Main Menu

The Allen files

Campaign button, Arizona Flag and "2012"I’m beginning to think that the blog is turning in to an “all ballot challenge” station. I don’t make it my business to dig them all out, but we have talked about challenges in New Hampshire, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Mississippi, Maryland and Alabama; now it’s Arizona.

Kenneth Allen, known here as a filer of FOIA requests for the immigration files of Barack Obama, Sr. and Lolo Soetoro, has contributed to the store of proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii whether that was his intention or not. He testified in Atlanta, for Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell.

Allen has his own ballot challenge in his home state of Arizona. His challenge takes the form of a lawsuit naming the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, Brad R. Nelson [Elections Director for Pima County, AZ], et al. under the authority of Arizona law ARS 16-351(B) that states:

B. Any elector may challenge a candidate for any reason relating to qualifications for the office sought as prescribed by law, including age, residency or professional requirements, if applicable.

Clearly Allen exhibits a greater familiarity with the law than some other challengers, since he appears to have named the correct defendants in his suit:

C. In any action challenging a nomination petition, the following persons are indispensable parties to the action and shall be named and served as defendants:

1. The candidate whose petition is the subject of the challenge.

2. The officer with whom the petitions are required to be filed.

3. The board of supervisors and the recorder of each county or the clerk of each city or town who is responsible for preparing the ballots that contain the challenged candidate’s name.

That initial display of competence should not mislead the reader into a false expectation of competence in the complaint itself, a complaint that almost immediately falls in to crankery.

Contrast that with a “natural-born” citizen, which was based on Natural Law theory. In this case, a “natural-born citizen” was one who was entirely subject to the laws of nature alone. There was no need for a statutory law conferring the rights of citizenship because both parents were citizens of the territory in which the child was born. … Natural law theory is based on the jus sanguinis model of conferring citizenship – naturally from parent to child, where the parents have the exclusive right of conferring their citizenship unto their child, not the government.

Vattel, Happersett, etc.

2012-2-17 – Arizona – Ken Allen v Democratic Party, Obama, Brad Nelson – Complaint for Constitutional Viola…

, , ,

191 Responses to The Allen files

  1. avatar
    Majority Will February 18, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    Natural law theory where the American race is exclusively white (of Anglo-Saxon origin) and Christian (preferably something normal like Protestant).

  2. avatar
    realist February 18, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    Ken, not surprisingly, also exhibits a lot of Sovereign Citizen nuttery in his filing.

    He’s also one of Sheriff Joe’s BFFs. Also not surprising.

  3. avatar
    RuhRoh February 18, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    Notice that this idiot asks the parties being sued frivolously to help him hold down his own costs by signing a waiver of service of summons.

    The birthers really are shameless.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 18, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    Yeah, what was all that stuff about Obama being an employee of the United States of America corporation, doing business in Arizona?

    realist: Ken, not surprisingly, also exhibits a lot of Sovereign Citizen nuttery in his filing.

  5. avatar
    Majority Will February 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

    realist:
    Ken, not surprisingly, also exhibits a lot of Sovereign Citizen nuttery in his filing.

    He’s also one of Sheriff Joe’s BFFs.Also not surprising.

    Like CSA Carl and his bigoted buddies, there seems to be quite a few followers of the sovereign citizen b.s. who are also birther morons.

  6. avatar
    John Potter February 18, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yeah, what was all that stuff about Obama being an employee of the United States of America corporation, doing business in Arizona?

    That is interesting …. a new corporate version of states’ rights nuttery? Maybe a tie to the old “we’re under admiralty law since 1913” schtick? A conspiracy family tree would be all tied up in knots of intergenerational incest.

    Where did the button graphic come from, Doc?

  7. avatar
    justlw February 18, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    28. Significantly, when the U.S. Senate resolved in 2008 that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the Republican presidential nominee, was a natural-born citizen, it specified that his parents were American citizens.

    29. The “non-binding” resolution, co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama, stated that McCain — born to two American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, “is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States”, however remember that resolution was non binding and not worth the paper it was written on.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  8. avatar
    Scientist February 18, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    I used to love when Mario went on about natural law. I always reminded him that nature doesn’t recognize the artifiicial human constructs of countries and lines on maps. He never answered my question as to whether a moose needed a passport to cross from New Brunswick into Maine.

  9. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 18, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yeah, what was all that stuff about Obama being an employee of the United States of America corporation, doing business in Arizona?

    Non lawyer’s guess: Looks like a ham handed effort to establish jurisdiction for the county court.

  10. avatar
    Majority Will February 18, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    Scientist:
    I used to love when Mario went on about natural law.I always reminded him that nature doesn’t recognize the artifiicial human constructs of countries and lines on maps.He never answered my question as to whether a moose needed a passport to cross from New Brunswick into Maine.

    When Apuzzy toots his dog whistle of racial superiority which underlies the thin guise of natural law, his sycophants perk up their ears reflexively.

  11. avatar
    Northland10 February 18, 2012 at 1:47 pm #

    Note: I apologize for copying what I wrote earlier today on NBC’s blog, but my musings this morning on Natrual Law seem appropriate for Mr. Allen’s filing. Granted, the opinions expressed below are strictly my own.. earlier today.

    From a continental Europe perspective, jus sanguinis would make sense. In Europe, especially central Europe and edges of west, you have constantly changing boarders and rulers (duchies, principalities, empires,etc.). The only way to continue your historical nationality through constant empire changes is through your bloodline. Since England, over half a century separated from the Norman invasion and separated from the continent, would not have the concern of lost nationality, jus solis would be sufficient. It would only be logical that the Americans, even further separated from Europe and wishing to increase settlement would continue the inherited system. As they rejected, as much as possible, the European concepts of reason d’etat and balance of power diplomacy, why would they incorporate other specific continental Europe domestic concepts.

    The birthers may note that Vattel (among others) was read once during the debates at the convention. However, this was during the discussion of equal suffrage for the states in the Senate. In short, the use of Vattel had to do with sovereignty. Here is where I see their interest in Vattel and, even more so, the other Natural Law writers such as Locke, Hobbes and Pufendorf. It was through Natural Law writers that the founders sought what they saw to be Natural Rights. The law of nature, for them and following many of the writers, was about sovereignty of the individual and states.

    Jus sanguinis would certainly be in opposition to individual sovereignty as it looks to define a person not by their own position but by the standing of their parents. In short, the citizen parents argument would be against the founders understanding of the laws of nature.

  12. avatar
    Rowena February 18, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Wondering the difference between born a citizen and natural born citizen?

  13. avatar
    Jamese777 February 18, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    Rowena:
    Wondering the difference between born a citizen and natural born citizen?

    There is no difference under the law. The current term in the US Code is “Citizen of the United States at birth.” The original term of art in the US Constitution is “Natural born citizen,” an eighteenth century term.
    They are synonymous. No court or act of Congress has ever ruled that there is a distinction.

  14. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 18, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    Too bad Ken Allen read the abbreviated version of the Arizona Election Code. Had he browsed further, he would have found A.R.S. 16-242.C, which provides:

    “Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.”

    “This section” refers to 16-242, which concerns qualifications for the ballot by “A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States”. In other words, Allen’s case is predicated on a statutory provision that expressly does not apply to Obama’s candidacy.

  15. avatar
    Northland10 February 18, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    realist: Ken, not surprisingly, also exhibits a lot of Sovereign Citizen nuttery in his filing.

    It looks like his case is completely dead now because it appears that the courtrooms in Pima County have flags with…. gold fringe.

    http://qtvr.arizona.edu/vr_superior_crt.html

  16. avatar
    Rowena February 18, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

    Was born a citizen removed from the Constitution and replaced with natural born citizen?

  17. avatar
    ballantine February 18, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    Rowena: Was born a citizen removed from the Constitution and replaced with natural born citizen?

    No, another birther myth. The only language before “natural born” was introduced was “citizen” which obviously includes both natural born and naturalized like the eligiblity for Congress.

  18. avatar
    Rowena February 18, 2012 at 4:30 pm #

    What was the proposed wording in the Constitution before the arrival of the Jay letter to Washington?

    Is this in the Congressional record? Did Washington edit out born a citizen and replace with nbc?

    Are there notes in Jefferson’s correspondence, or his books defining a natural born citizen.

    It is interesting why the Founders used the term natural born citizen and not born a citizen if they have the same meaning.

    Does any one know the meaning of natural in natural born citizen?

    There was a movie playing on the cable channel last week. Cannot recall the title but it was related to the founding of Jamestown. One of the settlers said .”Do not disturb the naturals” Assuming he meant the Indians. I wonder if there’s a historical record in a journal using the naturals. Maybe its the imagination of the script writer.

  19. avatar
    Jamese777 February 18, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    The term “natural born citizen” is derived from English Common Law: “natural born subject.”
    William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62
    1765

    The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

  20. avatar
    gorefan February 18, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    Rowena:
    Was born a citizen removed from the Constitution and replaced with natural born citizen?

    The birthers are confused. Alexander Hamilton submitted a draft plan on June 18th, 1787, it did not have any eligiblity requirements for President because it did not have a President, it had a Governour. You can read his plan here:

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp

    Now here is where the birthers get confused. Towards the end of the Convention, Hamilton gave a draft Constitution to James Madison. This draft has a President and the born a citizen requirement. This draft was never submitted to the Convention and was never voted on. Read that version here, starts on page 584:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=9GUFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA589&dq=%22or+hereafter+be+born+a+Citizen+of+the+United+States+%22+elliot&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DBxAT_7IC8ifiQKE_f3LAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=No%20.5&f=false

    IMO, it suggests that Hamilton wanted a more expansive definition of the requirements for President. One that would have included children born outside the United States to US citizens. It may be an insight into his understanding of the term “natural born”. In which case it would have meant you had to be born in the US just like it meant under English Common Law.

  21. avatar
    Rowena February 18, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    Does anyone know the etymology the word natural? What did it mean to the Founders?

  22. avatar
    Rowena February 18, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Lets put our bias in the closet regarding the meaning of natural for the next hour or so.

    What did natural mean in the 18th Century. Many times the founders referred to the Constitution as “our ancient laws” whose ancient laws?

    What does the word Constitution mean?

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 18, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    There’s no record of any debate regarding the insertion of the phrase “natural born citizen” into the draft Constitution. According to Madison’s notes it was agreed to on September 7. We do have various drafts of the clause (that I will get to) and we can see before and after. The phrase was added late.

    We don’t have any notes from Jefferson (Jefferson was in France at the time), but a curious item has appeared in Jefferson’s papers from his drafting of the Declaration of Independence, an erasure of “fellow-subjects” replacing “fellow citizens.” This supports the Supreme Court’s contention in 1898 in US v. Wong that subject and citizen can be treated equivalently in the phrase “natural born citizen” and thereby getting the definition from English Common Law, where it was a well-known term of art.

    Back to the versions…

    May 29 (Pinckney Plan):

    The Senate and House of Delegates shall by joint Ballot annually choose the President of the United States from among themselves or the People at large. In the President the executive authority of the United States shall be vested. His Powers and Duties – He shall have a Right to advise with the Heads of the different Departments as his Council. (no qualifications stated)

    August 6:

    The Executive Power of the United States shall be vested in a single person. His style shall be, “The President of the United States of America;” and his title shall be, “His Excellency.” He shall be elected by ballot by the Legislature. He shall hold his office during the term of seven years; but shall not be elected a second time. (no qualifications stated)

    Breckinridge Long wrote in his paper in the Chicago Legal News:

    It was originally proposed in the Constitutional Convention that the presidential qualifications be a “citizen of the United States.” It was so reported to the Convention, by the Committee which had it in charge, on the 22nd day of August, 1787. It was again referred to a Committee, and the qualification clause was changed to read “natural born citizen,” and was so reported out of Committee on September the 4th, 1787, and adopted in the Constitution.

    September 12:

    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.

    Final draft:

    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. (in the final version, all the nouns were capitalized)

    I hope that helps.

    Rowena: What was the proposed wording in the Constitution before the arrival of the Jay letter to Washington?

    Is this in the Congressional record? Did Washington edit out born a citizen and replace with nbc?

    Are there notes in Jefferson’s correspondence, or his books defining a natural born citizen.

    It is interesting why the Founders used the term natural born citizen and not born a citizen if they have the same meaning.

    Does any one know the meaning of natural in natural born citizen?

  24. avatar
    gorefan February 18, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

    Rowena: Does anyone know the etymology the word natural? What did it mean to the Founders?

    The easiest thing is to look up it’s meaning in the dictionaries available to the Founders. Samuel Johnson’s 1768 “DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE”:

    NATIVE a. [nativus, Latin; nation, Fr] 1. Produced by nature; not artificial. Davies. 2. Natural ; such as is according to nature. Swift. 3. Conferred by birth. Denham. 4. Pertaining to the time or place of birth. Shak. 5. Original. Milton.

    NATIVE.s 1.One born in any place; original inhabitant Bacon. 2. Offspring.

    NA’TURAL. a. [naturel. Fr.] 1. Produced or effected by nature. Wìlkins, 2. Illegitimate. Temple. 3. Bestowed by nature. Swift. 4. Not forced ; not farfetched; dictated by nature. Wetton. 5. Tender; affectionate by nature Shakesp. 6. Unaffected; according to birth and locality. Addison. 7. Opposed to violent: as, a natural death

    NA’TURAL. f. |from nature.] 1. An idiot; a fool. Shakesp. Licke. 2. Native; original inhabitant; Raleigh. 3. Gift of nature; nature; quality. Wotten.

    Notice that native and natural mean the same thing.

  25. avatar
    gorefan February 18, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    Rowena: Many times the founders referred to the Constitution as “our ancient laws” whose ancient laws

    They were Englishmen for the most part, so English law is their legal heritage.

    Here is what Alexander Hamilton wrote in a 1795 legal brief about carriage taxes (direct and indirect taxes):

    He bignis his brief saying, “It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution.”

    And he ends the brief by saying,

    “where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”

    Here is what Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and former President of the United States William Howard Taft said,

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

  26. avatar
    Jammer February 18, 2012 at 5:28 pm #

    ballantine: Rowena: Was born a citizen removed from the Constitution and replaced with natural born citizen?
    No, another birther myth. The only language before “natural born” was introduced was “citizen” which obviously includes both natural born and naturalized like the eligiblity for Congress.

    @Rowena,

    Don’t expect a reliable answer from the regulars here. Ballantine (who should know the correct answer) did not provide it to you. It may be that Ballantine is ignorant of the history, or the intent may be to confusion or deceive.

    Alexander Hamilton’s draft of the Constitution provided that the restriction be;

    “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.”

    Jay’s letter was sent to George Washington. The suggestion made was that the Commander in Chief of the Army fall upon none other than a natural-born citizen. Washington, having previously served in the role of Commander in Chief, knew better than anyone else at the Convention the effect of adopting Jay’s suggestion. It’s one of the few things that were adopted with no record of compromise or debate.

    Maybe Ballentine can explain the benefit of restricting the office to only someone who was born in the United States. LOL

  27. avatar
    Rowena February 18, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

    I did ask to set aside bias. Lets not limit the meaning of natural to Samuel Johnson. Lets dig into this.

    Forget Obama. Put him out of your minds. Concentrate the meaning of natural.

  28. avatar
    gorefan February 18, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    Jammer: Don’t expect a reliable answer

    And then you provide a unreliable answer. LOL

    Hamilton’s draft constitution was never submitted to the Convention. Like most birthers, you have confused his June, 1787 plan with his September, 1787 plan.

  29. avatar
    gorefan February 18, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    Rowena: Concentrate the meaning of natural.

    If you look at Johnson’s dictionary you see a name behind each definition. this is the source for that particular definition. So for example, under natural we see,

    5. Tender; affectionate by nature Shakesp

    and

    1. An idiot; a fool. Shakesp

    these are the definitions of natural as used by William Shakespeare.

  30. avatar
    Jammer February 18, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Vince Treacy said on March 6, 2010;

    Hamilton was there, and he proposed that the presidency be limited to persons then a citizen or “hereafter born a Citizen of the United States.” Born a citizen. How many times does it have to be repeated. He wanted anyone who would be “born” a citizen after the date of ratification to be eligible. He wanted to exclude naturalized foreign royalty, nobility and generals.
    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-117066

    To which “Dig that logic and reasoning” responded with;

    If all it takes to be a natural born citizen is to be born a citizen of the United States, then why didn’t the Framers accept that when Alexander Hamilton suggested that simple wording? Why? Why did the Framers chose “natural born citizen” over “born a citizen” if being born a citizen was all that is required? I dare any of you to answer that question.

    Vince Treacy replied with;

    I think the framers did accept Hamilton’s suggestion, just as they accepted his grandfather clause, but in slightly different words. They did not give a reason, but the concept of “natural born” was in the common law and in Blackstone. They adopted a lot of common law concepts as American law. I think it was a change of style, not substance.

    All of the quotes came from the same thread. If you follow the link provided, you shouldn’t have any problem verifying them.

    Who do you believe? Vince Treacy (former legislative attorney) or gorefan (???)?

    What benefit is it to only have the role of Commander in Chief fall upon a natural-born citizen if all that means is that the person was born on the soil?

  31. avatar
    Scientist February 18, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    Rowena: Forget Obama. Put him out of your minds. Concentrate the meaning of natural.

    “He’s a natural” = born to do the activity in question; eg.. “The Natural” from the book by Bernard Malamud. later a movie starring Robert Redford, where the activity was baseball

    “Natural Born Killers” – born a killer from the book by Brett Easton Ellis, also a movie starring Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis

    “Natural born fool” = born a fool from the song by James Taylor

    I can only conclude that in plain English, natural born citiizen = born a citizen

  32. avatar
    Arthur February 18, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    What are you driving at, Rowena? This blog is inherently biased, insofar as it is focused on challenges to Obama’s presidential eligibility; therefore, comments will naturally gravitate towards the history of how “natural” has been used vis a vis political theory. If you want the discussion to go in a different direction just say so.

    Rowena: I did ask to set aside bias. Lets not limit the meaning of natural to Samuel Johnson. Lets dig into this.
    Forget Obama. Put him out of your minds. Concentrate the meaning of natural.

  33. avatar
    justlw February 18, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Jammer: What benefit is it to only have the role of Commander in Chief fall upon a natural-born citizen if all that means is that the person was born on the soil?

    To exclude naturalized citizens? Which would of course deny foreign-born aristocrats the ability to move to the US and try to buy their way into the presidency.

    Call me naïve, but I don’t think it was to protect the nation from the usurpation of a kid born in Hawaii.

  34. avatar
    Scientist February 18, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    Jammer: What benefit is it to only have the role of Commander in Chief fall upon a natural-born citizen if all that means is that the person was born on the soil?

    I question that there is any benefit to the clause at all. Who exactly has it prevented from being President? Where exactly was the dangerous person that would have become President, but for the clause? Schwarzenegger? Granholm? Kissenger? Make the case that they would somehow represent a grave danger. Go ahead…Please include in your analysis that no constutional clause prevents the following from being President: Charles Manson, John Walker Lindh, Bernie Madoff, Paris Hilton (in a few years).

  35. avatar
    gorefan February 18, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    Jammer: Who do you believe? Vince Treacy (former legislative attorney) or gorefan (???)?

    Actually I believe James Madison, in his notes on the Convention.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp

    He gives us Hamilton’s draft Constitution from June, 18, 1787

    And in in own handwriting in reference to the second draft constitution where he writes,

    “Copy of a paper Communicated to J. M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.”

    It is in this second draft constitution that you find the “born a citizen” requirement.

    But hey, if you think Madison was wrong more power to you. You are just showing your ignorance.

  36. avatar
    Arthur February 18, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    Thanks for the link to those interesting dicionaries of Old English. Now, what’s your point? “Natural” is Middle English, not Old English; it came to England via Fance after the Norman Conquest; it entered the French language from the Latin.

    Rowena: http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22English+language+–+Old+English%2C+ca.+450-1100+Dictionaries+English%22

  37. avatar
    Scientist February 18, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    justlw: Which would of course deny foreign-born aristocrats the ability to move to the US and try to buy their way into the presidency

    Of course there is a great flaw in that logic. Foreigners (and Americans) who want to influence the President or Congress don’t need to send anyone to buy their way in. They just send their money. And Citizens United makes it a piece of cake.

  38. avatar
    Northland10 February 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    Rowena: I did ask to set aside bias. Lets not limit the meaning of natural to Samuel Johnson. Lets dig into this.

    Forget Obama. Put him out of your minds. Concentrate the meaning of natural.

    Maybe I have spent too much time reading certain birthers, but I cannot help but get the whiff of e. vattel/dancingrabbit/draggincanoe/bushpilot1 here. I can not explain why and am likely wrong but… there it is.

    I think it is time to make some bourbon chicken and fried rice or maybe skip the chicken and rice and go straight for the bourbon.

  39. avatar
    Majority Will February 18, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Rowena: Forget Obama. Put him out of your minds. Concentrate the meaning of natural.

    I’m not sure how it’s possible for you to have overlooked the purpose of this blog.

    Did you catch the title?

  40. avatar
    Majority Will February 18, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    Scientist: Of course there is a great flaw in that logic.Foreigners (and Americans) who want to influence the President or Congress don’t need to send anyone to buy their way in.They just send their money.And Citizens United makes it a piece of cake.

    Good point.

  41. avatar
    gorefan February 18, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    Northland10: I can not explain why and am likely wrong but… there it is.

    I suspect you are right and “kind”.

  42. avatar
    RuhRoh February 18, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yeah, what was all that stuff about Obama being an employee of the United States of America corporation, doing business in Arizona?

    The Sovereign Citizen crowd is prone to a belief that any name listed in capital letters denotes a corporation or corporate entity. They believe this is true not only of the United States, but also of people.

    Sovereign Citizen conspiracy theorists believe that the use of capital letters when displaying names in any sort of official document represents not the person, but their corporate entity. They believe there is some sort of secret trust fund assigned to each person when he unwittingly enters into a contract with the purported US government. An individual could enter into such a contract with a birth certificate, a SS card, paying taxes, etc. At that point, the individual becomes a slave to the corporate entity and either has two identities (one sovereign and one slave) or is simply a slave.

    SovCits also have a conspiracy theory of “redemption”, in which the unwittingly co-opted human regains not only his sovereignty, but also that trust fund the US corporate entity provided.

    At least that’s my understanding of these nutjobs. 😉 There are several flavors of SovCit nonsense, so your mileage may vary.

    But, ultimately, I agree with the poster (whose name I have unfortunately forgotten) who said this nonsense talk of corporations and employees thereof was an attempt to establish jurisdiction.

  43. avatar
    Jammer February 18, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    justlw: To exclude naturalized citizens? Which would of course deny foreign-born aristocrats the ability to move to the US and try to buy their way into the presidency.

    Really? Foreign-born aristocrats have desires to be the Commander in Chief of the United States Army? And that would be an effective means of doing what?

  44. avatar
    Rowena February 18, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    Wonder why Jefferson translated “kin” to “natural”? Does anyone know?

  45. avatar
    justlw February 18, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    Scientist: justlw: Which would of course deny foreign-born aristocrats the ability to move to the US and try to buy their way into the presidency

    Of course there is a great flaw in that logic. Foreigners (and Americans) who want to influence the President or Congress don’t need to send anyone to buy their way in. They just send their money. And Citizens United makes it a piece of cake.

    The Founding Fathers didn’t have CU to worry about. They probably thought only people were people, if you can imagine that.

    Jammer

    Really? Foreign-born aristocrats have desires to be the Commander in Chief of the United States Army? And that would be an effective means of doing what?

    So the the theory went back in the day. Take it away, John Jay:

    “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    I can’t say whether foreign-born aristocrats have any such desires today, but in our fledgling nation, yeah, it was a consideration.

    Commander-in-Chief was just a bonus gift that came with the Presidency. Sort of like that extra roll of “travel floss” you sometimes get when you buy the big package.

  46. avatar
    Arthur February 18, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    Rowena: Wonder why Jefferson translated “kin” to “natural”? Does anyone know?

    Yes, I know, but you wouldn’t understand it.

  47. avatar
    ballantine February 18, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    Jammer: @Rowena,

    Don’t expect a reliable answer from the regulars here. Ballantine (who should know the correct answer) did not provide it to you. It may be that Ballantine is ignorant of the history, or the intent may be to confusion or deceive.

    Alexander Hamilton’s draft of the Constitution provided that the restriction be;

    “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.”

    Jay’s letter was sent to George Washington. The suggestion made was that the Commander in Chief of the Army fall upon none other than a natural-born citizen. Washington, having previously served in the role of Commander in Chief, knew better than anyone else at the Convention the effect of adopting Jay’s suggestion. It’s one of the few things that were adopted with no record of compromise or debate.

    Maybe Ballentine can explain the benefit of restricting the office to only someone who was born in the United States. LOL

    Why do people like you post who have done no research on the subject. I guess we all know that birthers don’t think they need to do research. The draft Hamilton submitted to the Convention was a brief outline and said nothing about eligibility. The draft you cite is the one shown to Madison after the Convention that no one in the Convention saw. Duh!!!. If you don’t know this, you have no business talking on the subject. But that is what we have. Idiots like Tracy Fair and you who have no understanding of law pretending to be legal experts. Now do some research and admit you are wrong and keep some credibility. Of course, you will not. Birthers just repeat the same lies over and over and over.

  48. avatar
    gorefan February 18, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    Rowena: Wonder why Jefferson translated “kin” to “natural”? Does anyone know?

    Be careful, this line of thought got bushpilot banned at Freerepublic.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 18, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    I ended up on Stephen Tonchen’s site today and it is full of research on this topic, but not comprehension.

    ballantine: Why do people like you post who have done no research on the subject. I guess we all know that birthers don’t think they need to do research.

  50. avatar
    ballantine February 18, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Jammer:
    Vince Treacy said on March 6, 2010;

    Hamilton was there, and he proposed that the presidency be limited to persons then a citizen or “hereafter born a Citizen of the United States.” Born a citizen. How many times does it have to be repeated. He wanted anyone who would be “born” a citizen after the date of ratification to be eligible. He wanted to exclude naturalized foreign royalty, nobility and generals.
    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-117066

    To which “Dig that logic and reasoning” responded with;

    If all it takes to be a natural born citizen is to be born a citizen of the United States, then why didn’t the Framers accept that when Alexander Hamilton suggested that simple wording? Why? Why did the Framers chose “natural born citizen” over “born a citizen” if being born a citizen was all that is required? I dare any of you to answer that question.

    Vince Treacy replied with;

    I think the framers did accept Hamilton’s suggestion, just as they accepted his grandfather clause, but in slightly different words. They did not give a reason, but the concept of “natural born” was in the common law and in Blackstone. They adopted a lot of common law concepts as American law. I think it was a change of style, not substance.

    All of the quotes came from the same thread. If you follow the link provided, you shouldn’t have any problem verifying them.

    Who do you believe? Vince Treacy (former legislative attorney) or gorefan (???)?

    What benefit is it to only have the role of Commander in Chief fall upon a natural-born citizen if all that means is that the person was born on the soil?

    Again, everything here is wrong, Hamilton never made such a proposal. He never suggested any language on eligibility. Birther lawyers cannot get one fact right. In the Convention, the only thing suggested with respect to eligibility was a native birth requirement. Hamilton was against it as was Madison who thought there was no great danger that foreigners would be elected. No one mentioned parentage or Vattel. To keep repeating this Hamilton nonsense is simply a lie that birthers will not let go of. If only one of them actually did some research.

  51. avatar
    Majority Will February 18, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

    gorefan: Be careful, this line of thought got bushpilot banned at Freerepublic.

    Interesting read on the subject:

    Blasphemy: how the religious right is hijacking our Declaration of Independence
    By Alan M. Dershowitz

    (excerpt)

    “What are the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God?”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=JUEbj9KaA7oC&pg=PA123&dq=the+laws+of+nature+and+of+nature's+god&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8mxAT7CqLYfqtgfdn7XXBQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

  52. avatar
    Jammer February 18, 2012 at 10:35 pm #

    justlw: So the the theory went back in the day.

    The way what theory went back in the day? The only theory I see is the one presented today, by you. Why don’t you show us something that demonstrates that a foreign-born aristocrat had his sights on being Commander in Chief, and how, after attaining the position of Commander in Chief he would gain control of the nation?

    Remember, Jay’s suggestion had to do with the Commander in Chief, not the Chief Executive.

    Jay’s Letter: “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    Two things are discussed there. The first was addresses by the electoral college. The second doesn’t say anything about the Chief Executive or President.

    I can’t say whether foreign-born aristocrats have any such desires today, but in our fledgling nation, yeah, it was a consideration.

    And the basis for your premise is, what? Show us some historical record indicating that the Framers had some concern about a foreign-born aristocrat becoming Commander in Chief of the Army. Once you do, then you can explain to us this evil plot would achieve anything of significance.

    Commander-in-Chief was just a bonus gift that came with the Presidency. Sort of like that extra roll of “travel floss” you sometimes get when you buy the big package.

    You should read what you quote. Jay’s letter doesn’t say anything about “the Presidency”. He would not have known that the Commander in Chief and the President would end up being a position held by one person.

  53. avatar
    ballantine February 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    Rowena:
    Wonder why Jefferson translated “kin” to “natural”? Does anyone know?

    More gibberish. Show us where he translated “kin” to “natural.” One more bit of nonsense after another. The word was not “natural,” the legal term of art was “natural born” and you can search all day and will not find a single legal authority in the early US that defined such term outside of the English common law. Of course, with no legal training, you don’t understand this but the Supreme Court has where they have said that “natural born” must be defined by the English common law. I guess it really doesn’t matter whether the legally illiterate people that populate free republic and such ilk agree.

  54. avatar
    Jammer February 18, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

    ballantine: The word was not “natural,” the legal term of art was “natural born” and you can search all day and will not find a single legal authority in the early US that defined such term outside of the English common law.

    Laughable!!! Show us the records supporting such a ludicrous claim!

    “Natural-born” IS NOT a “legal term of art”. “Natural-born subject” is, and so is “natural-born citizen”, but “natural-born” is not a legal term of art.

    natural-born, as was and still is commonly used, indicates something that is inherited (passed on by blood/genes). Do you really think a natural-born killer, a natural-born swimmer, a natural-born dance, etc. are those things because of the soil they were born on? Get real!

    The cutoff date for the common law of England was 1607. It was determined in 1793 by Justice Iredell in Chisholm v Georgia.

    Virginia only adopted the common law of England up to that point. That particular date had to do with the charter for the first settlement. Many other states adopted the common law of England prior to that year too. It was the fourth year of the reign of James the First.

    The blows your Calvin’s case theory out of the water! It’s also why Gray’s opinion in WKA is full of crap.

  55. avatar
    ballantine February 18, 2012 at 11:10 pm #

    Jammer: Laughable!!! Show us the records supporting such a ludicrous claim!

    “Natural-born” IS NOT a “legal term of art”. “Natural-born subject” is, and so is “natural-born citizen”, but “natural-born” is not a legal term of art.

    natural-born, as was and still is commonly used, indicates something that is inherited (passed on by blood/genes). Do you really think a natural-born killer, a natural-born swimmer, a natural-born dance, etc. are those things because of the soil they were born on? Get real!

    The cutoff date for the common law of England was 1607. It was determined in 1793 by Justice Iredell in Chisholm v Georgia.

    Virginia only adopted the common law of England up to that point. That particular date had to do with the charter for the first settlement. Many other states adopted the common law of England prior to that year too. It was the fourth year of the reign of James the First.

    The blows your Calvin’s case theory out of the water! It’s also why Gray’s opinion in WKA is full of crap.

    Ok, please cite me one authority prior to the civil war that used natural born citizen other than with respect to the English common law. Just one.

  56. avatar
    ballantine February 18, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    I can cite authority all day. Can you cite anything?

    “A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

    “The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.” Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

    “Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen… 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… 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. ” Lynch vs. Clarke, pg. 250 (NY 1844)

    Q. May any person be chosen President of the United States?
    A. Not every person; none may be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizenwhen the Constitution was agreed to, nor can such a one be chosen if he is less than thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided within the United States for fourteen years. Arthur Joseph Stansbury, Elementary catechism on the Constitution of the United States, pg. 78 (1828)

    “Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.” Lysander Spooner, The Unconstituionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

    “A natural (or native) bom citizen of the United States means a person born within the limits of the American Republic;—a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution denotes a foreigner who was then an inhabitant of the country.” Joseph Bartlett Burleigh, The American manual: containing a brief outline of the origin and progress of political power and the laws of nations, a commentary on the Constitution of the United States of North America, and a lucid exposition of the duties and responsibilities of voters, jurors, and civil magistrates, pg. 28 (1850)

    “But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…” Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg. 208 (February 1854).

    “This is called becoming naturalized; that is, becoming entitled to all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens, or citizens born in this country.” Andrew White Young, First lessons in Civil Government, pg. 82 (1856).

    “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.” Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dredd Scott v. Sandford,, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

    “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than ” the accident of birth” —the fact that we happened to be born in the United States. And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.” Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

    “The king of England, according to the rule of modern civilization, claimed as his subjects all persons born within his dominions : in like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen ; but the power of naturalization, which, under the king, each colony had claimed to regulate by its own laws, remained under the confederacy with the separate states.” George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866)

    Massachesets Legislature using “Natural Born Subject” and “Natural Born Citizen” interchangably in nearly idential naturalization statutes:
    Massachusetts Legislature – Chapter 43. AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH – February 17, 1786 (substantially similar language used in naturalization acts on February 28, 1785, July, 7, 1786, October 29, 1787, and November 21, 1788)……….that Michael Walsh be permitted to take and subscribe the oath of allegiance to this Commonwealth, before two Justices of the Peace, quorum units, of the county where he dwells; and thereupon, and thereafter, he shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.
    Massachusetts Legislature – Chapter 77. AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING William Martin and Others – March 2, 1787 (substantially similar language used in naturalization acts on May 1, 1787, November 16, 1787, June 19, 1788 and February 14, 1789)…..…that the aforenamed William Martin naturalized. and Elizabeth his wife, William Moch, John Amory, David /Smith and Elizabeth his wife, and their children, Viz. Moses, Ruth, Mercy, Lendall, David, Elizabeth, Hannah, Dorothy, and Godfrey, William Molton, William Haggett, Thomas Craige, and John Nicholas Rudberg, first taking the oath of allegiance to this Commonwealth, before two Justices of the peace, quorum unus, shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born

    Proposed Consitution Amendment, Massachusetts Legislature, June 29, 1798, reported in Acts and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prg. 211 (1897)
    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.”

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 18, 2012 at 11:21 pm #

    Dred Scott was before the Civil War, I guess Justice Daniels might be cited. But back up a few years…

    ballantine: Ok, please cite me one authority prior to the civil war that used natural born citizen other than with respect to the English common law. Just one.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 18, 2012 at 11:29 pm #

    As you have seen, it is foolish to call ballentine out, as you will be buried alive with evidence. You’re a loud mouth, but he’s an attorney.

    I’m not quite sure I understand your point regarding Chisholm v Georgia. Iredell wrote the sole dissenting opinion (i.e., his view lost) so citing this as some sort of precedent doesn’t make much sense.

    But more important is that Chisholm didn’t magically make the terms in the Constitution that were framed in common law language (See Smith v. Alabama) into something else.

    I bet you’re one of those “sovereign citizen” wackos.

    Jammer: Laughable!!! Show us the records supporting such a ludicrous claim!

    The cutoff date for the common law of England was 1607. It was determined in 1793 by Justice Iredell in Chisholm v Georgia.

    Virginia only adopted the common law of England up to that point. That particular date had to do with the charter for the first settlement. Many other states adopted the common law of England prior to that year too. It was the fourth year of the reign of James the First.

    The blows your Calvin’s case theory out of the water! It’s also why Gray’s opinion in WKA is full of crap.

  59. avatar
    ballantine February 18, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Dred Scott was before the Civil War, I guess Justice Daniels might be cited. But back up a few years…

    Justice Daniel’s citation was on public law requiring citizens to have equal rights. Had nothing to do with who was natural born. The majority did not address the subject. From Justice Daniels:

    “But beyond this, there is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of writers on Government or in any actual experiment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen which has not been understood as conferring the actual possession and enjoyment, or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment, of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political.

    Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says:

    Nations or States are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their mutual strength. Such a society has her affairs and her interests, she deliberates and takes resolutions in common, thus becoming a moral person who possesses an understanding and a will peculiar to herself.

    Again, in the first chapter of the first book of the Treatise just quoted, the same writer, after repeating his definition of a State, proceeds to remark that,

    from the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a public authority to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the sovereignty.

    Again, this writer remarks: “The authority of all over each member essentially belongs to the body politic, or the State.”

    By this same writer it is also said:

    The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society [p477] cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.

    Again:

    I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.

    Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.

    From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable, it must follow that, with the slave, with one devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political, there could be no pact that one thus situated could be no party to or actor in, the association of those possessing free will, power, discretion. He could form no part of the design, no constituent ingredient or portion of a society based upon common, that is, upon equal interests and powers. He could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave.”

    The Conculsion of Justicd Daniels after citing Vattel is “[f]rom the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable, it must follow that, with the slave, with one devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political, there could be no pact that one thus situated could be no party to or actor in, the association of those possessing free will, power, discretion. He could form no part of the design, no constituent ingredient or portion of a society based upon common, that is, upon equal interests and powers. He could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave.” The sole purpose of this quote is to show that slaves cannot be citizens, nothing more.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 18, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    OK, since you stuck your neck out….

    You are correct in saying that Jay knew nothing of the deliberations in the Constitutional convention (there was a pledge of secrecy during the deliberations). So Jay didn’t know about the Commander in Chief and the President being the same office. He also could not have known that the Convention would make an exception in Article II for persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    So tell me, did John Jay consider George Washington a natural born citizen or not?

    Washington’s father died a British subject. If you say that Washington “was” a natural born citizen, then you must admit that place of birth determines that status, and parentage does not. If you do not admit that Washington was a natural born citizen, then how can you explain John Jay writing to Washington, the commander of the American forces during the Revolution that he wasn’t fit to be Commander in Chief under the Constitution.

    I’ve been asking this question for ages, and no birther has even so much as tried to answer it. Will you slink away too?

    Jammer: You should read what you quote. Jay’s letter doesn’t say anything about “the Presidency”. He would not have known that the Commander in Chief and the President would end up being a position held by one person.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 18, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    In common use, the term natural born refers to a characteristic from birth. In the cases you cite, it could be genetic and it could be environmental. So in that sense, a natural born citizen is a citizen from birth.

    It is certain that natural born citizenship as apprehended in the Constitution could not have been understood as inherited since the first Congress had to pass a law to make such persons born overseas citizens, and there have been such laws ever since.

    Jammer: natural-born, as was and still is commonly used, indicates something that is inherited (passed on by blood/genes). Do you really think a natural-born killer, a natural-born swimmer, a natural-born dance, etc. are those things because of the soil they were born on? Get real!

  62. avatar
    ballantine February 19, 2012 at 12:09 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Quote

    I must be slow as I don’t get why these clowns cite Jay. He doesn’t define “natural born citizen,” he doesn’t say what a “strong check ” would be and he doesn’t say who “foreigners” are. What point is his quote supposed to make? The facts are that the only check discussed in the Constitutional Convention was a native birth requirement. The facts are that the term “foreigner” was used in the Convention and in all early legal authority to mean one of foreign birth. Slice and dice all you want, his quote in no way helps the birther cause unless you can find him defining any of these terms. This is really like 3rd grade logic here.

  63. avatar
    gorefan February 19, 2012 at 1:01 am #

    Jammer: “Natural-born” IS NOT a “legal term of art”. “Natural-born subject” is, and so is “natural-born citizen”, but “natural-born” is not a legal term of art.

    The Founders used the two terms “natural bron citizen and natural born subject interchangeably.

  64. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 3:34 am #

    Scientist: He never answered my question as to whether a moose needed a passport to cross from New Brunswick into Maine.

    The simple answer is ‘yes’:
    http://www.livingabroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Yellow_moose_cover-copy-232×300.jpg

    It becomes complicated, if the moose is drunk. I don’t why Mario did not answer; it’s right up his alley.

  65. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 3:45 am #

    Rowena: Wondering the difference between born a citizen and natural born citizen?

    Simple: A natural born citizen is when the mother refuses a spinal. It’s also known as natural birth. Also, the mother should be on an organic diet, during pregnancy. She should shop at Whole Foods, rather than Walgreens, as Fox and Friends have advocated.

    My cat is a natural born citizen. I was told by the SPCA here in Philly, that Max’s mother was not given anything during birth. And she had to go through it six times, in less than one hour. Kudos!

  66. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 3:50 am #

    Rowena:
    Was born a citizen removed from the Constitution and replaced with natural born citizen?

    Yes. By the same people who forged Obama’s birth certificate.

  67. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 3:57 am #

    Rowena: Maybe its the imagination of the script writer.

    No. Willard Mitt Romney did tie his dog to the roof of his car, for 12 hours. Know what’s worse? The car was a Chevrolet. He did not buy a car from his father’s company. Would you want an ingrate like that as president? Michael Vick is a convicted felon, and Willard Romney is running for president. Figure that one out.

    See this: http://spreadingromney.com/

  68. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 4:01 am #

    Rowena: Does anyone know the etymology the word natural?

    Ask any employee at Whole Foods.

  69. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 4:26 am #

    Rowena:
    Lets put our bias in the closet regarding the meaning of natural for the next hour or so.

    What did natural mean in the 18th Century. Many times the founders referred to the Constitution as “our ancient laws” whose ancient laws?

    What does the word Constitution mean?

    “Lets put our bias in the closet” Why not? Newton MacPherson Gingrich puts his ex-wives in the closet. And Willard Mitt Romney ties his dog to the roof of his car, for 12 hours. Romney should have put Seamus in the closet, instead.

    “What did natural mean in the 18th Century.” It did not mean anything. Whole Foods was not founded until 1980.

    “whose ancient laws?” The 10 Commandments. There were actually nine, but Moses threw in one more. A bargain, I’m telling you.

    “What does the word Constitution mean?” Fortitude. Ask any Russian.

    One Russian is a revolution.
    Two Russians is the Red Army.
    Three Russians is the Kremlin.
    Four Russians is the Budapest String Quartet.

  70. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 4:34 am #

    Jammer: @Rowena, Don’t expect a reliable answer from the regulars here.

    What?! I’m regular. I get plenty of fiber in my diet, and I always shop at Whole Foods.

    And, I’m a regular guy. My dog sits next to me in the car – never on the roof, like Willard Mitt Romney.

  71. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 4:59 am #

    Rowena: Lets not limit the meaning of natural to Samuel Johnson. Forget Obama. Put him out of your minds. Concentrate the meaning of natural.

    “Lets not limit the meaning of natural to Samuel Johnson.” Johnson wrote this: “Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”

    “You’ll adore Professor Eddy and his wife. They’re very entertaining, with a kind of a theme to their marriage. He specialises in Dr. Johnson, and she teaches Boswell.” – Woody Allen, A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy

    “Forget Obama. Put him out of your minds.” Forget Obama? He keeps me up at night, I’m telling you. Such insomnia, you wouldn’t believe it.

    “Concentrate”

    Q: Why did the Birther stare at the orange juice carton?
    A: Because it said “CONCENTRATE”.

  72. avatar
    misha February 19, 2012 at 5:10 am #

    Jammer: Who do you believe? Vince Treacy (former legislative attorney) or gorefan (???)?

    Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes? – Groucho Marx

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    No, but the birthers say what those things mean (suiting their own purposes) and then they rephrase the Jay letter accordingly. This is how Stephen Tonchen does it (immediately after the “Hamilton draft”

    Multiple historical sources, including John Jay’s letter to George Washington (1787) and Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), indicate that the purpose of the “natural born citizen” provision in the Constitution was to exclude “foreigners” from the presidency.

    From this information alone, we may infer that:

    Someone who was “born a citizen” of the United States might also be a “foreigner” in some sense; but a “natural born citizen” is not a foreigner, at least not in the same sense.

    “Born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” pertain only to one’s status at the time of one’s birth [27]. Consequently, the wording change from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” could not have excluded, from the presidency, persons who became foreigners in later life. The change could have, at most, only excluded persons who were “foreigners” when they were born.

    The change from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” would not have provided any additional protection against foreign influence in the presidency — that is, the change could not have barred, from the presidency, anyone who was not already barred by the “born a citizen” requirement — unless the term “natural born citizen” means a person who is not a “foreigner” (citizen or subject of a foreign country) at birth. (See Question 7: Original Purpose)

    http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm

    ballantine: I must be slow as I don’t get why these clowns cite Jay. He doesn’t define “natural born citizen,” he doesn’t say what a “strong check ” would be and he doesn’t say who “foreigners” are.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2012 at 8:53 am #

    Seeping northwest wind
    Brings cold and heavy snowfall
    And birther silence.

    Haiku by Dr. Conspiracy

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve been asking this question for ages, and no birther has even so much as tried to answer it. Will you slink away too?

  75. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 19, 2012 at 9:52 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    As you have seen, it is foolish to call ballentine out, as you will be buried alive with evidence. You’re a loud mouth, but he’s an attorney.

    I’m not quite sure I understand your point regarding Chisholm v Georgia. Iredell wrote the sole dissenting opinion (i.e., his view lost) so citing this as some sort of precedent doesn’t make much sense.

    But more important is that Chisholm didn’t magically make the terms in the Constitution that were framed in common law language (See Smith v. Alabama) into something else.

    I bet you’re one of those “sovereign citizen” wackos.

    +1 on that last sentence.

    But even if 1607 is the correct break-off point (it probably only is as far as the state of Virginia is concerned) that would not make Calvin’s Case irrelevant. It would be like a state court in let us say for the argument Georgia finding an earlier decision by a state court in let us say for the argument Indiana “persuasive”. We ARE talking about common law here, after all, ancient law as it has always been practised in England (and of course, the settlers of Jamestown, Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay all came from England).

    The problem solved by Calvin’s Case had been around for some time before 1607 (hm, I wonder why they called that town Jamestown, don’t you?). To prove his point about natural born subjects, Lord Coke argued that people who had been born in Calais and Tournai when these towns were under the governance of the King of England (even though according to Medieval International Law they were part of the Kingdom of France or the German Empire) had always been considered natural born citizens of England.

    Charles Blount, 5th Baron Mountjoy “had a right to land” in England and was allowed to be an MP He was born in Tournai in 1516. Tournai having been English from 1513 to 1519, he was a natural born citizen.

    1516 is 91 years before 1607.

  76. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 19, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    Jammer: Do you really think a natural-born killer, a natural-born swimmer, a natural-born dance, etc. are those things because of the soil they were born on? Get real!

    OK, I will get real. I know many people who are called natural-born Flamenco dancers because they were born in Andalucia. Joaquin Cortés, José Losada Sanchez. Sergio Aranda Santos.

    I know many athletes who are called natural-born athletes because unlike Obama, they were born in Kenya.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kenyan_athletes

    Until you can give me a list of serial killers where both parents were serial killers parents, I will think your assertion has no

    what is that word again?
    wait while I am trying to remember …
    oh yes, that is the “term of art”

    MERIT.

  77. avatar
    Whatever4 February 19, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    From “A compendious dictionary of the English language” By Noah Webster, 1806

    Alien, a. foreign n. a foreigner, a stranger.
    Allegiance, n. the duty of a subject to princes, or to the state in which they live (pg. 9)
    Citizen, n. one inhabiting a city, a freeman.
    Foreign, a. belonging to another country, diftant, not connected with (pg. 122)
    Foreigner, n. a stranger, one of another country, (an alien) (pg. 122)
    Jurisdiction, n, legal authority, power, a district (pg. 168)
    Native, n. one born in any place; a. natural, real (pg. 199)
    Natural, a. produced by nature, baseborn, easy (pg. 199)
    Natural, n. an idiot, fool, native quality or gift (pg. 199)

    So the John Jay quote becomes:
    Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of [aliens] into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a [native] born [freeman].

  78. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 19, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    Permit me to point put, as I believe nobody has done here yet, that “native,” “nature,” and “nation” all go back to the same root as “nativity,” i.e. the Latin root “natio” for BIRTH (hence constructs like “mother nature”).

    Translating dictionaries give, for “natio,” working from Latin to English, give:

    BIRTH
    BEING BORN
    NATION
    PEOPLE
    CLASS
    RACE
    TRIBE

    This reinforces the idea that “natural born” is an archaic parallel/reinforcing construction, which impatient modernity would spurn as redundancy.

    “Natural Born Citizen” means “not foreign-born and then naturalized,” and nothing more.

  79. avatar
    Northland10 February 19, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    Thomas Brown: “Natural Born Citizen” means “not foreign-born and then naturalized,” and nothing more.

    Quoth the raven…

  80. avatar
    Majority Will February 19, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

    Northland10: Quoth the raven…

    Joe Flacco? 😀

  81. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 5:51 am #

    Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

  82. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 6:10 am #

    Does anyone know how Alexander Porter Morse translated the “naturels” from the 1863 Droit des Gens.

    This would be the naturels located in chapter xix. I am asking specifically the French edition, not an English edition.

    Can this be answered without personal attacks. Is the goal of this forum discovery the meaning of natural born citizen?

    I consent Obama was born in Hawaii. I do not consent he met the subject to jurisdiction clause in the 14th amendment, or the holding in WKA. But that is another story.

  83. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 6:20 am #

    Rowena: Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

    Yes. It was a degree in Kinesiology.

  84. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 6:25 am #

    Are the members of this forum intentionally avoiding the meaning of natural born citizen. What’s important…the discovery of its meaning or protecting Obama.

    If we find the meaning and the results are negative for Obama will this site bury the story?

    I have Jefferson translating kin to natural. Is this this smoking gun…nope but its getting
    close.

  85. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    Rowena: Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

    Computer science

    Rowena: Are the members of this forum intentionally avoiding the meaning of natural born citizen. What’s important…the discovery of its meaning or protecting Obama

    Neither. It was the obligatiion of those using the phrase to define it clearly. If they didn’t it has no force to it. Plain and simple.

    Rowena: I have Jefferson translating kin to natural. Is this this smoking gun…nope but its getting
    close

    Speaking of Jefferson, would you agree that the Starship is but a pale imitation of the Airplane?

    Rowena: consent Obama was born in Hawaii. I do not consent he met the subject to jurisdiction clause in the 14th amendment, or the holding in WKA. But that is another story.

    Who asked for your consent?

  86. avatar
    Northland10 February 20, 2012 at 7:12 am #

    Rowena: I consent Obama was born in Hawaii. I do not consent he met the subject to jurisdiction clause in the 14th amendment, or the holding in WKA. But that is another story.

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you, Yick Wo v Hopkins:

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

    “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that

    “all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

    You may not like it, but, there it is.

  87. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 7:22 am #

    Rowena: Can this be answered without personal attacks. Is the goal of this forum discovery the meaning of natural born citizen? I consent Obama was born in Hawaii. I do not consent he met the subject to jurisdiction clause in the 14th amendment, or the holding in WKA.

    “Can this be answered without personal attacks.” How can I attack you? I don’t even know where you live.

    “Is the goal of this forum discovery the meaning of natural born citizen?” Yes, but it also gives me a chance to keep up my Borscht Belt skills. You want some sour cream with that, maybe?

    “I consent Obama was born in Hawaii.” So when did you make this discovery?

    “I do not consent he met the subject to jurisdiction clause in the 14th amendment, or the holding in WKA.” Are you a Constitutional lawyer? You should write to your Representative, and both Senators about your concerns.

    “I do not consent he met the subject to jurisdiction clause in the 14th amendment…” How did that work out for Amanda Knox? There is diplomatic immunity, and then there is everyone else. Let me guess: now you’re going to try to prove BHO Sr. had diplomatic immunity.

    “…or the holding in WKA” Who cares what you think? 69,456,897 Americans disagree with you. Read this: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/10/likely-scenario.html

    Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it. I hope Obama’s re-election gives Svetlana Orly Taitz a stroke. She’s already half of the way to a breakdown.

  88. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 7:30 am #

    Lets try this again.

    Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

  89. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2012 at 7:39 am #

    Rowena: Lets try this again

    You want to pretend the Constitution is a guessing game, go ahead. I’m not going to play. Look at the document, They aren’t shy about mentioning numbers:

    How many Senators does each state get? 2. Not “a few” “more than 1”, but precisely 2
    How long is a presidential term? 4 years, Not “a while”, not “until the cows come home:, but precisely 4 years.
    How much of an amount in dispute to require a jury trial? $50, Not “quite a bit” or “enough to hurt”, but precisely $50.

    So, if the intent was to require 2 citizen parents, then it would have said precisely that in those exact words. Since it doesn’t, you are out of luck.

  90. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 7:40 am #

    Rowena: Lets try this again. Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

    I apologize about Kinesiology. It was Electrical Engineering, with a minor in journalism.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2012 at 7:41 am #

    Doctor utriusque Juris, tum Naturae et Gentium, tum Civilis

    In the 18th century, several writers on Law were popular, including Blackstone (foremost) Vattel, Locke and Pufendorf. It looks like this degree uses the phrasing after the latter who wrote in 1688 the book:

    De Jure Naturae Et Gentium Libri Octo (International Law in 8 volumes).

    This honorary degree was awarded April 3, 1776, It was the first LL. D. presented by Harvard to a non-graduate.

    Now a question for you: Was George Washington a natural born citizen?

    Rowena: Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

  92. avatar
    Northland10 February 20, 2012 at 7:49 am #

    Rowena:

    Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

    Dr. Conspiracy: Doctor utriusque Juris, tum Naturae et Gentium, tum Civilis.

    Now Rowena, I suggest you turn to Pufendorf for research, not Vattel.

  93. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2012 at 7:50 am #

    misha: Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow

    Booker is smart and may be President some day, but not in 2016. He needs a term as Governor or Senator first. 2016 will be Cuomo.

  94. avatar
    Majority Will February 20, 2012 at 8:00 am #

    Rowena: I do not consent

    How wonderful for you.

  95. avatar
    Majority Will February 20, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    Rowena: Are the members of this forum intentionally avoiding the meaning of natural born citizen. What’s important…the discovery of its meaning or protecting Obama.

    Are those leading questions or statements?

    Members? (chuckle)

    You must be new here. And smoking is bad for you.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2012 at 8:10 am #

    The Socratic approach is ill suited for Internet forums like this.

    Rowena: Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

  97. avatar
    Majority Will February 20, 2012 at 8:13 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Socratic approach is ill suited for Internet forums like this.

    Sophism seems to be the preferred choice of birtherdom.

  98. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    Rowena: I do not consent

    I don’t care. I’m still going to make Alice B. Toklas brownies, whether you consent or not.

  99. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    Rowena:
    Does anyone know how Alexander Porter Morse translated the “naturels” from the 1863 Droit des Gens.

    This would be the naturels located in chapter xix.I am asking specifically the French edition, not an English edition.

    Can this be answered without personal attacks. Is the goal of this forum discovery the meaning of natural born citizen?

    I consent Obama was born in Hawaii. I do not consent he met the subject to jurisdiction clause in the 14th amendment, or the holding in WKA. But that is another story.

    Who care how Morse translated “naturels?” Another birther talking point that is based upon idiot logic. My six year old understands how a person a century later translated the French is not evidence that a single framer did the same. The bottom line is you have no evidence any framers were translating the french or a single one translated it the way you wanted. Far-fetched speculation is not legal argument. Duh! The facts are you cannot find one English-French dictionary of the era that translated Vattel in natural born citizen. The notion that they used an English legal term of art in “natural born” that was used in the US at such time solely with respect to English law and secretly came up their own translation of Vattel and didn’t tell anyone is so absurd it would be laughed out of any court. It you can’t see that, there is something wrong with you.

    And clearly you don’t know what holding is because Obama falls squarely under the holding of Wong Kim Ark. Why do you post on law when you don’t know what holding means? If you actually read Wong Kim Ark, you would know “subject to the jurisdiction” includes everyone born in the US except children of aliens and invading enemies. Try reading:

    “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”

    Two classes only are excluded. Is English your first language? You can cite Morse, but it was his arguments that the Court rejected. Most of us don’t pay attention to the side that loses. You do know that Morse himself said the decision indicated Wong Kim Ark could be President.

    Oh, and have you admitted you were wrong on the Hamilton draft yet. I know, you just go from one talking point to the next never admitting your points were BS.

  100. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    A question is raised.
    The reasoned birther response:
    The sound of crickets

    Haiku by Dr. Conspiracy

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ve been asking this question for ages, and no birther has even so much as tried to answer it. Will you slink away too?

  101. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 9:35 am #

    Rowena: s

    LO. So, again, you seem to have reasoning problems. Since you can not show a single person in such era defined natural born citizen the way you want, you have to come up with arguments like this which a child can see don’t prove anything. Do you really think what honorary degree Washington was awarded means anything with respect to how a term is defined in the Constitution? If you do there is something wrong with you. There were many writers on the law of nations and there is no evidence any provision of the Constitution waqs based upon any of their writings. Vattel, for example, believed in religious establishment and was against the right to bear arms. I guess since Washington got a degree in law of nations, we should re-write such provisions. Duh! How about term like habeus corpus, bill of attender, ex post facto, impeachment, high crimes and misdemeanors, due process, grand juries, presentment, indictments, juries, cruel and unusual, priviledges and immunites and the dozens of other undefined legal terms in the Constitution. I guess we have to define them by Vattel due to Washington’s degree. Oh, those are all English terms only found in the likes of Blackstone at the time of the framers, just like the term “natural born” would only be found in Blackstone and other English writers.

    Each time you post you make clear you have no actual legal arguments. You want to ignore that all early authority defined “natural born citizen” solely by place of birth so you instead want to define “natural.” Of course, the definition of “natural” says nothing about who is born a citizen but allows you to speculate on what you think it means. In law, speculation is not legal argument. If you can’t find some legal authority using your definition in the founding period, you are done. You can’t, and you are.

  102. avatar
    Arthur February 20, 2012 at 10:09 am #

    ballantine: LO. So, again, you seem to have reasoning problems. Since you can not show a single person in such era defined natural born citizen the way you want, you have to come up with arguments like this which a child can see don’t prove anything.

    Excellent reply to Rowena’s Dan Brown-like speculation.

    I wonder why so many male birthers assume female names (Rowena, etc.) on-line? Perhaps they like to maintain their World of Warcraft identities wherever they post.

  103. avatar
    Whatever4 February 20, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    Rowena:
    Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

    Yes, it was an Honorary LLD. http://www.harvard.edu/honorary-degrees

  104. avatar
    Whatever4 February 20, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Socratic approach is ill suited for Internet forums like this.

    I’m happy to play along as it gives me a chance to exercise my research skills.

  105. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    Rowena: Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

    Yes, it was an Honorary M.O.U.S.E.

  106. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    Rowena: Does anyone know the precise degree conferred by Harvard College upon George Washington in 1776?

    Whatever4: Yes, it was an Honorary LLD.

    misha: Yes, it was an Honorary M.O.U.S.E.

    Here’s the Commencement ceremony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNK5KzI48mM

  107. avatar
    Whatever4 February 20, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    ballantine:

    Proposed Consitution Amendment, Massachusetts Legislature, June 29, 1798, reported in Acts and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prg. 211 (1897)
    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.”

    I found reference to a similar proposed amendment (from NH) in an old newspaper last week, and it piqued my interest. John Jay wrote an intro into the article:

    The New York Gazette and General Advertiser February 13, 1799

    Gentlemen:
    I herewith lay before you a letter of the 10th from his Excellency the Governor of New Hampshire, with the resolutions of the Legislature of that State, which are mentioned in it. They [have] proposed alterations in the Constitution of the United Staes, in relation to two subjects, which in my opinion, deserve serious consideration.
    Albany, Feb. 5
    John Jay

    The alterations proposed by the Legislature of New Hampshire, and referred to in the above Message of his Excellency, are…

    2nd. That (in addition to the other qualifications prescribed by said Constitution) no person shall be eligible as President or Vice President of the United States; nor shall any person be a Senator or Representative in the Congress of the United States, except a natural born citizen, or unless he shall have been a resident in the United States at the time of the declaration of independence, and shall have continued either to reside within the same, or to be employed in its service from that period to the time of his election.

    Provided nevertheless, that in case the Senators and Representatives of this State in Congress, shall find that the amendment proposed above is not perfectly conformed to the sentiments of a constitutional majority of both branches of the National Legislature, they are hereby empowered and required to modify the same as to meet the sentiments of the final majority. Provided however, that any amendment which may be agreed upon, shall exclude from the office of President and Vice-President, any person who is not a natural born citizen, or resident in the United States at the time of the declaration of Independence as aforesaid; and shall also exclude from a seat in either branch of Congress any person who shall not have been actually naturalized at the time of making this amendment, and have been admitted a citizen of the United States fourteen years, at least, at the time of such election.

    I believe this gives a little more insight into Jay’s letter. He’s advocating tightening the requirements by going back to 1776 instead of merely the adoption of the Constitution, but giving credit for time outside the country if in service to the US. I find it ridiculous that Jay meant 2-citizen parents were required and never mentioned that requirement.

  108. avatar
    gorefan February 20, 2012 at 11:28 am #

    Rowena: Does anyone know how Alexander Porter Morse translated the “naturels” from the 1863 Droit des Gens.

    Rowena (de vattel),

    Here is what A.P. mrse wrote in 1881:

    “The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them); it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.” A Treatise on Citizenship: by birth and naturalization.

    Now setting aside your personal bias and allowing for the fact that you agree the President was born in Hawaii, which of those two categories (natural, home-born or alien, foreign-born) does President Obama fit into?

  109. avatar
    Horus February 20, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    I’m embarrassed that so many of the regulars here have fallen for Rowena’s BS ‘educate me’ goading.

  110. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    Horus:
    I’m embarrassed that so many of the regulars here have fallen for Rowena’s BS educate me’ goading.

    I know his (proper pronoun) game.

  111. avatar
    Whatever4 February 20, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Doctor utriusque Juris, tum Naturae et Gentium, tum Civilis

    Interesting — nothing to do with Vattel’s Law of Nations, of course, but it is an interesting bit of our history.

    “Presented to Washington on April 4th, 1776, the degree formally celebrates the general’s “services to the Republic” in ousting the occupying British from Boston, and “saving this country from the dangers which threatened it.” During the stand-off, which had ended weeks earlier, the Harvard faculty and student body were forced to evacuate Harvard Yard and relocate to Concord. Initially, the British troops lodged themselves in Harvard facilities, but soon Washington’s troops would come to be based there; George Washington himself was installed in Craigie House.

    “It was amidst accolades from surrounding towns and legislatures that on April 3rd, Harvard’s president, Samuel Appleton, alongside fellows of the Harvard Corporation, voted unanimously to present George Washington with the degree of Doctor utriusque Juris, tum Naturae et Gentium, tum Civilis. This honorary degree, the first of its kind to be conferred by the University to a non-graduate, was the second LL.D. to have ever been granted by the institution. While celebrating the crucial military victory, it also marked Harvard’s return to Harvard Yard.

    “The degree was penned in Latin by Appleton himself and meant to be presented to Washington the following day, who by that time had already left for New York. The text of the diploma was nevertheless published, in English and Latin, in a host of area newspapers later that month.” http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/revista/articles/view/963

    Whereas academical degrees were originally instituted for this purpose, that men, eminent for knowledge, wisdom and virtue, who have highly merited of the republic of letters, should be rewarded with the honor of these laurels, there is the greatest propriety in conferring such honor on that very illustrious gentleman, George Washington, esq., the accomplished general of the confederated colonies in America; whose knowledge and patriotic ardor are manifest to all; who, for his distinguished virtues, both civil and military, in the first place being elected by the suffrages of the Virginians one of their delegates, exerted himself with fidelity and singular wisdom in the celebrated congress in America, for the defence of liberty, when in the utmost danger of being forever lost, and for the salvation of his country, and then at the earnest request of that grand council of patriots, without hesitation, left all the pleasures of his delightful seat in Virginia, and the affairs of his own estate, that, through all the fatigues and dangers of camp, without accepting any reward, he might deliver New England from the unjust and cruel arms of Great Britain, and defend the other colonies; and who, by the most signal smiles of Divine Providence on his military operations, drove the fleet and troops of the enemy with disgraceful precipitation from the town of Boston, which for eleven months had been shut, fortified and defended by a garrison of above 7,000 regulars; so that the inhabitants, who suffered a great variety of hardships and cruelties while under the power of their oppressors, now rejoice in their deliverance; the neighboring towns are also freed from the tumults of arms, and our university has the agreeable prospect of being restored to its ancient seat.

    Know ye, therefore, that we, the president and fellows of Harvard College in Cambridge, (with the consent of the honored and reverend overseers of our academy) have constituted and created the aforesaid gentleman, GEORGE WASHINGTON, who merits the highest honor, DOCTOR OF LAWS, the law of nature and nations, and the civil law; and have given and granted him at the same time all rights, privileges and honors to the said degree pertaining.

    http://www.classicapologetics.com/w/LondonPost.10-05-1776.pdf

  112. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    Whatever4: I found reference to a similar proposed amendment (from NH) in an old newspaper last week, and it piqued my interest. John Jay wrote an intro into the article:

    I believe this gives a little more insight into Jay’s letter. He’s advocating tightening the requirements by going back to 1776 instead of merely the adoption of the Constitution, but giving credit for time outside the country if in service to the US. I find it ridiculous that Jay meant 2-citizen parents were required and never mentioned that requirement.

    Good find. The New york ratification convention proposed a similar amendment by Jay:

    “Toward the very end of the ratifying convention, on July 25th, Jay himself proposed an amendment barring all except “natural born citizens,” who were freeholders as well (with some specified exceptions) from eligibility as President, Vice President, or as members of either house of Congress, a restriction even more severe than that which he had proposed to Washington in July of 1787. Lansing’s effort to delete the restriction to freeholders was defeated, and Jay’s proposed amendment was adopted by a large majority, to be included in the final list of recommendatory amendments submitted by the Convention.”

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/exhibitions/constitution/essay.html

    I think this is the text of Jay’s Amendment:

    “That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States.”

  113. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    The interesting thing about the Jay Amendment from 1788 New York Convention is he says one must be a citizen “on or before the fourt day of July” 1776. Before July 4, 1776, we were part of the British empire but Jay still talked of people being citizens prior to such date. Shows that the founders thought their primary allegiance was always to their state and that persons born in a state was a natural born citizens of such state as St. George Tucer said. Madison made this point clearer than anyone. In the case of William Smith Madison that one owed allegiance to the community he was born in, i.e., Virginia. The allegiance to England was secondary and such secondary allegiance was transferred to the US government in the revolution. In Madison’s view, one would owe his natural allegiance to any empire or confederation that Virginia became a part of, but one’s allegiance was owed to Virginia.

  114. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

    Asked specifically how A.P. Morse translated “naturels” located in chapter XIX Droit des Gens.

    This has not been answered. This translation is located in his Treatise on Citizenship.

    Morse referenced the 1863 Droit des Gens in the French language, this edition is pretty much the same as the 1758 and 1773 Droit des Gens.

    It is my understanding this blog has written naturels cannot possibly mean natural born.

  115. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 4:12 pm #

    Rowena: Asked specifically how A.P. Morse translated “naturels” located in chapter XIX Droit des Gens. This has not been answered.

    Au contraire. When I was in Eilat, the French women went au naturel on the beach.

    Mon dieu!

  116. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    No, I don’t think I have ever said “naturels cannot possibly mean natural born.” I have said that “indigène” cannot be literally translated as “natural born citizen.”

    But take a minute and explain where your “understanding” came from.

    Rowena: It is my understanding this blog has written naturels cannot possibly mean natural born.

  117. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    The 1863 Droit des Gens ch xix an excerpt:

    “les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents

    citoyens”

    I was asking for Morse’s translation of the above in his Treatise on Citizenship.

  118. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Rowena: “les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents
    citoyens”

    Literally translated: “I can get it for you wholesale.”

  119. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    Rowena:
    Asked specifically how A.P. Morse translated “naturels” located in chapter XIX Droit des Gens.

    This has not been answered. This translation is located in his Treatise on Citizenship.

    Morse referenced the 1863 Droit des Gens in the French language, this edition is pretty much the same as the 1758 and 1773 Droit des Gens.

    It is my understanding this blog has written naturels cannot possibly mean natural born.

    What a dumb argument. No one has said it is not possible to translate “naturels” the way you want. Gee, my six year old has his own translation as well. However, there is no evidence that any framer translated it the way you want and no one cares how someone 100 years later who had his arguments rejected by the Supreme Court translated the language. So, show us any evidence that any framer was translating the french. Sow us any framer translated the French text the way you think Morse did. You cannot. Show any evidence than any framer was looking to Vattel rather than Blackstone. You cannot. So what exactly is your argument, you have no evidence that any framer was looking to Vattel, you have no evidence that any framer translated Vattel the way you want, however, you found one person a century later tha translated Vattel the way you and you think that means what? To any rationale person, it means nothing. The stupid runs deep here.

  120. avatar
    gorefan February 20, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    Rowena: This has not been answered.

    You do not need to worry about how A. P. Morse translated Vattel. IMO, it is entirely likely that the Founders read ““les naturels, ou indigenes” as “the natural born, or indigenes” or as “the natural born, or natives”. The problem for you is that Morse says there are only two types of citizens according to the Constitution, natural, home-born or alien, foreign-born.

    So answer the question, which category is President Obama in?

  121. avatar
    Rickey February 20, 2012 at 5:43 pm #

    Wow, this thread sure has gone off on a tangent. It’s interesting that birthers believe that a single translation is definitive of anything. I have two different translations of Jules Verne’s “The Mysterious Island,” both translated from the original French. Yes the two are very, very different.

    Getting back to Doc’s comment about Allen’s ballot challenge: “Clearly Allen exhibits a greater familiarity with the law than some other challengers, since he appears to have named the correct defendants in his suit.”

    Kenneth Allen is a retired attorney, so he knows how to file a procedurally correct lawsuit. He retired in 2007. The Arizona Bar lists his areas of expertise as “Business Law, Probate & Trust Law, Real Estate/Property.”

    http://www.azbar.org/findalawyer#&&U46R2jJnzV6bQ4GzhA0hHy1KzwnQ5sLC161wJoxXnRY=

    Just type in his first and last names.

  122. avatar
    Rickey February 20, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    I meant to type “Yet the two are very different” but I’m sure everyone gets the point.

  123. avatar
    justlw February 20, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    Rowena: Asked specifically how A.P. Morse translated “naturels”

    -. .- – ..- .-. . .-.. …

    DISCLAIMER: I may have possibly misread the question.

  124. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    Still waiting how Morse translated “les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens”

    I can see naturels, indigenes and parents citoyens .

    The translation can be located in the Treatise on Citizenship. Why not post the translation?

  125. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    How did a Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court translate the following?

    “les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens”

  126. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    The argument in this forum is..“les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens” cannot possibly mean the natural born or natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.

    .

  127. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Why is this forum avoiding placing Morse’s translation “les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens”.

    Lets see it.

  128. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

    A. P. Morse – Treatise on Citizenship Preface xi.

    “The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents”

    “Vattel, Droit des Gens book 1, chapter xix, section 212,”

  129. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    “Vattel: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Chief Justice Fuller

  130. avatar
    Majority Will February 20, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    Rowena:
    “Vattel: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Chief Justice Fuller

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/

  131. avatar
    gorefan February 20, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    Rowena:
    Why is this forum avoiding placing Morse’s translation “les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens”.

    Why do you continue to avoid what Morse said in the same treatise.

    Here let’s look at what he said,

    “The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them); it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.” A Treatise on Citizenship: by birth and naturalization.

    So please answer the question, which category (natural, home-born or alien, foreign-born) does President Obama fit into?

  132. avatar
    misha February 20, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    Rowena: Lets see it.

    I beg your pardon. I am NOT undressing in front of a stranger.

  133. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    Rowena:
    “Vattel: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Chief Justice Fuller

    Are you retarded? Morse and Fuller lost. Their arguments were rejected. They had no evidence that the framers translated Vattel in such manner. They had no evidence that any framer relied upon Vattel. Yes, there were a few losers in history that put forth a worthless argument they had no evidence to support and they LOST before the court and there argument has not been heard of since. Stop the presses, a century after the founding, a lawyer came up with his own translation of Vattel, a translation there is no evidence any framer agreed with or relied upon. I guess they would be surprized that aA century later another moron on the internet would think their losing arguments to be significant.

  134. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 11:09 pm #

    A. P. Morse – Treatise on Citizenship Preface xi.

    “The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents”

    “Vattel, Droit des Gens book 1, chapter xix, section 212,”

  135. avatar
    Majority Will February 20, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

    Rowena:
    A. P. Morse – Treatise on Citizenship Preface xi.

    “The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents”

    “Vattel, Droit des Gens book 1, chapter xix, section 212,”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/

  136. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 11:28 pm #

    Concurring Opinions: Mr. Justice Daniel

    Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says:

    “Nations or States are bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage, by the joint efforts of their mutual strength.

    Such a society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person, who possesses an understanding and a will peculiar to herself.”

    Again, in the first chapter of the first book of the Treatise just quoted, the same writer, after repeating his definition of a State, proceeds to remark, that, “from the very design that induces a number of men to form a society, which has its common interests and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a public authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each, in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the sovereignty.”

    Again this writer remarks: “The authority of all over each member essentially belongs to the body politic or the State.”

    By this same writer it is also said:

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages.

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the county, of parents who are citizens.

    as society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”

    Again: “I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.” (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)

  137. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

    A. P. Morse – Treatise on Citizenship Preface xi.

    “The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents”

    “Vattel, Droit des Gens book 1, chapter xix, section 212,”

    Vattel: “les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents

    citoyens”

    Morse: “The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents”

  138. avatar
    Majority Will February 20, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    Rowena:
    A. P. Morse – Treatise on Citizenship Preface xi.

    “The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents”

    “Vattel, Droit des Gens book 1, chapter xix, section 212,”

    Vattel: “les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents

    citoyens”

    Morse: “The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/

  139. avatar
    Keith February 20, 2012 at 11:56 pm #

    Rowena:
    A. P. Morse – Treatise on Citizenship Preface xi.

    “The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents”

    “Vattel, Droit des Gens book 1, chapter xix, section 212,”

    “And then there are other states such as England in which the mere birth in that country is enough to make the children of a foreigner a citizen,”

    “Vattel, Droit des Gens book 1, chapter xix, section 214,”

    See also : The Translation of Vattel from the French

  140. avatar
    Majority Will February 21, 2012 at 12:03 am #

    Keith: “And then there are other states such as England in which the mere birth in that country is enough to make the children of a foreigner a citizen,”

    “Vattel, Droit des Gens book 1, chapter xix, section 214,”

    See also : The Translation of Vattel from the French

    Good point. I also like:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/

  141. avatar
    Keith February 21, 2012 at 12:52 am #

    Majority Will: Good point. I also like:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/

    My link is the same as yours, just a slightly different visible label. 😎

    Do you think Rowena will click any of the three links and read the article?

  142. avatar
    G February 21, 2012 at 1:41 am #

    Unless AND until she does and responds to it, she deserves no other response, except to continuously repost this same link over and over again. It clearly addresses her questions and she clearly refuses to accept reality.

    Therefore, the responsive answer and its link remain the same. Time for her to give it up and come up with a new argument…

    Keith: Do you think Rowena will click any of the three links and read the article?

  143. avatar
    Rowena February 21, 2012 at 1:52 am #

    The point is..Morse understood Vattel’s les naturels, ou indigenes… parents citoyens to mean the natural born are born to citizen parents.

    This forum could not. why?

  144. avatar
    Rowena February 21, 2012 at 1:56 am #

    Morse debunks this forum by directly referencing Vattel’s Droit des Gens.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2012 at 2:01 am #

    Are you seriously suggesting that we follow a Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott) that said African Americans and their descendents forever could not become American citizens — not by birth nor by any act of Congress? Maybe that’s the sort of thing that floats your boat, but not mine.

    The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to remove that particular stain from American jurisprudence.

    I need to go wash my hands.

    Rowena: Concurring Opinions: Mr. Justice Daniel

    Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says:

    “Nations or States are bodies politic; societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage, by the joint efforts of their mutual strength.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2012 at 2:04 am #

    Perhaps because our translation is by a French lawyer who has studied Vattel extensively, and Morse is not a native speaker of French, or perhaps because Morse translated Vattel to support Morse’s own slant on things. Perhaps Morse didn’t know that “naturels” carried a different meaning after the Royal Decree of 1790 and used the later meaning rather than the one that existed when Vattel was writing.

    The point, however, is that Morse and Collins are supporters of a theory of citizenship based on international law (to such an extent such a thing existed) and the Framers based it on English Common Law. The Supreme Court rejected the jus sanguinis argument, and so it doesn’t matter what Morse said. He lost the argument.

    In order to have it your way, you would have to overturn 100 years of settled law.

    “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

    – US District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.
    – Tisdale v. Obama

    I think you will find this paper instructive:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/74254679/Citizenship-in-the-United-States-Under-the-Fourteenth-Amendment-Woodworth

    Rowena: This forum could not. why?

  147. avatar
    misha February 21, 2012 at 2:07 am #

    Rowena: The point is..Morse understood Vattel…This forum could not. why?

    I’m sorry, but I only conduct Talmudic discussions in Hebrew. I suggest you let go of it, because Obama is going to be re-elected, especially if Torquemada Santorum is the candidate or VP candidate.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2012 at 2:24 am #

    Sorry. I can’t read the minds of dead lawyers.

    Rowena: This forum could not. why?

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2012 at 2:26 am #

    I’ll see your Morse and raise you two Wongs.

    Sorry, a full house beats a flush.

    Rowena: Morse debunks this forum by directly referencing Vattel’s Droit des Gens.

  150. avatar
    Rowena February 21, 2012 at 2:48 am #

    http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924020027870#page/n15/mode/2up

    The link to Morse’s Treatise on Citizenship where he references Vattel bk 1 ch xix sec 212.

    page ix.

  151. avatar
    G February 21, 2012 at 2:53 am #

    More like a full house beats a pair of twos…

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’ll see your Morse and raise you two Wongs.Sorry, a full house beats a flush.

  152. avatar
    Majority Will February 21, 2012 at 3:37 am #

    The link to Morse’s Treatise on Citizenship where he references Vattel bk 1 ch xix sec 212.

    page ix.

    Irrelevant.

    “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.”

    By virtue of his birth in Hawaii, President Obama is a natural born citizen who also meets the age and residency requirements.

  153. avatar
    Rowena February 21, 2012 at 4:09 am #

    To go elsewhere in search of conjectures is evading the truth. The truth is Morse translated “les naturels, ou indigenes to natural born.

    This site said it was impossible.

  154. avatar
    bovril February 21, 2012 at 6:26 am #

    Tell ypu what “Rowena” you show us a winning Supreme Court case, a REAL Constitutional expert, lawyer or SC justice or a real constitutional treatise in the last 100 years that supports your wholly fallacious view on NBC.

    Now, remember I said a WINNING case, not a dissent, a REAL Constitutional expert, Constitutional lawyer or SC Justice, not a Mario or Leo for example

    We await your scholarly response with bated breath

  155. avatar
    Keith February 21, 2012 at 6:50 am #

    Rowena:
    http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924020027870#page/n15/mode/2up
    The link to Morse’s Treatise on Citizenship where he references Vattel bk 1 ch xix sec 212. page ix.

    The Translation of Vattel from the French

    The link to Lupin’s Treatise on the translation of 18th century French used by Vattel.

  156. avatar
    Keith February 21, 2012 at 6:56 am #

    Rowena:
    To go elsewhere in search of conjectures is evading the truth. The truth is Morse translated“les naturels, ou indigenes to natural born.

    This site said it was impossible.

    No it didn’t.

    What this site said about the translation is here: The Translation of Vattel from the French

  157. avatar
    Keith February 21, 2012 at 7:58 am #

    Rowena:
    http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924020027870#page/n15/mode/2up

    The link to Morse’s Treatise on Citizenship where he references Vattel bk 1 ch xix sec 212. page ix.

    I’m curious, Rowena, have you read Mr. Morse’s Treatise on Citizenship you keep trying to make something out of?

    I only ask because I wanted to draw your attention to Morris says on page 7:

    5. In the law of nations, “citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.
    This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction. (note 2)
    In other states parentage suffices, and the child of a citizen, (note 3) although he may never have placed his foot on the soil of his fathers, is likewise a citizen.

    Footnotes:

    1)… [this note refers to 4 which I’ll discuss below]
    2) It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be “within the jurisdiction“]. It was so formerly in Spain…
    3) The legitimate child follows the status of the father; the illegitimate child takes the status of the mother.

    So is this plain enough for you? Not only is Vattel not saying what you want him to say, but Morris is not saying what you want him to say.

    I actually quite surprised that you didn’t find this page and its contents, because footnote 1 on this page, referenced from 4, also references Vattel!

    4 discusses “doctrine of international law that each state warrants, or is presumed to warrant, full and complete protection to the life, liberty, and property of all the individuals within her jurisdiction”. This protection is presumed to include friendly aliens as well as citizens. The state is entitled to limit that protection to its own citizens, but not to aliens without the expectation to be held accountable to the foreign state. “…and it is the privilege of each state to determine what individuals possess the national character, and what individuals, irrespective of this character, shall be entitled to her protection…”

    In other words, each State is entitled to determine for itself who its citizens are and are entitled to afford or limit the protections it grants to its citizens; but it may not limit the protections it offers non-citizens.

    The footnote references Phillimore, Grotius, and Vattel (Lib. II Cap. 6 Sect. 7) in that order. And then give the example the Koszta Affair. Koszta who was wanted by Austria, was visiting in Turkey. He had renounced his Austrian citizenship and announced his intention to become an American citizen. Austria kidnapped Koszta in Constantinople (not yet Istanbul) and since Turkey had proven incapable of protecting Koszta, the USA intervened.

  158. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 21, 2012 at 8:02 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Doctor utriusque Juris, tum Naturae et Gentium, tum Civilis

    In the 18th century, several writers on Law were popular, including Blackstone (foremost) Vattel, Locke and Pufendorf. It looks like this degree uses the phrasing after the latter who wrote in 1688 the book:

    De Jure Naturae Et Gentium Libri Octo (International Law in 8 volumes).

    This honorary degree was awarded April 3, 1776, It was the first LL. D. presented by Harvard to a non-graduate.

    I would like to point out that while “natural born” could be called a tautology, saying somethint twice using two synonyms (like for ever and always), a technique often used in medieval legal texts (one word being the term of art in French or Latin and the other word being an Anglosaxon equivalent) – this does NOT apply to “Jus Naturae et Gentium”.

    Because Anglosaxon Common Law was born out of Natural Law but gradually incorporated ideas from other law systems, the differences between Ius Naturae and Ius Gentium are difficult to explain in English legal terms.

    Let me, or in fact Justinian, try to differentiate anyway (If He, Lucas Smith, is reading this, he may be glad to know I got these phrases from my Alma Mater, the link is http://www.rjhbrink.eu/Berolini/adagia/pf1.htm):

    phrase 1: ius autem gentium omni humano generi commune est. nam usu exigente et humanis necessitatibus gentes humanae quaedam sibi constituerunt: bella etenim orta sunt et captivitates secutae et servitutes, quae sunt iuri naturali contrariae. iure enim naturali ab initio omnes homines liberi nascebantur.

    My Latin is rustic, but I propose this as translation: Ius gentium is the law common to all humans: indeed, because of practical need and human necessities, human beings imposed this on themselves.Wars occurred and led to prisonership and slavery, both of which are contrary to Ius Naturale. For, under Ius Naturale all men were born free.

    Second passage, which happens to be interesting for the discussion above about Citizens United:

    “… hereditas personae vice fungitur, sicuti municipium et decuria et societas.”

    “because the inheritance acts as a person, just like a town, a town council or a society”. (here society is simply a group of persons, a firm, a union, …)

    So, under Ius gentium, a human being is not always a legal person, but a legal person is not always a human being either.

    In legal theory, the idea of Ius Gentium actually precedes the idea of Natural Law. Contrary to what most birfers believe, Vattel did not write about Natural Law but about Ius Gentium, le droit des gens. The German term “Völkerrecht”is wonderfully ambiguous because it can mean both The Law of People and the Law of PeopleS – the fact that so many experts on Ius Gentium were German or semi-German (Swiss or Dutch) explains why English has opted to call it “International Law” – it is no use pretending that Common Law is NOT at the same time Natural Law and the Law of People, so going for “Law of Peoples” for Völkerrecht is the better alternative. (check the Wikipedia pages for Völkerrecht in German and International Law in English)

    Most of what Völkerrecht taught before 1789 has become irrelevant today. In contrast to Jean Jaques Rousseau’s ideas. Interpreting Natural Law as the predecessor in human history of Ius Gentium. he saw most of the changes from Natural Law as corrupting humanity – his return to nature involved the establishment of liberty and equality (even for women). Though his apprach was conservative and even pessimistic, many of his ideas have been incorporated into present-day law all over the globe. Too bad about Citizens United.

    Contrast this with Vattel, who today is only quoted to illustrate how things used to be. But yes, Vattel was used by the Founders – on international law and inter-state law.

    OK, sorry for this proably unintelligible interlude. Please carry on.

  159. avatar
    Keith February 21, 2012 at 8:22 am #

    Not only, but also:

    While I am on the topic of 18th century Prussian/Swiss civil servants, for those birthers who worship at the foot of Vattel on the one hand, and believe that Obama lost any claim to citizenship he may have had when he went to Indonesia, please observe the footnote to Vattel 214 in Chitty’s 1833 translation:

    1.
    See fully in general, and of naturalization in Great Britain in particular, 1 Chitty’s Commercial Law, 123 to 131; 1 Bla. Com. 369; Bac. Ab. Aliens. A naturalization in a foreign country, without license, wilt not discharge a natural-born subject from his allegiance, 2 Chalmer’s Col. Opin. 363. But a natural-born subject of England, naturalized in America, was holden to be entitled to trade as an American subject to the East Indies, 8 Term Rep. 39, 43, 45; and see Reeves, 2d ed. 328, 330, and 37 Geo. 3, c. 97. — C. {A native citizen of the United States cannot throw off his allegiance to the government, without an Act of Congress authorizing him to do so. Miller v. The Resolution, 1 Dall. 10; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. S.C. Rep. 246; Coxe v. McIlvaine, 4 Cranch, 209; The Santissinta Trinidada, 7 Wheat. Rep. 763. The United states v. Gillies, Peter’s C.C. Rep. 159.)

    So in this footnote we are told that the law in Britain and America in 1833, less than 50 years after the constitution was radically different than the situation that Vattel describes. Not only do Natural Born Subjects not automatically lose their citizenship if they naturalize in another country, but that dual citizenship is honored by Britain, and it requires an Act of Congress for an American natural born citizen to lose that citizenship.

    So here is the good part: those of you that are demanding to see Obama’s re-naturalization papers (or what ever its called) there is a much, much, easier route for you that doesn’t include refusals by bribed civil servant conspirators to honor FOIA requests: just find the Act of Congress that dissolved his citizenship and Bob’s your uncle!

    It should be a million times easier to find an Act of Congress, than some random citizen’s naturalization details. Of course a million times zero is still zero. So we know that you will not be able to find such a law and the Government even acknowledged that Obama was a natural born citizen, way back in the mid 60’s. Good luck in your search.

    So you see, in essence, Vattel destroyed the Obama-lost-his-citizenship-in-Indonesia meme just as the Dutch state government was taking over from the Dutch East-India Company as colonial master, over 130 years before Obama set foot in Indonesia.

  160. avatar
    Keith February 21, 2012 at 8:29 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: OK, sorry for this proably unintelligible interlude. Please carry on.

    Not at all. It is very interesting. I’m gonna have to read it a few times to figure it out properly though 😎

  161. avatar
    Keith February 21, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    Rowena:
    http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924020027870#page/n15/mode/2up

    The link to Morse’s Treatise on Citizenship where he references Vattel bk 1 ch xix sec 212.

    page ix.

    There is more from Morris about Vattel’s view of citizenship in 10 on page 15:


    The language of Vattel is: [quotes Vattel 212].
    These and similar expositions of public or international law, … constitute… the doctrine
    jus sanguinis, which prevailed among the ancient free republics, preceding the feudal doctine jus soli

    He then goes on to describe the older method to be particularly appropriate to the conditions in Rome and Greece. He then concludes in 11 by quoting from Fields International Code page 132:


    “A legitimate child, wherever born, is a member of the nation of which its father at the time of its birth was a member; or, if he was not then living, of the nation of which he was at the time of his death a member, except as provided in the next article” (note 5)

    Footnotes:

    5) This is the law in most European states. Westlake, p. 16; Foelix, I. p. 54; but not in England or in the United States. However, in Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 New York Rep. 371, the court says: “Citizenship of the father is that of the child, so long as the laws of the country of the father are concerned.” And it has been held in the United States that the national character of the parent is of no importance, even in the case of a child born within the territory to a parent who is not, and has not taken any step towards becoming naturalized there, and who removes the child while an infant. Lynch v. Clarke.

    So, Morris is not saying what you want him to be saying.

    What he is saying is that the citizenship of the parents is of no importance in establishing the American citizenship of a child born in the United States. Foreign countries may adopt laws that make citizens of children born to their citizens that are overseas, but those foreign laws do not affect the application of American law to its born citizens.

  162. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 21, 2012 at 9:11 am #

    Rowena:
    To go elsewhere in search of conjectures is evading the truth. The truth is Morse translated“les naturels, ou indigenes to natural born.

    This site said it was impossible.

    You would not want to know what is possible in translation. Translators have been blamed for the death of millions – “Japan treats this proposal with contempt” should actually have read “Japan considers this proposal as inferior to an earlier one”. And there is the translator who committed suicide when he found out he had translated rubbish (er, the original was rubbish too in that case) that had caused the deaths of many women in child birth.

    The point has been made that NO translation before the writing of the US Constitution said “natural born”. In 1790, the French parliament re-defined French nationality as meaning “born in the country” and restricted the use of ius sanguinis to the descendants of the Huguenots – using the word “naturels” for both (as opposed to naturalized).

    So, between 1790 and the Code Napoleon which returned to ius sanguinis, “natural born” (citizen in the USA and subject in Britain) and “naturels” were both terms of art and meant (virtually) the same thing. This explains why after 1790, in 1797, an English translator could be tempted to suddenly switch the translation to “natural-born”.

    Translations after 1797 simply copied that. Translators often do that sort of thing. They do not have the time usually to ponder every word or phrase just in case some nutter would treat a philosophical treatise from a century ago as if it were the Bible.

    As my little note under Lupin’s treatise suggests, the 1797 translation switch is something present-day translators would avoid (at the very least, they would include a note saying why the translation is debatable). It is like a Danish, Swahili or Korean translation of Hamlet’s soliloquy (To be or not to be) that would by coincidence use a well-known phrase from a locally famous existentialist author. Whatever the meaning or meanings of “To be or not to be”, Shakespeare was no existentialist.

  163. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 21, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    Keith: Not at all. It is very interesting. I’m gonna have to read it a few times to figure it out properly though

    It is basically about the meaning of “Ius gentium”. Some birfers interpret it as meaning the same thing as natural law. That is obviously incorrect.

    But some birfers believe that it always meant International Law. And International law “trump”s national US law, don’t you know? Nonsense again. Vattel never thought of his subject as purely “International Law” – but as ius gentium, both “law of people”and “law of peoples” (or nations) – no surprise then that in that chapter on citizenship he goes on to say that in England the rules are different and the international community must respect that.

  164. avatar
    justlw February 21, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    Keith: Keith February 21, 2012 at 7:58 am (Quote) #

    I only ask because I wanted to draw your attention to Morris says on page 7:

    5. In the law of nations, “citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.
    This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction. (note 2)
    In other states parentage suffices, and the child of a citizen, (note 3) although he may never have placed his foot on the soil of his fathers

    Hmm.

    IANABL, but I believe I’ve seen their work long enough to have learned many of their key principles:

    1. Every source I choose is the definitive one, at least for the moment, and cannot be contradicted by any settled court case.
    2. Excerpts should be only considered out of context.
    3. Every word must be taken literally.
    4. Use of the plural always excludes the singular case.
    5. Any qualification for citizenship excludes all other types of qualification.

    Given these points, this reference to “his fathers” clearly means that only a male child of gay parents can be a citizen.

  165. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2012 at 9:29 am #

    Until you either apologize, or cite where “this site said it was impossible” you will not be permitted to post here. Your repetition of unsourced claims is becoming tiresome and negatively impacts the flow of discussion.

    Rowena: To go elsewhere in search of conjectures is evading the truth. The truth is Morse translated “les naturels, ou indigenes to natural born.

    This site said it was impossible.

  166. avatar
    justlw February 21, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    (Not to complain, but It’d sure be nice if the “preview” facility was a little more robust…)

  167. avatar
    misha February 21, 2012 at 10:30 am #

    Rowena: This site said it was impossible.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Until you either apologize, or cite where “this site said it was impossible” you will not be permitted to post here. Your repetition of unsourced claims is becoming tiresome

    “Rowena,” most likely a man, and a parrot like the rest of the anti-Obama crowd, read it somewhere, and re-posted it here.

    No one heard of Emmerich de Vattel, an obscure 18th century Swiss philosopher, until Leo dug him out of a dustbin between poker games. I suggest “Rowena” gets some recreation and help Romney tie a dog to the roof of a car.

  168. avatar
    Ballantine February 21, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    It is not legal argument to say it is possible the framers translated Vattel in a certain way. It is possible they were translating from some Chinese text. Courts don’t deal in rank speculation. The facts are is you do not have a shred of evidence that any framer or anyone in the founding era defined “natural born” according to Vattel, no evidence they were translating from the French and no evidence a simple persons translated it like Morse. The Supreme Court has rejected such argument and insisting it is the law is simply a lie. I guess you will go on and on about Morse as if the opinion of the losers in the citizenship argument count. And Justice Daniel’s citation to Vattel was not on who was a natural born citizen or a citizen at birth and would never be cited by a lawyer on such.

  169. avatar
    Arthur February 21, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    Losers attract other losers–the entire birther movement is built on that simple phenomenon.

    Ballantine: I guess you will go on and on about Morse as if the opinion of the losers in the citizenship argument count.

  170. avatar
    Arthur February 21, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    Justlw:

    Excellent observations on the strange logic of birtherism and the law.

    justlw: IANABL, but I believe I’ve seen their work long enough to have learned many of their key principles:

    1. Every source I choose is the definitive one, at least for the moment, and cannot be contradicted by any settled court case.
    2. Excerpts should be only considered out of context.
    3. Every word must be taken literally.
    4. Use of the plural always excludes the singular case.
    5. Any qualification for citizenship excludes all other types of qualification.

  171. avatar
    Ballantine February 21, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Arthur: Losers attract other losers–the entire birther movement is built on that simple phenomenon.

    Morse’s post Wong Kim Ark law review does not reflect well on him. He makes no actual argument, but rather a few asssertions that he could never support and are contrary to all evidence. For example, claiming the 1790 Naturalization Act was declaratory. He seems to acknowledge that “natural born” came from English law, but seems to pretend the term was only jus sanguinis. He uses the stupid “if they meant native born,” “they would have said native born” argument which a child could turn around and say if they wanted citizenship parents they would have said so. Morse clearly know “natural born” was the term of art and that it meant native born in English law. So he is either being dishonest or was unable to cope with Wong Kim Ark blowing his arguments away. He does recognize that the decision meant that Wong Kim Ark would apparently be eligible to be President, so he is not as dishonest as the birthers.

  172. avatar
    Arthur February 21, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    Excellent point, Paul, and one that only someone who has actually translated a well-known text would understand. This is especially true of passages where the meaning of the original text is unclear. Drawing on my own experience comparing translations of “Beowulf” to the original text, there is a tendency is for a translator to opt for well-established established choices, even when a range of acceptable alternatives exist.

    Paul Pieniezny: Translations after 1797 simply copied that. Translators often do that sort of thing. They do not have the time usually to ponder every word or phrase just in case some nutter would treat a philosophical treatise from a century ago as if it were the Bible.

  173. avatar
    misha February 21, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    Arthur: Losers attract other losers–the entire birther movement is built on that simple phenomenon.

    Grifters, shills and the gullible.

  174. avatar
    Arthur February 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

    misha: Grifters, shills and the gullible.

    “Gypsies, tramps, and thieves . . . but every night, the birthers came around, to lay their money down.”

    Apologies to Cher.

  175. avatar
    Rowena February 21, 2012 at 12:21 pm #

    George Washington’s Harvard Degree presented in 1776:

    “Doctor of Laws, The Laws of Nature and Nations, and The Civil Law.

  176. avatar
    Rowena February 21, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/

    Its here. You’re going to ban me because I proved you wrong.

    [You are wrong on two points. You didn’t prove me wrong, and I am not going to ban you.

    You said:

    The truth is Morse translated “les naturels, ou indigenes to natural born.

    This site said it was impossible.

    A review of the article you cite actually says:

    the literal phrase “natural-born citizen” is not present in the original French

    And here I would emphasize the word “literal phrase” not “anachronistic association with a term of art”. Doc.]

    You are the one who should admit their error. A. P Morse is an authority on this subject. We had preface page xi for quite some time..but the footnote was not really noticed until Spring 2011. I tracked down the 1863 droit des gens and it matches with the 1758 and 1773 chapter xix sect 212.

    What have you said about “les naturels, ou indigenes since 2009…you know the answer.

    What did Gray say about the authority of writers in Paquete Habana? Morse is an authority. You and I are not.

  177. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm #

    Rowena:
    To go elsewhere in search of conjectures is evading the truth. The truth is Morse translated“les naturels, ou indigenes to natural born.

    De minimas non curat lex.

  178. avatar
    misha February 21, 2012 at 3:21 pm #

    Thomas Brown: De minimas non curat lex.

    As a graduate of a Jesuit college, where Latin was still spoken in conversation, thank you.

    I’m sure “Rowena” is a supporter of Torquemada Santorum. We voted him out, and now he is inflicting himself on the entire country, by throwing red meat to “Rowena’s” crowd.

  179. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

    Morse is an authority on what, 18th century French? By what evidence to you assert this?

    If you are just saying that he is an authority on Citizenship, then I would agree.

    Morse wrote in 1881, and his treatise is called titled: “Treatise on Citizenship By Birth and by Naturalization with reference to the Law of Nations, Roman Civil Law, Law of the United States of America and the Law of France….”

    But there are many authorities. Did the courts recognize him as an authority on the acquisition of citizenship?

    An important case on birthright citizenship was the Circuit Court decision In Re Look Tin Sing, decided by Circuit Court (later Supreme Court) Justice Field. It was written in 1896, after Morse’s work. What authorities does Field cite?

    – Vice Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke
    – Judge Wilson in McKay v. Campbell

    When US v. Wong appeared in district court, it was decided in favor of Wong based largely on the precedent of In Re Look Tin Sing. Other similar cases were decided based on In Re Look Tin Sing and Lynch. The Supreme Court decided that case (then Supreme Court Justice Fields did not participate in the 6-2 vote in Wong’s favor because he hadn’t been on the Court when oral arguments were heard — but there’s no question how he would have voted). The Supreme Court decision in Wong is much more elaborate than that of Circuit Court in In Re Look Tin Sing. Was Mr. Morse cited as an authority? No, he wasn’t. Vice-chancellor Sandford was. Lord Coke was. Mr. Binney, Justice Matthews, Mr. Dicey, Justice Thompson, Justice Johnson, Justice Story, Justice Curtis, Justice Swayne, Justice Sewall and Mr. Marcy were cited, but no Morse.

    How is Morse a more important authority than Attorney General Bates or William Rawle?

    Rowena: Morse is an authority. You and I are not.

  180. avatar
    bovril February 21, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    Yoohoo…”Rowena”

    Still waiting on a response

    Tell you what “Rowena” you show us a winning Supreme Court case, a REAL Constitutional expert, lawyer or SC justice or a real constitutional treatise in the last 100 years that supports your wholly fallacious view on NBC.

    Now, remember I said a WINNING case, not a dissent, a REAL Constitutional expert, Constitutional lawyer or SC Justice, not a Mario or Leo for example

    We await your scholarly response with bated breath

  181. avatar
    Keith February 21, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    justlw: Given these points, this reference to “his fathers” clearly means that only a male child of gay parents can be a citizen.

    Your point is well taken, however, I must be transparent here: my quotes were not cut and paste as the ebook did not allow it. I retyped the relevant text and I may have missed a possessive making apostrophe in that word. I had better look it up.

    Nope. male gay parents it is.

  182. avatar
    Northland10 February 21, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: How is Morse a more important authority than Attorney General Bates or William Rawle?

    He says what the birthers want to hear.

  183. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    AZ – Allen v Obama – Denied without prejudice

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/az-allen-v-obama-denied-without-prejudice/

  184. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    the BEST

    Sterngard Friegen, of course, has no pity:

    I believe that the time has come for courts and commissions to stop treating the birthers with any semblance of courtesy. The birthers are seditionist, racist scum who defecate their calumnies prodigiously on the record and on the Internet, who accuse others of what they themselves are, and do so nastily. I believe the birthers have violated the social compact and should be treated like the cockroaches they are. With light to expose them and insecticide to get rid of them.

    Indiana was the first step in that process. I hope they are treated more peremptorily in the future. They should not even be allowed to speak once we know what their lies are.

    I would just as soon give time to a Holocaust denier as I would to a birther.

    MORE

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21979

  185. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    BRAVO! I wholeheartedly agree!

    donna: the BESTSterngard Friegen, of course, has no pity:

    I believe that the time has come for courts and commissions to stop treating the birthers with any semblance of courtesy. The birthers are seditionist, racist scum who defecate their calumnies prodigiously on the record and on the Internet, who accuse others of what they themselves are, and do so nastily. I believe the birthers have violated the social compact and should be treated like the cockroaches they are. With light to expose them and insecticide to get rid of them.

    Indiana was the first step in that process. I hope they are treated more peremptorily in the future. They should not even be allowed to speak once we know what their lies are.

    I would just as soon give time to a Holocaust denier as I would to a birther.

    MOREhttp://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21979

  186. avatar
    G February 24, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    Thanks for that update! I was just about to post a question to you to see if you had heard anything about what happened… you read my mind! 😉

    donna: AZ – Allen v Obama – Denied without prejudice http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/az-allen-v-obama-denied-without-prejudice/

  187. avatar
    donna February 24, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    GREAT minds……..

  188. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Nothing against gorefan, but usually I would believe Vince Treacy. However, anyone can make a mistake.

    Treacy was using Jill Pryor’s Yale Law Review article (The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty – Yale Law Journal 1988) as his source and it was Pryor who made the mistake of confusing two separate documents/proposals by Hamilton. There is no evidence that Hamilton’s proposed language on presidential eligibility was presented to the Convention.

    In his June 18 speech, Hamilton laid out his sketch of a plan of government. The plan is found in Max Farrand’s work, Records of the Federal Convention 1787, Appendix F in Volume III, page 617, entitled “The Hamilton Plan.” There’s nothing about presidential eligibility.

    Farrand also presents Hamilton’s Draft Constitution, which Farrand says was not presented to the Convention (p. 619).

    The document that has just been discussed is to be distinguished from the following, which was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.

    This is an example of a scholarly error that has been discovered, and which is reflected by corrections Treacy made to the Wikipedia article on the Natural Born Citizenship Clause.

    My thanks to Vince Treacy for pointing out this additional information.

    Jammer: Who do you believe? Vince Treacy (former legislative attorney) or gorefan (???)?

  189. avatar
    Ballantine February 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    People forget there is no official record of the Convention. All we have are notes, mostly from Madison. Madison’s notes clearly show the outline Hamilton presented to the Convention which says nothing about eligibility and the draft he showed to Madison after the Convention that included eligibility language. There is really no dispute that such language was never presented to the Convention. The birthers will not admit they are wrong on this because that is what they do. I really do fail to understand what point they are trying to make though since under English law a subject at birth was called natural born.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=CmwaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA197&dq=the+writings+of+james+madison++%22copy+of+a+paper+communicated%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZMlLT5TLJOPY0QGY8PCDDg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false