Main Menu

Alexander Hamilton on Presidential eligibility

imageOne of the most prominent of the members of the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787 was Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was a military leader during the Revolutionary War, member of Congress under the Articles of Confederation and would later serve as Secretary of the Treasury. Today, Hamilton is probably most recognized today as the face on the US $10 bill and by more serious-minded folk as one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, a contemporary defense of the Constitution before its ratification.

Hamilton’s views on Presidential eligibility are found in a “Draft Constitution” that he wrote. It says:

Article IX

§. I. No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

There’s nothing about “parents” in that qualification and that’s how one Framer felt about the subject. That would be the end of the story, except for what happened a couple of centuries later.

A Yale University Law School student named Jill Pryor wrote a paper published in the Yale Law Review in 1988, titled: “The Natural Born Citizenship Clause and Presidential Eligibility: an Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty.” I know Pryor’s paper for its well known opening  remark:

It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”

The “uncertainty” in the title of Pryor’s article refers to the status of those born citizens outside the United States, like candidates George Romney (Mexico), Lowell Weicker (France) and John McCain (Canal Zone).

In her paper, Pryor discusses the Hamilton Draft as introducing two important ideas,  “first, that those currently citizens will not be excluded from presidential eligibility, and second, that the President must be born a citizen. Without the modifier ‘natural,’ the essence of the text is apparent: the President need not be native born, but must be a citizen from birth.” In addition to that observation, Pryor also describes Hamilton’s Draft as part of the “June 18 sketch” that Hamilton presented to the Convention.

Enter: the Birthers

The Birthers take this information and make the argument something like: “If the Framers thought that ‘natural born citizen’ just meant ‘citizen at birth’ they would have accepted Hamilton’s language, but in fact they explicitly rejected it.”

The problem with this argument is that it is based on what Pryor said, and she made a scholarly error. Max Farrand in his indispensable  3-volume Records of the Federal Convention 1787 is the original source for Hamilton’s Draft, and Farrand says:

[The Draft] was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.

Volume 3, Appendix F, p. 619.

The Convention didn’t reject the language of Hamilton. With no rejection, there is no argument that “citizen from birth” means something different from “natural born citizen.” We are left, then, with one influential Framer’s opinion.

189 Responses to Alexander Hamilton on Presidential eligibility

  1. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    “It is a principle of public law universally recognized and acted upon, that all persons born within the realm or ‘extent of government,’ owe natural and unqualified allegiance to the Government under which they are born, except those who are the children of persons owing allegiance to a foreign State or potentate.” James Alexander Hamilton

    Universal public law is international law =law of nations

    What do we call a person who owes allegiance to a foreign state? Answer: A foreigner.
    (See Black’s dictionary of law)

    Who was James Alexander Hamilton? He was the third son of Alexander Hamilton. He graduated from Columbia University, was an officer in the War of 1812, and served as acting Secretary of State to Andrew Jackson. He then became a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

  2. avatar
    bovril February 28, 2012 at 11:32 am #

    And Heinz 57 clumsily avoids the definition of allegiance which ONLY (As per the “Law of Nations”) includes those with diplomatic immunity and those children born of enemies in invasion………..

    Next…….

  3. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 11:39 am #

    Heinz B: Who was James Alexander Hamilton? He was the third son of Alexander Hamilton

    It is most often the case that sons who follow prominent fathers are often lesser in their accomplishments. eg., George Bush Jr., Mitt Rmoney, Hank Williams, Jr.

    Heinz B: What do we call a person who owes allegiance to a foreign state? Answer: A foreigner.

    A non-citizen while living in the US doesn’t owe any allegiance to his home country. He might feel ties in his heart, as many US citizens might feel ties to other countries (JFK and Reagan to Ireland, Orly Taitz to Israel, Mario Apuzzo and Rick Sanctorum to Italy and Thomas Jefferson to France), but he is not under their laws and owes no allegiance until he actually goes there.

    You can quote all the old dead guys you like, President Obama will be on the ballot in all 50 states and will be re-elected and the Supreme Court will again swear him in. You don’t have to like it, but that is what will happen.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 11:58 am #

    Say what?

    First, Hamilton didn’t say “universal public law” he said “public law universally recognized.” Last time I looked public law was not international law.

    Using this citation, however, in the way I assume you intend is begging the question of what Hamilton meant by “persons owing allegiance to a foreign State or potentate.” This may be self-evident to your way of thinking, but it is not self-evident to everybody.

    Heinz B: Universal public law is international law =law of nations

  5. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    Emerich de Vattel noted that every nation that governs itself, under what form so-ever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a sovereign state, its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws. Vattel, Book I, Chapter I 4.

    The Law of Nations recognizes that several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. Vattel, Book I, Chapter I 10.

    Tell me again how England influenced the framing of the United States?

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

    Longer citation from James Alexander Hamilton:

    ” It is a principle of public law universally recognized and acted upon, that all persons born within the realm or extent of government, owe natural and unqualified allegiance to the Government under which they are born, except those who are the children of persons owing allegiance to a foreign State or potentate.

    ” In the language of Blackstone, Every man owes natural allegiance where he is born. Again natural allegiance is such as is due from all men within the Kings dominions immediately upon their birth. The dominion and control of the Constitution of the United States embraces all the country and people within its exterior limits. Allegiance is the tie or ligament which binds the subject to the King in return for that protection which the King affords the subject. From these great and fundamental principles, it follows that all men born within the jurisdiction of the United States, owing allegiance thereto, are bound to serve the Government as soldiers or in any other capacity which the law may require. As there is not, and cannot be any exemption but the one above stated, it is clear beyond all question that such allegiance and service is due as well by 4 persons held to service and labor in a State by the laws thereof, as by free men white or black. State laws cannot absolve the persons so held from their allegiance and duty to the Government under the Constitution and laws of the United States, because it is declared by the Constitution, article 6th, clause 2d, * This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made and which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The laws which bind persons of African descent to service, being State laws, are subordinate to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and can have no power to withdraw persons so held from their allegiance, or shield them from military or other service to the United States. This is so clear that to state it is to prove it.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

    Heinz B: Tell me again how England influenced the framing of the United States?

    Well, how about reading the NEXT TWO SENTENCES after the citation you provided from James Alexander Hamilton.

    In the language of Blackstone, Every man owes natural allegiance where he is born. Again natural allegiance is such as is due from all men within the Kings dominions immediately upon their birth.

    DUH.

    I presume you are raising a rhetorical point rather than asking for information. If you do want to understand the influence, read the Supreme Court decision in US v Wong or if you REALLY want to understand the issue, read Kettner’s book, The Development of American Citizenship 1608-1870.

  8. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    Heinz B: Emerich de Vattel noted that every nation that governs itself, under what form so-ever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a sovereign state, its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state

    How nice for Vattel. He is certainly entitled to his opinion. But that is all it is.

    Heinz B: Tell me again how England influenced the framing of the United States?

    All of the colonies except New York were founded as English colonies (several even were called New ENGLAND). Even New York came under English rule not long after its founding. Could the US have totally dispensed with English common law and started from scrtch to make its own? Sure, they could have. But they didn’t.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    Vattel wrote that the Government should establish a state religion and prevent the public exercise of any other.

    Vattel also wrote that if a country didn’t have enough women, they had the right to raid other countries and carry some off.

    What’s your point?

    See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-emerich-de-vattel/

    Heinz B: Emerich de Vattel noted that every nation that governs itself, under what form so-ever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a sovereign state

  10. avatar
    JPotter February 28, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

    Wow, Heinz, that was incredibly dense! Yet another birther believing the US Constituion sprang from a vacuum and was a complete break with all precedence! Without appreciating the chaos that would ensue! And asserting that Vattel is history, not opinion / theory.

    Read your selected passage. Vattel is stating, correctly, that sovereign states are ideally, theoretically free to act on their own initiative, and are not necessarily not beholden to external influences. If they are not, they are not sovereign. Vattel is not stating that throughout history, as you are implying, that sovereign states spring from, the void, free, unfettered, ready for action, sporting new and novel, wholly original legal traditions and forms of government.

    All legal tradition is based on precedent. A long chain of influence and innovation that goes back to …. who knows? Law of the Jungle?

    Having recently fought a war to separate from the government of England, what do you suppose the largest influence on the legal traditions and governance of the newly former colonies, now confederated states working on revising their collective government, had been up to that point?

  11. avatar
    Paper February 28, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

    I’m not sure this is example of the son being lesser, as Scientist points out, just because I can’t see how this son is saying what Heinz B seems to think it says. The exception to citizenship at birth is those without allegiance, such as oh, diplomats and enemy soldiers. I think the phrase “extent of government” also seems to suggest birth beyond the physical borders of the country “beyond the realm”), whether that is just territorial extent or also to the stent of the protection provided to Americans living in foreign countries. Some gray area perhaps as we have discussed elsewhere. Very interesting, but how exactly does it go against the idea of citizenship at birth equals natural born? It seems to fit the actual practice we now have.

  12. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Vattel wrote that if a country didn’t have enough women, they had the right to raid other countries and carry some off.

    Please, keep this to yourself! Because of the one child policy and the preference for male heirs, China is short about 25 million females.

  13. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    Scientist: A non-citizen while living in the US doesn’t owe any allegiance to his home country.

    What a stupid thing to say. The naturalization oath requires a foreigner to renounce his foreign allegiance. According to you, the foreigner wouldn’t have any allegiance to renounce.

    Allegiance follows you wherever you go.

    “An American citizen owes allegiance to the United States wherever he may reside.” Kawakita v. United States, Supreme Court, 1952

    “While it appears that the petitioner removed his residence to France in the year 1924 it is undisputed that he was, and continued to be, a citizen of the United States. He continued to owe allegiance to the United States. By virtue of the obligations of citizenship, the United States retained its authority over him, and he was bound by its laws made applicable to him in a foreign country. Thus, although resident abroad, the petitioner remained subject to the taxing power of the United States.” Blackmer v. United States, Supreme Court, 1932

  14. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 12:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: As there is not, and cannot be any exemption but the one above stated

    That exemption stated above had to do with those owing allegiance to a foreign State or potentate.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

    You’re looking at it backwards. You should be looking for cases where US law asserts that a foreigner (excluding ambassadors…) in the United States owes allegiance to that foreign country. Of course every country claims allegiance of its citizens, but claims of foreign countries are not what we base our law on.

    And anyhow, US citizenship law is based on jurisdiction, not allegiance. The jurisdiction of the United States is absolute within its borders.

    Heinz B: The naturalization oath requires a foreigner to renounce his foreign allegiance. According to you, the foreigner wouldn’t have any allegiance to renounce.

  16. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

    Tell me again how England influenced the framing of the United States?

    Well, that is simple. Much of the English Common Law and Statutes were adopted in the emerging States. Since Vattel also observes that independent States get to define for themselves who are its citizens, and who are natural born and natural-ized, it becomes important to understand under what definitions our Nation was working when the Constitution used the term natural-born.

    As various Courts observed, the term remains undefined in the Constitution and thus its meaning is to be found in Common Law. In an extensive analysis of the Common Law of those days, the Court(s) observed that it was English Common Law which existed before during and after the revolution and that the term Natural Born simply meant ‘born on soil, owing allegiance, the latter meant to exclude children born to foreign dignitaries and invading militaries.

    Our legal history and founding history is full of references to our Common Law foundation. Vattel and others were used in understanding the foreign policy implications but per Vattel’s own suggestions, citizenship was not really an issue of international law.

  17. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Vattel wrote that the Government should establish a state religion and prevent the public exercise of any other.

    11 of the original 13 colonies had a religious test for office when the Constitution was framed. –So what point are you trying to make?

  18. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    nbc: Much of the English Common Law and Statutes were adopted in the emerging States.

    “Much” is a pretty ambiguous term there sailor. Why don’t you tell us some detail about the adoption of the common law of England in those states? Perhaps you’d like to start with Massachusetts and Connecticut. :)

  19. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

    nbc: Since Vattel also observes that independent States get to define for themselves who are its citizens

    Be my guest: Tell us where the United States defined who are its citizens.

  20. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 12:51 pm #

    The interaction of municipal law and public law with respect to allegiance is a very complicated subject. Obviously citizenship was a matter of municipal law as every country had its own rules which meant there would always be overlaps. Indeed our naturalization law conemplated dual citizenship as many foreign born children that we made citizens at birth would clearly be citizens or subjects of the nations of their birth and most of our immigrants came from nations which would treat our naturalized citizens as dual citizens. The Congressional Report that led to the expatriation act set forth that most ofour naturalized and many of or native born citizens were foreign subject under the laws of Europe.

    There was a difference between being a dual citizen and having a dual political status or political allegiance. It is the latter status that governed one’s military obligations and right to be protected anywhere in the world. It was political status or allegiance that was supposed to be government by public law in order to avoid things like the war of 1812. However, there was no actual public law, only treatises that didn’t agree with one another. Hence the United States argued with England and Prussia for 70 years about the political status of our naturalized citizens. The one thing the US and England agreed upon was that jus soli was the rule of public law. Hence, both England and the United States treated foreign born subjects or citizens at birth as subjects or citizens for municipal purposes only and not persons who would be deemed to owe political allegiance. For example, during the Civil War England tried to protect English subjects who were aliens in the US from the draft as their political status and allegiance was to England. They did not try to protect the children ofalien British subjects telling them they owed their allegiance to the US. Accordingly, the notion that a native born child owed a foreign allegiance was a foreign concept in the US. The above mentioned Congressional report pointing out the dual citizenship of our citizens would lead Congress to proclaim that we wouldn’t recognize claims of foreign allegiance on any of our citizens, though the debates make clear that such was always the case for our native born. It had not always been the case for our naturalized citizens as the state department had on occasion failed to protect naturalized citizens who returned to their native country.

    We can see this in the debates in the 39th Congress. People were of the view that one either owed allegiance to us or a foreign nation not both. Again, dual citizenship does not mean dual allegiance. Almost ever important participant in such debates not only made clear that childern of aliens were citizens, but that the English jus soli rule was the universal rule. Hence, the view that that such children owed allegiance to us rather than a foreign nation.

    The bottom line is that the notion that anyone in the US thought native born children prior to 1866 owe a foregin allegiance is without foundation. Just a failure to understand what they understodd allegiance to mean.

  21. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

    Heinz B: Allegiance follows you wherever you go.

    Yes and no. Let’s see if we can walk you through this. There is political allegiance and there is territorial allegiance. When someone resides in a foreign country, he owns total allegiance to the State in which he resides because he is fully under its laws. The reason ambassadors etc are excluded is because they are not bound by the laws of that nation.

    Furthermore, we are talking about the allegiance of the child, not the parents which at the time of birth is total and complete, unless born to parents who do not own allegiance to the state because of their special, common law, status.

    The confusion of allegiance, which is more about jurisdiction and protection has been unfortunate because allegiance is such a confusing term nowadays. If you follow the 1866 congressional discussions both for the Civil Right’s Act and the 14th, you will come to understand that it was clear that children born to foreigners, would be citizens, with the usual minor exceptions.

  22. avatar
    Paper February 28, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    Yet how does that help your argument, or what your argument seems to be? It seems rather that this point would extend citizenship by birth even beyond those born on the soil, to those born anywhere in the world, as long as they fit the terms of allegiance (which then would be set by Congress, as they have since the beginning).

    Heinz B: Allegiance follows you wherever you go.

  23. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    Heinz B: “Much” is a pretty ambiguous term there sailor. Why don’t you tell us some detail about the adoption of the common law of England in those states? Perhaps you’d like to start with Massachusetts and Connecticut.

    What is important is the law of allegiance and alienage which all the early case law makes clear there was no deviation from the common law except with respect to persons born prior to the revolution. The debates was over state versus national citizenship but nearly all authority embraced the common law on both a state and national level. I suggest you read the early treatises on the issue.

  24. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    nbc: it becomes important to understand under what definitions our Nation was working when the Constitution used the term natural-born.

    We already know that the nomenclature for “citizen” was not from the common law of England. We know that a natural-born golfer is the product of his parents genes, and that a natural-born musician is also the product of his parents genes. Other than as a term exclusive to a monarchy, please demonstrate where natural-born has to do with the place of birth?

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    If that’s what he meant, then answer me this: Did the United States draft foreign nationals residing in the United States to fight in the Civil War? The obligation to military service is, after all, what James Hamilton was writing about.

    The answer was that the draft applied both to citizens and to those who had applied for citizenship.

    Heinz B: That exemption stated above had to do with those owing allegiance to a foreign State or potentate.

  26. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    Heinz B: Be my guest: Tell us where the United States defined who are its citizens.

    After much debate, the courts ruled that the English common law definition was incorporated into the Constitution. The argument that the states defined citizenship generally was abandoned by the time of the 14th Amendment, though a few Senators still argued such should be the law.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

    Read this and AFTER you’ve finished it, come back with any questions remaining.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

    Heinz B: Other than as a term exclusive to a monarchy, please demonstrate where natural-born has to do with the place of birth?

  28. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    Ballantine, Your effort to avoid reception of the common law is extraordinary. Could that be because you know full-well that Massachusetts and Connecticut did not receive the common law of England? Wouldn’t that mean that it could not be considered to be “universally recognized”?

  29. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    Heinz B: We already know that the nomenclature for “citizen” was not from the common law of England. We know that a natural-born golfer is the product of his parents genes, and that a natural-born musician is also the product of his parents genes. Other than as a term exclusive to a monarchy, please demonstrate where natural-born has to do with the place of birth?

    Gibberish, “subject” and “citizen” were used interchangably for decades after the revolution. Simply a fact. For exmple, the legislature of Massachesetts said the “natural born citizenship” clause applied to “natural born subjects.” Such legislature conflated such terms for decades as did everyone else.

  30. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    Heinz B: The naturalization oath requires a foreigner to renounce his foreign allegiance. According to you, the foreigner wouldn’t have any allegiance to renounce.

    That refers to allegiance in his heart, which is of course unenforcable. Today, most naturalized US citizens remain citizens of their birth country unless they takes steps with that country to formally renounce citizenship, which almost none do.

  31. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    Heinz B: Tell me again how England influenced the framing of the United States?

    Hi Heinz,

    I was really surprised by your question, because it’s common knowledge that the laws and traditions of England (going back at least to the Magna Carta) provided intellectual and ethical backing to the American revolution, e.g., that subjects have unalienable rights, and they have the right to project their rights against tyrannical authority. You could also review the impact that English philosopher John Locke had on the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence in particular. In addition, check out the significance of William Blackstone and his Commentaries on the Laws of England Blackstone, and English jurist of the 18th century, had a profound influence on making English common law a significant part of American jurisprudence.

  32. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Read this and AFTER you’ve finished it

    A CRS memo that even Jablonski wouldn’t dare cite? Give me a break! You’re too funny.

  33. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    Heinz B: “Much” is a pretty ambiguous term there sailor. Why don’t you tell us some detail about the adoption of the common law of England in those states? Perhaps you’d like to start with Massachusetts and Connecticut

    Excellent question. For instance we know that permanent allegiance was not accepted in US common law, where the right of a person to expatriate was essential to its own ability to form itself a nation with its own citizens. However, when looking at the term natural born, the term was accepted from English Common Law and continued its meaning as birth on soil.

    We see rulings in Lynch v Clarke where the court was one of the first to make a ruling as to the status of a child born to parents temporarily residing in the United States to find that the term natural born, as found in the Constitution but left undefined, clearly meant jus soli. The Court looked at the usage of the term in scholarly references, legal precedent and concluded that even though a ‘Vattel-like’ approach of jus sanguini would be more ‘logical’ that this is not the path the United States took when it adopted much of the Common Law.

    COMMON LAW In England the unwritten law founded on custom and deriving its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people In Massachusetts. Our ancestors when they came into this new world claimed the common law as their birthright and brought it with them except such parts as were Judged inapplicable to their new state and condition. So much of the common law of England as our ancestors brought with them and of the statutes then in force altering or amending it such of the more recent statutes as have been since before the revolution adopted in practice and the ancient usages aforesaid may be considered as fbrming the body of the common law of Massachusetts. 8 Pick 316 317 See also 2 Met 123 16 Pick 182

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    See Chancellor Kent as cited in US v Wong:

    “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

    Heinz B: Other than as a term exclusive to a monarchy, please demonstrate where natural-born has to do with the place of birth?

  35. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    Heinz B: Ballantine, Your effort to avoid reception of the common law is extraordinary. Could that be because you know full-well that Massachusetts and Connecticut did not receive the common law of England? Wouldn’t that mean that it could not be considered to be “universally recognized”?

    Even the states that didn’t recieve the common law followed the common law as there was no other law to apply. Now go look at the case law and treatises in Massachusetts on allegiance and alienage. It is all English law. Look at the Massachusetts legislature conflating “natural born citizen” and “subject.’ The facts are you can point to no early authority supporting another definition, as there is none.

  36. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    Heinz B: We know that a natural-born golfer is the product of his parents genes, and that a natural-born musician is also the product of his parents genes

    In many cases, the parents of such natural born talents showed little or no aptitude for the activity. We frankly can’t say how extraordinary geniuses arise.

    By the way, can you tell me which chromosome the citizenship gene is on? i am pretty conversant with the human genome and haven’t found it.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

    Have you read it yourself?

    Heinz B: A CRS memo that even Jablonski wouldn’t dare cite? Give me a break! You’re too funny.

  38. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm #

    More

    The supreme judicial court of Massachusetts speaking by Mr Justice afterwards Chief Justice Sewall early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law and that It was established with few exceptions that a man born within the Ju risdictlon of the common law Is a citizen ol the country wherein he is born By this clr cumstance of his birth he Is subjected to the duty of allegiance which Is claimed and en forced by the sovereign of his native land and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign and to the othei rights and advantages which are Included ir the term citizenship Gardner v Ward 1805 2 Mass 244 note And again The doctrine of the common law Is that every man born within Its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he Is born and allegiance Is not personal to the sovereign In the extent that has been contended for It Is due to him In his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance was born Kilham v Ward 1806 Id 236 265 It may

  39. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    Hey, Heinz 57, are you offering a grant to find the “citizen” gene? What’s it worth to you?

  40. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    Gee, Massa chusetts and Connecticutt were confused:

    Proposed Consitution Amendment, Massachusetts Legislature, June 29, 1798

    RESOLVE REQUESTING THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDING, THAT NONE BUT NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS BE ELIGIBLE TO CERTAIN OFFICES.
    Whereas it is highly expedient, that every constitutional harrier should be opposed to the Introduction of Foreign Influence, into our National Councils, & that ye Constitution of ye United States should be so amended as to effect and Secure in ye best manner ye great objects for which it was designed :
    Resolved that the Senators & Representatives of this Commonwealth in the Congress of the United States, be, and they hereby are requested to use their best endeavours, that Congress propose to the Legislatures of the several States, the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States, viz. “That (in addition to the other qualifications prescribed by said Constitution) no person *hall be eligible as President or Vice President of ye United States nor shall any person he a Senator or Representative in ye Congress of ye United States except a natural born Citizen ; or unless he shall have been a Resident in the United States at ye time of ye declaration of Independence, and shall have continued either to reside within the same, or to be employed in its service from that period to ye time of his election.”

    “The people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state. It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subjeft to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)

    “that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.” Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805).

    “The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born. Kilham v. Ward (1806), 2 Mass. 236, 265.

    “Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth ; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.” “This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories, may subject some persons who, adhering to their former sovereign and residing within his dominions, are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconvenience, especially in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance. But the inconvenience cannot alter the law of the land. If they return to the country of their birth, they will be protected as subjects.” Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813).

  41. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    Ballantine: Even the states that didn’t recieve the common law followed the common law as there was no other law to apply.

    That’s just plain silly. Massachusetts made up its own law.

  42. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    Heinz B: A CRS memo that even Jablonski wouldn’t dare cite? Give me a break! You’re too funny.

    I guess, the facts are too hard to address? I understand… Observe and learn or ignore and remain without factual foundation. Either way, it’s your choice to reject this excellent overview. You may of course decide to ignore it and follow the route of Malihi, citing Ankeny, citing US v WKA, in the end the facts are clear.

  43. avatar
    Obsolete February 28, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    Heinz B: We already know that the nomenclature for “citizen” was not from the common law of England. We know that a natural-born golfer is the product of his parents genes, and that a natural-born musician is also the product of his parents genes. Other than as a term exclusive to a monarchy, please demonstrate where natural-born has to do with the place of birth?

    Wait- so a “natural-born golfer” always has golfer parents, and a “natural-born musician” always has musician parents? I suppose a “natural-born killer” always has murderers as parents also.
    Is this really what you believe?

  44. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    Heinz B: 11 of the original 13 colonies had a religious test for office when the Constitution was framed. –So what point are you trying to make?

    It’s pretty clear the point is that since the U.S. Constitution forbids the right of state or federal government to implement a religious test for office, Vattel’s political arguments were not universally endorsed by the framers.

  45. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    Heinz B: That’s just plain silly. Massachusetts made up its own law.

    OMG… That’s so funny. No appreciation of the history of how the laws of England, especially the common law, was accepted by the States… Sure, it made up its own laws, on top of the common law foundation. You do realize that statutory law and common law are mutually exclusive?… Common law is based on precedent, usage in courts, statutory law is passed by the legislative branch. When Common Law is made into a statute, the common law component ceases.

    Fascinating how poorly informed some people are about the history of our Nation. I had no idea…

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

    Speaking of monarchy, how’s the weather in England today?

    Heinz B: Other than as a term exclusive to a monarchy, please demonstrate where natural-born has to do with the place of birth?

  47. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    Ballantine, Your effort to avoid reception of the common law is extraordinary. Could that be because you know full-well that Massachusetts and Connecticut did not receive the common law of England? Wouldn’t that mean that it could not be considered to be “universally recognized”?

    Ouch, Ballantine and I showed you the opposite… What now my friend…

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    I don’t think Mr. Heinz is an American.

    nbc: That’s so funny. No appreciation of the history of how the laws of England, especially the common law, was accepted by the States

  49. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Heinz B: That’s just plain silly. Massachusetts made up its own law.

    You obviously hav not read any of their case law.

  50. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 28, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    It’s been quite a while since birfoons came up with any new lies. They are just getting more obtuse and repetitive. Boring.

  51. avatar
    JPotter February 28, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    In Heinz, we have another commenter looking to outsource his own research.

    Heinz B: That’s just plain silly. Massachusetts made up its own law.

    Really? You’d have us believe they dumped all colonial precedent and started fresh? Or that they started from scratch when the first ship landed and immediately broke with the mother country? Please cite some references for this assertion.

  52. avatar
    Obsolete February 28, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    Heinz B: That’s just plain silly. Massachusetts made up its own law.

    They just started from scratch, huh?

  53. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 28, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    Heinz B: To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws.

    Well, I suppose they forgot about that right away, because they “forgot” to enact a law establishing a single church. Wow, they actually stated in their constitution that such a law would not be possible. They also forgot to enact a law restricting the use of weapons to a particular segment of the population. Two laws which they should have enacted immediately, according to Vattel.

    They also were not so keen on declaring war on foreign nations to take their women, and they did not allow the families of someone murdered by a foreigner to avenge themselves on compatriots of that foreigner who happened to live in the United States (though I agree, it may sometimes have been done to them ebil Injuns)

    Seems like the Constitution was not so keen on borrowing from “The Law of Nations”.

    Heinz B:
    The Law of Nations recognizes that several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state.

    Oh, now I understand. You are one of those who think the Articles of Confederation are the Real Law. Fits.

    By the way, you may find this unbelievable, but still, let me tell you a little secret: Vattel’s book, Le Droit des Gens, is a philosohical treatise ABOUT Ius Gentium-Völkerrecht as practised in Germany at the time, it is NOT the actual law of nations.

  54. avatar
    Foggy February 28, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    Heinz is fishing for those gold coins and coming up with only what we used to call “slugs”. If you grind an ordinary steel washer down to a specific diameter and thickness, you might fool a vending machine into thinking it’s a real coin, and you’d get a free soda.

    Much harder to fool a live person when you try to pay with a slug. No soda for you, Heinz. Perchance you should return to the catsup factory, since you don’t seem to understand the law. Didn’t Doc just put up a sign the other day about feeding the trolls?

  55. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t think Mr. Heinz is an American.

    For the right price, I will be happy to search for the citizenship gene allele of his choice.

  56. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Other than as a term exclusive to a monarchy, please demonstrate where natural-born has to do with the place of birth?

    It’s not exclusive to a monarchy, it’s exclusive to any nation whether it be a monarchy or a republic. It is based on the simple observation that a child born on soil, owes full allegiance and is born under full jurisdiction of the nation of its birth. In England natural born included any child born on its soil, regardless of the status of its parents, with minor exceptions. The early settlements in the US adopted most of the English Common Law, even expressly when they became independent, and the term continued to mean ‘birth on soil’.

    It’s all about the Sovereign, whether it be a monarch or the Republic, it does not matter. And realize that Vattel appreciates that a nation can define who are its citizens as the issue is not one of international law as much as of internal law. The idea that the US could not define who are and are not its citizens is beyond logic and reason. Thus when the Founders chose the term natural born, it was based on the laws with which they were so familiar: common law. And the common law of those days was strongly influenced by English Common Law. In US v WKA, and Lynch v Clarke the Court examined the meaning and usage of the term and found that it continued after the revolution to mean ‘birth on soil’.

    Any further questions?

  57. avatar
    JPotter February 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    nbc: Fascinating how poorly informed some people are about the history of our Nation. I had no idea…

    Oh, NBC, it’s (sadly) nothing new. What’s more shocking is how the expound “expertise” from such depths of ignorance. Remember my story about the birther that “discovered” the Articles of Confederation after a solid year of non-stop spew of birther “constitutionalisms”? If only they were the same person, and this was a unique affliction …. but, sadly, no.

  58. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    Gee, seems like alot of people don’t agree with anything you say:

    “it is, nevertheless, true, that the common law, so far as it is applicable to our situation and government, has been recognized and adopted, as one entire system, by the constitutions of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. It has been assumed by the courts of justice, or declared by statute, with the like modifications, as the law of the land in every state. It was imported by our colonial ancestors, as far as it was applicable, and was sanctioned by royal charters and colonial statutes. It is also the established doctrine, that English statutes, passed before the emigration of our ancestors, and applicable to our situation, and in amendment of the law, constitute a part of the common law of this country.” James Kent, John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on Americican Law Vol 1 pg. 643-44 (1901)

    “The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the
    Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, 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)

    “The only principles of law, then, that can be regarded are those common to all the States. I know of none such which can affect this case but those that are derived from what is properly termed “the common law,” a law which I presume is the groundwork of the laws in every State in the Union, and which I consider, so far as it is applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the country, and where no special act of legislation controls it, to be in force in each State as it existed in England (unaltered by any statute) at the time of the first settlement of the country. The statutes of England that are in force in America differ perhaps in all the States, and therefore it is probable the common law in each is in some respects different. But it is certain that, in regard to any common law principle which can influence the question before us, no alteration has been made by any statute which could occasion the least material difference, or have any partial effect.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 435 (1793).

  59. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    Heinz B: We know that a natural-born golfer is the product of his parents genes, and that a natural-born musician is also the product of his parents genes.

    As many have pointed out, what counts in arguments surrounding the term “natural-born” is not how it’s used in colloquial speech, but how it was used by the the Framers vis a vis “citizen,” and how “natural-born citizen” has been interpreted subsequently by the courts.

  60. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    Is this the last we will hear of our friend? I have found that birthers do not take too well to having their musings so thoroughly rebutted and debunked.

  61. avatar
    Obsolete February 28, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    Scientist: For the right price, I will be happy to search for the citizenship gene allele of his choice.

    Maybe you can scam the birthers into paying you to “prove” Obama has a Muslim gene. :)

  62. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    Ballantine: Gee, Massa chusetts and Connecticutt were confused:

    Quite a selection laying to rest poor Heinz’s confusions… Now the big question, will he admit as to his defeat or will he just disappear and lick his wounds.

  63. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    Ballantine: The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens

    Confusing rights with privileges? Or just conflating? I like that quote. It provides for natural-born subjects who were clearly recognized to not be citizens.

    Thanks.

  64. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

    Heinz B: Other than as a term exclusive to a monarchy, please demonstrate where natural-born has to do with the place of birth?

    Hi Heinz,

    There are several decisions, from federal courts and the Supreme Court, in which “natural-born,” insofar as it is used in the Constitution, is defined as having to do with place of birth. Many of these decisions are described on Dr. C.’s site. The search bar is located at the top of the page on the right.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

    Most likely change the subject slightly and keep plugging.

    nbc: Now the big question, will he admit as to his defeat or will he just disappear and lick his wounds.

  66. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    Arthur: how “natural-born citizen” has been interpreted subsequently by the courts

    I know how the Court interpreted it. Have you read Minor v Happersett?

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

    Did you UNDERSTAND Minor v. Happersett?

    Heinz B: Have you read Minor v Happersett?

  68. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

    nbc: Is this the last we will hear of our friend?

    Please, not before he funds my grant for genomics research into the “citizen” gene.

    Obsolete: Maybe you can scam the birthers into paying you to “prove” Obama has a Muslim gene.

    The religion gene is probably distinct from the “citizen” gene, so it will cost extra. By the way, there is a gene, VMAT2, which has been proposed to correlate with spirituality and religiousity. IMO, the data is very weak. Even the proponents would not claim that religious Muslims would be different from religious Christians or spiritual pagans in their genetic make-up.

  69. avatar
    Obsolete February 28, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    Heinz B: I know how the Court interpreted it. Have you read Minor v Happersett?

    No, we’ve never heard of it- I guess you’ve got us now. Tell us about the grandmother’s tape and the Pakistani travel ban- we’ve never heard of those either.

  70. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    Heinz B: Confusing rights with privileges? Or just conflating?

    Hi Heinz:

    “Rights” and “privileges” can be synonymous, so if there is a distinction between these two words that is important to your argument, please point it out. Otherwise, I don’t know what your point is.

  71. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    Heinz B: I know how the Court interpreted it. Have you read Minor v Happersett?

    Yes, no relevance to the status of children born on soil to alien parent(s). WKA referenced Minor and concluded that what Minor had left unaddressed was that indeed children born to alien parents, on US soil, were natural born.

    Even the Government and the Dissenting Judge appeared to agree. The latter lamenting that under the majority ruling children born on US soil to aliens would be natural born while children born abroad to US citizens would not.

    They all understood….

  72. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    Heinz B: I know how the Court interpreted it.

    Did you notice the members of the Court at Obama’s inauguration? Either they believe he is eligible or they willingly participated in installing someone who was not eligible. If the latter, why do you care what they think?

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    This is a good example of how birther trolls work. They take a citation offered in one context, and reject it as applicable in a context where it wasn’t offered. It’s basically changing the subject, rather than admitting refutation.

    Heinz B: Confusing rights with privileges? Or just conflating? I like that quote. It provides for natural-born subjects who were clearly recognized to not be citizens.

  74. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

    Funny how Heinz is running through the typical ‘talking points’ but refuses to accept that he was wrong… Just keep on moving Heinz… No worries, people on this blog are well educated on the topic.

    Perhaps it is time to show similar courtesy?

  75. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 28, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Heinz B: Other than as a term exclusive to a monarchy, please demonstrate where natural-born has to do with the place of birth?

    As some people were already saying, the speed with which some arguments are being recycled has gone up considerably. It used to be a year before you would hear the selfsame argument given for some silliness, then six and three months, now this one cannot be more than two weeks.

    My dear friend, as I said before: many Flamenco dancers are natural born Flamenco dancers, not because their parents were (there are quite a few who had no relatives who danced) but because they were born in Andalucia. And unlike Obama, many athletes are natural born athletes because they were born in (Western) Kenya.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin_people
    http://www.andalucia.com/flamenco/dancers/elcarrete.htm (search for “neither of my parents”)

    And now please, tell me the name of one natural-born serial killer who had two parents who were serial killers?

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    And about the new military oath. I love to hear that story.

    Obsolete: Tell us about the grandmother’s tape and the Pakistani travel ban- we’ve never heard of those either.

  77. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s basically changing the subject, rather than admitting refutation.

    Yes… Fascinating and yet, their inherent bias does not allow them to accept the obvious fact that they are totally wrong and outclassed. That must be quite some ‘internal battle’…

  78. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Did you UNDERSTAND Minor v. Happersett?

    Heinz knows that whatever he THINKS the Court said in Minor, that’s not how the current Court sees things. And in a battle between Heinz’s opinion of what the Court of 1877 said and what the Court of today actually says, guess who wins?

  79. avatar
    Obsolete February 28, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

    Heinz B: I know how the Court interpreted it. Have you read Minor v Happersett?

    A birther bringing up “Minor” for discussion reminds me of when the Three Stooges decided to bake a birthday cake.

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    Well I was within half an inch of banning the guy, but then I thought about my “Troll Test” and I haven’t seen quite enough points yet.

    Still, Heinz was the first person comment on my article and as a result NOT A SINGLE WORD has been addressed to the article, but all to Heinz. That is a de facto thread hijack even if his remark was peripherally connected.

    nbc: Perhaps it is time to show similar courtesy?

  81. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    The situation so far is that Heinz adamantly insisted that the early states, like Massachusetts did not incorporate common law and that they never adopted the birth on soil foundation and yet, case after case, quotation after quotation puts to rest these follies.

    Has Heinz even admitted to being wrong? In a sense, by moving his goalposts, he has but intellectually speaking he has failed to comprehend the impact of his actions so far.

    Now he is moving towards Minor, another guaranteed loss.

    I fail to understand why people would get involved in a discussion for which they are so obviously unprepared, showing how they have allowed others to manipulate them with foolish claims and assertions.

    What happened to self-respect? Personal responsibility?

  82. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    Heinz B: I know how the Court interpreted it. Have you read Minor v Happersett?

    Hi Heinz,

    Pardon me for saying so, but it’s apparent you only think you know how the Supreme Court has interpreted “natural-born citizen.” Obviously, if the Court had interpreted it as you imagine, Cheif Justice John Roberts would never have sworn in Barack Obama as President.

    And yes, I’ve read Virigina Minor v. Reese Happersett; several times, in fact. I don’t claim to be an expert on it, but I’ve developed enough familiarity with the text to discern what it argues versus what birthers say it argues.

  83. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    Ballantine: Ainslie v. Martin

    They determined that he was a subject of the commonwealth. He left before the DOI and never returned.

    There you go, citing a case that has been overturned by subsequent holdings in higher court.

  84. avatar
    thekoolaidisbitter February 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

    “And anyhow, US citizenship law is based on jurisdiction, not allegiance. The jurisdiction of the United States is absolute within its borders.”

    Territorial jurisdiction, yes. Personal jurisdiction, no.

    “When someone resides in a foreign country, he owns total allegiance to the State in which he resides because he is fully under its laws.”

    Don’t be absurd. This means that any American who was living in Germany in 1941 would have had to join the Wehrmacht and fight against the US.

  85. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

    Well, speaking of Hamilton, he did accept and argue in one of the Federalist papers that the English Common Law as well as its statutes, were incorporated in the Constitution of New York.

    Little did he know…

    The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights. Among other answers given to this, it has been upon different occasions remarked that the constitutions of several of the States are in a similar predicament. I add that New York is of the number. And yet the opposers of the new system, in this State, who profess an unlimited admiration for its constitution, are among the most intemperate partisans of a bill of rights. To justify their zeal in this matter, they allege two things: one is that, though the constitution of New York has no bill of rights prefixed to it, yet it contains, in the body of it, various provisions in favor of particular privileges and rights, which, in substance amount to the same thing; the other is, that the Constitution adopts, in their full extent, the common and statute law of Great Britain, by which many other rights, not expressed in it, are equally secured.

    Poor Hamilton, so unfamiliar with the ‘facts’…

    Oh Heinz… Watch out for that …..

    door…

  86. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm #

    Arthur: Obviously, if the Court had interpreted it as you imagine, Cheif Justice John Roberts would never have sworn in Barack Obama as President.

    What an idiotic statement! The Chief Justice does not determine the qualifications of the President before swearing him in. He presents the oath. That is all.

    Did you come to that conclusion on your own or did someone here try to convince you that the Chief Justice performs some sort of judicial determination when giving the oath of office?

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    Lawyers cite court precedent and law, resorting to other authorities only when necessary.

    As the Indiana Elections Commission said, “we’re all lawyers” and already know what natural born citizen means. You, however, don’t seem to know what it means and require some education, so I provided the most concise and authoritative compilation I know on the subject for your education.

    However, I see now that you’re just a birther troll, and as such are ineducable. I shouldn’t have wasted the time to paste the hyperlink.

    Heinz B: A CRS memo that even Jablonski wouldn’t dare cite?

  88. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

    Heinz B: They determined that he was a subject of the commonwealth. He left before the DOI and never returned.

    Subject and citizen are interchangeable

    As to overruled by other court rulings, I note the absence of any…

    In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

    All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

    1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

    and

    The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

    State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.

    Those darn facts again… And time to move them goalposts again Heinz..

  89. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

    Obsolete: A birther bringing up “Minor” for discussion reminds me of when the Three Stooges decided to bake a birthday cake.

    Things didn’t go very well, did they. Oh, snap! . . . wait, are you comparing birthers to the Three Stooges?! That’s not fair; true, like birthers, the Stooges were idiots, but Larry, Moe, and Curly were mostly honest and tried to do the right thing.

    Damn it! It’s really hard to give up being snarky for Lent!

  90. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    nbc: Well, speaking of Hamilton, he did accept and argue in one of the Federalist papers that the English Common Law as well as its statutes, were incorporated in the Constitution of New York.

    Really? The guy who missed most of the Constitutional Convention, because he got his feelings hurt, writes something in a Federalist Paper AFTER the the Constitution had already been ratified, and provides nothing to support the claim…and you want me to buy into it? You can play the fool, but don’t expect me to play along.

  91. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

    Did you come to that conclusion on your own or did someone here try to convince you that the Chief Justice performs some sort of judicial determination when giving the oath of office?

    Did your conclusion about English Common Law and Massachusetts out of some sort of judicial determination or is it just a conclusion on your own based on ignorance of the facts?

    Fess up my friend. Or defend your follies.

  92. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm #

    It seems patently absurd to suggest that the Chief Justice of the United States does now know and understand its Constitution without making a “determination”.

    There is no requirement that the oath of office be administered by the Chief Justice. Lyndon Johnson was sworn in by a federal judge in Texas. While no one can say for certain, I find it hard to believe that Justice Roberts would have sworn in a President he believed to be Constitutionally ineligible.

    Heinz B: Did you come to that conclusion on your own or did someone here try to convince you that the Chief Justice performs some sort of judicial determination when giving the oath of office?

  93. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    In the usual path of troll invasion, language escalates and veiled insults form.

  94. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    Heinz B: Really? The guy who missed most of the Constitutional Convention, because he got his feelings hurt, writes something in a Federalist Paper AFTER the the Constitution had already been ratified, and provides nothing to support the claim…and you want me to buy into it? You can play the fool, but don’t expect me to play along.

    As I said, unable to accept the facts that English common law became part of the foundation of our Nation.

    Fascinating display of cognitive dissonance as I have ever seen one.

    Since you still appear, in spite of the evidence, to hold to your foolish notion, could you present at least some rationale beyond ‘I believe’…

    People have demolished your arguments and all you can do is ignore them?

    Incredible

  95. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    So Heinz, if you do not like Hamilton, why then did you quote him in your first response?

    “It is a principle of public law universally recognized and acted upon, that all persons born within the realm or extent of government,’ owe natural and unqualified allegiance to the Government under which they are born, except those who are the children of persons owing allegiance to a foreign State or potentate.” James Alexander Hamilton

    Come on Heinz, defend yourself… It’s just a ‘flesh wound’ I am sure.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    Oh dear. Another troll point.

    Heinz B: You can play the fool, but don’t expect me to play along.

  97. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    thekoolaidisbitter:
    “And anyhow, US citizenship law is based on jurisdiction, not allegiance. The jurisdiction of the United States is absolute within its borders.”

    Territorial jurisdiction, yes. Personal jurisdiction, no.

    “When someone resides in a foreign country, he owns total allegiance to the State in which he resides because he is fully under its laws.”

    Don’t be absurd. This means that any American who was living in Germany in 1941 would have had to join the Wehrmacht and fight against the US.

    They just say things. They’re at home. They don’t expect anyone to bother wasting their time correcting them.

  98. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

    Heinz B: What an idiotic statement! The Chief Justice does not determine the qualifications of the President before swearing him in. He presents the oath. That is all.
    Did you come to that conclusion on your own or did someone here try to convince you that the Chief Justice performs some sort of judicial determination when giving the oath of office?

    Hi Heinz,

    I apologize for not being clear. When I wrote that Roberts would not have sworn in Obama, I didn’t mean that the Chief Justice makes a personal determination of a president-elect’s eligibility. What I meant was that had the Supreme Court made the decisions you say it did concerning the meaning of “natural-born citizen,” it would have been impossible to any Supreme Court Justice to swear in someone like Obama, because his candidacy would have been effectively challenged–by opponents within the candidate’s own party or by opponents of another party–long before a general election.

    Hope that clears things up!

  99. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    You already have the home court advantage. Why the need to resort to ad hominems? Feeling a bit inadequate? You should. :)

  100. avatar
    carlos February 28, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

    “Allegience” is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment. If one is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, and is native born, that is all that’s required to be a citizen at birth.

    As to allegience however, recall what Madision said—that in the US, it follows place of birth.

  101. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

    It seems clear to me that to Hamilton native and natural born were overlapping concepts and that birth on soil would establish the jurisdiction and allegiance. Under the Common Law, Hamilton insisted that adopted by our Republic and the States, he understood the common law meaning of owing allegiance to refer to those children whose parents were part of the common law exclusion of said rule: Ambassadors and Invading Military.

    Hamilton is no friend of your ‘arguments’ Heinz.

  102. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    Heinz B: Why the need to resort to ad hominems? Feeling a bit inadequate? You should.

    ROTFL, Sorry Doc, you are right, Heinz is showing all the symptoms of a poorly prepared troll.

  103. avatar
    carlos February 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    The US does not adhere to English common law. It adheres to American common law, which began as English common law, adopted into American law and thereafter modified. It isn’t a debateable point since the courts have long recognized this .

  104. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    If Heinz is still interested, I would like to see him rebut the facts that show not only how English Common Law was adopted by the early republic and its states but also how the term natural born continued from its English Common Law foundation.

    Well Heinz, anything? I’d really appreciate a well thought out argument, perhaps we have overlooked something obvious?

  105. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    Arthur: What I meant was that had the Supreme Court made the decisions you say it did concerning the meaning of “natural-born citizen,” it would have been impossible to any Supreme Court Justice to swear in someone like Obama, because his candidacy would have been effectively challenged–by opponents within the candidate’s own party or by opponents of another party–long before a general election.

    Justice Roberts was not deciding a controversy. Even if he thought Obama was not qualified, he was not acting as a court.

    Where did you come up with the idea that judges make judicial decisions about cases not before them?

  106. avatar
    Sef February 28, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    Scientist: Please, keep this to yourself!Because of the one child policy and the preference for male heirs, China is short about 25 million females.

    So how soon do we give them the Darwin Award?

  107. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    carlos:
    The US does not adhere to English common law.It adheres to American common law, which began as English common law, adopted into American law and thereafter modified.It isn’t a debateable point since the courts have long recognized this .

    And even there we run into trouble as there is no real US Common Law either. But that misses the point: To interpret the meaning of a term left undefined in the Constitution, a Court has to find its meaning as used in Common Law of those days. The authorities cited clearly show that the term meant the same as used in English Common Law, not surprising since English Common Law, as appropriate, was incorporated in our States.

  108. avatar
    Obsolete February 28, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    Birthers believe:
    1- the U.S. threw out all British common law at the founding of our nation.
    2- except we allow British law to supersede our own citizenship laws to claim Obama is a British subject and therefore not natural-born or eligible.

  109. avatar
    Joey February 28, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    Minor v Happersett was referenced in the certiorari briefs submitted to the US Supreme Court in both “Kerchner v Obama” and “Hollister v Soetoro.” None of the Justices was impressed enough by that case as “precendential” to ask for a responsive brief from the President’s attorney.

  110. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    nbc: I would like to see him rebut the facts that show not only how English Common Law was adopted by the early republic and its states but also how the term natural born continued from its English Common Law foundation

    “It is clear, there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states; each of which may have its local usages, customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the constitution or laws of the union. The common law could be made a part of our federal system, only by legislative adoption.”
    Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 US 591 – Supreme Court 1834

    Show me where the common law of England was received by the federal government of the United States. I’ll accept anywhere in the Constitution or the acts of legislature.

  111. avatar
    Obsolete February 28, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    Heinz B: Justice Roberts was not deciding a controversy. Even if he thought Obama was not qualified, he was not acting as a court.

    Where did you come up with the idea that judges make judicial decisions about cases not before them?

    Deliberately obtuse troll behavior, with a straw man to boot.

  112. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Arthur is right though that the proper place to challenge a Presidential candidate’s eligibility is in Congress.

    There is the concept of Quo Warranto, which is, when it comes to federal offices, assigned to a specific Court in DC. However, even there, the fact that Congress explicitly refused to grant a Court jurisdiction to hear a case involve the office of the President, undermines the claim that the office of the President is open to a Quo Warranto attack.

    Interesting side discussion but back to the issues.

  113. avatar
    Heinz B February 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Joey:
    Minor v Happersett was referenced in the certiorari briefs submitted to the US Supreme Court in both“Kerchner v Obama” and “Hollister v Soetoro.” None of the Justices was impressed enough by that case as “precendential” to ask for a responsive brief from the President’s attorney.

    Idiot! The best argument in the world is meaningless without standing. Find every case that was dismissed due to lack of standing and ignore anything and everything presented in those cases. It means nothing until a court has a plaintiff with standing and jurisdiction to hear the case.

  114. avatar
    Bob February 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    Besides the Chief Justice (or any Supreme Court Justice for that matter) not speaking up if he thought Obama ineligible, I wonder why the Republican candidates for the office of the president are spending millions and millions and millions of dollars trying to beat him at the polls when all they have to do is whip out their copy of de Vattel.

  115. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

    Heinz B: Even if he thought Obama was not qualified, he was not acting as a court.

    Then he would and should have absented himself. And all the other members would and should have too. But they didn’t. Nor have they seen fit to review any birther cases, which they certainly were free to do. Not to mention the statements of former Justice O’Connor. But if it makes you happy to think the current Supreme Court agrees with you, go ahead. Who cares?

    What we can say for absolutely certain is that there were no valid objections to the 2008 election in Congress, which only took 1 House member and 1 Senator, So we know that Congress disagrees with you. And, under the 12th and 20th amendments,, they are the deciding body.

    So tough luck for Heinz…

  116. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

    Heinz B: Justice Roberts was not deciding a controversy. Even if he thought Obama was not qualified, he was not acting as a court.
    Where did you come up with the idea that judges make judicial decisions about cases not before them?

    Hi Heinz,

    I still must not be making myself clear. As I tried to explain in an earlier post, I did not mean to suggest, as you allege I was, that Roberts was deciding a controversy or that he was acting as a court. I was arguing that no Chief Justice could swear in president-elect who did not meet eligibility requirements because such a candidate’s progress to the office of president would have been effectively challenged by opposition within or without the candidate’s party.

  117. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    You’re too late Heinz, I already explained…

    In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

    There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

    As to

    Show me where the common law of England was received by the federal government of the United States. I’ll accept anywhere in the Constitution or the acts of legislature.

    I assume you have failed to follow the discussion where people presented this evidence? As to federal government, it is clear that the Constitution adopted many of the Common Law principles, but as others and I have pointed out, there is no US common law. But that’s not the issue here. So let me help you out and quote from Justice Grey

    The meaning of a term undefined in the Constitution is to be found in Common Law

    The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

    So what was the Common Law?

    It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    your turn.

  118. avatar
    Obsolete February 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    Heinz B: Idiot! The best argument in the world is meaningless without standing. Find every case that was dismissed due to lack of standing and ignore anything and everything presented in those cases. It means nothing until a court has a plaintiff with standing and jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Abusive troll behavior, and wrong as well in his claims that all cases were dismissed due to standing.

  119. avatar
    Foggy February 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Heh, heh. Do you know what happens when everybody totally ignores a troll and nobody responds to anything they say?

    Me neither. I don’t think it’s ever been tried. It’s never been tried on any blog or discussion board I’ve seen, and I’ve been writing on blogs and forums since Jan. 2003. For all I know it might tear a hole in the space-time continuum and we’d all be transported to another galaxy. :shock:

    Actually, that wouldn’t be so bad, if they have beer.

    Heinz will go to bed tonight confident that he bested us all. But in the morning, guess who will still be President of the United States, and cruising toward re-election? :mrgreen:

  120. avatar
    Paper February 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

    Ah well, what at first seemed like it could be an interesting nuance to consider has turned into nothing.

  121. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Heinz B: Confusing rights with privileges? Or just conflating? I like that quote. It provides for natural-born subjects who were clearly recognized to not be citizens.Thanks.

    You are clearly dishonest as Swift and all early case law is in accordance with the common law. Where are your citations to any case or scholar who disagreed? Notice you dont’ try to deal with the clear citations I’ve made on the common law, just ignore them. If you don’t know yet, the common law was not adopted by the United states, our Supreme Court rather defines terms by the common law as such was the law of the states and the basis of our system.

    “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925).

    “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.Smith v. Alabama
    124 U.S. 478 (1884)

    “When, therefore, they emerged from the colonial condition into that of independence, the laws which governed them consisted, first, of the common law of England, so far as they had tacitly adopted it as suited to their condition; second, of the statutes of England, or of Great Britain, amendatory of the common law, which they had in like manner adopted; and, third, of the colonial statutes. The first and second constituted the American common law, and by this in great part are rights adjudged and wrongs redressed in the American States to this day.” Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Victor Hugo Lane, A treatise on the constitutional limitations which rest upon the legislative … pg. 53-54 (1903)

    “The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, pg. 65 (1833).

    “it is, nevertheless, true, that the common law, so far as it is applicable to our situation and government, has been recognized and adopted, as one entire system, by the constitutions of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. It has been assumed by the courts of justice, or declared by statute, with the like modifications, as the law of the land in every state. It was imported by our colonial ancestors, as far as it was applicable, and was sanctioned by royal charters and colonial statutes. It is also the established doctrine, that English statutes, passed before the emigration of our ancestors, and applicable to our situation, and in amendment of the law, constitute a part of the common law of this country.” James Kent, John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on Americican Law Vol 1 pg. 643-44 (1901)

    “The constitution of New York, of 1777, declared that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, as, together with the acts of the colonial legislature, formed the law of the colony on the 19th of April, 1775, should continue to be the law of .the state, subject, &c. So the common law and statute law of England were referred to in Missouri by the statute of 14th January, 1816, as part of the known and existing law of the territory, so far as the same was consistent with the law of the territory, and which, in a modified degree, was the Spanish law. The common and statute law of England, prior to the fourth year of James I., and of a general nature, were adopted by the convention of Virginia, in 1776, and in 1795 and 1805, by the government of Ohio ; and such is the substance of the statute law of Arkansas. 2 Ark. 206. But the Ohio statute was repealed in 1806. In the Revised Statutes of Illinois, published in 1829, it was declared that the common law of England, and the English statutes of a general nature made in aid of it, prior to the fourth year of James I., with the exception of those concerning usury, were to be rules of decision until repealed. In 1818, the common law was adopted by statute in the State of Indiana, and in 1835, in Missouri, under the same limitations ; and it is understood that the common law and the statute law of England, down to the year 1776, and applicable to their constitution and circumstances, are the law in the states of Mississippi and Georgia. In the latter state the same was declared to be in force by the statute of February 25, 1784. So the common law of England and the statute law of England, prior to 1760, were adopted by statute in Vermont, so far as they were not repugnant to the constitution or statute law of the state. James Kent, John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on Americican Law Vol 1 pg. 643-44 (1901).

  122. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Idiot! The best argument in the world is meaningless without standing. Find every case that was dismissed due to lack of standing and ignore anything and everything presented in those cases. It means nothing until a court has a plaintiff with standing and jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Mind your manners my friend.

    In Ankeny v Daniels, the appeals court reviewed the foundation for dismissal and found that given that under US v WKA, a child born on US soil is a natural born, that indeed the court was correct to reject the complaint based on failing to state a claim.

    While you may hope that courts would accept your position, it is clear that now we have Tisdale v Obama (4th Circuit), and the AGJ in Farrar v Obama hearing, the Indiana hearing, the New Hampshire hearing all accepting the follies of these claims.

    I do accept your position on standing, which will continue to frustrate many of the attempts but now that States are starting to rule, the rulings do not provide any hope for your arguments. And for good reasons.

    Let me help you with Tisdale

    Mr. Tisdale seeks an injunction enjoining the Virginia State Board of Elections from certifying any candidate who lacks standing as a “natural born citizen” from appearing on the ballot for the upcoming presidential general election on November 6, 2012.Specifically, Mr. Tisdale cites Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul as ineligible to appear on the ballot, on the grounds that each had at least one parent who was not a citizen of the United States. The Court rules that the Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

    The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) (“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.”); Perkis v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, “those born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ … have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding … and thus eligible for the presidency.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale’s contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.

  123. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: And about the new military oath. I love to hear that story.

    I haven’t heard about a so-called new military oath. What are the details?

  124. avatar
    Ballantine February 28, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    Heinz B: Idiot! The best argument in the world is meaningless without standing. Find every case that was dismissed due to lack of standing and ignore anything and everything presented in those cases. It means nothing until a court has a plaintiff with standing and jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Of course, no real lawyer would ever say Minor is precedent. For example, in Wong Kim Ark, no one thought Minor precedent though everyone talked about who was a natural born citizen. Really amateur hour. It is simply a lie to say Minor’s dicta says children of aliens are not natural born citizens. It expressly declined to address the status of such persons and does not say the doubt that existed were any other types of citizenship of than natural born. This has been pointed out to birthers and they continue to lie that such case says otherwise. A real court will not be amused by this. but birthers don’t care because they know no real court will give them the time of day.

  125. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    Ankeny v Daniels did observe some of the appeal to ‘theories’ of citizenship and rejected them

    The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs’ case. [16] See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs’ arguments had been sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983).

    The Courts are taking notice and nothing Minor or Vattel really has made any impression.

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    125 bleeping comments? This was supposed to be filler article. Sheesh.

  127. avatar
    Rickey February 28, 2012 at 2:56 pm #

    “…the President need not be native born, but must be a citizen from birth.”

    That has always been my interpretation.

    Whenever the issue of an American citizen born abroad comes up, I think about Arthur MacArthur IV, the son of Douglas MacArthur. He was born in the Philippines in 1938. If he had decided to become a politician, would anyone have seriously argued that he wasn’t a natural-born citizen?

  128. avatar
    JPotter February 28, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    Heinz B: Dr. Conspiracy,You already have the home court advantage. Why the need to resort to ad hominems? Feeling a bit inadequate? You should.

    Failure to understand significance of and in/vailidty of argumentum ad hominem. Another troll point, peculiar to RWNJs. Any second now, an “Alinsky” will pop out.

  129. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Foggy: Heh, heh. Do you know what happens when everybody totally ignores a troll and nobody responds to anything they say?
    Me neither. I don’t think it’s ever been tried. It’s never been tried on any blog or discussion board I’ve seen, and I’ve been writing on blogs and forums since Jan. 2003.

    Good point, Foggy. As a partial solution to the troll problem, I was wondering if it would be possible, once a poster has been identified as a troll, to have his or her comments automatically removed from the thread they were posted and to, and moved to a “Troll Cave.” Confined to their cave, Trolls could yammer away without offending others, and regular posters would only have to endure their insulting mendacity if they chose to enter the cave. That way, legitimate dialogue could be maintained without resort to banning or moderation.

    Perhaps there could be a troll icon placed by a poster’s name (like a “like” or “dislike” icon) and if, on a single thread, five established posters (established=having made at least 100 posts without a visit to the cave) clicked on the troll icon, then off to the cave with him. After one week in the cave, the troll would be allowed to post freely again, but a return to the cave for trollish behavior would still be possible.

  130. avatar
    Paper February 28, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    And like wildfire.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    125 bleeping comments? This was supposed to be filler article. Sheesh.

  131. avatar
    Rickey February 28, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If you do want to understand the influence, read the Supreme Court decision in US v Wong or if you REALLY want to understand the issue, read Kettner’s book, The Development of American Citizenship 1608-1870.

    Jack Ryan has posted an excellent analysis of Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett written by Nolu Chan.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/83006709/Barack-Obama-%E2%80%94-Guilty-of-Being-President-While-Black

  132. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: 125 bleeping comments? This was supposed to be filler article. Sheesh.

    In spite of their churlishness, trolls are good for business. Rather like American tourists in Europe.

  133. avatar
    JPotter February 28, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

    I feel something i wrote above bears repeating. To myself if no one else:

    Vattel is not a historian.

    He was a philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert.

    The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns is opinion and commentary, not history.

    Should be terribly obvious. But, having watched birthers for a while now, it’s clear there is no clear distinction between opinion and fact for them. It’s all picking and choosing. And they choose whatever fits.

    Finally, it was funny to see Heinz make a reference to monarchy, considering that Vattel won a royal appointment based on The Law of Nations. :D

  134. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    Is this a veiled reference to my upcoming vacation?

    Arthur: In spite of their churlishness, trolls are good for business. Rather like American tourists in Europe.

  135. avatar
    ScottRS February 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    Arthur: Arthur February 28, 2012 at 2:21 pm (Quote) #

    Dr. Conspiracy: And about the new military oath. I love to hear that story.

    I haven’t heard about a so-called new military oath. What are the details?

    What started out as a satire piece was picked up by many birfoons:

    http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/loyalty_oath.htm

    I recall the same thing sort of thing happening when President Obama said at the Whitehouse Correspondents’ Dinner that his real middle name was “Steve”.

  136. avatar
    JPotter February 28, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

    Arthur: After one week in the cave, the troll would be allowed to post freely again, but a return to the cave for trollish behavior would still be possible.

    I dunno, never seen a recovered troll.

    Arthur: In spite of their churlishness, trolls are good for business.

    Indeed! Once a discussion has reached its conclusion, it’s done and dies a natural death. It takes a troll to revive what was once well-settled. ;)

    Like twitchy necromancers, they revive the same old crap over and over ….

    Foggy: Heh, heh. Do you know what happens when everybody totally ignores a troll and nobody responds to anything they say?
    Me neither. I don’t think it’s ever been tried.

    Once the main discussion is over, playing with the trolls is all there is, and it can be fun to see what they come up with. Up to the admin to prune the dead branches, nip stale buds before they bloom. Doc does a great job.

  137. avatar
    BillTheCat February 28, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    Gosh where did Heinz go? Bueller? Bueller?

    Just like every other one, once the mountain of reason hits ‘em, they run. Only so many made-up birther talking points in the bag, while the facts are overwhelming.

    I agree with Foggy – come tomorrow, Obama is still in the WH, and most likely will be for the next 4 years. Additionally, much to the chagrin of all these folks, he will probably go down in history as one of our greatest presidents, appear on coins or paper money eventually, and will have schools and great public buildings and institutions named after him.

    And there isn’t a single thing they can do about it. :)

  138. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 3:23 pm #

    JPotter: Indeed! Once a discussion has reached its conclusion, it’s done and dies a natural death. It takes a troll to revive what was once well-settled.,

    So what you’re saying is that the entire birther movement is simply a huge troll convention. Yes, it’s all clear now . . . the drooling, the stench; the vomit and scat; the broken furniture, name-calling, and threats . . . while all trolls aren’t birthers, all birthers are trolls.

  139. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    ScottRS: What started out as a satire piece was picked up by many birfoons:

    Thanks for the link, Scott. Wacky stuff.

  140. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 3:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Is this a veiled reference to my upcoming vacation?

    Sorry, Doc! Didn’t mean to unjustly impinge your reputation. You’re probably a very gracious tourist–so you better watch “National Lampoon’s European Vacation” for some choice American bonerisms.

  141. avatar
    misha February 28, 2012 at 3:31 pm #

    Heinz B: What do we call a person who owes allegiance to a foreign state? Answer: A foreigner.

    Like Orly Taitz, who is a KGB agent, and works with the Mossad?

    Like this: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/02/blog-post.html

  142. avatar
    G February 28, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    And very few of them deal with the blog topic at all…

    Dr. Conspiracy: 125 bleeping comments? This was supposed to be filler article. Sheesh.

  143. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 28, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    Tell me again how England influenced the framing of the United States?

    The drafters of the Constitution did not write the Constitution in a vacuum but were cognizant of English common law. “The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers.” In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362 , 363 (ED PA 1928)

    Moreover, ““The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205 , 230 (1917)(Pitney, J. dissenting)

    In fact even Justice Thomas acknowledged the influence of common law in the Constitution. “[I]s true that we frequently consult English history and common law in attempting to determine the content of constitutional provisions.” Loving v. United States, 517 US 748, 779 (1996)(Thomas, J., dissenting)

    Similarly the Supreme Court in Moore v. United States 91 U.S. 270(1875) noted:“That is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law.” Id at 274

    Chief Justice Marshall noted the influence of English common law on our laws when he wrote “whose language is our language and whose laws form the substratum of our laws.” U.S. v. Burr 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807

    As such, the Constitution itself must be read in light of our English common law heritage. “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888).

  144. avatar
    JPotter February 28, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    Arthur: while all trolls aren’t birthers, all birthers are trolls.

    Except for the few (very, very, very few at this late date) earnest birthers out there. Not many people new to the subject anymore. But what about the future. Poo posted on the interwebs is forever. What about the poor children? Parents, monitor your child’s browsing habits. Think about those portraits of Donofrio, Haskins, Mario, Taitz, in relation to future innocents.

    “8-year olds, dude.”

    Yuck. I’m not for censorship, but some subject really push that boundary.

    Another trollish aspect of birtherism … for birthers, it isn’t about proving anything, only Windmill Orly and the like are silly enough to thnk that possible. It’s all about keeping the conversation going (Perhaps in hope of snagging some virgin minds? Generating more google hits?) …. literally what trolls do, keep dead threads going.

  145. avatar
    misha February 28, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    Heinz B: What do we call a person who owes allegiance to a foreign state?

    Like this: God told me to invade Iraq.

    “What do we call a person”
    – Call me a taxi.
    – OK, you’re a taxi.
    [bada-bing]

  146. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 3:53 pm #

    G: And very few of them deal with the blog topic at all

    Topic?! We don’t need no stinkin’ topics!

  147. avatar
    nbc February 28, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

    Heinz B: What do we call a person who owes allegiance to a foreign state?

    Inside the US, an ambassador, outside the US an alien.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 5:06 pm #

    OH VERY WELL PLAYED!

    Your comment is so emphatic that you almost brazened it out and got away with this. I am dazzled, and I say that sincerely. You put one over on ol’ Doc.

    There is just this small point. Jablonski DOES cite the CRS report:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79390982/Georgia-Jablonski-Letter-to-GA-Secretary-of-State-1-25-12

    It’s hidden down on page 1.

    Another troll point awarded.

    Heinz B: A CRS memo that even Jablonski wouldn’t dare cite? Give me a break! You’re too funny.

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    I think Mr. Heinz has absquatulated. I didn’t moderate him.

  150. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think Mr. Heinz has absquatulated. I didn’t moderate him.

    See? This is why I batter trolls like Heinz about the head and shoulders with glee. They call our contentions “funny,” “pitiful,” “desperate,” call us “idiots,” and when THEIR ERRORS ARE CALLED OUT, ignore the facts or split. Quislings, all.

    But thanks a million for “absquatulated.” Kudos.

  151. avatar
    Paper February 28, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    I don’t know. I’ve had difficulty keeping up with this thread today, in all its flash flood urgency, because I had to tend to this little thing called my job. I’m not going to defend a troll’s inane glibness, but maybe we need not get too quickly excited just because someone disappears for awhile.

    That said, there is no better troll alarum than: Absquatualate! Absquatualate!

  152. avatar
    Paper February 28, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    This was nagging in the back of my head, but I had no time to look up the reference. I suppose that’s why trolls live under bridges, while other people have lives.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    OH VERY WELL PLAYED!

    Your comment is so emphatic that you almost brazened it out and got away with this. I am dazzled, and I say that sincerely. You put one over on ol’ Doc.

    There is just this small point. Jablonski DOES cite the CRS report:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79390982/Georgia-Jablonski-Letter-to-GA-Secretary-of-State-1-25-12

    It’s hidden down on page 1.

    Another troll point awarded.

  153. avatar
    thekoolaidisbitter February 28, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

    Assuming for the moment that the definition given in Minor is dicta, what makes you think the dicta in Ankeny, a state case which is less than meaningless to presidential eligibility, overides it? The last time I checked the SCOTUS was the law of the land. I guess quoting dicta is ok for Obots and not for Birthers.

    As far as your argument that jus soli birth is enough to make a person a NBC, what about the 160 countries that don’t recognize birthright citizenship? The only way around that fact is different definitions for each state. If that’s the case, you’ve lost.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

    http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship

  154. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: absquatulated

    Outside the city of Suquamish, the shambling Sasquatch absquatulated into the Wasatch Mountains.

  155. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 8:05 pm #

    thekoolaidisbitter: what makes you think

    To whom do you mean to address your comments?

  156. avatar
    G February 28, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    Masterful! Kudos.

    Arthur: Outside the city of Suquamish, the shambling Sasquatch absquatulated into the Wasatch Mountains.

  157. avatar
    misha February 28, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    thekoolaidisbitter: what about the 160 countries that don’t recognize birthright citizenship?

    What about the places that elect a dog for mayor?! That’s the real scandal !!

    Arthur: Outside the city of Suquamish, the shambling Sasquatch absquatulated into the Wasatch Mountains.

    …the Wasatch Mountains, where the hamlet of Rabbit Hash was somnolent.

  158. avatar
    justlw February 28, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    thekoolaidisbitter: If that’s the case, you’ve lost

    As far as I can see “losing” is, on the whole, looking a whole lot like “not losing” so far.

  159. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 9:18 pm #

    G: Masterful! Kudos.

    Thanks, G–I learned a new word today and wanted to put it to use!

  160. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 9:21 pm #

    misha: What about the places that elect a dog for mayor?! That’s the real scandal !!

    And I thought you were kidding!

    “In 1998 a dog named Goofy was elected mayor in an unofficial ‘election’, an event covered in the documentary “Rabbit Hash (The Center of the Universe)”.”

  161. avatar
    justlw February 28, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    And remember, he said places, plural, which we all know definitely means that just one won’t do.

  162. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

    thekoolaidisbitter: As far as your argument that jus soli birth is enough to make a person a NBC, what about the 160 countries that don’t recognize birthright citizenship?

    What about them? All of them make the child of one parent citizen a citiizen. They also allow any citizen to hold any office. If your argument is that the US should follow that example, we agree. The NBC clause is DOA and about time, too.

  163. avatar
    G February 28, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    So, you are reduced to merely whining about all the state cases you are losing and complaining that there are other countries that do something different…

    Pretty lame.

    SCOTUS is the law of the land. And they have turned down every Birther case that has come before them. Some of them, several times. If you understood what that means in American law, you would realize that when SCOTUS turns down a case, it is reaffirming the lower courts’ rulings.

    And different rulings for different states? What are you smoking? The USA is ONE nation, indivisible. ALL Birther cases in EVERY state they have come before have consistently lost and been tossed. So far, EVERY state that has looked at the Ankeny ruling has ended up REAFFIRMING it. So yeah, there is only one consistent conclusion here and that’s the exact same one we’ve been trying to explain to you delusional Birthers all along…

    thekoolaidisbitter: Assuming for the moment that the definition given in Minor is dicta, what makes you think the dicta in Ankeny, a state case which is less than meaningless to presidential eligibility, overides it? The last time I checked the SCOTUS was the law of the land. I guess quoting dicta is ok for Obots and not for Birthers.As far as your argument that jus soli birth is enough to make a person a NBC, what about the 160 countries that don’t recognize birthright citizenship? The only way around that fact is different definitions for each state. If that’s the case, you’ve lost.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_solihttp://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship

  164. avatar
    J. Potter February 28, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    thekoolaidisbitter: As far as your argument that jus soli birth is enough to make a person a NBC, what about the 160 countries that don’t recognize birthright citizenship?

    Hmmm …. what about them? Are you implying there’s some sort of one-world gov’t enforcing a standard around the globe? Kool-aid needs a sovereignty lesson from Heinz.

    New support group meeting nightly in the troll cave: “Trolls Being Trolls Together.” A place for trolls to hash out their differences and work toward presenting one front, a unified brand of ignorance.

  165. avatar
    Paper February 28, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

    Trollish Odes

    Qua, qua! Absquatulate qua!

    Squinch your postulate.
    Absquash, aussquish.
    Chew latte, too too ostrich.
    Stipulate cuckolded cacophany varnish.

    Qua qua! Absquatulate qua!

  166. avatar
    J. Potter February 28, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

    Gosh, I don’t think anyone bothered to reply to this gem (not that it’s terribly worthy). I believe Doc was reminding you that picking and choosing and double-dipping in the Vatel Cheesy Swiss Dip is a party foul. Either take a pass on its treacherous contents, or abandon all caution and dip your chip with gusto, and swallow your findings whole!

    Heinz B: 11 of the original 13 colonies had a religious test for office when the Constitution was framed. –So what point are you trying to make?

  167. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

    They got better.

    Heinz B: 11 of the original 13 colonies had a religious test for office when the Constitution was framed. –So what point are you trying to make?

  168. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 11:10 pm #

    The point is not whether it is dicta or not; the point is whether it is a definition or not. It is not.

    thekoolaidisbitter: Assuming for the moment that the definition given in Minor is dicta,

  169. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    I’m much more interested in the Birther Gene, and according to Shermer, you might actually find one.

    Scientist: For the right price, I will be happy to search for the citizenship gene allele of his choice.

  170. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    A wise and true observation, Foggy.

    By the way, I really like my new Do not Feed the Trolls sign (right sidebar). I put it there with a temporary intent, but I think I has found a permanent home.

    Perhaps it won’t stop all troll feeding but I can look at it sometimes and be reminded that there are more productive things to do.

    Foggy: Me neither. I don’t think it’s ever been tried. It’s never been tried on any blog or discussion board I’ve seen, and I’ve been writing on blogs and forums since Jan. 2003. For all I know it might tear a hole in the space-time continuum and we’d all be transported to another galaxy.

  171. avatar
    yutube February 28, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

    Heinz B: They just say things. They’re at home. They don’t expect anyone to bother wasting their time correcting them.

    True, it’s a very rare event in here.They’re like Piranhas with no teeth waiting for their pray, and when there is no meat they dream about devouring trolls. I mean, 165 comments over Hamilton and the Common Law and all because Heinz (aka tomato paste) owned the anonymous lawyers?, ‘you’ve got to be shittin me’!

  172. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2012 at 11:29 pm #

    You must have been watching a different debate, or maybe you had birther classes on.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/birther-glasses/

    yutube: Heinz (aka tomato paste) owned the anonymous lawyers

  173. avatar
    Arthur February 28, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

    yutube: They’re like Piranhas with no teeth waiting for their pray

    Sir, how dare you! I’m an atheist!

    (God, if you’re listening, I’m not above bribes:
    “Lord who made the lion and the lamb,
    You decreed I should be what I am.
    Would it spoil some vast eternal plan?
    If I were a wealthy man.”)

  174. avatar
    misha February 28, 2012 at 11:44 pm #

    yutube: waiting for their pray

    To whom are you praying?

  175. avatar
    justlw February 28, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    yutube: the anonymous

    Is “yutube” your given name, surname, or are you, er, singular, such as “RuPaul”?

  176. avatar
    yutube February 29, 2012 at 12:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You must have been watching a different debate, or maybe you had birther classes on.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/birther-glasses/

    It was worth an admission ticket to the dollar theatre, but hey who knows, maybe Heinz will send you guys free cans of tomato paste as gratitude for the enterntainment.

    But I honestly enjoy your articles Doc. It’s food for thought. Although, I disagree with your point of view 99.999% of the time, they’re good for reference.

  177. avatar
    thekoolaidisbitter February 29, 2012 at 12:35 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The point is not whether it is dicta or not; the point is whether it is a definition or not. It is not.

    Not a definition? LOL. Wow, you really are out of it.

  178. avatar
    J. Potter February 29, 2012 at 12:39 am #

    yutube: Although, I disagree with your point of view 99.999% of the time,

    Wrong! Even if you disagreed with the premise of every paragraph on this site, (you did read them all and keep notes, right?) there are not articles (yet) to generate 5 significant digits of accuracy in your disagreeability quotient. :P

    Why bother exaggerating?

    Also, a figure shy of unity imply you agreed with something at OCT. Your birther license is hereby suspended pending further review of the detailed notes referenced above. Please leave them with the bailiff. Thank you. Next!

  179. avatar
    G February 29, 2012 at 12:47 am #

    Well if you define “out of it” as 100% being right on how all these court cases and Birther events end up, then ya…

    So, let me ask you, how’s it feel to be batting zero in the real world?

    thekoolaidisbitter: Not a definition? LOL. Wow, you really are out of it.

  180. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 29, 2012 at 1:18 am #

    What would be the logical result if birfoons were actually right every time they’ve claimed that a description of a certain person is a “definition” of natural born citizen?

    They’ve claimed that the Senate resolution explaining why John McCain is NBC is a “definition”. They’ve claimed that Minor is a “definition”, and so is WKA. A “definition” is of course an exclusive requirement and if you combine exclusive requirements, you find their intersection set is the only one that fulfills all the requirements.

    Therefore a natural born citizen must be born on a Naval base in Panama on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents who are subjects of the Emperor Of China.

  181. avatar
    John Reilly February 29, 2012 at 1:20 am #

    I do not know how one can disagree with Doc C 99.9999% of the time. Doc and I come from different states, have different backgrounds, support different political parties. We are of different faiths. Doc, if I have it right, supports the re-election of President Obama. I do not.

    My guess is that Doc and I make common ground about 90% of the time. I won’t speak for Doc’s view if a Republican is elected President, but neither the world nor this country will end if President Obama is re-elected. We won’t become a European socialist country. We won’t become a fascist state. There will not be FEMA camps. We will muddle through, and, in the face of a challenge, we will come together. That is what makes us Americans. People who find themselves at odds with someone like Doc 99.9999% of the time need to not be so cranky.

  182. avatar
    G February 29, 2012 at 1:59 am #

    Beautifully put!

    John Reilly: My guess is that Doc and I make common ground about 90% of the time. I won’t speak for Doc’s view if a Republican is elected President, but neither the world nor this country will end if President Obama is re-elected. We won’t become a European socialist country. We won’t become a fascist state. There will not be FEMA camps. We will muddle through, and, in the face of a challenge, we will come together. That is what makes us Americans. People who find themselves at odds with someone like Doc 99.9999% of the time need to not be so cranky.

  183. avatar
    Northland10 February 29, 2012 at 7:25 am #

    John Reilly: People who find themselves at odds with someone like Doc 99.9999% of the time need to not be so cranky.

    I would hope that I do not always agree with others. It is the others, to whom you disagree, that can help you focus your ideas better, or, if necessary, realize you idea was just wrong or not right for the time. Of course, this would require the discussion of ideas and opinions and not just the recitation of talking points.

    The debate of ideas leads to the discovery of facts and point to the truth. Talking points seek no truth but exists only for propaganda.

  184. avatar
    Scientist February 29, 2012 at 7:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m much more interested in the Birther Gene, and according to Shermer, you might actually find one

    The Birther Gene is linked so tightly to the Stupid Gene that one would not be able to map them as separate entities.

  185. avatar
    Paper February 29, 2012 at 9:07 am #

    Whew! I just squeaked by.

    Joe Acerbic: Therefore a natural born citizen must be born on a Naval base in Panama on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents who are subjects of the Emperor Of China.

  186. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 29, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    We seem to muddle through no matter who gets elected, but that is just from the limited perspective of my own lifetime.

    I do think that if we have a sting of global-warning denialists in the White House, there is a real chance of catastrophe and maybe Florida will end.

    John Reilly: My guess is that Doc and I make common ground about 90% of the time. I won’t speak for Doc’s view if a Republican is elected President, but neither the world nor this country will end if President Obama is re-elected.

  187. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 29, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    See my article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/milk-a-study-in-fallacy/

    thekoolaidisbitter: Not a definition? LOL. Wow, you really are out of it.

  188. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 29, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    If my site is good for reference, then I have succeeded at what I set out to accomplish. You might be surprised at the folks who also use this site as a reference. Every now and then I get an email and “oh wow, they read my site!” Most of this, of course, I keep in confidence, but author Arthur Goldwag said on his Facebook page that he used my site. I hope that my strength is identifying what the important issues and the important references are, and then reporting them. My opinions are just my opinions.

    yutube: But I honestly enjoy your articles Doc. It’s food for thought. Although, I disagree with your point of view 99.999% of the time, they’re good for reference.

  189. avatar
    Greenfinches March 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    Arthur: And I thought you were kidding!

    “In 1998 a dog named Goofy was elected mayor in an unofficial election’, an event covered in the documentary “Rabbit Hash (The Center of the Universe)”.”

    IN the north of England a few years ago (in Hartlepool, to be precise) a football team’s mascot was elected Mayor. The man who wore the costume every time it was needed held the job – but he didn’t get reelected……