..(cited in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898)

    “Citizens are either natives or naturalized aliens. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States; 2 Kent’s Com. 37. And this, whether born of alien parents or not; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583. ” John Duer, Benjamin Franklin Butler, John Canfield Spencer, The law of real property of the state of New York, pg. 22 (1855)

    “Citizens are either natives, or such persons as have become citizens in accordance with the laws which have been enacted by Congress on the subject of naturalization. Native citizens again are, first, all persons who have been born within the jurisdiction of the United States since the declaration of American Independence, on the 4th of July, 1776 ; and secondly, every person who was a native of the territory of the United States previous to that date, provided he remained in the country afterwards.” John Ramsay McCulloch, Vethake, Henry, dictionary, practical, theoretical, and historical, of commerce , Volume 1, pg.27 (1852)

    “Citizens are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, or duly naturalized. Aliens are persons born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, and not naturalized.” John Frederick Archbold, John Jervis, William Newland Welsby, Thomas Whitney Waterman, A complete practical treatise on criminal procedure, pleading, and …, Volume 1, pg. 8 (1853)

    “Citizens are either natural-born or naturalized. One who is born in the United States or under its jurisdiction is a natural-born citizen without reference to the nationality of his parents. Their presence here constitutes a temporary allegiance, sufficient to make a child a citizen.” Theordore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894)

    “Citizens may be divided into two classes : natural born and alien born. Natural-born citizens are of two kinds: native born—those born of either American or alien parents within the jurisdiction of the United Slates, and foreign born—those born of American parents without the Jurisdiction of the United States.” John Clark Ridpath, The standard American encyclopedia of arts, sciences, history, biography, geography, statistics, and general knowledge, Volume 8, pg 3058 (1897).

    The Supreme Court on two sources of citizenship:

    “Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law, is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.” Chief Justice Marshall, MURRAY V. THE CHARMING BETSEY, 6 U. S. 64 (1804)

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875)

    “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.” Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1; art. 1, sect. 8.” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884)

    “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization.” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884)

    “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898).

    “And in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884), the Court took the position that the Fourteenth Amendment “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization…” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815 (1971)

    “There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the 424*424 jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U. S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.” Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998).

    “The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” Ibid. Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and “can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress.” Id., at 702-703; see also Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815, 827 (1971). Here it is the “authority of Congress” that is appealed to— its power under Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” If there is no congressional enactment granting petitioner citizenship, she remains an alien.” Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) J. Scalia, dissenting.

  22. avatar
    Obsolete September 5, 2011 at 6:38 pm #

    John:
    “Finch has tried his luck at Mario’s blog and got quite beat up.”

    Are you still fantasizing about doing that to Federal judges??
    Have you published any of your Nazi-spanking-judges porn yet?

  23. avatar
    NBC September 6, 2011 at 1:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Mario got beat up pretty bad when he came here.

    Mario gets beat up anywhere he goes, including the Courts…

  24. avatar
    The Magic M September 6, 2011 at 4:22 am #

    ballantine: Good point. Cite any legal authority who ever said someone born on US soil was ever “naturalized.” Good luck.

    That doesn’t convince birthers. They’re stuck with their “born a citizen is not enough to be natural born” meme. And both sides know the difference with each other’s view and are convinced the other side “doesn’t understand”.
    In such a scenario, as a layman, all you can do is trust that if the birthers were correct, many constitutional scholars would’ve stood up and raised their hands a long time ago. The birther explanation that they are all part of a huge conspiracy doesn’t add up, just like we don’t suddenly start thinking that all astronomists have been conspiring for decades just because a handful of fools claims we’re living on the inside of the planet.

  25. avatar
    Lupin September 6, 2011 at 4:34 am #

    But Mario knows how to clean up after fires:

    http://www.positanonews.it/articoli/62613/positano_nella_notte_domato_principio_di_incendio_a_laurito.html

    [/snark]

  26. avatar
    brygenon September 6, 2011 at 5:21 am #

    With all due respect to our host and my fellow commenters, sophisticated constitutional scholarship is not at issue. Debunking crank nonsense does not require great subject-matter expertise. Pretending learning one does not have is a mistake, obviously. The dilemma before us is how to put down birtherism without doing more harm than good.

    In the course of refuting birther kookery, our host and our regular contributor Ballantine have written at length on the difficult subject of interpreting historical court precedents. So have I. That’s a deep and intellectually challenging topic. We got there because we want to play fair and judge issues issues by the strongest arguments on each side. Let us keep in mind that birthers are all about lies and smears and utter garbage. Yes, we can win an intellectual debate, but birthers are a thousand levels below where any such thing could happen. We’ve given birthers far more credit than they deserve.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 6, 2011 at 8:22 am #

    It’s not for the birthers.

    A CLERK there was of Oxenford also,
    That unto logic hadde long y-go.
    As leane was his horse as is a rake,
    And he was not right fat, I undertake;
    But looked hollow, and thereto soberly.
    Full threadbare was his overest courtepy,
    For he had gotten him yet no benefice,
    Ne was not worldly, to have an office.
    For him was lever have at his bed’s head
    Twenty bookes, clothed in black or red,
    Of Aristotle, and his philosophy,
    Than robes rich, or fiddle, or psalt’ry.
    But all be that he was a philosopher,
    Yet hadde he but little gold in coffer,
    But all that he might of his friendes hent,
    On bookes and on learning he it spent,
    And busily gan for the soules pray
    Of them that gave him wherewith to scholay
    Of study took he moste care and heed.
    Not one word spake he more than was need;
    And that was said in form and reverence,
    And short and quick, and full of high sentence.
    Sounding in moral virtue was his speech,
    And gladly would he learn, and gladly teach.

    brygenon: With all due respect to our host and my fellow commenters, sophisticated constitutional scholarship is not at issue. Debunking crank nonsense does not require great subject-matter expertise. Pretending learning one does not have is a mistake, obviously. The dilemma before us is how to put down birtherism without doing more harm than good.

  28. avatar
    Horus September 6, 2011 at 9:43 am #

    Scientist: Just a further comment regarding Scott and Minor. Not only are they not binding precedent, they aren’t even precedent, since their essential findings (that blacks aren’t citizens and that women cannot vote) were wrong and have been overturned. Quoting them in any contemporary legal analysis is akin to quoting phlogiston theory in a chemistry paper.

    Phlogiston theory?
    That’s a blast from the past.

  29. avatar
    Rickey September 6, 2011 at 10:38 am #

    I’m reminded that “Constitutional attorney” Mario was incensed when the Kerchner case was scheduled for conference and Dwight Sullivan informed him that this meant that cert had been denied. Dwight had to school Mario on the fact that since not a single justice had asked for a response to Mario’s petition, it meant that none of them were interested in taking up the case.

    However, my lasting impression of Mario is that he never demonstrated sufficient honesty to admit that he was wrong when he claimed that Americans were banned from traveling to Indonesia in 1981. When faced with incontrovertible evidence that no such ban existed, instead of acknowledging his error Mario insisted that there was a “de facto” ban. That told me all that I needed to know about Apuzzo Esq.

  30. avatar
    roadburner September 6, 2011 at 10:51 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s not for the birthers.

    can´t resist doc.

    pretty good pronunciation of middle english from one of my favourite films…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZzWHvEtY8

  31. avatar
    Tarrant September 6, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    john:
    Finch has tried his luck at Mario’s blog and got quite beat up.I guess finch has decided he will better luck on Doc C’s blog.

    Someone going to a KKK rally proclaiming racial equality will also get shouted down rather readily. That does not mean they are wrong.

    Apuzzo’s posters desperately want for him to be right, they will shout anyone down that disagrees. That does not make Apuzzo right – in fact, his 0-for-everything record in court – including cases where he’s tried to make the Minor argument – shows that he is demonstrably wrong.

  32. avatar
    Lupin September 6, 2011 at 11:36 am #

    Rickey: That told me all that I needed to know about Apuzzo Esq.

    When asked point blank and repeatedly here, Mario has also never denied that his “campaign” was being funded by far right/racist organizations.

  33. avatar
    Ima Obot September 6, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    And when you’re building homes for Habitat for Humanity, you’ll see a wall built upon a footing. Above the walls is a roof, also supported by the footing. Yet, any reasonable person would note that a wall and a roof are not footings. A footing is separate and distinct from a wall or a roof.

    A Natural born citizen stands equally upon the footing of the Native born citizen with a Naturalized citizen, except the Natural born citizen is eligible to be POTUS or VP of the U.S. (paraphrasing Schneider v Rusk). [The case doesn’t say this. Doc.]

    If the Founding Fathers merely wanted POTUS and VP to be citizens at birth, then they could have identified them as a Native born and dispensed with the more strict qualification of a Natural born citizen.

  34. avatar
    Scientist September 6, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    Ima Obot: If the Founding Fathers merely wanted POTUS and VP to be citizens at birth, then they could have identified them as a Native born and dispensed with the more strict qualification of a Natural born citizen.

    Which “Founding Fathers” told you that? I had a few of them over to the house this weekend and they said you are wrong. I had to kick Adams out after he started cheering for the Red Sox. I will tolerate many things, but not that.

  35. avatar
    Rickey September 6, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    Ima Obot:

    A Natural born citizen stands equally upon the footing of the Native born citizen with a Naturalized citizen, except the Natural born citizen is eligible to be POTUS or VP of the U.S. (paraphrasing Schneider v Rusk).

    Wow. The only way you can make your case is by completing garbling your “paraphrase” of Schneider v. Rusk. Here is what Justice Douglas (writing for the majority) actually says:

    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. [p166].

    He isn’t comparing native-born to natural-born to naturalized. He is comparing native-born to naturalized, and he makes clear that native-born and natural-born are one and the same.

  36. avatar
    Ballantine September 6, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    If the Founding Fathers merely wanted POTUS and VP to be citizens at birth, then they could have identified them as a Native born and dispensed with the more strict qualification of a Natural born citizen.

    Wow, what a powerful argument. Of course, if the founders wanted to the President to have citizen parents, they could have said. See, it isn’t really hard to make such arguments.

    And as Ricky points out, Schneider v. Rusk doesn’t say native and natural born mean different things. In fact no court has ever said so. There are I think at least three Supreme Court cases that say the President must be a “native born” citizen and, of course, Wong Kim Ark says both “native born citizen” and “natural born citizen” mean the same thing as “natural born subject.” Better luck next time.

  37. avatar
    BatGuano September 6, 2011 at 1:14 pm #

    Ima Obot:
    ….. you’ll see a wall built upon a footing. Above the walls is a roof, also supported by the footing.

    wonderful analogy. i think every engineer, architect, contractor and construction worker would agree with that. so if denofrio, apuzzo and taitz come along telling me that the roof is supported by swiss unicorn farts, contrary to the opinion of every engineer, architect, contractor and construction worker……… whom do i believe?

  38. avatar
    Thrifty September 6, 2011 at 1:16 pm #

    This is how I’ve come to interpret every argument put forth by Birthers advocating the 2-citizen parents view.

    “The Founding Fathers never intended a person I disagree with on political grounds to be President, and here is a convoluted reason why…..”

  39. avatar
    Scientist September 6, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Thrifty: “The Founding Fathers never intended a person I disagree with on political grounds to be President, and here is a convoluted reason why…..”

    They certainly never intended for anyone who had previously served as Governor of Texas to ever be President.

  40. avatar
    Judge Mental September 6, 2011 at 1:42 pm #

    Rickey:
    I’m reminded that “Constitutional attorney” Mario was incensed when the Kerchner case was scheduled for conference and Dwight Sullivan informed him that this meant that cert had been denied. Dwight had to school Mario on the fact that since not a single justice had asked for a response to Mario’s petition, it meant that none of them were interested in taking up the case.

    However, my lasting impression of Mario is that he never demonstrated sufficient honesty to admit that he was wrong when he claimed that Americans were banned from traveling to Indonesia in 1981. When faced with incontrovertible evidence that no such ban existed, instead of acknowledging his error Mario insisted that there was a “de facto” ban. That told me all that I needed to know about Apuzzo Esq.

    Think you mean Pakistan and not Indonesia Rickey. To a birther that minor slip would be cast iron evidence of you not having learned your conspiracy lines well enough at the Obot Spin College you were paid to attend..

    From following his correspondence I’d say that “de facto” comment reaction from Mario is probably the closest you are ever going to get to him admitting being wrong about anything.

  41. avatar
    JD Reed September 6, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    Rickey stated: “However, my lasting impression of Mario is that he never demonstrated sufficient honesty to admit that he was wrong when he claimed that Americans were banned from traveling to Indonesia in 1981. When faced with incontrovertible evidence that no such ban existed, instead of acknowledging his error Mario insisted that there was a “de facto” ban. That told me all that I needed to know about Apuzzo Esq.”

    Rickey, in the post above you obviously meant Pakistan, not Indonesia. But your point is spot on. In fact, Apuzzo’s pivot from actual travel ban to de facto travel ban is a perfect example of what C.S. Lewis was talking about more than 50 years ago:

    “A historian who has based his work on the misreading of a document may afterwards (when his mistake has been exposed) exercise great ingenuity in showing that his account of a certain battle can still be reconciled with what the document records. But the point is that none of these ingenious exlanations would ever have come into existence if he had read his documents correctly at the outset. They are therefore really a waste of labor; it would be manlier of him to admit his mistake and begin all over again.” — from “God in the Dock,” chapter titled “Horrid Red Things”

    Well, maybe not a perfect example — Mario didn’t even exercise great ingenuity.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 6, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    I think God has made it abundantly clear that there’s going to be no rain in Texas until Perry withdraws from the Presidential Race.

    Scientist: They certainly never intended for anyone who had previously served as Governor of Texas to ever be President.

  43. avatar
    Loren September 6, 2011 at 1:51 pm #

    Ima Obot:
    If the Founding Fathers merely wanted POTUS and VP to be citizens at birth, then they could have identified them as a Native born and dispensed with the more strict qualification of a Natural born citizen.

    You have it completely backwards; “native born” is the more strict qualification.

    John McCain is agreed to be a natural born citizen. But can he properly be called native born? Not really.

    The same goes for any children of American parents born overseas. They’re not native born citizens, but they ARE natural born citizens. Had the Constitution limited the Presidency to only native-born citizens, they would’ve excluded all such persons from the office. They went with ‘natural born’ because it was *broader*, not because it was narrower.

  44. avatar
    richCares September 6, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    “no rain in Texas ”
    Perry prayed, no rain, it got worse now the fires more evere
    God does not listen to Perry
    why vote for someone that God does not listen to!

  45. avatar
    Rickey September 6, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    Judge Mental: Think you mean Pakistan and not Indonesia Rickey.

    Yes, thanks for the correction. I blame it on the long weekend.

  46. avatar
    Ima Obot September 6, 2011 at 2:35 pm #

    Loren: You have it completely backwards;“native born” is the more strict qualification.

    John McCain is agreed to be a natural born citizen.But can he properly be called native born?Not really.

    The same goes for any children of American parents born overseas.They’re not native born citizens, but they ARE natural born citizens.Had the Constitution limited the Presidency to only native-born citizens, they would’ve excluded all such persons from the office.They went with natural born’ because it was *broader*, not because it was narrower.

    Doc has graciously informed us, after extensive research and travel, that McCain is a dual citizen of Panama and the USA. Consequently, McCain is a statutory citizen and not Native born or a naturalized citizen, but a Natural born citizen because both parents were US citizens at the time of this birth.

  47. avatar
    Loren September 6, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    Ima Obot: Consequently, McCain is a statutory citizen and not Native born or a naturalized citizen, but a Natural born citizen because both parents were US citizens at the time of this birth.

    That’s swell, but it’s beside the point.

    You said that “natural born citizen” is the more strict qualification. That’s wrong. All native born citizens are natural born citizens, but NOT all natural born citizens are native born.

    “Native born citizen” is the stricter qualification, and yet the Founders chose to use the broader “natural born.”

  48. avatar
    Rickey September 6, 2011 at 2:49 pm #

    richCares:
    “no rain in Texas ”
    Perry prayed, no rain, it got worse now the fires more evere
    God does not listen to Perry
    why vote for someone that God does not listen to!

    Somebody on Facebook posted a photo of a church sign, obviously fake but funny nonetheless. It is supposed to be St. Catherine Episcopal Church, and this is the message:

    Governor Perry, God here. The voice in your head is not me. Take your meds.

    Choir Practice Wed. 7 p.m.

  49. avatar
    jayHG September 6, 2011 at 2:52 pm #

    Rickey: Somebody on Facebook posted a photo of a church sign, obviously fake but funny nonetheless. It is supposed to be St. Catherine Episcopal Church, and this is the message:Governor Perry, God here. The voice in your head is not me. Take your meds.Choir Practice Wed. 7 p.m.

    That is the funnies thing I’ve ever heard……!!

  50. avatar
    Ballantine September 6, 2011 at 3:00 pm #

    Ima Obot: Doc has graciously informed us, after extensive research and travel, that McCain is a dual citizen of Panama and the USA. Consequently, McCain is a statutory citizen and not Native born or a naturalized citizen, but a Natural born citizen because both parents were US citizens at the time of this birth.

    Whether a foreign born child with citizen parents is a natural born citizen has been a subject of much debate. To date, the Supreme Court has said little that supports such a person could be a natural born citizen but has never really addressed the subject. Loren points out the majority view of modern scholars who believe that either being native born or born of US parents makes one natural born. This is what Olson and Tribe said in their letter entered into the Congressional Record.

    On the other hand, there has never been a dispute that a native born citizen was eligible to be President. For example, from the Supreme Court:

    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)

    “Excpet for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)

    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(quoting Luria v. United States”).

    “The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting).

    “The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more.” United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931).

    “Citizenship obtained through natuvalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)

  51. avatar
    bjphysics September 6, 2011 at 3:16 pm #

    Can we be sure the endless Garnier Fructis shampoo commercials in the National Geographic video are not part of a conspiracy to drive unsuspecting viewers to jump off the nearest tall building just to make it stop?

  52. avatar
    Ima Obot September 6, 2011 at 3:25 pm #

    Loren: That’s swell, but it’s beside the point.

    You said that “natural born citizen” is the more strict qualification.That’s wrong.All native born citizens are natural born citizens, but NOT all natural born citizens are native born.

    “Native born citizen” is the stricter qualification, and yet the Founders chose to use the broader “natural born.”

    Schneider v Rusk … Native born citizen is the foundation and Natural born citizens stand upon the foundation of the Native born citizen. Further, a naturalized citizen is equal in all respects to a natural born citizen, except a naturalized citizen cannot qualify for POTUS or VP.

    Back to home building analogy, the Native born is the footing. Natural born citizens and Naturalized citizens form the wall standing upon the footing, except Naturalized citizens cannot qualify for POTUS or VP. Other than the exception mentioned, Natural born and Naturalized citizens are equal in all respects.

    Statutory citizens form the roof and stand upon the walls and the footing. Statutory citizens who are of the offspring to two US Citizens parents are Natural born. It doesn’t matter if the two parents of the Statutory citizen are Natural born or Naturalized because they are equal in all respects. The Statutory citizen with one US citizen parent is not a Natural born citizen because the non-citizen parent is not a part the wall of US Citizens standing upon the Native born foundation.

  53. avatar
    SluggoJD September 6, 2011 at 3:31 pm #

    Ima Obot: Schneider v Rusk … Native born citizen is the foundation and Natural born citizens stand upon the foundation of the Native born citizen. Further, a naturalized citizen is equal in all respects to a natural born citizen, except a naturalized citizen cannot qualify for POTUS or VP.

    Back to home building analogy, the Native born is the footing. Natural born citizens and Naturalized citizens form the wall standing upon the footing, except Naturalized citizens cannot qualify for POTUS or VP. Other than the exception mentioned, Natural born and Naturalized citizens are equal in all respects.

    Statutory citizens form the roof and stand upon the walls and the footing. Statutory citizens who are of the offspring to two US Citizens parents are Natural born. It doesn’t matter if the two parents of the Statutory citizen are Natural born or Naturalized because they are equal in all respects. The Statutory citizen with one US citizen parent is not a Natural born citizen because the non-citizen parent is not a part the wall of US Citizens standing upon the Native born foundation.

    New comic relief?

  54. avatar
    Ballantine September 6, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

    Ima Obot: Schneider v Rusk … Native born citizen is the foundation and Natural born citizens stand upon the foundation of the Native born citizen. Further, a naturalized citizen is equal in all respects to a natural born citizen, except a naturalized citizen cannot qualify for POTUS or VP. Back to home building analogy, the Native born is the footing. Natural born citizens and Naturalized citizens form the wall standing upon the footing, except Naturalized citizens cannot qualify for POTUS or VP. Other than the exception mentioned, Natural born and Naturalized citizens are equal in all respects. Statutory citizens form the roof and stand upon the walls and the footing. Statutory citizens who are of the offspring to two US Citizens parents are Natural born. It doesn’t matter if the two parents of the Statutory citizen are Natural born or Naturalized because they are equal in all respects. The Statutory citizen with one US citizen parent is not a Natural born citizen because the non-citizen parent is not a part the wall of US Citizens standing upon the Native born foundation.

    Just making stuff up. Why do people come here making claims they have no evidence to support? You must have trouble reading as Schneider v Rusk clearly implies that native born and natural born mean the same thing and in no way says they are different. I guess you incapable of reading all the supreme court citations above that clearly state the President needs to be native born citizen.

  55. avatar
    Thrifty September 6, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    richCares: “no rain in Texas ”Perry prayed, no rain, it got worse now the fires more evereGod does not listen to Perrywhy vote for someone that God does not listen to!

    Forecast calls for rain every day, straight through until next Wednesday, over here in the mid-Atlantic. Texas can have some of our rain. I’m tired of mowing the grass just to have it grow another 2 feet after a week. :Q

  56. avatar
    Scientist September 6, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Ima Obot: That is some serious stuff you’re smoking….

  57. avatar
    Rickey September 6, 2011 at 4:38 pm #

    Ima Obot: Schneider v Rusk … Native born citizen is the foundation and Natural born citizens stand upon the foundation of the Native born citizen. Further, a naturalized citizen is equal in all respects to a natural born citizen, except a naturalized citizen cannot qualify for POTUS or VP.

    Once again, you’re making stuff up. Schneider v. Rusk says nothing about native born citizenship being a “foundation.” Maybe you should try reading the decision, and then tells where it says what you believe it says. Only this time don’t paraphrase, give us the exact quotation.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0377_0163_ZO.html

  58. avatar
    Rickey September 6, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    Ballantine: Whether a foreign born child with citizen parents is a natural born citizen has been a subject of much debate.To date, the Supreme Court has said little that supports such a person could be a natural born citizen but has never really addressed the subject.Loren points out the majority view of modern scholars who believe that either being native born or born of US parents makes one natural born.This is what Olson and Tribe said in their letter entered into the Congressional Record.

    And it isn’t clear that Tribe and Olson would have had a different opinion if only one of McCain’s parents had been a U.S. citizen. Their letter repeatedly refers to citizen parents, but nowhere does the letter say that both parents had to be citizens. There was no reason for them to discuss what their opinion would be if, say, McCain’s mother had been a Panamanian citizen, since she was an American citizen.

    http://panamajohn.dominates.us/forum/download/file.php?id=56&sid=aca676ceda01d9acf478cf8948bda43b

  59. avatar
    Rickey September 6, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    Thrifty: Forecast calls for rain every day, straight through until next Wednesday, over here in the mid-Atlantic.Texas can have some of our rain.I’m tired of mowing the grass just to have it grow another 2 feet after a week. :Q

    Tell me about it. I’d like to it to dry out long enough for me to cut the lawn, period.

  60. avatar
    Scientist September 6, 2011 at 5:21 pm #

    Rickey: And it isn’t clear that Tribe and Olson would have had a different opinion if only one of McCain’s parents had been a U.S. citizen. Their letter repeatedly refers to citizen parents, but nowhere does the letter say that both parents had to be citizens. There was no reason for them to discuss what their opinion would be if, say, McCain’s mother had been a Panamanian citizen, since she was an American citizen.

    While people are arguing legallities, at root eligibility is a POLITICAL question (as the courts have noted). It comes down to who would the voters accept as meeting the requirement. Someone born here, regardless of parents’ citiizenship-obviously yes,as shown by numerous examples (2 Presidents and several VPs). Someone born abroad with 2 citiizen parents, yes, as shown by McCain (his birth iin Panama cost him a grand total of 0 votes) as well as previous candidates like Romney Sr. Some one born abroad with 1 citizen parent-I would say yes, and the nicities of the residence requirements for the parents would be a non-factor. The key for candidates born abroad would be that they have spent most of their life in the US and not seem foreign.

    Once the voters have spoken it goes to Congress and I just don’t see them over-ruling the voters unless it was absolutely crystal clear (like Schwarznegger), and even them. maybe not. With all due respect to the lawyers here, the law and the courts really are out of the loop in picking a President. When they insert themselves, bad things happen. Many people still remember 2000.

  61. avatar
    Jo September 6, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    While at another site, I had a brainstorm. I think I figured out the perfect test case to get the question answered, once and for all… or not.. but hear me out a minute.

    Pat was born on a US military installation in Turkey to an American Citizen parent, and a Turkish-born spouse with a greencard (or whatever the spousal equivalent is). After the US Citizen parents time was up, s/he is shipped back Stateside where Pat grows up, goes to school, college, has 2.5 children, dog, and white picket fence before getting into politics.

    After many years of public service Pat runs for President, and bygosh bygolly, wins. As the Electoral College meets to do that arcane things that they do, several electors decline to cast their votes for Pat, claiming/citing the Pat is not a Natural Born Citizen due to Pat’s birth overseas. The “rogue” electors are enough in number to hand the victory to Pat’s opponent.

    At this point, could Pat file a lawsuit regarding the loss of the Electoral votes? Would this be considered a “controversy” that the USSC would hear?

    Just curious if this scenario has the probability to occur (*not necessarily the possibility). And would Pat be considered Natural Born? My personal (worth the lint in my dryer) opinion is that yes, Pat is NBC.

    Just a stray thought that passed through my sleep-deprived brain while I was working on refinance guidelines and procedures.

  62. avatar
    Scientist September 6, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    Jo: As far as I know, a candidate cannot sue rogue electors, no matter what basis they cast their votes on. Some states have in their laws that rogue electors can be prosecuted, but even then their vote stands. Since the candidate’s party chooses the electors, they are supposed to choose those who will behave themselves.

  63. avatar
    Ima Obot September 6, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    Rickey: Once again, you’re making stuff up. Schneider v. Rusk says nothing about native born citizenship being a “foundation.” Maybe you should try reading the decision, and then tells where it says what you believe it says. Only this time don’t paraphrase, give us the exact quotation.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0377_0163_ZO.html

    It’s important because Schneider was born in Germany with one US Citizen parent (Her mother). When Schneider was a young girl, her parents and her moved back to the US. When she was 16, Schneider became a Statutory US Citizen through her mother’s US citizenship.

    Secretary Rusk, the SoS when Obama was in Indonesia, issued Schneider a Certificate of Loss of Nationality because she moved back to Germany, married and had four kids with a German National.

    Schneider sued because she felt she was discriminated against because she was a Naturalized US citizen living with her family in Germany for most of her adult life.

    SCOTUS, quoting Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 624; Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658, in reference to the rights of a Naturalized citizen, continued the Courts tradition of affirming the rights of a Naturalized citizen as equal to a Native born; except, only a Natural born citizen is eligible to be POTUS or VP.

    It’s all about Schneider v Rusk.

  64. avatar
    Scientist September 6, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Ima Obot: It’s all about Schneider v Rusk.

    And where in Schneider v Rusk does it say you need 2 citizen parents to be President?

  65. avatar
    gorefan September 6, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    Ima Obot: It’s important because Schneider was born in Germany

    What would have been the ruling if Schneider had been born in Hawaii?

    Here is what the court said,

    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. “

    So the court is saying native born = natural born, so what? We already knew that from the writings of the Founders.

    And also from the descent of Justice Clark in Schneider v Rusk

    Only a native-born may become President”

    Thanks for the new reference,

  66. avatar
    Northland10 September 6, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

    Scientist:
    Ima Obot:That is some serious stuff you’re smoking….

    It’s just Sven again. (that’s kinda fun to say…. Sven again, begin again…)

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/sock-puppets/

  67. avatar
    Atticus Finch September 6, 2011 at 11:32 pm #

    Ima Obot: It’s important because Schneider was born in Germany with one US Citizen parent (Her mother). When Schneider was a young girl, her parents and her moved back to the US. When she was 16, Schneider became a Statutory US Citizen through her mother’s US citizenship.Secretary Rusk, the SoS when Obama was in Indonesia, issued Schneider a Certificate of Loss of Nationality because she moved back to Germany, married and had four kids with a German National.Schneider sued because she felt she was discriminated against because she was a Naturalized US citizen living with her family in Germany for most of her adult life.SCOTUS, quoting Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 624; Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658, in reference to the rights of a Naturalized citizen, continued the Courts tradition of affirming the rights of a Naturalized citizen as equal to a Native born; except, only a Natural born citizen is eligible to be POTUS or VP.It’s all about Schneider v Rusk.

    The Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that a native born citizen is a person who is born in the United States and is eligible to be President and is therefore a natural born citizen.

    “A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native.” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 US 738,827 (1830)

    “The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)

    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)(internal citations omitted)

    Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”

    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)

    In another Supreme Court case, Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665 (1944) Justice Frankfurter equated native citizen with natural born citizen when he wrote:

    “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency” Id. at 673

    Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)

    As such, the Supreme Court has recognized that native citizens are eligible to be President and therefore native citizens are natural born citizens.

  68. avatar
    Lupin September 7, 2011 at 4:55 am #

    Ima Obot: If the Founding Fathers merely wanted

    …An intreesting game to play… Why not : if the Founding Fathers wanted a president to be born of TWO citizens, why didn’t they say so?

  69. avatar
    ballantine September 7, 2011 at 7:16 am #

    SCOTUS, quoting Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 624; Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658, in reference to the rights of a Naturalized citizen, continued the Courts tradition of affirming the rights of a Naturalized citizen as equal to a Native born; except, only a Natural born citizen is eligible to be POTUS or VP.

    It’s all about Schneider v Rusk.

    This is the problem with birthers. They are all dishonest. The multiple cases cited by Atticus Finch say “native born,” not “natural born.” Scheider v. Rusk doesn’t say native born and natural born are different no matter how many times you repeat it. Birthers can only make their argument if they insist cases say something they do not as no case actually supports them. Ima Obot and his ilk will just go on repeating the same nonsense over and over because that is all they can do.

  70. avatar
    ImaObot September 7, 2011 at 11:29 am #

    It’s a good thing I’m a Obot or I would feel unwanted.

    Let’s review, shall we?

    We know from Senate Resolution 5-something-something McCain is a natural-born citizen because he has two citizen parents even though he was born in Panama.

    From Schneider v Rusk, we know Schneider was born in Germany with one US Citizen parent. Schneider emigrated to the US when she was 2 and naturalized as a US Citizen when she was 16. Justice Douglas makes a point in his opinion Schneider’s citizenship is derived from her mother’s US citizenship.

    During the time Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) was in Indonesia, Secretary of State Rusk issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) to Schneider because she was a naturalized US citizen who expatriated herself for more than 3 years. She lived most of her adult life in Germany.

    Schneider returned to the US to sue SoS Rusk because he discriminated against her because she was a naturalized US citizen living abroad for more than 3 years. We know from the Strunk FOIA results Ann Soetoro wasn’t issued a CLN because she was a natural born US citizen even though she informed the State Department she intended to live in Indonesia indefinitely.

    Eventually, Schneider v Rusk gets to SCOTUS and we learn naturalized US citizens are equal to natural born citizens, except naturalized US citizens are not eligible for POTUS or VP. And we learn that a person born with one US citizen parent is eligible to become a naturalized US citizen.

  71. avatar
    gorefan September 7, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    ImaObot: And we learn that a person born with one US citizen parent is eligible to become a naturalized US citizen.

    And we learn that a person born in the US with one US Citizen parent is eligible to be President. Good work on proving that President Obama is a natural/native born citizen.

  72. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    Ima Obot: It’s important because Schneider was born in Germany with one US Citizen parent (Her mother). When Schneider was a young girl, her parents and her moved back to the US. When she was 16, Schneider became a Statutory US Citizen through her mother’s US citizenship.

    Where does Schneider v. Rusk state that Schneider was born with one U.S. citizen parent? In fact, the decision says nothing about the citizenship of Schneider’s parents at the time of her birth. This is what it says:

    Appellant, a German national by birth, came to this country with her parents when a small child, acquired derivative American citizenship at the age of 16 through her mother, and, after graduating from Smith College, went abroad for postgraduate work.

    In fact, neither of Schneider’s parents were U.S. citizens. Schneider became a U.S. citizen after her parents naturalized.

    Angelika Schneider was born in Germany. She came to the US with her parents and became a US citizen upon their naturalization.

    http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Schneider

    Another of Sven’s crackpot theories goes up in smoke.

  73. avatar
    Ballantine September 7, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    And we learn that a person born with one US citizen parent is eligible to become a naturalized US citizen.

    I have no idea what argument you are even trying to make. Schneider was eligible to be naturalized because she was born outside the United States. People born in the United States are not naturalized.

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

    Ima(pretendingtobe)Obot:

    If the SCOTUS ruled that a certain redhead, born of two citizen parents, was a natural born citizen, does that mean that being a redhead is required?

    What you’re doing is taking several cases, which together describe various situations that each separately create a NBC, and pretending that they all stack and all those qualifications are required.

    That’s the sort of thing that happens when you start with what you reeeeeeeeeeally need to be true, and cherry pick obscure references that can be twisted to support, and totally ignore any references which disagree.

  75. avatar
    The Magic M September 7, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Lupin: An intreesting game to play… Why not : if the Founding Fathers wanted a president to be born of TWO citizens, why didn’t they say so?

    And if they wanted the parents to be free from foreign allegiance, why didn’t they say so? If they didn’t want dual citizens, why didn’t they say so?

    From a logical point of view, if the birthers were correct and “NBC = born in the US to two citizen parents” (and no other alternative to be NBC), the Founders could’ve written that instead of

    (a) using “natural born” (a term well known from Common Law in conjunction with “subject”),

    (b) combine it with “citizen”,

    (c) meaning it to be something entirely different from “natural born subject” ( = among other possibilities, born on the soil), namely something that could only be found in one book by one Swiss philoshoper, in a different language and in a different context (in addition to misunderstanding it by thinking Vattel meant *two* citizen parents which he obviously didn’t) and thus

    (d) creating a massive uncertainty about what the heck exactly they meant – which is what the birther variant boils down to.

    From a logical point of view, the notion that there are several ways to be an NBC is also correct – if it were only “born on the soil”, the Founders would’ve written that. So the argument that you can be an NBC in several ways (born on the soil, born abroad to citizen parents, …) requires much less complex reasoning, let alone hand-waving, than assuming the birther interpretation as correct.

  76. avatar
    Majority Will September 7, 2011 at 12:14 pm #

    ImaObot: It’s a good thing I’m a Obot or I would feel unwanted.

    Sven:

    Orly Taitz thinks you’re lying.

    Did you prove her wrong with even a shred of evidence she was demanding?

    dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am


    that is a complete BS
    Obama was never a foster child
    
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming

  77. avatar
    obsolete September 7, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

    ImaObot: We know from Senate Resolution 5-something-something McCain is a natural-born citizen because he has two citizen parents even though he was born in Panama.

    The actual wording is:
    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

    Based on ImaSven’s faulty reading comprehension skills, if this resolution means you need two citizen parents to be Natural Born, it also means that you have to be born “on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936”.

  78. avatar
    Majority Will September 7, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    obsolete: The actual wording is:
    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

    Based on ImaSven’s faulty reading comprehension skills, if this resolution means you need two citizen parents to be Natural Born, it also means that you have to be born “on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936‘.

    And unlike cheese, rice and bananas, it’s non-binding.

  79. avatar
    ImaObot September 7, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Rickey: Where does Schneider v. Rusk state that Schneider was born with one U.S. citizen parent? In fact, the decision says nothing about the citizenship of Schneider’s parents at the time of her birth. This is what it says:

    Appellant, a German national by birth, came to this country with her parents when a small child, acquired derivative American citizenship at the age of 16 through her mother, and, after graduating from Smith College, went abroad for postgraduate work.

    In fact, neither of Schneider’s parents were U.S. citizens. Schneider became a U.S. citizen after her parents naturalized.

    Angelika Schneider was born in Germany. She came to the US with her parents and became a US citizen upon their naturalization.

    http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Schneider

    Another of Sven’s crackpot theories goes up in smoke.

    Derivative Citizenship

    Citizenship conveyed to children through the naturalization of parents or, under certain circumstances, to foreign-born children adopted by U.S. citizen parents, provided certain conditions are met.

    RichW of DualCitizensFAQ (your published link) is making an inaccurate assumption about Angelika L. Schneider’s mother’s citizenship.

    German families would not have been allowed to emigrate to US as the Axis was gearing up for World War II unless one parent had US citizenship. Angelika was adopted.

  80. avatar
    gorefan September 7, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    ImaObot: Derivative Citizenship

    She derived her citizenship at age 16 from her mother becoming a naturalized citizen. Not from birth.

  81. avatar
    gorefan September 7, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    ImaObot: Angelika was adopted

    Wrong again.

    “Appellant, a German national by birth, came to this country with her parents when a small child, acquired derivative American citizenship at the age of 16 through her mother, and, after graduating from Smith College, went abroad for postgraduate work.”

    So when was she adopted as a small child in Germany or in the US as a teenager.

    If you are going to make things up at least try to fit the known facts.

  82. avatar
    Majority Will September 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    ImaObot: Derivative Citizenship

    Sven:

    Orly Taitz thinks you’re lying.

    Did you prove her wrong with even a shred of evidence she was demanding?

    dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am


    that is a complete BS
    Obama was never a foster child

    
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming

  83. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    ImaObot:
    RichW of DualCitizensFAQ (your published link) is making an inaccurate assumption about Angelika L. Schneider’s mother’s citizenship.

    No, you have making the inaccurate assumptions. From the Court of Appeals decision in Schneider v. Rusk::

    The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff was born in 1934 in Rimstingam-Chiemsee, Bavaria, in what is now the Federal Republic of Germany, and in 1939 came to the United States with her family. In 1950 she became a naturalized citizen of the United States through the naturalization of her mother. She lived in the United States from 1939 to 1954.

    http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?page=2&xmldoc=1963520218FSupp302_1466.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7

    Get that? Schneider became a naturalized citizen after her mother was naturalized. Her mother obviously was not a U.S. citizen when Schneider was born.

    And I see that you have added yet another adoption fantasy to your arsenal.

  84. avatar
    Loren September 7, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

    ImaObot: Derivative Citizenship
    RichW of DualCitizensFAQ (your published link) is making an inaccurate assumption about Angelika L. Schneider’s mother’s citizenship.

    Uh-huh. Alright then, how about the United States District Court for the District of Columbia?

    “The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff was born in 1934 in Rimstingam-Chiemsee, Bavaria, in what is now the Federal Republic of Germany, and in 1939 came to the United States with her family. In 1950 she became a naturalized citizen of the United States through the naturalization of her mother. She lived in the United States from 1939 to 1954. During 1954 and 1955 she studied at a University in Switzerland and in the following year was a fulltime student at the Sorbonne in Paris. Returning to the United States in April 1956, she was employed in New York for a few months and on June 6, 1956 left for Germany where she married a German national on July 4, 1956. Since that time plaintiff has lived continuously with her husband in Germany for a period of more than three years except for one visit of six weeks to relatives in the United States in 1957.”

    http://dc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19630521_0000027.DDC.htm/qx

    Funny, for a scenario where no facts are in dispute, I don’t see any mention of adoption, or U.S. citizen parents, or extraordinary immigration circumstances involving WWII. The court seems pretty content with saying she became a citizen in 1950 when her mother naturalized. Plain and simple.

    For what it’s worth, 1964 TIME Magazine also fails to say anything that supports this U.S. citizen parent claim of yours: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,940449,00.html

    Do you actually have a *source* for your claim that one or both of Schneider’s parents was a U.S. citizen when she was born? Or is that just something you assumed or made up on your own?

  85. avatar
    ImaObot September 7, 2011 at 7:29 pm #

    Loren: “The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff was born in 1934 in Rimstingam-Chiemsee, Bavaria, in what is now the Federal Republic of Germany, and in 1939 came to the United States with her family. In 1950 she became a naturalized citizen of the United States through the naturalization of her mother. She lived in the United States from 1939 to 1954. During 1954 and 1955 she studied at a University in Switzerland and in the following year was a fulltime student at the Sorbonne in Paris. Returning to the United States in April 1956, she was employed in New York for a few months and on June 6, 1956 left for Germany where she married a German national on July 4, 1956. Since that time plaintiff has lived continuously with her husband in Germany for a period of more than three years except for one visit of six weeks to relatives in the United States in 1957.”

    Don’t be naive. Angelika was an OSS (later renamed CIA) asset. Her birth mother died in child birth and Angelika’s father struggled to maintain his job as a bookkeeper for the Nazi party.

    Angelika’s mother, a US citizen, showed up and made Angelika’s father an offer he could not refuse.

    After years in Germany, Angelika turned and Rusk terminated her US citizenship. She did not object when she was notified by postal service her citizenship had been revoked. She sued after the US State Department refused to issue her a passport.

    Now, why is that? Couldn’t Angelika have gotten a German passport? Of course she could, but a German passport doesn’t do you any good when you’re a double agent.

    And why would a double agent dispute her cover story for the court record? She was from New York. Why did she sue in Washington DC?

  86. avatar
    Sef September 7, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    ImaObot: Don’t be naive. Angelika was an OSS (later renamed CIA) asset. Her birth mother died in child birth and Angelika’s father struggled to maintain his job as a bookkeeper for the Nazi party.

    Angelika’s mother, a US citizen, showed up and made Angelika’s father an offer he could not refuse.

    After years in Germany, Angelika turned and Rusk terminated her US citizenship. She did not object when she was notified by postal service her citizenship had been revoked. She sued after theUS State Department refused to issue her a passport.

    Now, why is that? Couldn’t Angelika have gotten a German passport? Of course she could, but a German passport doesn’t do you any good when you’re a double agent.

    And why would a double agent dispute her cover story for the court record? She was from New York. Why did she sue in Washington DC?

    I think the fall TV schedule is already set. Maybe you could pitch this for next year.

  87. avatar
    ImaObot September 7, 2011 at 7:39 pm #

    Oops, the very last line of the Time Magazine story link posted by Loren indicates Schneider, an alleged naturalized US citizen, is eligible to be elected to the presidency.

    That’s the problem with cover stories … there difficult to keep track of.

    ————————————————————————-

    “Along with Mrs. Schneider, 50,000 other ex-Americans (mostly living in Europe) may now seek restored U.S. citizenship, if not election to the presidency.”

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,940449,00.html#ixzz1XJS3C7jg

  88. avatar
    Sef September 7, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    ImaObot:
    Oops, the very last line of the Time Magazine story link posted by Loren indicates Schneider, an alleged naturalized US citizen, is eligible to be elected to the presidency.

    That’s the problem with cover stories … there difficult to keep track of.

    ————————————————————————-

    “Along with Mrs. Schneider, 50,000 other ex-Americans (mostly living in Europe) may now seek restored U.S. citizenship, if not election to the presidency.”

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,940449,00.html#ixzz1XJS3C7jg

    I see your reading skills are exemplary!

  89. avatar
    katahdin September 7, 2011 at 7:42 pm #

    ImaObot: Don’t be naive. Angelika was an OSS (later renamed CIA) asset. Her birth mother died in child birth and Angelika’s father struggled to maintain his job as a bookkeeper for the Nazi party.

    Angelika’s mother, a US citizen, showed up and made Angelika’s father an offer he could not refuse.

    After years in Germany, Angelika turned and Rusk terminated her US citizenship. She did not object when she was notified by postal service her citizenship had been revoked. She sued after theUS State Department refused to issue her a passport.

    Now, why is that? Couldn’t Angelika have gotten a German passport? Of course she could, but a German passport doesn’t do you any good when you’re a double agent.

    And why would a double agent dispute her cover story for the court record? She was from New York. Why did she sue in Washington DC?

    I call Comedy Troll.

  90. avatar
    Majority Will September 7, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    ImaObot: That’s the problem with cover stories … there difficult to keep track of.

    Evidently, coherent grammar is difficult when you’re babbling idiotic delusions.

    How about backing up your fiction that Orly busted?

    dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am


    that is a complete BS
    Obama was never a foster child
    
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming

  91. avatar
    Majority Will September 7, 2011 at 7:49 pm #

    ImaObot: That’s the problem with cover stories … there difficult to keep track of.

    How many sock puppets do you have now?

  92. avatar
    Rickey September 7, 2011 at 11:25 pm #

    ImaObot:

    That’s the problem with cover stories … there difficult to keep track of.

    You mean the way your story changed from Schneider was born to an American mother to Schneider was born to a German mother who died and Schneider was then adopted by an American?

    How does your new version jibe with the court record, which states that Schneider became a derivative citizen when her mother naturalized? If her birth mother was dead, she obviously never naturalized. And her supposed “adoptive mother” was already a U.S. citizen, so even if she existed (and of course you have no evidence of that) she wasn’t naturalized after Schneider moved to the U.S., either.

    By the way, Schneider was living in Germany when she filed the lawsuit. The District of Columbia was the proper venue.

  93. avatar
    Lupin September 8, 2011 at 4:19 am #

    ImaObot: Don’t be naive. Angelika was an OSS (later renamed CIA) asset. Her birth mother died in child birth and Angelika’s father struggled to maintain his job as a bookkeeper for the Nazi party.

    Angelika’s mother, a US citizen, showed up and made Angelika’s father an offer he could not refuse.

    After years in Germany, Angelika turned and Rusk terminated her US citizenship. She did not object when she was notified by postal service her citizenship had been revoked. She sued after theUS State Department refused to issue her a passport.

    Now, why is that? Couldn’t Angelika have gotten a German passport? Of course she could, but a German passport doesn’t do you any good when you’re a double agent.

    And why would a double agent dispute her cover story for the court record? She was from New York. Why did she sue in Washington DC?

    If you can work in Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS, you’ve got yourself a deal.

  94. avatar
    ImaObot September 8, 2011 at 6:21 am #

    Rickey: You mean the way your story changed from Schneider was born to an American mother to Schneider was born to a German mother who died and Schneider was then adopted by an American?

    How does your new version jibe with the court record, which states that Schneider became a derivative citizen when her mother naturalized? If her birth mother was dead, she obviously never naturalized. And her supposed “adoptive mother” was already a U.S. citizen, so even if she existed (and of course you have no evidence of that) she wasn’t naturalized after Schneider moved to the U.S., either.

    By the way, Schneider was living in Germany when she filed the lawsuit. The District of Columbia was the proper venue.

    A community service announcement brought to you by the Sven Magnussen School of Law.

    3rd day of law school … the court is a trier of fact concerning controversy between litigants (1 st day … tuition is non-refundable).

    Rusk and Schneider agree to stipulate Schneider is a naturalized citizen who derived her citizenship from her naturalized mother. It may or may not be a fact.

    We know from the Time Magazine article it is a disputed stipulation.

  95. avatar
    ImaObot September 8, 2011 at 6:36 am #

    Sef: I see your reading skills are exemplary!

    How do I do it? Hmmmm?

    Maybe I have a gift or something?

  96. avatar
    Majority Will September 8, 2011 at 8:06 am #

    ImaObot: How do I do it? Hmmmm?

    Maybe I have a gift or something?

    Of course you do. Like an STD, it’s a gift that keeps on giving.

  97. avatar
    Loren September 8, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    ImaObot:
    Oops, the very last line of the Time Magazine story link posted by Loren indicates Schneider, an alleged naturalized US citizen, is eligible to be elected to the presidency.

    http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs4/grammarlogs527.htm

    — Bryan Garner points out that “if not” can sometimes mean “maybe even” (which is more common, as in “Truman may go down in history as one of the greatest if not the greatest president”), sometimes “though not” (as in “Kwan’s short program, adequately if not flawlessly executed . . .” [Garner’s examples].) —

    When the TIME author writes “other ex-Americans (mostly living in Europe) may now seek restored U.S. citizenship, if not election to the presidency,” it’s the latter meaning of “if not” that’s being employed.

    Uncareful writing, perhaps, but hardly evidence of a “cover story,” as you suggest.

  98. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 8, 2011 at 9:51 am #

    ImaObot: We know from the Time Magazine article it is a disputed stipulation

    You must be reading the special edition of Time – you know the one with the extra bits that can only be seen by birthers.

  99. avatar
    Rickey September 8, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    ImaObot:
    Rusk and Schneider agree to stipulate Schneider is a naturalized citizen who derived her citizenship from her naturalized mother. It may or may not be a fact.

    In other words, you’re blowing smoke through your ass.

    Thanks for clarifying that.

  100. avatar
    Horus September 9, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    Loren: You said that “natural born citizen” is the more strict qualification. That’s wrong. All native born citizens are natural born citizens, but NOT all natural born citizens are native born.

    “Native born citizen” is the stricter qualification, and yet the Founders chose to use the broader “natural born.”

    There are ONLY two classifications of citizenship, Native Born and Naturalized!