Main Menu

Welden appeals Georgia ballot decision

Georgia state flagThe Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored blog reports today that David P. Welden has filed a emergency petition in the Fulton County Superior Court to block implementation of the decision by Secretary of State Brian Kemp that Barack Obama may appear on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot March 6.

The Petition requests an emergency waiver of the time normally required for such a motion due to the proximity of the Primary Election. Van R. Irion argues that the matter is solely one of law since the evidence he presented was uncontested, and that he is likely to prevail on the merits. (He’s half right.)

Let me share one little bit from on the merits from the appeal document itself, under the section Errors of Law, and ask you if this makes sense:

Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Had the 14th Amendment intended that Amendment to alter the Article II definition of natural born citizen, they would have clearly stated so. Yet the term “natural born citizen” is not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment.

How does an amendment that does not mention the term “natural born citizen” shed light on the original Constitution’s definition of “natural born citizen?” Of course, those who were drafting the 14th Amendment said that it was merely declaratory of what was already in the Constitution. Indeed, the 14th Amendment draws the same distinction that the Constitution does, dividing citizens into two classes: naturalized and natural born.

In any case, we shouldn’t have to wait too long for results on this one.

Print Friendly

, , , ,

82 Responses to Welden appeals Georgia ballot decision

  1. avatar
    Bob Weber February 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    It will die a lonely and ignominious death like all the others, summarily dismissed.

  2. avatar
    John February 15, 2012 at 2:59 pm #

    “Indeed, the 14th Amendment draws the same distinction that the Constitution does, dividing citizens into two classes: naturalized and natural born.”

    Even if we go with that argument, naturalized citizens can include citizens who are essentially naturalized at birth because they are born on the soil thus perserving the definition of NBC stated in Minor.

  3. avatar
    John February 15, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

    “How does an amendment that does not mention the term “natural born citizen” shed light on the original Constitution’s definition of “natural born citizen?”

    It doesn’t. That’s why you can’t use the 14th amendment to explain the definition of NBC. the definition of NBC was reached in Minor and was never changed. The WKA case never claimed to change the ruling set in Minor and they certainly did not declare WKA an NBC.

  4. avatar
    John February 15, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    It will be quite interesting to see if the appeals court will address Irion’s argument. Judge Mahili IGNORED Irion’s argument and instead weaseled out of the situation by deferring the Ankeny. The appeals court may rule a simple allegation like in the Judge Mahili decision but provide no support for it’s decision. I believe Irion’s argument cannot be matched and the courts know it. However, no court wants to travel that path and rule that a POTUS who served his term is actually ineligible to serve again. We must find the courage of one judge who will uphold his oath and rule on the merits.

  5. avatar
    Arthur February 15, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    Bob Weber: It will die a lonely and ignominious death like all the others, summarily dismissed.

    Agreed. Their irrational argument is not worth the consideration of a response.

    One of my grad school professors had a rubber stamp with the image of a defecating bull. When grading papers, he would use that stamp to mark passages that reeked of B.S. Welden’s appeal needs a thorough stamping.

  6. avatar
    carlos February 15, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    From the Wong Kim Ark case, p.716- “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.”

    Based on this citation alone, the appeal fails.

  7. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    A sitting President running for re-election against whom these same arguments based on misreading 150 year old law were not made 4 years ago and this is an emergency? When I was in grad school, the departmental secretary used to have a big sign next to her desk that read: “Your failure to plan does not equal my emergency”.

  8. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 15, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    The 14th Amendment codified the common law principle of Jus Soli in recognizing that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens except those born to foreign ambassadors.

    Courts do not recognized “partial ” citizenship nor do they acknowledged “defective ” 14th amendment citizenship. Either Obama is a natural born citizen or is an alien.

    There is no “hybrid citizen” in that the person who is born in the United States is a “citizen ” but not a “natural born citizen.” In other words, stating that Obama is a United States citizen but not a natural born citizen is similar to being “partially pregnant” either he is a natural born citizen or not.

    If he is not a natural born citizen because of misguided notion that he was not born under the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States phraseology due to the status of his alien father then he must be an alien. However, numerous courts have held that native born children of alien parents come within the 14th Amendment citizenship clause.

    Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949) (“It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1″ ;Benny v. O’Brien 32 Atl 696, 697(New Jersey 1895)(“Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were ‘domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power.”

    “It was a fundamental rule of the common law of England, that persons born in England and under the allegiance and protection of that government, were English subjects regardless of the nationality of the parents. Those born in England of ambassadors and of enemies having hostile occupancy of a portion of English soil, were not subjects; because not born within the allegiance. An alien domiciled in England owes temporary allegiance in return for protection afforded him and, hence, his child born in England is born in the allegiance of the crown which allegiance, in the child’s case, is permanent. Such was the law of the colonies and the law of the United States down to the 14th amendment; and such is still the law here and in England. . . ..The 14th amendment affirms the common-law rule that citizenship follows birth. An alien owes allegiance to the United States while domiciled here, and his children born here are born in the United States and under its jurisdiction. Such allegiance is but local and temporary; still it is strong enough to confer citizenship on his children born here. Samuel Fox Mordecai, Dean of the Law School, Trinity College. “Law Notes –Brief Summaries of the Law (1911) page 167

    United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)
    “We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 818, 826 (1971)

    the Fourteenth Amendment did not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located here who might themselves become citizens; Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657. 670(1927)

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

    I think you’re really looking for a white supremacist bigot judge who will ignore the merits and rule based on his prejudice. Good luck finding one of those.

    John: We must find the courage of one judge who will uphold his oath and rule on the merits.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    The US Supreme Court ruled in Scott v. Sandford that it impossible for someone born in the country to be naturalized, and I have never seen where that has been contradicted.

    The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html

    Hoist on your own petard.

    John: Even if we go with that argument, naturalized citizens can include citizens who are essentially naturalized at birth because they are born on the soil thus perserving [sic] the definition of NBC stated in Minor.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    I think it more accurate to say that Judge Malihi was persuaded by the argument in Ankeny, and not by the one made by Van Irion.

    My opinion is, and lawyers may comment, that at Malihi’s level, a judge looks for precedent, not at making new law.

    John: Judge Mahili IGNORED Irion’s argument and instead weaseled out of the situation by deferring the Ankeny.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    I’ve seen that and other similarly-themed signs over the years. The plaque that I have, however, says “No amount of planning will ever replace dumb luck.”

    Scientist: “Your failure to plan does not equal my emergency”.

  13. avatar
    Obsolete February 15, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    Does John want to spank Judge Mahili as well, or is he askeered of getting Muslimi-Iranianated cooties?

  14. avatar
    JPotter February 15, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think you’re really looking for a white supremacist bigot judge who will ignore the merits and rule based on his prejudice. Good luck finding one of those.

    Where’s the antebellum South when you need it? Oh, for those heady days when the country was young and certain questions were unsettled. Finding a prejudiced judge is probably not a challenge, finding one so unprofessional as to betray his prejudice …. there’s the challenge. Such a judge would have ruled his last.

  15. avatar
    elmo February 15, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    Is it really possible for someone to be a lawyer and not realize that the 14th Amendment rectified the Supreme Court’s holding in Dred Scott that slaves born in the U.S. were not and could not be citizens?

  16. avatar
    JoZeppy February 15, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    John: “Indeed, the 14th Amendment draws the same distinction that the Constitution does, dividing citizens into two classes: naturalized and natural born.”Even if we go with that argument, naturalized citizens can include citizens who are essentially naturalized at birth because they are born on the soil thus perserving the definition of NBC stated in Minor.

    There are actually some that do argue there is a catagory of “naturalized at birth.” However, that argument revolves around those whose claim of citizenship comes from a statute, such as John McCain. Problem for the rest of your position is that the idea that Minor defined NBC is completely rejected by the legal community. The argument that you’re trying to make, that the words “born in” somehow includes both natural born citizens, and is a new naturalization statute makes no sense. First off, it totally ignores the very straight forward language of “born in or naturalized,” in favor of a hidden, secret, and convluated meaning. Secondly, it completely ignores the meaning it has alway been understood to have, and without exception, interpreted by the courts as meaning.

  17. avatar
    jayHG February 15, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    John: It will be quite interesting to see if the appeals court will address Irion’s argument. Judge Mahili IGNORED Irion’s argument and instead weaseled out of the situation by deferring the Ankeny. The appeals court may rule a simple allegation like in the Judge Mahili decision but provide no support for it’s decision. I believe Irion’s argument cannot be matched and the courts know it. However, no court wants to travel that path and rule that a POTUS who served his term is actually ineligible to serve again. We must find the courage of one judge who will uphold his oath and rule on the merits.

    It always is “interesting” and then BOOM………birthers smacked in the face with reality. Oh well……carry on, John the Birfer……keep hope alive….

  18. avatar
    JoZeppy February 15, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    John: It doesn’t. That’s why you can’t use the 14th amendment to explain the definition of NBC. the definition of NBC was reached in Minor and was never changed. The WKA case never claimed to change the ruling set in Minor and they certainly did not declare WKA an NBC.

    Your (and most birther’s) biggest mistake is that Minor actually defined NBC. It didn’t. No court has ever interpreted to have. The reason WKA never claimed to change the ruling set in Minor because the defintion wasn’t part of the ruling in Minor. And WKA most certianly did declare WKA an NBC. The lower court held WKA an NBC, the Supreme Court affirmed that deicions without exception. And if you actually read the rationale of WKA, you can clearly see that they were defining WKA as an NBC.

  19. avatar
    John February 15, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    “someone to be a lawyer and not realize that the 14th Amendment rectified the Supreme Court’s holding in Dred Scott that slaves born in the U.S. were not and could not be citizens?”

    That was the primary purpose of the 14th Amendment. It had nothing to do with altering the definition of the NBC stated in Minor. If you weren’t eligible for the POTUS before the 14th, you weren’t eligible after. As stated in Minor, there was a definite definition of NBC which Minor stated – born on soil to citizen parents. There was no doubt. Minor stated that being a “citizen” could be more flexible but chose not to discuss in Minor. After the passage of the 14th, WKA case answered this question but only in so far to define “Citizen” and the mechanisms for it – birth or naturalization. The WKA court never ruled WK a NBC and never changed the definition of NBC stated in Minor. NBC is a special subset of “citizen” under the 2 mechanism functionality of citizenship – birth or naturalization. It was empathically stated in Minor and never changed.

  20. avatar
    John February 15, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    US Law does recognize the difference between Native Born (Citizenship by Birth), Naturalized (Citizenship by Statute) and Natural Born (Birth on Soil to Citizens of the Soil)

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

  21. avatar
    JoZeppy February 15, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

    John: It will be quite interesting to see if the appeals court will address Irion’s argument. Judge Mahili IGNORED Irion’s argument and instead weaseled out of the situation by deferring the Ankeny. The appeals court may rule a simple allegation like in the Judge Mahili decision but provide no support for it’s decision. I believe Irion’s argument cannot be matched and the courts know it. However, no court wants to travel that path and rule that a POTUS who served his term is actually ineligible to serve again. We must find the courage of one judge who will uphold his oath and rule on the merits.

    Actually, he didn’t ignore Irion’s argument. Rather, he found it without merit. That’s why he cited the persuasive precident of Ankeny, interpreting the binding precident of WKA. That’s what judges do. The come to conclusions based on the law, and tell you what those conclusions are. What you believe about Irion’s argument simply proves either you are delusional, or completely ignorant of the law. First birthers complained that judges that dismissed cases on the Constitutional requirement of standing were cowards, paid off, or threatened, Now that judges are ruling against you based on the definition of NBC, you’re still living in denial and making up new excuses. You’re getting your judgments based on the merits, and you’re still losing without exception. Let’s see what the options are….every judge out there is a spineless coward, or you are just wrong on the law.

    I wonder which is more likely?

  22. avatar
    John February 15, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    “every judge out there is a spineless coward”

    Very possible. Some may believe it is impossible that a judge would rule Obama ineligible to rerun when he has served his full first term in office as the POTUS. Just wrong on the law…maybe but unlikely since most decisions on the issue have been completely absurd.

  23. avatar
    Arthur February 15, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    Atticus Finch: The 14th Amendment codified the common law principle of Jus Soli in recognizing that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens except those born to foreign ambassadors.

    Atticus, I scoffed the idea of offering a reply to Welden, but I got a lot out of your response, so thanks for your time and craft.

  24. avatar
    donna February 15, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    from ga’s sos BEFORE the decision

    georgia law and burden of proof:

    (having read it AND terry, i would have NEVER filed a challenge ….. only a MORON would)

    O.C.G.A. 21-2-529 If the result of the primary or election is confirmed, the petition dismissed, or the prosecution fails, judgment SHALL be rendered against the contestant for costs

    Burden of proof

    FACT: Recently, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Mr. Obama is not qualified to run for President and should not appear on Georgia’s ballot.

    LAW: See Terry v. Handel, In the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Civil Action File No. 2008CV158774.

    FACT: On October 24, 2008, the Court entered an Order recognizing that in Georgia, as elsewhere in the United States, voters cast their ballots for “presidential electors,” rather than directly for a candidate, when voting for the office of President of the United States.

    LAW: See, e.g., U.S. Const. art. II, 1, cl. 3; O.C.G.A. 21-2-172.

    FACT: Because of this, the Secretary of State of Georgia does not have the authority to refuse to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President of the United States when such individual has been properly nominated by a political party.

    LAW: See O.C.G.A. 21-2-172 to 21-2-200.

    FACT: Rather, Georgia law imposes duties simply for the examination of presidential electors.

    LAW: O.C.G.A. 21-2-172.

    FACT: The political parties’ candidates for President of the United States are typically determined through a political party’s convention.

    LAW: O.C.G.A. 21-2-191 to 21-2-200.

    CONCLUSION/FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

    Therefore, any concerns you may have regarding the qualifications of Mr. Obama to remain on Georgia’s ballot as a candidate for President of the United States should be directed to the Democratic National Party.

  25. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    JoZeppy: The lower court held WKA an NBC, the Supreme Court affirmed that deicions without exception.And if you actually read the rationale of WKA, you can clearly see that they were defining WKA as an NBC.

    The following single question was answered in the affirmative:

    “the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have apermanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution: „All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’ For the reasons above stated, this court is of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.” WKA

    “Had Mr. Wong Kim Ark been a natural born citizen then the Court would not have had to resort to the 14th Amendment in order to find that he was a “citizen.” Because Mr. Ark was not a natural born citizen, the WKA court had no reason to construe the term natural born citizen in order to answer the question: Was Mr. Ark a citizen under the 14th Amendment? Therefore, any discussion within the WKA opinion that couldpossibly be construed to alter the Article II term natural born citizen, was unnecessary to reachthe WKA holding and was, by definition, dicta. See Black’s Law Dictionary 465 (Bryan A.Garner e., 7th ed., West 1999)(defining Dictum Gratis).Rather than construing the definition of the term “natural born citizen” under Article II, the WKA Court was construing the term “citizen” under the 14th Amendment. Regardless of theanswer to the question answered by the WKA Court, it does nothing to change the requirementsfor the office of President” Irion’s appeal doc.

  26. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

    John: “Judge Mahili IGNORED Irion’s argument and instead weaseled out of the situation…”

    Mmmmm! Birther tears! So yummy! Cry some more so I can take a bath in them!! The frustration! The anguish! Mmmmmm, delicious!

  27. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    yutube: Had Mr. Wong Kim Ark been a natural born citizen then the Court would not have had to resort to the 14th Amendment in order to find that he was a “citizen.”

    Wong would have been a citizen had he been born prior to the 14th Amendment, because any free person born in the US was ALWAYS a citizen; only slaves were born in the US but not considered citizens. The only reason Wong even came before the court was the Chinese Exclusion Act.

    Anyway, since Obama was on the ballot in 2008 and all of these laws are ancient where was Irion in 2008?

  28. avatar
    y_p_w February 15, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The US Supreme Court ruled in Scott v. Sandford that it impossible for someone born in the country to be naturalized, and I have never seen where that has been contradicted.

    It might be possible, and for reasons that have been discussed many times here. If people are born in the US, but not considered jus soli US citizens due to the diplomatic status of their parents, would it be possible for such people to become naturalized? However, I think it isn’t within the realm of possibility for such people to simply use their birth certificates as proof of citizenship documents, with nobody bothering to question that they are citizens.

    It probably is possible for a non-citizen US national to become naturalized. I couldn’t find anything from USCIS that specifically addresses that, but I think it’s possible. The only thing that a non-citizen US national can’t legally do is vote in a US election or run for office. They can work and travel freely.

  29. avatar
    John February 15, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    Irion also discusses the idea of statutory construction that would prohibit the 14th Amendment to declare anyone born by birth a Natural Born Citizen. The best the 14th Amendment can do is to declare by birth or naturalization someone “Citizen” of the United States. However, “Natural Born Citizen” has its meaning and construction elsewhere in the Constitution and in only one place – POTUS eligibility. The Minor court has already explained the definition of NBC. The WKA case doesn’t claim to disturb this meaning and by statutory construction is forbidden to use the 14th Admendment to give NBC additional meaning.

  30. avatar
    gorefan February 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    yutube: The following single question was answered in the affirmative:

    And in the Minor v. Happersett case:

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

    MInor is not precedent for the definition of NBC.

  31. avatar
    Ballantine February 15, 2012 at 7:45 pm #

    “Had Mr. Wong Kim Ark been a natural born citizen then the Court would not have had to resort to the 14th Amendment in order to find that he was a “citizen.” Because Mr. Ark was not a natural born citizen, the WKA court had no reason to construe the term natural born citizen in order to answer the question: Was Mr. Ark a citizen under the 14th Amendment?”

    What morons. The Court was asked to constue the 14th Amendment in the question presented, so obviously it addressed the question presented. Duh!!! However, the Court told us that the 14th Amendment was simply declaratory of pre-existing law under the original Constitution and hence spent the first 22 pages of the opinion discussing what the existing law was under the original Constitution and telling us that a person of WKA’s status would be a citizen under the original constituion because it adopted the English common law rule in the NBC clause. And if you ever go to law school you might find out that what is precedent is not limited to the single question answered by the Court but also included the legal propositions necessary to obtain that result. I know this is way over your head as well as Donofrio’s head.

    If you actually read the opinion it is pretty simply. We adopted the English common law in the NBC clause, the 14th amendment restated the same rule, clarifying it applied to blacks, WKA was a citizen under the original Constitution as well as the under the 14th Amendmnet. Notice the court never says WKA was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Rather it spent half the opinion saying a person of his status would be a citizen under the original Constituion and the other half saying a person of his status would be one under the 14th Amendment. Same rule, same type of citizen. Donofrio’s nonsense that you quote is really quite embarrassing and he doesn’t appear to have the guts to debate such with any actual attorney for obvious reasons..

  32. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    Ballantine: What morons. The Court was asked to constue the 14th Amendment in the question presented, so obviously it addressed the question presented. Duh!!!

    uuuhhh, the Court was not obligated to construe the 14th Amendment in the question presented.

  33. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    Ballantine: Donofrio’s nonsense that you quote is really quite embarrassing and he doesn’t appear to have the guts to debate such with any actual attorney for obvious reasons..

    That was not Donofrio’s quote…

  34. avatar
    Ballantine February 15, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    yutube: uuuhhh, the Court was not obligated to construe the 14th Amendment in the question presented.

    You clearly don’t understand law. it doesn’t matter what the Court was obligated to do, it was what it did. It was asked to construe the 14th Amendment and decided to construe both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment telling us WKA was both a citizen under the Constitution both before and after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. And none of the discussion of who is an NBC is dicta as it is clearly necessary to the determination of citizenship both before and after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Has any birther actually read WKA? Is any birther smart enough to understand what it said?

    Do you think the court in Minor was obligated to discuss citizenship? in fact, are you aware that none of such court’s discussion of citizenship was about Virginia Minor’s citizenship as such was stated a stipulated fact in the decision as well as the decision below. I suggest you spend some time learning to read case law.

  35. avatar
    Ballantine February 15, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    yutube: That was not Donofrio’s quote…

    Donofrio has been making that idiot argument for months. i would not want to claim ownership of it if I were you.

  36. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    gorefan: And in the Minor v. Happersett case:

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

    MInor is not precedent for the definition of NBC.

    “To determine then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the
    Amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves
    together to form a nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.” Minor v.
    Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 166 (1874)

    “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 163, this Court held that the word “citizen” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the 14th Amendment as since.” Lockwood, Ex Parte, 154 U.S. 116 (1894).

  37. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 8:52 pm #

    Ballantine: Donofrio has been making that idiot argument for months.i would not want to claim ownership of it if I were you.

    That was Van Irion’s quote, unless Leo has a clone?

  38. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    Ballantine: it doesn’t matter what the Court was obligated to do

    The court is not obligated to answer the question presented, period. It is you that pretend to know the law, anonymous attorney.

  39. avatar
    Northland10 February 15, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    yutube: “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 163, this Court held that the word “citizen” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the 14th Amendment as since.” Lockwood, Ex Parte, 154 U.S. 116 (1894).

    If the court were to say, “dogs have always been mammals” would that mean that cats are not mammals?

    And, btw, you forgot to include the rest of the quote which goes back to the original holding, whether suffrage is a right.

  40. avatar
    G February 15, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    All the Birther attorneys who’ve adopted this “2 parent nonsense” are pretty much just clones of the myths that Leo hatched up in these regards….

    yutube: That was Van Irion’s quote, unless Leo has a clone?

  41. avatar
    Northland10 February 15, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    Ballantine: And if you ever go to law school you might find out that what is precedent is not limited to the single question answered by the Court but also included the legal propositions necessary to obtain that result.

    Actually, study, research and listening can also help you find this out.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    While I appreciate what you are saying, looking at it another way, I don’t think that YuTube learning to read case law would make any difference.I didn’t help Apuzzo.

    Ballantine: I suggest you spend some time learning to read case law.

  43. avatar
    Ballantine February 15, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    yutube: “To determine then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of theAmendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselvestogether to form a nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.” Minor v.Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 166 (1874)“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 163, this Court held that the word “citizen” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the 14th Amendment as since.” Lockwood, Ex Parte, 154 U.S. 116 (1894).

    So, the Court was discussing that women were always citizens, not Virginia Minor’s citizenship. Try reading the case. Anything about natural born citizensyhip is orbiter dicta if you understand what such term means. Unless you cannot read, the court expressly declined to address the citizenship status of children of aliens and in no way said they were not natural born. Any actual court or attorney would understand that.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    How can court rulings that don’t t mention “natural born citizen” be evidence that Minor was a precedent for defining the term?

    yutube: “To determine then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the
    Amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves
    together to form a nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.” Minor v.
    Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 166 (1874)

    “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 163, this Court held that the word “citizen” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the 14th Amendment as since.” Lockwood, Ex Parte, 154 U.S. 116 (1894).

  45. avatar
    Ballantine February 15, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    yutube: The court is not obligated to answer the question presented, period. It is you that pretend to know the law, anonymous attorney.

    Gibberish. The Court in Minor was not obligated to discuss citizenship as such was admitted in the original pleadings. What matters is what and how the court ruled, not whether such is necessary and whether such is dicta or not. Law school 101. And the Court always addresses the question presented to it as such is why it accepts the case. So what exactly is your argument? The Court didn’t have to define both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment? Well, it did andit said such was necessary as the English common law formed the basis of the law under the original Constitution and the 14th Amendment. Again, are you not able to understand what the Court said at all? I guess you can keep calling hte judges that say you are wrong are corrupt as you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about.

  46. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

    Ballantine: And none of the discussion of who is an NBC is dicta as it is clearly necessary to the determination of citizenship both before and after the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

    Nonesense. the court does not need to construe the 14th amendment if WKA was a natural born citizen before the adoption of the 14th, if he was a citizen before the 14th, there is no reason he needed the 14th. In addition, the court was not obligated to answer the question presented either, but the holding tells us that WKA needed the 14th, in the affirmative.

  47. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 15, 2012 at 9:25 pm #

    y_p_w: It might be possible, and for reasons that have been discussed many times here.If people are born in the US, but not considered jus soli US citizens due to the diplomatic status of their parents, would it be possible for such people to become naturalized?

    Wouldn’t it seem weird if they were forever excluded from becoming U.S. citizens? Anyway because they were not born U.S. citizens, it would be a quite normal naturalization of a foreigner and nothing to do with the birfoonish fantasy of “naturalized born citizens”.

  48. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    How can court rulings that don’t t mention “natural born citizen” be evidence that Minor was a precedent for defining the term?

    Because you focus on what you only care about, maybe?

    “…have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the 14th Amendment as since.”

    If the Supreme court concurs that the holding in Minor was that women have always been considered “citizens” as much so before the 14th amendment since, then her status, according to Minor, has always been an NBC as much so before the 14th amendment since, that is the precedent, Dr.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

    No, I used the browser’s FIND function looking for natural born citizen in those citations of yours. It just wasn’t there. The FIND function finds stuff I don’t care about. So I repeat that those citations do not make Minor a precedent for defining “natural born citizen.”

    I don’t say it’s not a precedent, just not a precedent for the meaning of that phrase. I’m going to address the words that you put in the court’s mouth.

    yutube: Because you focus on what you only care about, maybe?

  50. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 9:46 pm #

    Ballantine: the court expressly declined to address the citizenship status of children of aliens and in no way said they were not natural born.

    The court expressly declined the status of children of aliens rightfully so because there was no doubt about Minor’s status and there was no need to explore the class with doubts.That’s what judges are supposed to do when determining case law, anonymous attorney. The unanimous Court said that there were doubts about the citizenship of children born of aliens, not about their natural born status.

  51. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 9:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m going to address the words that you put in the court’s mouth.

    Dr. the quote is precedent on citizenship, and when you believe it is precedent on citizenship, then you must also accept that the definition in minor is part of the holding. I don’t quite understand your take on this issue.

  52. avatar
    Ballantine February 15, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

    yutube: Nonesense. the court does not need to construe the 14th amendment if WKA was a natural born citizen before the adoption of the 14th, if he was a citizen before the 14th, there is no reason he needed the 14th. In addition, the court was not obligated to answer the question presented either, but the holding tells us that WKA needed the 14th, in the affirmative.

    Why do you post about law when you have no understanding of the law. The holding of the case was that WKA was both a citizen under the origin Constitution and the under the 14th Amendment and the holding extends to the rationale for each such conslusion. Your argument is gibberish as what the Court was obligated to decide is irrlevant to what is precedent. Duh!

  53. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

    Ballantine: I guess you can keep calling hte judges that say you are wrong are corrupt as you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about.

    Of course judges can have it wrong, that’s why attorneys litigate. I never said the court was corrupt. Stop inventing stories.

  54. avatar
    Ballantine February 15, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    yutube: The court expressly declined the status of children of aliens rightfully so because there was no doubt about Minor’s status and there was no need to explore the class with doubts.That’s what judges are supposed to do when determining case law, anonymous attorney. The unanimous Court said that there were doubts about the citizenship of children born of aliens, not about their natural born status.

    Saying there are doubts and declining to address such doubts mean such case is not precedent. The rest of your post is gibberish. Again just quoting the idiot Donofrio. Sadly, none of you are smart enough to understnad that none of the discussion about natural born citizenship or citizneship in general was about Virginia Minor’s status. It is simply a lie to say Minor said children of aliens are not natural born citizens. Notice that everyone in Wong Kim Ark discussed who was natural born and no one, not the government, not the majority and not the dissent thought Minor said anything on the subject other than that the term should be governed by the common law. The difference between real lawyers and people like you with no legal training.

    And what is your real name? When one can’t argue the law he needs to try to make an issue of being anonymous as they have no leal argument.

  55. avatar
    Ballantine February 15, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    yutube: Of course judges can have it wrong, that’s why attorneys litigate. I never said the court was corrupt. Stop inventing stories.

    Yes, the Supreme Court, all lower courts, all actual scholars over the past 200 years, all real attorneys, all legal treatises and dictionaries. They are all wrong and you, someone just repeating the arguments of an idiot poker player, are right. Keep the cases coming. We will keep laughing at you.

  56. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    Ballantine: Your argument is gibberish as what the Court was obligated to decide is irrlevant to what is precedent. Duh!

    Mr. gibberish, quite the opposite, the court was not obligated to decide on the question presented, and it did decide on the question presented, if he was a citizen per the 14th, everything else is dicta.

  57. avatar
    Majority Will February 15, 2012 at 10:13 pm #

    “Of course judges can have it wrong, that’s why attorneys litigate.”

    Any . . . day . . . now.

    Birther bigots must be masochists. They sure seem to thrive on humiliation.

  58. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 10:16 pm #

    Ballantine: Yes, the Supreme Court, all lower courts, all actual scholars over the past 200 years, all real attorneys, all legal treatises and dictionaries.They are all wrong and you, someone just repeating the arguments of an idiot poker player, are right. Keep the cases coming.We will keep laughing at you.

    U.S. Supreme Court? No, I don’t think they are wrong on NBC.

  59. avatar
    Ballantine February 15, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    yutube: Mr. gibberish, quite the opposite, the court was not obligated to decide on the question presented, and it did decide on the question presented, if he was a citizen per the 14th, everything else is dicta.

    So you think that when the court accepts to address a question and then addresses such question, it doesn’t count because it could had decided the case on another basis. You , my friend, are an idiot who knows nothing about law. Why do people with no knowledge of law pretend to be experts on the internet. Keep it up, we will keep laughing.

  60. avatar
    Keith February 15, 2012 at 10:33 pm #

    yutube: The court expressly declined the status of children of aliens rightfully so because there was no doubt about Minor’s status and there was no need to explore the class with doubts.That’s what judges are supposed to do when determining case law, anonymous attorney. The unanimous Court said that there were doubts about the citizenship of children born of aliens, not about their natural born status.

    The court was concerned only with whether or not the status of citizenship carried with it an inherent right to vote. Ms. Minor claimed that she was a citizen and therefor must be allowed to vote.

    The Court agreed that she was a citizen and disagreed that that implied a right to vote.

    That is the only precedent that Minor v Happersett (sp?) set: citizenship does not imply a right to vote. It did not set any precedent or define anything to do with the status of citizenship, other than to agree that women are citizens.

    The analysis of citizenship in the decision is a simply the agreement that Women, like Ms. Minor were indeed citizens and entitled to all the benefits that being a citizen entailed. Unfortunately for Ms. Minor and the other women of America, those benefits didn’t extend to the right to vote.

    It took a Constitutional Amendment (Number 19) to fix that problem.

  61. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 10:42 pm #

    Ballantine: Saying there are doubts and declining to address such doubts mean such case is not precedent. The rest of your post is gibberish.

    Again, Mr. Gibberish, declining to address such doubts means the court did its job and did not wonder outside of the realm of the case as it was not necessary to address the citizenship of children born to aliens. Why did the court do this Mr. gibberish? Because Virginia Minor did not have alien parents. This does not mean that what was stated in the last sentences before that in the same paragraph is not precedent.

  62. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 15, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    Youtub: If Minor v. Happersett was actually precedent for what you say it is, the rest of Planet Earth did not recognize it. If it had, things would be different and things would not have happened the way they have.

    For example, the WKA Court would have noticed it. George Collins, the guy who represented the gov’t in WKA would NOT have written an article in 1884 promoting citizenship by bloodline, and yet he didn’t even mention MvH as precedent.

    Breckinridge Long would have jumped all over MvH if it said what you say it did, and so would Arthur Hinman. But, none of these people did even though they were educated attorneys and a MvH would have made their case for them.

    Leo Donofrio is living in an Alternate Reality Universe where nothing happened after MvH the way it should have, if he was correct. These divergences from a MvH Precedental Universe are things you MUST address. It is like believing the Nazi Germans won World War II, and then not addressing the fact that we don’t speak German, or just skipping trying to explain that whole West and East Germany thing

    Here is a place for you to start reconciling YOUR Universe view with REALITY, and the Universe the rest of us live in:

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/the-alternate-reality-universe-of-leo-donofrio-a-white-paper/

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  63. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 11:00 pm #

    Keith: The court was concerned only with whether or not the status of citizenship carried with it an inherent right to vote. Ms. Minor claimed that she was a citizen and therefor must be allowed to vote.

    The Court agreed that she was a citizen and disagreed that that implied a right to vote….

    In your quote above, I agree with you on the first sentence, but you failed to recognize that the court not only agrees that she was a citizen, it also held she was a citizen as an independent reason for its holding.

    “Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason as an independent ground in support of our decision, id. at 334. We cannot accept petitioners claim that it was simply dictum.” Ogilvie et al v. U.S., 519 U.S. 79 (1996)

    This is the Minor court independent ground:

    “To determine then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the
    Amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form a nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.” Minor v.
    Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 166 (1874)

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    I think Mr. Jablonski’s response earlier in the thread has pretty much put your theory out of business. Give it a rest.

    yutube: U.S. Supreme Court? No, I don’t think they are wrong on NBC.

  65. avatar
    yutube February 15, 2012 at 11:26 pm #

    Ballantine: So you think that when the court accepts to address a question and then addresses such question, it doesn’t count because it could had decided the case on another basis.You , my friend, are an idiot who knows nothing about law.Why do people with no knowledge of law pretend to be experts on the internet.Keep it up, we will keep laughing.

    You don’t read do you? it counts as it doesn’t decide it on another basis, which the AIIS1 clause. I think it’s you who knows nothing about law.

  66. avatar
    Arthur February 15, 2012 at 11:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Give it a rest.

    Dr. C., I respect your grasp of bitherism, but your recent comment seems naive. Telling a birther to “give it a rest” is like asking a horn dog not to hump your leg. Dog gonna’ hump, birther gonna grift.

  67. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 15, 2012 at 11:42 pm #

    Just want to say how much I enjoy seeing John tangle with Squeeky. I’m estimating her IQ at 165 and his at 95. If it were a wrestling match, it would be like Serena Williams vs. Steven Hawking.

  68. avatar
    ballantine February 15, 2012 at 11:56 pm #

    yutube: Again, Mr. Gibberish, declining to address such doubts means the court did its job and did not wonder outside of the realm of the case as it was not necessary to address the citizenship of children born to aliens. Why did the court do this Mr. gibberish? Because Virginia Minor did not have alien parents. This does not mean that what was stated in the last sentences before that in the same paragraph is not precedent.

    Sadly, you are not even aware that such paragraph was not discussing Virginia Minor’s citizenship as you simply cannot read simple case law. Since the court did not address the citizenship of children of aliens, it actually says nothing about children of aliens because it failed to address the issue. Duh! Saying otherwise is lying. You don’t know how to make the argument that any portion of the citizenship discussion is not dicta as you don’t even understand that the purpose of the discussion was not about Minor’s citizenship. It is funny that you try to claim a discussion of a topic completely unrelated to the question before the Court in Minor is holding but claim the discussion of natural born citizenship in WKA that was the basis of the disposition of the case by any standards is irrelevant. Again, why does someone with no knowledge of law pretend to be an expert. Any modern court that has addressesd the topic, the CRS and any modern scholar that have spoken on the subject all laugh at you.

  69. avatar
    ballantine February 15, 2012 at 11:59 pm #

    yutube: You don’t read do you? it counts as it doesn’t decide it on another basis, which the AIIS1 clause. I think it’s you who knows nothing about law.

    More gibberish. Any basis that the court decides to dispose of the question presented is the holding. The court defined the 14th Amendment by reference to the NBC clause. Such is the holding of the decision. Time to take a class on reading.

  70. avatar
    yutube February 16, 2012 at 12:00 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think Mr. Jablonski’s response earlier in the thread has pretty much put your theory out of business. Give it a rest.

    You think he’s a hero because he forfeit after his motion was denied and he chose to break laws? For sure he has a medal on that department.

  71. avatar
    yutube February 16, 2012 at 12:16 am #

    ballantine: Sadly, you are not even aware that such paragraph was not discussing Virginia Minor’s citizenship as you simply cannot read simple case law.

    You claim to be a lawyer but you look like a total fake, no wonder you’re still anonymous.

    This is how the relevant paragraph concludes:

    “The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “

  72. avatar
    ballantine February 16, 2012 at 12:41 am #

    yutube: You claim to be a lawyer but you look like a total fake, no wonder you’re still anonymous. This is how the relevant paragraph concludes:“The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. ”

    Again, you show you can’t read. Minor’s citizenship was a stipulated fact. Such facts are not before the court. In fact, there is nothing in the record as to her place of birth or parentage. The quote you cite is saying “all children” under the common law included women. Minor had argued that “all persons” under the 14th Amendment included women, the basis of her whole argument, and Justice Waite was saying then “all chlidren” under the common la must include women too. The discussion of the common law and natural born citizenship was one of 5 different arguments the Court made that women were always citizens and they never had the right to vote. I suggest you take of night class in some basis law before continuing to embarrass yourself.

  73. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 16, 2012 at 12:55 am #

    Yutube

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think Mr. Jablonski’s
    response….

    “You think he’s a hero because he forfeit after his motion was denied and he chose to break laws?”

    Holy crap… you don’t have the brains God gave a maggot. Neither Jablonski nor Obama broke any laws not showing up for an Administive Hearing. They jeopardized the outcome being favorable to them, but that’s it. It would be like failing to show up to answer a parking citation. It might not be wise, but it wouldn’t be a criminal act.

    But you don’t know that. You don’t know anything. You can’t understand what you read. You can’t spell worth a rat’s ass. “…he forfeit after his motion was denied and he chose to break laws…”? That’s less literate than Orly on a nitrous binge and a mean case of jet-lag.

    People with actual minds here try to set you straight, but you just rush headlong into the swamp of witlessness, insulting people who are aware of reality and good-hearted enough to humor you, but slavishly aping the ideas you absorbed from disreputable self-serving swine.

    No more. You’re obviously not here in good faith.

    Nobody here should waste another minute on you, any more than a driving instructor should get in a car with someone who thinks good driving means running over old ladies and plowing headlong into cop cars.

  74. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 16, 2012 at 1:11 am #

    Thomas:

    Thank you!!! have you noticed how yutub hasn’t attempted to reconcile the contradictions. I think it is real interesting how WKA didn’t go to MvH to define natural born citizenship as should have been the case if Donofrio was right. Instead, the WKA court went back to English common law just like MvH said it would have to.

    Sooo, I guess we have a choice. Either the WKA court just missed the MvH “precedent” or Donofrio is wrong.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  75. avatar
    G February 16, 2012 at 1:11 am #

    Excellent analogy!

    In many ways, that is similar to the rational portion of even Dean Haskin’s argument against Orly and her followers… ( too bad Dean still seems to have a blind eye for the rest of Birtherism, including his own reprehensible past and current actions in it)

    But his current analogy of a surgeon, (who kills all her patients because she insists on trying to perform an appendectomy via cutting into the skull), should not be tolerated or allowed to practice, is just as apt here as well…

    Thomas Brown: any more than a driving instructor should get in a car with someone who thinks good driving means running over old ladies and plowing headlong into cop cars.

  76. avatar
    misha February 16, 2012 at 2:55 am #

    John: We must find the courage of one judge who will uphold his oath and rule on the merits.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think you’re really looking for a white supremacist bigot judge who will ignore the merits and rule based on his prejudice. Good luck finding one of those.

    Here you go:

    Leon M. Bazile, the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S.1 (1967), proclaimed that

    “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

    John: write to him.

  77. avatar
    Majority Will February 16, 2012 at 7:15 am #

    yutube: no wonder I’m still anonymous

    Fixed it for you, “yutube” of goo.

    You’re not winning on logic so the inane, semiliterate drivel and bizarre taunting that comes naturally to you is definitely your best bet.

    You’ve already shown your cards and even when you try to cheat you still lose.

    To paraphrase, for sure you have “a medal on that department” whatever that means.

  78. avatar
    HellT February 16, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    Ballantine: Why do you post about law when you have no understanding of the law.

    To paraphrase Upton Sinclair: It is difficult to get a birther to understand something, when his ideology depends upon his not understanding it.”

  79. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 17, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    yutube

    You think he’s a hero because he forfeit after his motion was denied and he chose to break laws? For sure he has a medal on that department.

    Form letter response:

    “Thank you, Sir or Madam, for your contribution to the effort to re-elect President Obama. Your comments, now public, allow us to make the case that the majority of those who oppose him are either easily-duped, mean-spirited conspiracy theorists or weak-minded racist nutbags.

    Thanks again for assisting us in the cause of Freedom.”

  80. avatar
    Joey February 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    Does this mean that a couple can come from a foreign country on a work visa (or an illegal alien) have a child in the U.S and in the future that person would qualify to run for president and meet the “natural born” requirement? So why, since 2003 the Senate has been trying (8 times) to alter or remove the “natural born” requirement? Why did the Senate pass a Unanimous Consent Resolution that John McCain met the requirement of “natural born” while not being born in the United States? Oh, it stipulated that his parents were U.S. citizens, it not he would not qualify.

    Why do you think Govern Richardson didn’t put his hat in the ring. Can you say “Anchor Baby”! He had the same problem Obama had or didn’t you know that?

  81. avatar
    G February 28, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    Yes.

    Joey:

    Does this mean that a couple can come from a foreign country on a work visa (or an illegal alien) have a child in the U.S and in the future that person would qualify to run for president and meet the “natural born” requirement?

    Look at who originated many of those attempts – many were GOP driven. (Which went nowhere by the way – HINT: congress critters submit tons of bills all the time that don’t ever even get out of a committee and simply die with little or no support.)

    At the time, many GOP folks entertained the idea of allowing Naturalized Citizens, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, to become President. Others folks in history simply see the NBC requirement to be antiquated and of little value in determining qualification for holding the office.

    Joey:
    So why, since 2003 the Senate has been trying (8 times) to alter or remove the “natural born” requirement?

    You actually answered your own question – because he was NOT born in the US. *duh* There is NO real serious doubts about the NBC status of someone BORN on US soil. The only gray areas that remain are how that designation applies to children of US citizens that are born abroad.

    Joey:
    Why did the Senate pass a Unanimous Consent Resolution that John McCain met the requirement of “natural born” while not being born in the United States? Oh, it stipulated that his parents were U.S. citizens, it not he would not qualify.

    He *DID* run for President in 2008. He didn’t get that much support and his efforts didn’t go far. He was one of the main 8 Democratic candidates running in the 2008 Presidential Primary.

    Joey:
    Why do you think Govern Richardson didn’t put his hat in the ring.

    Stop and think for a moment: The very term “anchor baby” exists *because* those children born on US soil of even illegal aliens become NBC via virtue of their birth here. If that wasn’t the case, the specific issue and term of “anchor baby” wouldn’t exist as a concern at all. *DUH*

    Joey:
    Can you say “Anchor Baby”!

    Nope. Nothing in common here at all. You are just coming across extremely ignorant.

    Joey:
    He had the same problem Obama had or didn’t you know that?

  82. avatar
    bovril February 28, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

    Joey, Joey, Joey…..

    Typical Birfoon idiocy and not even a good stawman, really, the quality of morons has dropped since the GA and IN slap down.

    The answer is YES, if said child was born in the USA and lives to be 35 or greater AND 14 years a resident of the USA then yes they can put themselves up for President.

    As for WINNING well, that’s a whole other matter.

    As for the “8 times” ya really should get of that fat, lardy, Cheeto stained butt and READ the bills….

    Guess what they talk about NATURALIZED citizens aka Schwarzenegger not scary “anchor babies”

    As for McCain, I note that the President (God that must gall you) was one of the sponsors of said NOT ACTUALLY A BILL.

    Muppet

99999 00000
?????????