Two camps
Among those birthers who claim that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was British, there are two camps. One camp says that their view is trivially obvious, well settled in Supreme Court decisions; everybody knows this, they learned it in high school, and anyone who disagrees with them hasn’t read the Constitution. This by far comprises the largest group.
The slightly more realistic camp contends that the courts went awry some time back and that the parental requirement for Presidential eligibility has been lost (and rediscovered by them). This was the approach Leo Donofrio took at the beginning, saying US v Wong was wrongly decided and that he wanted to make “new law.” Such a loss of original intent is plausible, they might argue, because the issue doesn’t come up very often: the only effect of the phrase “natural born citizen” is in Article II of the Constitution in regards to who can be President (and all US Presidents except the first few and Chester A. Arthur have been born in the United States to two US Citizen Parents).
Today a new article has appeared at The American Thinker under the name Monte Kuligowski titled: The Obama Ballot Challenge: A Crisis of Confidence. It seems to come from the second camp’s point of view. The author wrote:
In former times, there would have been doubts as to whether Obama would even be a citizen without a formal renouncing of foreign allegiance. But based on wayward interpretations of the 14th Amendment, if we believe Obama was Hawaii-born, we must conclude that he is at least a U.S. citizen — regardless of his British/Kenyan allegiance at birth and his adoption1 in Islamic Indonesia.
But a 14th-Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen. Contrary to 14th-Amendment jurisprudence, the requirement of sole allegiance to the United States from birth onward has never been stricken from the Constitution’s eligibility clause.
The writer understands that judicial interpretations are not in his favor. What he doesn’t understand is that it is the Birthers who have forgotten the Constitution’s original intent, not the courts.
14th Amendment citizens?
The latest incarnation of the two-citizen parent theory is alluded to above in the phrase, “a 14th-Amendment citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen.” (This is an argument also made by Van Irion for the Georgia ballot challenge.) The statement itself is trivially true because the 14th Amendment says naturalized citizens are citizens too. But what these Birthers mean is that one can be born a citizen according to the definitions of the 14th Amendment and not be a natural born citizen, and that is wrong. It’s wrong because Barack Obama would still be eligible to be President without the 14th Amendment. Even the notorious Supreme Court decision in Scott v. Sandford (a decision that the 14th Amendment overruled) could not exclude him because Barack Obama is not descended from formerly-enslaved Americans. The Birthers may be right that the 14th Amendment did not create any natural born citizens, but it certainly did not destroy any!
The Authorities
I don’t claim on just my own authority that President Obama is eligible without the 14th Amendment. One need only look back at what the authorities were saying before the 14th Amendment for answers. There are several, and you can read some of them on The Great Mother of all Natural Born Citizenship Quotation Pages. I want to focus on just two.
William Rawle was appointed District US Attorney for Pennsylvania by George Washington. Rawle was a lawyer and a judge, founder of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, and a noted author on the Constitution. His work, A View of the Constitution, was a text book at the US Military Academy at West Point for years and has been cited by the US Supreme Court. He wrote in View in 1825:
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity….
Under the Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however that capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of the president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
In 1844, still decades before the 14th Amendment, a case involving citizenship was heard in the Chancery Court of New York, that of Lynch v. Clarke2. This case is extremely important because Vice-Chancellor Sandford made an in-depth historical study of birthright citizenship in the United States. This monumental work was relied upon by the United States Supreme Court in its decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark. Vice-Chancellor Sandford wrote:
By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…
The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
So you see, this “14th Amendment citizen” distinction is a fiction. Barack Obama was born a citizen directly under the Constitution, and the early authorities recognized he would have been eligible to be President.
Conclusion
As US District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. wrote in his decision just last month in Tisdale v. Obama:
It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.
So I understand the doubts expressed at The American Thinker, but as Vice-Chancellor Sandford said in 1844, they are not reasonable doubts. Judge Gibney says that it is well settled. I hope this article has helped to relieve your “crisis of confidence.”
1The US Department of State has formally denied that Barack Obama was ever adopted in Indonesia. No one has testified to such an adoption and no documentary evidence of an adoption exists.
2An important consideration when looking at the Supreme Court’s decision in US v Wong, is that while Wong Kim Ark’s parents were long-time US residents, domiciled in the United States (something that cannot be said of Barack Obama’s father), Julia Lynch’s two alien parents were but temporary visitors. The arguments in the Wong decision do not rely on the domicile of Wong’s parent(s).
There is a birther who posts daily at freerepublic.com who goes by the name of “bushpilot1” who is actually trying to make the case that ONLY Anglo-Saxons can be president!
Good-bye Teddy Roosevelt, pulling you down from Mt. Rushmore. Demolition is in store for that FDR memorial on the National Mall.
Here’s an example of his drivel: “You are not a natural born citizen. Natural born citizens are the descendants of the original citizens. A natural born citizen is a Kind of citizen. Those who immigrated from Southern Europe do not fit into this Kind.”
Birthers make up all sorts of things to justify their arguments. There’s the claim that there was no Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in the 1960s (throwing the Nordyke certificates under the bus). There’s the “race must be Negro” argument. Then there’s the insane argument that certificate numbers must be in chronological order of birth.
I’ve seen other wacked out claims, such that McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born on a military base that was considered US territory. It probably was, but not for that reason (would have automatically granted US nationality in the Canal Zone) and it wouldn’t have automatically granted him US citizenship unless his parent(s) were US citizens.
They ignore sensible things. I remember one birther who kept on referring to my references to Savannah Guthrie’s claims of handling the actual BC as a “talking point” – and they certainly know a lot about talking points.
He’s channeling Justice Taney.
A few small improvements in the wording of this article have been made.
Courts have never recognized “14th Amendment citizen” as a distinct third type of citizenship. On the contrary, the courts have always recognized two types of citizenships, native/natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. “There are only two types of citizens: those who are native born and those who are naturalized.” Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States 45 F.Supp. 61,66 (D. MD 1942); “There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen.” Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)
Moreover, courts prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 had recognized that there is no legal distinction between those persons born in the United States to those born to citizen parents and non-citizen parents.
In 1844, a judge in New York noted that a child born in New York of aliens parents during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. He held that she was a citizen of the United States by noting:
“The term citizen, was used in the Constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. ” No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. SUPPOSE A PERSON SHOULD BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WHO WAS NATIVE BORN, BUT OF ALIEN PARENTS, COULD THERE BE ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? I THINK NOT. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen. Court of Chancery, State of New York, Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 656 (1844) (emphasis added)
Justice Curtis in his dissent in the Dred Scott decision observed: “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 576 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting)
In 1858, a court in New York reaffirmed the citizenship status of those born of non-citizen parents “It is further contended, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff himself is an alien. He was born in Ballston Spa, in this state, while his father was a resident of Canada, and returned to his father’s domicil, with his mother, within a year after his birth. . . . In Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. R. 583,) the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth. That case, if law, would seem to be decisive of the present question.” Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barb. (N.Y.) 383. 400-401, (1858)
In the debates to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Senators noted that children born in the United States to non-naturalized parents (i.e. foreign nationals) were citizens of the United States.
Senator Trumbull observed: “I understand that under naturalization laws children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it at the present time.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (January 30, 1866)
Senator Trumbull further added “There has been no time since the foundation of the government when an American Congress could by possibly have enacted such a law, or with propriety have made such a declaration. What is this declaration? All persons born in this country are citizens.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 570 (February 1, 1866)
Noted legal scholar, William Rawle, wrote in 1829:
“The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. William Rawle, A view of the Constitution of the United States (2nd ed. 1829) page 86
As such, the 14th Amendment did not create a new type of citizenship that but rather codified the existing common law principle of Jus Soli that a person born in the United States regardless as to the status of his or her parents is natural born citizen.
In other words, there is no “14th Amendment” citizen who is not either a naturalized citizen or natural born citizen.
I have made so many tiny changes to this article, that it might said that I was “gilding the lily,” which gives me an title for a yet-unwritten article:
Gilding the Lily v. Polishing the Turd
Hello to 2.1 and may our friendship be long and peaceful……..it isn’t going to end soon with birthers developing (and applying) common sense, after all!
Dr.
if this was well settled in 1844 in the state of new York, why were there doubts about the citizenship status of Wong Kim ark?
Welcome atticus you’re what got Henry going on amazon
As Justice Gray points out, it wasn’t until 1844 that any legal authority in the US questioned birthright citizens. Everyone assumed such to be the case. However, birthright citizenship would come under attack by those who wanted to deny blacks, indians and the chinese citizenship. While the members of the 39th Congess were clear that children of chinese aliens should be citizens, there was great disagreement with this in later Congresses after the Republicans lost power. One should read some of the Congressional debates and they would see the hatred and fear of chinese immigrants was intense. Basically sounded like a tea party rally talking about Mexicans. It really wasn’t until the post reconstruction period until we really see birthright citizenship being challenged. Of course, WKA put it all to rest.
The sorry truth is that there was an upsurge in racist and anti-immigration sentiment at the time of Wong Kim Ark, evidence by the Chinese Exclusion Act that said Chinese persons could not even become naturalized citizens. The lineage of Birtherism is nothing new.
Mr. Rawle, cited in this article, was an abolitionist, and Justice Taney who wrote a decision in Dred Scott was an ardent supporter of slavery. As long as there are Taney’s in the world, they will attempt to un-settle things.
My article cites a contemporary judge saying that it is settled today because The Supreme Court settled it in 1898. However, the Court affirmed the citizenship of Wong from the principles of 1789, not just from the 14th Amendment.
William Rawle was also a founding member of the “Society for Political Inquires”.
“The first officers, elected on the same evening when the constitution was adopted, were Dr. Benjamin Franklin, president; George Clymer and William Bingham, vice presidents; Robert Hare, treasurer; William Bradford and George Fox, secretaries. The committee of papers chosen at the same time consisted of Benjamin Rush, John Arm-strong, William Bradford, Francis Hopkinson, W. T. Franklin, and William Rawle. After the first meeting, the society, at the president’s request, met at his residence, and their sessions were held every Friday fortnight from September to June. ”
http://tinyurl.com/85om8pg
Other members of the Society reads like a who’s who of prominient members of the Founders/Framers, including James Wilson, Governour Morris, Robert Morris and Trench Coxe.
The Society was founded in February, 1787. It included as members Ben Franklin (president), Thomas Paine (wrote the by-laws), George Clymer (vice-president), Benjamin Rush, Governour Morris and Robert Morris, Trench Coxe and other Philadelphians. William Rawle and
Clymer is quoted as saying (referring to Birther blogs):
“A printer publishes a lie: for which he ought to stand in the pillory, for the people believe in and act upon it.”
If a State Court tells me that “they think” Obama could even be President in 1844, and The State Court did not exclude black or slaves or inmigrants in their decision, any challenges against disallowing a person from being a mere citizen having the same status as Obama should be dismissed as frivolous, right? For some reason I do not recall seeing the Chinese Exclusion Act discussions in the WKA case.
You will have to explain your own memory lapses.
“It is conceded that, if he [wka] is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.” U.S. vs WKA
Oh well, i recall now, if the government conceded that the Chinese exclusion Act did not apply to WKA if he was a citizen of the United States and they had the New York Court authority, plus the incredible amount of other authorities, why all the fuss? racism? and this got all the way to the Supreme court, really?
perhaps if you tried making some kind of sense?
You may know the saying “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
In fact our country is not vigilant and liberty suffers. Remember the Chinese Exclusion Act itself. You might do well to read what our Congress said about the Chinese those days.
And then there was the internment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War II.
It should be no surprise that the US government, on occasion, adopts a blatantly racist position and tries to defend it in court. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas made it all the way to the US Supreme Court too. Would you argue that legalized segregation was not racist?
Ah yes! Our old friends, the “14th Amendment Citizens”. A racist trope that goes way, way back. Not being subtle anymore are they?
Here’s a classic from originalintent.org: The 14th Amendment Clarified
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
Which links to a PDF treatise, same title, last modified in 2003:
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/docs/14th%20Amendment%20Clarified.pdf
I really like the disclaimer at top:
“[Notice: This item is intended to read after you read both the Citizenship and Constitution treatises on this site.]”
Yes, heaven forbid you get your indoctrination out of order 😉
The site is loaded with treasures from the extreme right, and tied in with “Dave Champion” … a champion of tax dodging.
This stuff goes way, way back, back to when the federal government “forced” several constitutional amendments on the South. Unfortunately the feeling didn’t stay in the south….an excerpt (my emphasis):
The phrase “Citizen of the United States”, as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, is shorthand for “All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called “states”] that are a party to this Constitution”. This meaning is made unmistakably clear when one reads the words of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred decision. To our knowledge, no rational person has ever contended otherwise.
Chief Justice Taney makes it crystal clear that the phrase “people of the United States”,
and its pre-Civil War synonym, “Citizen of the United States” (as used in the opening of
the U.S. Constitution), have a meaning that is forever fixed. It is forever fixed (according to Taney) because those phrases mean only what the men who wrote them, and voted on them, meant them to mean. That is the preeminent rule of constitutional interpretation. In other words, neither you, nor I, nor the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court can indulge in revisionist history in order to pretend that the words now mean something new and different than they did the day the author wrote them. Whether we like it or not, those words mean (forever) only the white citizens of the 13 independent states (and all states admitted to the Union thereafter).
That is not a racist statement; that is a historical legal reality. Sometimes a historical legal reality may bruise our modern conscience and sensibilities, but the fact that we may feel bruised and angry does not change what the men who wrote the document meant when they wrote the words.
… blahblahblah …
Since Americans claiming the original class of citizenship have “inalienable rights”, what rights have 14th Amendment citizens? The answer is as clear as it is unfortunate: mere civil rights.
____________
As you can see, these guys love Dred Scott. And tie themselves in knots to get some really weird places.
Nice company the birthers are throwing in with!
No court has given indication that the Wong Kim Ark case was brought because of racism against chinese people. That was not even argued in court. It seems to me like a bunch of speculative arguments goin on here.
Yes, he’s on free republic and posted this just the other day on a thread. I was waiting for someone to call him on it, but no one did, at least not while I was reading them wailing about the Geogria ruling.
He said a while back “only white people are supposed to be president of the U.S.” and one free republic poster, but only one, essentially asked him if he was crazy. He ignored that and kind of went away. He was not expecting anyone to say anything based on the other racist stuff that they post over there.
He laid low for a while, always alluding to it with that “kind” stuff until just recently when it because to much,I guess and he could hold it in no longer! And apparently he was right cause like I said, no one called him on it, at least as far as I saw when I stopped reading.
The case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark, not United States v. Siegfried Walther, John McHenry or Vincenzo Bellini. Maybe this was because there was no German Exclusion Act, Scottish Exclusion Act or Italian Exclusion Act (though, the Catholic and Mediterranean thing likely caused concern among some at the time). However, the US at the time felt fit to declare that Chinese, unlike others, could not become citizens.
Are you playing or just really thick?
WTF??? From the syllabus of United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
“This was a writ of habeas corpus issued October 2, 1895, by the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California to the collector of customs at the port of San Francisco, in behalf of Wong Kim Ark, who alleged that he was a citizen of the United States, of more than twenty-one years of age, and was born at San Francisco in 1873 of parents of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, but domiciled residents at San Francisco, and that, on his return to the United States on the steamship Coptic in August, 1895, from a temporary visit to China, he applied to said collector of customs for permission to land, and was by the collector refused such permission, and was restrained of his liberty by the collector, and by the general manager of the steamship company acting under his direction, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, not by virtue of any judicial order or proceeding, but solely upon the pretence that he was not a citizen of the United States.
At the hearing, the District Attorney of the United States was permitted to intervene in behalf of the United States in opposition to the writ, and stated the grounds of his intervention in writing as follows:
That, as he is informed and believes, the said person in whose behalf said application was made is not entitled to land in the United States, or to be or remain therein, as is alleged in said application, or otherwise.
* * *
That the said Wong Kim Ark is not entitled to land in the United States, or to be or remain therein, because he does not belong to any of the privileged classes enumerated in any of the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which would exempt him from the class or classes which are especially excluded from the United States by the provisions of the said acts.”
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The government’s position — argued in court by the District Attorney — on the basis of Chinese Exclusion Acts “that the said Wong Kim Ark be … returned to the country from whence he came.”
I just went over to free repulic. bushpilot got zotted……..at first the moderator deleted his posts and then he started saying all kinds of over the top stuff about pure whites and finally, a few called him on it and then he was gone………
Really?
I suggest you read the government briefs in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and then let us know if you see any evidence of racism.
Kuligowski has done a lot of writing for Thinker, Renew America, and … you guessed it, WND!
A traffic attorney* in VA. He’s been birthin’ for a long time. Another writer to keep your eye on!
http://www.americanthinker.com/monte_kuligowski/
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kuligowski
http://www.wnd.com/?s=kuligowski&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
* what explains the correlation between traffic attorneys and publicizing birtherism?
if the new school of thought prevails, basically that the fault lies in the courts misinterpreting the Constitution, Obama cannot be sued for abiding to prevailing legal interpretation. Birthers would have to act against the judiciary in general and the SUpreme Court specifically. Ironically the Gurdian of the Constitution and the Ultimate Defender of our Liberties risks becoming the new birther enemy. From fringe lunatics to actual seditionists. Not bad an evolution.
Well, for what it is worth, I got ZOTTED at Free Republic, too. I was beating the two citizen parent Birthers like carpets over a clothesline WITH LOGIC. But. I was able to get secret pictures of the Birthers complaining.
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/zot-free-republic-birthers-run-in-panic-stricken-terror-from-the-truth/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Well, that of course was what Calvin’s Case was all about. But let us not forget that according to MichaelN, Lord Coke actually ruled Calvin ineligible, so there is hope still for Congress to try to keep out the Jocks.
For someone who grew up among “Impeach Earl Warren” billboards, this is strangely familiar.
I’ve always contended that promoting this agenda is what Mario is really being paid for, not overthrowing Obama, an unrealistic goal. But (re)sowing and popularizing these concepts in the fertile soil of the uninformed/uneducated birthers is, for some, a task worth pursuing. They probably see it as fighting for the (white anglo/christian) soul of America.
Now that is a funny sentence, since until the Glorious Revolution in Britain and the French Revolution, the only interesting right attached to being a subject of the King was to have the right to inherit land over which the King was suzerain.
France up until 1789, was NOT a unitary country: courts in various parts of the Kingdom were free to base their definition of subjectship on local custom. The Tribunals of Paris, however, very early decided on a combination of ius sanguinis and ius soli. You were a subject if you were born in France OR if your parents were French.
Most countries who had some degree of ius sanguinis were not really interested in whether both parents (=modern-day meaning of parents) were subjects because if your mother was not eg French, she would not leave any French land for you to inherit anyway – and of course, women usually inherited land only by default, when no male heirs could be found.
Mob lawyers start as bottom feeders, or pariahs of the legal profession; I’d be inclined to think that the same would apply to KKK & the likes lawyers.
As I have noted in the past, the meaning of “parents” as “relatives” is still part of French language today. This is easy to test too, if you know a French person. Ask him or her whether the sentence “j’ai des parents en Angleterre” means: (a) I have relatives in England; or (b) my parents (father & mother) are in England. I cannot imagine any French person not responding (a). I would.
For those who follow The Meretricious One, is Mario still clinging to his demonstrably false interpretation of Vattel in his latest ramblings?
desegregating schools still hurts but desegregating qualifications for the highest office is Götterdämmerung
I think she meant “land” as a verb.
plaintiffs words: “but solely upon the pretence that he was not a citizen of the United States.”
ya right, racism
*defendant WKA, was not allowed to land because he was not deemed a citizen of the u.S even if born in the country and there was a law that excluded Chinese inmigrants from entering the U.S. When there is nothing to grab on you scream racism.
there were LAWS allowing slavery as well. Stoning aldultresses is LAW in some areas od the world. There were LAWS segregating everything here. LAWS discriminated against Jews in Germany. These laws were wrong. We fight wars to abolish them. That is the treu greatness of America.
There’s a lonely, little tic squatting here trying to poke an anthill with a stick with nonsensical posts.
It’s probably best to ignore it and maybe it will slither back to the Stormfront forums.
Thanks Squeeky! Welcome back!!
I enjoyed your new articles, including this one.
My favorite 3 lines in this one were: “Squeeky Is Witch!!! She Put Curse On My Cow!!!”, “Squeeky No Fight Fair!!! She Assault Us With Facts!!!” and “Squeeky Talk Harsh To Us And Cause Our Manhood To Wither!!!”
Thanks again for the chuckles… 🙂
Yes, apply the Jablonski Empty Chair Technique.
I was thinking that the coincidence of traffic lawyers and birther prophets was explained by the common job description:
Endless, bottom-feeding self-promotion of your willingness to say anything to support a desired conclusion.
Preaching birtherism is just another day at the office!
Excellent plan.
If that doesn’t work, you’ll have to Ragsdale them.
Maybe it was board and looking for somewhere to post. Stormfront apparently has had their own internet issues this week:
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/02/10/largest-white-supremacist-site-may-have-been-hacked/
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
You Obots are dead wrong! And here’s the reason why.
When considering the correctness of a court ruling (or apparently in this case many rulings) one must evaluate the impact of the series of rulings in the light of the original intent of the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution. Consequently, one should consider the conditions that exist today (after the rulings) against the conditions that existed at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Presumably the Drafters were influenced by the prevailing conditions and this influence should be discernible in the meaning of the text of the Constitution. One overriding condition was the condition of citizenship of the people residing within the country in 1788.
See: http://www.pennumbra.com/essays/12-2010/Blackman.pdf
“ESSAY
ORIGINAL CITIZENSHIP
JOSH BLACKMAN
“These original citizens were the founders of the United States.”
INTRODUCTION
The phrase “citizen of the United States” is used in the United States Constitution in three different provisions—to set the qualifications for representatives, senators, and the president. If these sections—the oft-dubbed “bright-line” constitutional rules—are to have any meaning, the United States of America, and citizenship thereof, must have predated our Constitution. This raises two seemingly obvious yet largely unanswered questions. First, how did one constitutionally become a “citizen of the United States” prior to the ratification of the Constitution on June 21, 1788? Second, for purposes of citizenship, and the Constitution, when did the United States of America begin?
The answer to the second question seems simple. The likely starting points are finite: the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776; the Articles of Confederation were ratified on March 1, 1781; the Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1784; the delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution on September 17, 1787; and the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. The first Congress held its initial meeting on March 4, 1789, at Federal Hall in New York City. If a senator needed to have “been nine Years a citizen of the United States” on March 4, 1789, the senator would have needed to be a U.S. citizen since March 4, 1780, at the latest. This date precedes all of the other possible “starting points” except July 4, 1776. Assuming that members of the first Senate met the requisite citizenship qualifications, second, for purposes of citizenship, and the Constitution, when did the United States of America begin? While Americans are fond of celebrating the birthday of the United States every year on July 4th, this date, as well as the Declaration, has no constitutional significance. Simple arithmetic indicates that the United States first existed as a nation when we separated from England. Fireworks and barbecue aside, for legal purposes the practical starting date of the U.S. is 1789, when President Washington was inaugurated and the first Congress met. Our courts do not take cognizance of the Declaration. Yet to a member of the first Congress or a federal judge in 1789, the United States was not an infant, but was an old, familiar friend, and by 1789, such congressmen and judges had no doubt considered themselves to be U.S. citizens for quite some time. The Constitution merely represented a new form of government for a preexisting country. Article VII concludes that the Constitution was submitted to the states in the year “of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” The Constitution includes a direct textual and historical link to the Declaration and the year 1776.
The answer to the first question of how one constitutionally became a “citizen of the United States” prior to 1789 is to be found by studying these preceding years of Independence. While in many cases the record and views on citizenship conflict, inevitably a single theory
emerges: our traditional view of citizenship cannot be correct. Yet scholars seem to have entirely overlooked this issue. Alexander Bickel wrote “the concept of citizenship plays only the most minimal role in the American constitutional scheme,” and he likely assumed that the absence of any discussion of citizenship in the Constitution indicated that this topic was intentionally disregarded. Citizenship, although not addressed, was not ignored. Scholars were not looking in the right places to find the answer.“
Blackman goes on to prove based on the case law of the colonies (before) and the states (after) the Revolution that 1776 is both the beginning of the United States of America and of citizenship in the states by birth or naturalization. The process of naturalization was transferred from the states to the U.S. Federal Government at the ratification in 1788 with the responsibility for setting the conditions vested in the Congress. Thus after 1776 and before 1788 the “citizens of the United States” were the citizens of the thirteen states that collectively made up the United States of America. Thus, the citizens of the thirteen United States prior to 1788 also became citizens of the U.S. Federal Government after 1788. After 1788 these state citizens became naturalized citizens under the United States Government. After 1789 Congress set the conditions for naturalization of aliens immigrating to the United States of America after the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1790.
[In the interests of the integrity of this web site, and the reputation of Prof. Blackman, I note that what follows in in no way related to what Blackman wrote. He did not discuss Presidential eligibility at all in his paper. Doc.]
The Constitution laid down the following requirements for eligibility for the offices of Representative, Senator and the President.
“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Now it is clear that the Founding Fathers set a higher standard for the office of the President than for the Congress. The Drafters required that the President must be a natural-born citizen whereas a member of Congress need only be a citizen. The question that arises here is what is the definition of a “natural born Citizen” as it was intended in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
However, the Drafters of the Constitution also made special provision to allow the persons who had been the citizens of the United States before 1788 to be eligible for the office of the President of the U.S. after 1788. Each of these persons was a naturalized citizen under the U.S. Government and therefore was also “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” as specified by the Constitution. This special provision would naturally expire over time as the original citizens would slowly die off.
The special citizenship provision was both necessary and desirable. It was necessary so that an election for President could immediately proceed through the electoral college in 1789. It was also desirable because it made the Founding Fathers eligible to serve as President. It is also important to appreciate that the candidates had to meet both the age and the residency requirements for each office. Thus any candidate for President had to have been a resident within the United States for fourteen years and attained an age of thirty-five years. Consequently, the only way that the early Presidents could have met the age and residency requirement is if the United States was already in existence prior to 1788 and these candidates were already citizens of the United States.
It is also clear that the Drafters wanted to ensure that the President be totally loyal to the U.S. Government. They wanted to avoid any foreign influence over the new government. They especially wanted to avoid any possibility that a foreign usurper could become commander-in-chief of the U.S. Military. It is obvious that the requirement that the President must be a natural-born citizen was intended to prevent this from occurring. Thus it was natural for the Drafters to look to the citizenship of the parents of the future presidential candidates as a means of ensuring their loyalty. It was also natural for the Drafters to believe that alien parents would be less likely to instill loyalty in their offspring than would citizen parents. Alien parents might retain their loyalty to their native country or split their loyalty between the U.S. and their native country.
It’s important to acknowledge that the Drafters made no such special provision for the offices of Representative or Senator. Consequently, in order for the first Congress to assemble in 1789, the Representatives and Senators would also had to have been citizens of the United States prior to the ratification in 1788 or else they could not have satisfied the residency requirements.
At present there are two contending interpretations of the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” as it appears in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. For persons born within the territory of the United States these two interpretations are jus soli and jus sanguinis. For persons born without the territory of the United States both interpretations include only jus sanguinis as natural born.
Both interpretations exclude naturalized citizens as being natural born. Consequently naturalized citizens are not currently eligible to be President.
In the case of the jus soli interpretation, only naturalized citizens are not natural born. The children of one or two citizen parents are natural born. However, the children of two alien parents are also natural born. Consequently, all of these children are eligible to be members of Congress or to serve as President provided that they also meet the age and residency requirements for each office. Naturalized citizens are eligible to serve in Congress but not as President. There are only two types of citizens– natural born and naturalized.
Under the jus sanguinis interpretation only jus sanguinis children are natural born. Only these children are eligible for the office of President. The children of one or two alien parents are not natural born. These children are therefore not eligible for the office of President. However, the children of one or two alien parents are eligible to serve in Congress as are the jus sanguinis children. Any of these eligible children can serve after they have met the age and residency requirements for each office. There are three types of citizens– jus sanguinis children, children of one or two alien parents and naturalized citizens.
In determining which interpretation of NBC is correct it is instructive to compare which citizens were excluded from the Presidency immediately after the ratification in 1788 and today. In 1788, the children of one or two alien parents were excluded. The naturalized citizens of the United States were eligible. Today the naturalized citizens are excluded and the children of one or two alien parents are eligible. Therefore, we find that the condition today is exactly opposite to that which existed just after the ratification. Consequently, we cannot conclude that the conditions today are consistent with the original intent of the Drafters. Instead we must conclude that the jus sanguinis interpretation is the one that the Drafters intended.
“Stormfront.org, the largest white nationalist web forum in the world with a claimed 240,000 registered members . . . ”
A racist birther’s utopia.
the sound of a birfer taking a dump.
Only the first part of your post is in the Blackman article, which contains nothing regarding jus sanguinis vs jus soli. The fact that you added in a bunch of extraneous material unattributed, implying that BlacKman was its source makes you a liar.
Yet again, the answer is the Jablonski Empty Chair Technique.
Three things Henry: you’re no scholar, you don’t know how to analyze or integrate sources, and you don’t know how to develop a persuasive argument. Other than that, thanks for the link!
This is how you spot a crank. When the essential point of controversy is assumed true with phrases like “natural” and “clear” but completely unsupported any facts, evidence or citations, you see that the man behind the curtain is not a wizard but just blowing smoke.
It bears repeating and emphasis.
Immediately after ratification, any citizen who was 35 or older would have been eligible. That is probably excepting women, who did not have the vote, though one could argue that one doesn’t have to be a voter to be President. i suppose the idea of a woman President would have freaked out most of the Founders, except, perhaps, for Ben Franklin who was very fond of them.
Well Scientist here a hint just for you. You will find Blackman’s stuff within quotation marks. You will find my stuff without quotation marks. Now get off your lazy butt and read it.
I have taken the unusual step of annotating Hermitian’s comment to indicate the line between what can be attributed to Blackman and what cannot. The Blackman paper itself is interesting because it discusses, among other things, the Smith/Ramsay controversy that we’ve talked about before and the humorous question of whether George Washington was eligible to be President.
You are no longer welcome on this web site. You have been banned.
I read Blackman’s stuff. it is interesting. Yours is worthless and has no relationship whatsoever to his.
What you did was lie and everyone here knows it.
I note that the standard nasty parting shot has been received and deleted, mostly unread.
Of course she did. But I did find the ambiguity funny.
All’s well that … uh …. never mind.
Well, let’s here it for private property.
I believe the reason that Scientist was confused about where the passages from Blackman ended and where Henry’s ideas began, was because Henry did not follow the rules for how to indicate multiple paragraphs of quoted material.
“In order to quote two or more consecutive paragraphs of text, follow this rule:
“Begin each paragraph with quote marks.
“Do not close every paragraph with quote marks.
“The only paragraph which should have both open and close quotes is the final paragraph being quoted.”
Obviously, Henry didn’t do this. It took me a long time to spot the quotation marks at the end of the Blackman section, and I only saw them after I searched key words from paragraphs in Henry’s post in order to determine where Blackman’s text left off.