Main Menu

The return of the birther bills

A number of states saw attempts in their legislatures to pass some sort of legislation aimed at providing stricter controls over who could run for President of the United States. The Arizona legislature actually passed a bill, but it was vetoed by Governor Brewer.

Many said that those so-called “birther bills” were thinly veiled attacks on Barack Obama, who the birthers have long believed was not born in the USA and hence not eligible to be President. Now that the President is duly installed in the White House for a second term, and constitutionally precluded from ever running for President again, that criticism is harder to make stick, except…

Now, in the post-Obama-election climate, Texas leads the way for perhaps a new string of birther-inspired legislation aimed at ensuring that Presidential candidates have unassailable paperwork. The Texas bill  is sponsored by Arlington State Representative Bill Zedler, who says his bill has “nothing to do with Obama.”

Texas Heritage birth certificate

HB 650,titled “AN ACT relating to the eligibility of presidential and vice-presidential candidates to be placed on the ballot,” contains a provision not seen in any of the previous birther bills, that the candidate must, in addition to an affirmation of eligibility, provide:

Authorization for the secretary of state to obtain a certified copy of the candidate ’s birth certificate from the original issuing authority

This can hardly be interpreted any way but as a reference to birther allegations that President Obama forged the birth certificate he showed to the Press on April 27, 2011, and subsequently published on the White House web site. I suppose that there are two ways to look at that provision: one is to say that it is a sop to the birthers, acknowledging the validity of their doubts about Barack Obama; another is to see it as an attempt to preempt any future birther controversy. In either case, it would not be effective. It can have no effect on Obama’s election and conspiracy theorists in the future will be as oblivious to evidence as the birthers are today.

A liberal group, Progress Texas, in an online petition is demanding that Zedler withdraw the bill. The petition had so far gained 3,879 signatures as of this writing.

Zedler is also sponsoring a bill to require strip dancers to have a state license.

Read local news coverage at:

Show me the birth certificate

Not to be outdone, Missouri also has a birther bill in process. HB 41 has had its second reading. This bill would require:

…the state committee of each established political party to provide the Missouri  Secretary of State with verifiable evidence of the identity and proof of status as a natural born citizen of the United States for each nominee for President and Vice President of the United States and the origins of the evidence. …

The evidence itself must be:

…the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee’s birth,…

What is remarkable about the Missouri bill is that it actually provides a definition of “natural born citizen”:

“Natural born citizen” means having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth under specified United States Code or having been declared a national and United States citizen under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee’s birth.

This is similar to language in a prior bill in Missouri that did not become law.

Print Friendly

, , ,

247 Responses to The return of the birther bills

  1. avatar
    donna January 26, 2013 at 7:59 pm #

    doc: I suppose that there are two ways to look at that provision: one is to say that it is a sop to the birthers, acknowledging the validity of their doubts about Barack Obama; another is to see it as an attempt to preempt any future birther controversy.

    and a 3rd way i guess – what will they do when one or both parents are born outside the us?

    (b) The application must require a candidate to provide:

    (3) an affirmation of the candidate’s natural-born United States citizen status;

    would rubio & jindal affirm that they are natural-born United States citizens? and then what?

    what would this do to texas’s own tea party heartthrob ted cruz?

    Rep. Zedler – a fringe, Tea Party conservative – is not new to crazy ideas. Rep. Zedler once tried to remove official complaints made against a doctor who injected jet fuel into his patients; the doctor also just happened to have given money to Rep. Zedler’s campaign (Texas Tribune). Rep. Zedler has also filed legislation to bar discrimination against professors who teach intelligent design (HB 285), and another to outlaw Sharia law in Texas (HB 288).

    just askin

    Progress Texas has called on Rep. Zedler to withdraw the bill immediately – and if he should choose not to, for Texas House Speaker Joe Straus to refuse to refer the legislation to a committee, unless Speaker Straus believes there’s merit in spending lawmaker’s time and taxpayer dollars on a fringe debate that does nothing to improve our public schools, expand our health care, or invest in the future of Texas.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    The article has been updated to include the new Missouri birther bill.

  3. avatar
    Dave January 26, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

    Same old same old.

    I wonder, as always, if these birther bill authors have contemplated the fact that a person not on the ballot can win the election. It is rare, but it happens, e.g. Senator Murkowski. Haven’t yet seen a birther bill that addresses this situation. Indeed, I think it is impossible to address.

  4. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 8:22 pm #

    My fear is that the bills were spawned due to a concern of the president being foreign born (i.e. Kenya or Canada). Those that have concern give me qualms depending on their beliefs. This of course is a never ending chain of concern, most of you have qualms with my doubt regarding Mr. Obama’s birth to a foreign national father.

  5. avatar
    Keith January 26, 2013 at 8:30 pm #

    OK, cogitate this:

    Mr. and Mrs. John Doe are NB citizens, over the age of 21, and lived their entire life in Kansas. On the honeymoon trip her daddy gave them, (a 12 month trip around the world), they succumb to the romance of Venice and Mrs. Doe becomes pregnant. Nine months later they are on the last leg of their journey hurrying to finish the trip, but Jane goes into labor in Sydney while watching the New Years fireworks over the harbor.

    The child is born in Australia.

    Now the child is NBC according to the Missouri definition, but it is doubtful that any permission he might give for New South Wales to give Texas a birth certificate would have any consequence in NSW.

    Also the ‘good faith’ clause doesn’t apply between Missouri/Texas and New South Wales. So you’d have to get intenational watchamacallits (I forgot what its called). There is just so much room for continued controversy. Most folks would probably believe the Australians, I suppose. But then most people believe the Hawai’ians too. And what if the birth was in Bangladesh or Kenya instead of Australia?

    The nuts are just tying themselves in knots trying to anticipate every situation possible. That is the strength of the American system… it is explicit for 95% of things freeing one to decide about the 5% when and if and only if it occurs.

  6. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 8:37 pm #

    Keith, I understand that Mr. Obama was born to a father that barely was…his mom soon after his birth returned to WA for college and he continued his unconcern as a randy polygamist. Per Vattel and our nation’s early understanding of citizenship, Obama is the antithesis of what constitutes a NBC.

  7. avatar
    donna January 26, 2013 at 8:37 pm #

    speaking of az, when bennett was not a birther (January 28, 2011), az’s birther bill “worried” him

    i guess that was before he was fellow mormon mitt’s az co-chair

    He added, though, that no process might be enough “in the minds of some people.”

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_7d8bf3dc-2b41-11e0-bfbe-001cc4c03286.html

  8. avatar
    donna January 26, 2013 at 8:41 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy: Per Vattel and our nation’s early understanding of citizenship, Obama is the antithesis of what constitutes a NBC.

    how would you translate this french phrase? how would vattel?

    j’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en amérique

  9. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 8:43 pm #

    As far as I can tell, TX just wants affirmation of a 14th amendment citizen (i.e. birth in US). Why are you up in arms? If anyone should be upset, it should be me. No wonder if a person born to a foreign national father, that had no intent to nationalize, is eligible…

  10. avatar
    misha marinsky January 26, 2013 at 8:52 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy: he continued his unconcern as a randy polygamist. Per Vattel and our nation’s early understanding of citizenship, Obama is the antithesis of what constitutes a NBC.

    Willard Mitt Romney comes from randy polygamists. Why do have a lack of concern?

  11. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2013 at 8:54 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Keith, I understand that Mr. Obama was born to a father that barely was…his mom soon after his birth returned to WA for college and he continued his unconcern as a randy polygamist. Per Vattel and our nation’s early understanding of citizenship, Obama is the antithesis of what constitutes a NBC.

    As has been pointed out numerous times here by Lupin, a real French attorney, Vattel did not say what you and other birthers believe he said.

    What Obama’s father did after the birth of his son is meaningless in regard to Obama’s status as a natural born citizen.

    What about a person born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother, but the identity of the father has never been established? Natural born or not?

  12. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 8:55 pm #

    donna,

    “Manger de la merde” sounds about right. I’m really bad at french.

  13. avatar
    Dionisio Lopez January 26, 2013 at 8:57 pm #

    Not sure why anyone would be opposed to integrity in our elections.

    Some are so protective of Obama, they attack anything that might cast doubt.

  14. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 8:59 pm #

    Rickey, persons born to unknown fathers have been given certain leeway, despite the fact their mothers’ might have been harlots. I know who Mr. Obama’s father was, what is your point?

  15. avatar
    Majority Will January 26, 2013 at 9:00 pm #

    Rickey: As has been pointed out numerous times here by Lupin, a real French attorney, Vattel did not say what you and other birthers believe he said.

    What Obama’s father did after the birth of his son is meaningless in regard to Obama’s status as a natural born citizen.

    What about a person born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother, but the identity of the father has never been established? Natural born or not?

    A xenophobic birther bigot would probably prefer to be safe than sorry rather than let some scary foreign blood taint his holy and pure political state. Just ask Apuzzo.

  16. avatar
    Atticus Finch January 26, 2013 at 9:00 pm #

    Although Vattel was regarded by the founding fathers as legal authority on INTERNATIONAL LAW; however, with regards to citizenship, courts have recognized that citizenship is governed by municipal law of the nation.
    Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, 329 (1938).

    The court’s reasoning in Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166 (D.C. 1951), is instructive regarding the Doctrine of Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli as applied to United States citizens:

    “that in some countries nationality is governed by jus soli, i. e., it originates by birth within the country; in others, it is based on jus sanguinis, i. e., the child inherits the nationality of his parents irrespective of his place of birth; and in still others, like the United States, it may be predicated on either jus soli or jus sanguinis. Thus, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof irrespective of the nationality of his parents. Conversely, a person whose parents are citizens of the United States inherits their citizenship irrespective of the place of his birth. Id at 168

    In fact, even Vattel acknowledged the difference between CIVIL LAW and English COMMON LAW regarding citizenship when he wrote in Law of Nations: “Finally, there are countries, such as England, in which the mere fact of birth within the country naturalizes the children of an alien.”

    The drafters of the United States Constitution of whom some were lawyers
    were, by their required reading of Blackstone’s Commentaries, familiar with Lord Chief Justice Coke’s opinion in the Calvin’s Case (1608) on the concept that a child born of alien parents was a natural born subject of the British monarchy.

    That Lord Coke, widely recognized by the American colonists “as the greatest authority of his time on the laws of England, Payton v. New York, 445 US 573, 593-594 (1980)

    In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) the court noted the jus soli English common law rule of Calvin’s Case, and observed:

    “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” Id. at 658

    Chief Justice Taft in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925) stated:

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

    As such, the framers of the Constitution did not insert the phrase “natural born citizen” in the Constitution in a vacuum without reference to English common law; but rather the framers were cognizant of the historical development of citizenship in English common law.

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Keith, I understand that Mr. Obama was born to a father that barely was…his mom soon after his birth returned to WA for college and he continued his unconcern as a randy polygamist. Per Vattel and our nation’s early understanding of citizenship, Obama is the antithesis of what constitutes a NBC.

  17. avatar
    donna January 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy : I’m really bad at french.

    it’s SHOWS – even a 1st year french student would find your “french” inaccurate

    so you and ole mario refuse to translate my phrase?

  18. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 9:06 pm #

    http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/169371.htm

    My bad.

  19. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2013 at 9:08 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Rickey, persons born to unknown fathers have been given certain leeway, despite the fact their mothers’ might have been harlots. I know who Mr. Obama’s father was, what is your point?

    Really? What “leeway” are you referring to? Please give an example.

    My point was self-evident.

  20. avatar
    Majority Will January 26, 2013 at 9:10 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez:
    Not sure why anyone would be opposed to integrity in our elections.

    Some are so protective of Obama, they attack anything that might cast doubt.

    What doubt? You ran away when asked a simple question. The information on the President’s birth certificate copy presented by the White House has been verified by the state of Hawaii which is backed by the authority of the Constitution. His name, place and date of birth are not in doubt. You obsessed over non-experts creating paranoia, fear and doubt over irrelevant scanning artifacts. Chasing meaningless shadows is asinine.

  21. avatar
    y_p_w January 26, 2013 at 9:12 pm #

    I think under California law, a government agency with legal authority to request a birth certificate could do so. Still – California is one of a few states where multiple agencies at different levels (city, county, and/or state) can issue birth certificates.

    However, anyone can order an “informational copy” that by law establishes the facts of birth although can’t otherwise be used to obtain identity documents or establish a right to work in the US.

  22. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 9:12 pm #

    Per the bills introduced, I’d like to say that Taitz et al have had their unfortunate effect…the matter is solely curiosity of whether a person is foreign born or not.

    Let me be on record that those “curious” are not of my concern regarding the meaning of Art II NBC..

  23. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2013 at 9:13 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:

    “Manger de la merde” sounds about right. I’m really bad at french.

    Are you looking to be banned here?

    Cleary, French isn’t the only thing you are bad at. You could learn some manners.

  24. avatar
    Majority Will January 26, 2013 at 9:14 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/169371.htm

    My bad.

    Wow. And you even suck at quote mining. Birthers need some fresh material.

  25. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 9:20 pm #

    MN-S, cowardice or ignorance thrice is not legal reflection of law. Chester was admitted due to a misunderstanding of his birth (he was not born Canadian or Irish but from someone who had not nationalized until 14 years after the birth).

    Perhaps you feel good about someone born with fealty to both Great Britain and United States who later has aspirations for the presidency. Eh, me not so much.

  26. avatar
    Dionisio Lopez January 26, 2013 at 9:22 pm #

    Run away? From who? As far as I can tell, I’m the only commenter on this blog that understands PDFs.

    Reading all your hypothesis for how the pdf was generated is comical.

    If you believe the Obama long form birth certificate posted on the White House website is NOT a computer generated forgery, you are either ignorant, a liar or both.

  27. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 9:24 pm #

    Rickey, please report me for a poor translation of a language I am unfamiliar but that you purport to be expert. I tried to make a point. Did I offend? My apologies.

  28. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2013 at 9:37 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy: “Manger de la merde”

    It doesn’t take expertise to know what ““Manger de la merde” means. Your offensive statement was directed to Donna, so your apology should be directed to her.

  29. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 9:38 pm #

    We, members of this forum and I, are not far from agreement that these bills are BS. Albeit for different reasons…

  30. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 9:39 pm #

    Rickey is absolutely right.

    Donna, my sincere apologies. I am terrible at french and evidently worse at understanding or appreciating your point.

  31. avatar
    donna January 26, 2013 at 9:47 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:

    offend? hardly – your “french” didn’t address anyone (“manger” is in the infinitive)- i do accept your apology tho

    “despite the fact their mothers’ might have been harlots”

    perhaps you should go back and listen to the questions the judge asked klayman about children born of in vitro fertilization or whose fathers may have died before they were born

    that would eliminate 100 children of fathers killed on 9/11, miilitary children whose fathers were killed before they were born, children of rapists, etc

    my french phrase is translated as “i have relatives in italy but my parents are here in america”

    “les parents” is translated as relatives, family members or parents

  32. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 9:55 pm #

    Thanks, donna (you are a better person than I).

    I was being a s*&t when I earlier disparaged your point on the original translation. I would contend that the founders were familiar with the french translation and understood the intent of the original french meaning.

    Do you not have qualms with someone born with an inherent fealty to another nation that later assumes the powers of president? I find it odd that those that have nationalized, taken an oath, are not. Last I checked, Mr. Obama didn’t have to renounce and abjure any previously held allegiances.

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

  33. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:02 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Keith, I understand that Mr. Obama was born to a father that barely was…his mom soon after his birth returned to WA for college and he continued his unconcern as a randy polygamist. Per Vattel and our nation’s early understanding of citizenship, Obama is the antithesis of what constitutes a NBC.

    Vattel never mentioned anything about natural born citizenship in the french original version. He never said you needed two citizen parents. He also said other countries have different standard than the swiss and those standards should be respected. The US didn’t base citizenship on Vattel. Obama is the very definition of a natural born citizen and that is one who was born a citizen.

  34. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Rickey, persons born to unknown fathers have been given certain leeway, despite the fact their mothers’ might have been harlots. I know who Mr. Obama’s father was, what is your point?

    So you’re basically saying a two parent citizen made up requirement only exists randomly and is not enforced. Okay so what about children born after the father dies. In this case they wouldn’t be born of two citizen parents. How about born of a father who dies while in the process of naturalization?

  35. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:05 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez:
    Not sure why anyone would be opposed to integrity in our elections.

    Some are so protective of Obama, they attack anything that might cast doubt.

    It’s a wonder people only decide to feign concern about integrity of our election only after a black man becomes president. Why the faux concern?

  36. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:06 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/169371.htm

    My bad.

    Where in that passage did they claim Emmerich de vattel was looked to on citizenship? I notice the founders ignored most of what Vattel wrote.

  37. avatar
    Xyxox January 26, 2013 at 10:08 pm #

    “14th amendment citizen” is a term used by racists.

  38. avatar
    SluggoJD January 26, 2013 at 10:09 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    My fear is that the bills were spawned due to a concern of the president being foreign born (i.e. Kenya or Canada). Those that have concern give me qualms depending on their beliefs. This of course is a never ending chain of concern, most of you have qualms with my doubt regarding Mr. Obama’s birth to a foreign national father.

    Must be lonely today.

  39. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:09 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    MN-S, cowardice or ignorance thrice is not legal reflection of law. Chester was admitted due to a misunderstanding of his birth (he was not born Canadian or Irish but from someone who had not nationalized until 14 years after the birth).

    Perhaps you feel good about someone born with fealty to both Great Britain and United States who later has aspirations for the presidency. Eh, me not so much.

    And yet you ran the last time you were confronted. Where exactly did Chester admit that? It was known he was born of someone not nationalized and no one cared about that. That’s why the rumors about him being born overseas. His father’s nationalization papers have been in the Library of Congress for over a hundred years.

    Obama had no fealty to Great Britain. How do you feel about Spiro Agnew and his right to the Vice Presidency under Nixon?

  40. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

    Doc KN, sure you’re right. Other than skin color, who else in our presidential (post those born prior to the adoption of the constitution) history meets the parentage precedent? Other than Chester Arthur, who else was known recently to be US born to a foreign national father?…the word “precedent” is strained.

  41. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:10 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez:
    Run away? From who? As far as I can tell, I’m the only commenter on this blog that understands PDFs.

    Reading all your hypothesis for how the pdf was generated is comical.

    If you believe the Obama long form birth certificate posted on the White House website is NOT a computer generated forgery, you are either ignorant, a liar or both.

    laughable. You continue to pump up your imagined credentials like every other birther who has posted here. The content in the document matches what the DOH has on file.

  42. avatar
    SluggoJD January 26, 2013 at 10:12 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez:
    Not sure why anyone would be opposed to integrity in our elections.

    Some are so protective of Obama, they attack anything that might cast doubt.

    I’m sure you have no problem with long lines in black neighborhoods, and short lines in white neighborhoods, on election day. And you obviously have a problem with Obama. So, ummm, why are you opposed to integrity in our elections?

  43. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 10:12 pm #

    Xyxox January 26, 2013 at 10:08 pm (Quote) #

    “14th amendment citizen” is a term used by racists.

    ****

    Got me. I’m the worst racist evah.

  44. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:12 pm #

    donna:
    Pieter Nosworthy:

    offend? hardly – your “french” didn’t address anyone (“manger” is in the infinitive)- i do accept your apology tho

    “despite the fact their mothers’ might have been harlots”

    perhaps you should go back and listen to the questions the judge asked klayman about children born of in vitro fertilization or whose fathers may have died before they were born

    that would eliminate 100 children of fathers killed on 9/11, miilitary children whose fathers were killed before they were born, children of rapists, etc

    my french phrase is translated as “i have relatives in italy but my parents are here in america”

    “les parents” is translated as relatives, family members or parents

    Not to mention the death of a parent before a child was born would have eliminated Andrew Jackson, Rutherford B Hayes and Bill Clinton from being President under birther standards.

  45. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:14 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Doc KN, sure you’re right. Other than skin color, who else in our presidential (post those born prior to the adoption of the constitution) history meets the parentage precedent? Other than Chester Arthur who was only know recently to be US born to a foreign national father…the word “precedent” is strained.

    Known recently? His father’s naturalization papers have been in the Library of Congress records for over a hundred years. It’s not our fault you birthers are lazy when it comes to research.

    Andrew Jackson was born of two immigrants, James Buchanan’s father was born in Ireland, Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover had English mothers. But we could go even further and look at Vice Presidents as well. Charles Curtis had a mother who was born on an indian reservation and wasn’t a US citizen

  46. avatar
    Daniel January 26, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez:
    Run away? From who? As far as I can tell, I’m the only commenter on this blog that understands PDFs.

    Reading all your hypothesis for how the pdf was generated is comical.

    If you believe the Obama long form birth certificate posted on the White House website is NOT a computer generated forgery, you are either ignorant, a liar or both.

    Actually your post indicates that pretty much everyone here understands PDFs better than you do.

    Legally, a PDF can be neither a forgery, nor genuine. Until you birthers get it through your thick head that the PDF is simply not relevant, you’ll continue your unbroken losing streak.

    Of course even if you do realize that one point, you’ll still lose, since your entire premise is ridiculous on it’s face, but that’s another monkey.

  47. avatar
    Daniel January 26, 2013 at 10:18 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Xyxox January 26, 2013 at 10:08 pm(Quote) #

    “14th amendment citizen” is a term used by racists.

    ****

    Got me. I’m the worst racist evah.

    Not the worst, but do keep trying…

  48. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

    Doc KN, thanks for your example in nuance and rationalization. What is your point? The proven fact that Chester’s dad nationality was not known for more than a hundred years later means nothing?

    I’m in my forties. I rationalize many things. You’re not helping.

  49. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:22 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Doc KN, thanks for your example in nuance and rationalization. What is your point? The fact that Chester’s dad nationality was not known for more than a hundred years later means nothing?

    I’m in my forties. I rationalize many things. You’re not helping.

    It was known at the time again you birthers just discovered it recently but it’s been known for over a hundred years his father was not naturalized.

  50. avatar
    Daniel January 26, 2013 at 10:23 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:

    Do you not have qualms with someone born with an inherent fealty to another nation that later assumes the powers of president? I find it odd that those that have nationalized, taken an oath, are not. Last I checked, Mr. Obama didn’t have to renounce and abjure any previously held allegiances.

    Where do you people come up with this patently ridiculous idea that an absent father’s allegiances have any affect at all, whatsoever, to a child’s allegiances as an adult.

    Allegiances are choices made, not codes in your DNA.

    Timothy McVeigh had two citizen parents.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2013 at 10:23 pm #

    As I understand the word “contend,” it would mean that you offer evidence or argument in support of something. Having seen neither I would say that you do NOT contend that the founders were familiar with the French translation and understood the intent of the original French meaning; you merely say it, and apparently assert it without justification and believe it without reason.

    Some of our framers were fluent in French and some were not. When we see the Law of Nations cited in a court document, we see it copied from an English translation. I have spent quite a lot of time with early American writing on citizenship and I cannot recall ever coming across a single reference to Vattel being read or cited from the French. Indeed just prior to the writing of the Constitution, an American edition of The Law of Nations was published (in English) and that is the version that Franklin commented upon, and which Washington borrowed from the library. English translations of The Law of Nations were published just a year after the French original.

    Finally, an American Founder who was fluent in the French of his day WOULD NOT have translated it “natural born citizen” nor understood it to require TWO citizen parents. For authoritative notes on the translation, we have a contribution from a French attorney who has a specialty in Vattel and a professional translator here:

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

    You admit you have no competence in the French language, so listen to the experts.

    Pieter Nosworthy: I would contend that the founders were familiar with the french translation and understood the intent of the original french meaning.

  52. avatar
    Dave January 26, 2013 at 10:26 pm #

    I have to say that the relationship between this sort of bill, and the integrity of elections, is pretty hard to see.

    As I mentioned before, this is all about getting your name on the ballot. People can vote for someone not on the ballot, and this bill has no effect on that. So what does this bill do to protect the integrity of elections?

  53. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 10:26 pm #

    Doc KN, don’t make me summon my poor french…

    You are so full of “yourself”. By all means cite where someone knew in the late 19th century that VP and later Prez Arthur was known to be the US born and yet son of a specifically un-naturalized immigrant.

  54. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 10:32 pm #

    DL, your argument is one of fraud and not eligibility.

  55. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:33 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Doc KN, don’t make me summon my poor french…

    You are so full of “yourself”. By all means cite where someone knew in the late 19th century that VP and later Prez Arthur was known to be the US born and yet son of a specifically un-naturalized immigrant.

    Once again are you not paying attention? It has been apart of the Library of Congress records apart of the Chester A Arthur collection for a long time. You’re the one claiming it wasn’t well known and that it actually mattered. The fact is the reason they made up stories about his birth place is because his father’s status did not matter.

    Besides Arthur being a lawyer would have been familiar with the Lynch V Clarke case.

  56. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

    Doc, trying to be topical if not nice.

    The bills introduced concern whether there should be empirical proof of birth within the US for those hoping to hold the office of US president. This of course, pisses me off.

    The fact Orly et al have hijacked the “birfer” movement has had dire results. The fact 14th amendment (WKA) citizens are eligible for the presidency is the issue, for those that need a birth certificate to reason.

    God, I hate Orly.

  57. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 10:42 pm #

    Doc KN, I have never met a lawyer unwilling to subvert the law to his own purpose. Are you someone not unlike those described? Go figure that Arthur would obscure and redirect attention in his case. Have you no understanding of the human want for self preservation?

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

    I am not sure that I recognize the concept of “inherent fealty.” Where does this fealty lie? Are you asserting a Lamarkian theory that an acquired characteristic (i.e. naturalization) can be genetically passed on to a child?

    What of a child found on the steps of a hospital in Omaha, just hours old, whose parentage was never known. What inherent fealty does such a child have to the country of his parents? What of a child who never knows who his father is (not at all uncommon these days)? What is the locus of this “inherent fealty” and what possible meaning could it have to ones qualifications for office?

    In practical terms, there is no genetic basis of citizenship, and all that remains is nurture. Obama was born in the US and had, in effect, one parent who was a US Citizen. His father was absent.

    I have looked at the debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, specifically on the qualifications for office, both for the President and the Congress. There was much concern over foreign influence and foreign intrigue. What came out in the debate was that attachment to the country was measured in length of time as a citizen or as a resident. For President, it was determined that only someone always a citizen was qualified for the leadership of the country. Parents were never mentioned, not a singe time.

    See my article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/the-framers-on-foreign-influence/

    Pieter Nosworthy: Do you not have qualms with someone born with an inherent fealty to another nation that later assumes the powers of president?

  59. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:46 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Doc KN, I have never met a lawyer unwilling to subvert the law to his own purpose. Are you someone of not unlike those described? Go figure that Arthur would obscure and redirect attention in his case. Have you no understanding of the human want for self preservation?

    So you’re just going to ramble on and make claims against a dead president. He didn’t obscure anything his father’s naturalization papers have been in the library of congress for a long time. Have you no understanding of anything you talk about?

  60. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 10:53 pm #

    All,

    The statement posed of “I am not sure that I recognize the concept of inherent fealty” is the crux of my doubt.

    I’m not sure I recognize it either. The discussion of that uncertainty begins among citizens settling that interesting philosophical doubt.

  61. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    All,

    The statement posed of “I am not sure that I recognize the concept of inherent fealty” is the crux of my doubt.

    I’m not sure I recognize it either. The discussion begins among citizens settling that interesting philosophical doubt.

    So in other words you have no idea what you’re talking about nor why you object to the President being the President.

  62. avatar
    chancery January 26, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

    Doc,

    Could you set up the equivalent of “under the bridge” for Noz? He’s skipped kindergarten (and this was obvious years ago on TFB).

  63. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

    Daniel, with all due respect…anyone that wonders as to efficacy of the BC ignores the obvious. Fraud is not a prima facie argument regarding eligibility.

  64. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 11:02 pm #

    chancery, are you too young or old to have doubt on any question? Some of us are still unconvinced and welcome to discussion. I wish I had your characteristics (pre-teen, head wound, downs, whatever) to believe without any hint of question.

  65. avatar
    Dionisio Lopez January 26, 2013 at 11:05 pm #

    Most Americans believe the long form image is a “birth certificate”.

    The White House intentionally pushed this impression, while stressing that the short form is the legal document.

    At a minimum, this is misleading. The long form can best be described as a “composite” or “abstraction”.

    I’m fake? You guys are hysterical.

    You need credentials to believe water is wet? I could be a hot dog vendor, it still doesn’t change the facts.

    I write software that produces and consumes PDFs. It is impossible for that pdf to have been created the way the White House purports.

    The White House Communications Director took the lead on orchestrating the deception. Read press gaggle transcript.

    Dionisio Lopez.

  66. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 11:06 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    chancery, are you too young or old to have doubt on any question? Some of us are still unconvinced and welcome to discussion. I wish I had your characteristics (head wound, downs, whatever) to believe without any hint of question.

    The insane nihilism of a birther continues to be astounding.

  67. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 11:07 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez:
    Most Americans believe the long form image is a “birth certificate”.

    The White House intentionally pushed this impression, while stressing that the short form is the legal document.

    At a minimum, this is misleading. The long form can best be described as a “composite” or “abstraction”.

    I’m fake? You guys are hysterical.

    You need credentials to believe water is wet? I could be a hot dog vendor, it still doesn’t change the facts.

    I write software that produces and consumes PDFs. It is impossible for that pdf to have been created the way the White House purports.

    The White House Communications Director took the lead on orchestrating the deception. Read press gaggle transcript.

    Dionisio Lopez.

    Again trying to appeal to authority pretending you have bigger qualifications than you have. The Department of Health has verified the content. Suvannah Guthrie took a picture of the physical document and held it in her hands. You got nothing to run on.

  68. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 11:11 pm #

    Doc KN, really? You should consider suing the university that gave you a doctorate. I’m a high school drop out and still have the capacity to laugh at your crappy retort. Please try harder to diminish…what you have tried is not working.

    You are a very poor poster child for higher education. Sorry.

  69. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 11:13 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Doc KN, really? You should consider suing the university that gave you a doctorate. I’m a high school drop out and still have the capacity to laugh at your crappy retort. Please try harder to diminish…what you have tried is not working.

    Yes it’s obvious you’re a drop out. Your inability to understand logic and simple concepts continues to be laughable. Every claim you’ve made has been utterly false.

  70. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 11:21 pm #

    Doc KN, what about that utterly human concept of doubt? I wonder as to one particular and very specific aspect of presidential eligibility (i.e. those born in the US to a foreign father).

    You, you are comfortable in condemning any question as ridiculous or racist. Admit it. You have done the “analysis” and consider the matter utterly closed and subject to condemnation that is suitable for personal entertainment for those not unlike yourself.

    Am I wrong?

  71. avatar
    misha marinsky January 26, 2013 at 11:25 pm #

    misha marinsky: Willard Mitt Romney comes from randy polygamists. Why do you have a lack of concern?

    Note I am ignored.

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Rickey, persons born to unknown fathers have been given certain leeway, despite the fact their mothers’ might have been harlots. I know who Mr. Obama’s father was, what is your point?

    “Harlot” How quaint. How judgmental. Orly Taitz, born Svetlana Auerbach, was a streetwalker in Romania.

    “I know who Mr. Obama’s father was, what is your point?”

    My point is – Google ‘Mormon child bride’
    Google ‘Mormon child abuse’
    Google ‘Mormon polygamy 21st century’

    -George Rekkers, an evangelical minister, was caught with a rent boy.
    -Bob Livingston, who campaigned on family values, resigned when his affair with an underage page, was exposed.

    That’s just two…

  72. avatar
    misha marinsky January 26, 2013 at 11:29 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy: I wish I had your characteristics (pre-teen, head wound, downs, whatever) to believe without any hint of question.

    I’m glad I don’t have your false morals.

  73. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 11:31 pm #

    Misha (great name), you are not ignored…just off topic. I have the same problem myself. The matter of the current bills are abhorrent not just to those on this forum but those who find fault with the president other grounds not specified.

    False morals(?)…if only you knew. I have very human propensities.

  74. avatar
    donna January 26, 2013 at 11:32 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy

    i have found all of this amusing (at times frustrating & other times annoying) – i was born here to american parents but consider “italy” my “homeland” – i have lived in ny for much of my life yet still consider myself a “rhody” from rhode island – i have sponsored people from france who have taken the us oath of citizenship – one has a child born here years before her citizenship, whose father is from venezuela and also american – i would certainly say that child has the right to become president – since all of this began, i learned that i probably have dual citizenship with italy yet my allegiance is with the us –

    recently, i read the fox interview of one of obama’s classmates from Punahou – aware it was fox, i read into (between the lines) the questions asked – was he gay; a druggy; what about family; the birth certificate; is he dumb, etc (AP us history in an elite school …. hardly)

    apparently, obama’s “world/global view” was taught to him at Punahou and not as sununu and others would have us believe –

    as a student of languages & foreign travel early on, i can certainly understand my world/global views and they are not due to foreign parents

    the video of the interview: Punahou Classmate Remembers Obama for Fox News

    http://hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6028

    the article/video: Obama Classmate Dishes to Fox News

    http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2013/01/04/obama-classmate-dishes-fox-news

    i do believe that obama will go down as a remarkable man and a damn good president – many with his background are standing on corners selling drugs

  75. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2013 at 11:32 pm #

    We’re not talking about reasonable doubt you’ve had your claims addressed repeatedly here and again at the fogbow this isn’t honest doubt this is you trolling

  76. avatar
    misha marinsky January 26, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: The insane nihilism of a birther continues to be astounding.

    Obama will go down in History as the first black president; he will have a library. Books will be written.

    The Denialists will be studied in psychology. Textbooks will be written about them, analyzing their motivations.

  77. avatar
    misha marinsky January 26, 2013 at 11:45 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy: I have very human proclivities.

    FIFY

  78. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 11:47 pm #

    Doc KN states “we’re not talking about reasonable doubt”. Really? Decided by whom?

    “Va te faire foutre” is perhaps the Vattel 1758 version of what is applicable in this context.

    I love Google.

  79. avatar
    misha marinsky January 26, 2013 at 11:52 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy: Am I wrong?

    Yes, along with your ilk.

  80. avatar
    misha marinsky January 26, 2013 at 11:54 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez: I write software that produces and consumes PDFs.

    Fiction, science fiction, or both?

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2013 at 11:54 pm #

    So far, you’ve provided no evidence of technical competence, nor have you made a technical argument. You have made some vague unsupported assertions, so you will excuse me for basically dismissing your comments.

    You said in an earlier comment: “Anyone with experience with the Adobe API will know immediately the Long Form PDF was manually manipulated. That DOES NOT means any information was changed.” Besides being a fallacious appeal to generalized anonymous authority, it is curiously nonsensical. The White House birth certificate was not created with the Adobe API, it was created with a different set of libraries, lastly using Preview on a Mac. There’s no Adobe markup in the document whatever.

    In the context of your remark, a competent expert would have given a technical argument. Someone lacking in evidence relies on a fallacious appeal that “anyone knows.” By all the evidence you have shown so far, you’re a fraud with an inflated resume, just like all the other birther so-called document experts.

    The fact that one of the world’s foremost experts on document compression looked at the long form and didn’t find it was manually manipulated is an authority far above your own and above mine. He said it would be crazy for someone to manually do what he found in the document.

    By the way, as I said before, I have 36 years software experience, including using the Adobe API, and guess what I used that API for? It was for printing birth certificates, because that’s what kind of software our company developed.

    Let me further add that you say that the PDF could not have been produced in the manner described by the White House. In fact, the White House said nothing about how the document was produced. This is another sign of your faulty command of the facts.

    Dionisio Lopez: Most Americans believe the long form image is a “birth certificate”.

    The White House intentionally pushed this impression, while stressing that the short form is the legal document.

    At a minimum, this is misleading. The long form can best be described as a “composite” or “abstraction”.

    I’m fake? You guys are hysterical.

    You need credentials to believe water is wet? I could be a hot dog vendor, it still doesn’t change the facts.

    I write software that produces and consumes PDFs. It is impossible for that pdf to have been created the way the White House purports.

    The White House Communications Director took the lead on orchestrating the deception. Read press gaggle transcript.

  82. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 26, 2013 at 11:55 pm #

    misha misha misha (still love your name),

    I am of an ilk that won’t go away…might as well acknowledge and commune. Or should I just shut up? Really hard for me to do the latter.

  83. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 12:02 am #

    By centuries worth of reasonable people. And by over 65 million voters.

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Doc KN states “we’re not talking about reasonable doubt”. Really? Decided by whom?

  84. avatar
    misha marinsky January 27, 2013 at 12:02 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy: Or should I just shut up?

    Yes.

    Pieter Nosworthy: Really hard for me to do the latter.

    Try. You traffic in gossip and innuendo.

  85. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 12:03 am #

    Doc, trying to stay on topic…I state a disagreement with the current bills due their professment to adhere to a 14th amendment notion of presidential eligibility.

    As for competence, I enjoy the stolid comments of such as yourself who profess “curiosity” but no desire to acknowledge a doubt for those who are born to someone that never wanted to be an American citizen. Not wondering is a blatant admission of hypocrisy or abject lack of an education in civics.

    I’m not all there…from all appearances, neither are most of you.

  86. avatar
    misha marinsky January 27, 2013 at 12:04 am #

    Paper: By centuries worth of reasonable people.And by over 65 million voters.

    And the Constitution, confirmed by the Supreme Court.

  87. avatar
    donna January 27, 2013 at 12:19 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy: As for competence, I enjoy the stolid comments of such as yourself who profess “curiosity” but no desire to acknowledge a doubt for those who are born to someone that never wanted to an American citizen. Not wondering is a blatant admission of hypocrisy or abject lack of an education in civics.

    seriously? 50,000 american born latinos turn 18 every month – who cares if their parents didn’t take the time nor had the thousands it takes to become a citizen – i would never wonder about them as i know people on both sides ……….. those with and without citizenship – one of my closest friends is from argentina – he has a green card but never became a citizen – he owns his own business, a home and has an american born child – do i care? he’s as “american” as i am but can’t vote – it would even be easier for him since his wife is american – there is no “doubt” about him – there is nothing that makes him UNamerican except not having a piece of paper

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 12:21 am #

    So far, you have exhibited no evidence that you are competent to assert what the nation’s early understanding of citizenship is.

    Pieter Nosworthy: and our nation’s early understanding of citizenship, Obama is the antithesis of what constitutes a NBC.

  89. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 12:26 am #

    Doc KN, I had to look it up to fully understand.

    Nihilism.The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. Extreme skepticism, according to which nothing in the world has a real existence.

    Is this the world we want to live in? Yeah, me too,

    I prefer to have “moral” convictions that are subject to reasonable scrutiny. You, not so much from what I understand.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 12:27 am #

    I am up in arms because for any legal process I can imagine, where a birth certificate is required, one submits a certified copy. If you get a US Passport, you present a certified copy of your birth certificate.

    This Texas bill, however, doesn’t ask for a certified copy; it asks for the authority to obtain the certified copy directly from the authority. That essentially is saying that a certified copy from a candidate is insufficient. And the implication is that it is insufficient from the candidate because Obama forged his certificate — a damned lie.

    The Texas bill basically accuses the President of forgery and that is the plain implication of this unprecedented standard of evidence. It is saying that the insane idiocy of the birthers is a valid concern.

    Pieter Nosworthy: As far as I can tell, TX just wants affirmation of a 14th amendment citizen (i.e. birth in US). Why are you up in arms?

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 12:30 am #

    You can understand why we might be a little sensitive after listening to one damned lie after another from the birther for 4 years.

    As we say in this country, if you sleep with the dogs, you will awaken with fleas.

    Dionisio Lopez: Some are so protective of Obama, they attack anything that might cast doubt.

  92. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 12:33 am #

    All,

    Who will be the first to admit a modicum of doubt in a bill that doesn’t acknowledge the parents of person with aspiration for the presidency?

    No wonderment whatsoever is an admission of a closemindedness that speaks volumes.

    WKA is not the definitive notion for NBC despite your effort for self delusion and greater import on others,

  93. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 12:34 am #

    You can wonder, but it is a settled matter. And when you also state, as you did above, that Obama is the antithesis of a natural born citizen, then you create more than reasonable doubt that you actually are wondering at all.

    It’s not like declaring that you are wondering helps your argument or investigation anyway, or that declaring your status as a wonderer is even effective rhetoric. But if you really are wondering, not to worry, you’ll catch up. If not, you’ll have to get to work on a constitutional amendment, because bills like those these states are flirting with are not going to address your particular concern.

    Until then, you may not be the type to go away, as you say, but neither does reality.

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Doc KN, what about that utterly human concept of doubt? I wonder as to one particular and very specific aspect of presidential eligibility (i.e. those born in the US to a foreign father).

  94. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2013 at 12:34 am #

    The problem is Pieter the supposed convictions you’ve displayed here aren’t based on morality but a rejection of it.

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 12:34 am #

    I don’t think this is all that unusual. You can get a birth certificate from the local registrar of deeds in South Dakota. I know New Jersey issues them locally. County health departments in Georgia and South Carolina issue certificates. Same for Florida, Indiana and North Carolina just off the top of my head.

    y_p_w: Still – California is one of a few states where multiple agencies at different levels (city, county, and/or state) can issue birth certificates.

  96. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 12:38 am #

    Doc, thanks for letting me speak on your forum. It is appreciated.

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 12:38 am #

    The problem is that when you cite learned authority like this, and as I have in dozens of articles, the birthers ignore it and just keep repeating their own talking points.

    Atticus Finch: Although Vattel was regarded by the founding fathers as legal authority on INTERNATIONAL LAW; however, with regards to citizenship, courts have recognized that citizenship is governed by municipal law of the nation.
    Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, 329 (1938).

    The court’s reasoning in Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166 (D.C. 1951), is instructive regarding the Doctrine of Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli as applied to United States citizens:

  98. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 12:41 am #

    Or a qualified forensic document examiner.

    Dionisio Lopez: If you believe the Obama long form birth certificate posted on the White House website is NOT a computer generated forgery, you are either ignorant, a liar or both.

  99. avatar
    Daniel January 27, 2013 at 12:42 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Daniel, with all due respect…anyone that wonders as to efficacy of the BC ignores the obvious. Fraud is not a prima facie argument regarding eligibility.

    That didn’t make any sense at all.

  100. avatar
    misha marinsky January 27, 2013 at 12:43 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: if you sleep with the dogs, you will awaken with fleas.

    Except Angel, who sleeps next to me.

  101. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 12:44 am #

    Doc KN, whuh…huh? Perhaps you can string words that I understand next time.

    “The problem is Pieter the supposed convictions you’ve displayed here aren’t based on morality but a rejection of it.”

    What? My supposed convictions are evidence of…perhaps you should try caps or;

    http://www.grammarbook.com/english_rules.asp

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 12:47 am #

    You use words like “proven fact” but you haven’t proven anything. In fact your “proven fact” has never been proven by anyone, and it has actually been disproven by me twice. You’re a pathological liar in that you say things are proven, that you know things, that you have evidence for things when in fact you do not. Do you wonder why you get such disrespect from the community here? You earned it.

    Pieter Nosworthy: The proven fact that Chester’s dad nationality was not known for more than a hundred years later means nothing?

  103. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 12:49 am #

    My last comment didn’t post…done. Have a good evening.

  104. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 12:53 am #

    Because the matter itself is closed. Open minds notice when issues themselves are closed. If you wish to reopen it, however, you will need a constitutional amendment. Not just some state law as described in this post. Not just personal doubt that could be easily resolved by a modicum of research.

    In the time you have spent repeatedly haranguing the topic of wonderment, you could have resolved your doubt and moved on to worthier matters of wonder. Or perhaps realize that your own expressed lack of doubt and wonder about Obama being born in Kenya is a mistake. You have admitted you have no wonderment whatsoever about that aspect, which would seem to be an example of your own notion of closemindedness that speaks volumes.

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    All,

    Who will be the first to admit a modicum of doubt in a bill that doesn’t acknowledge the parents of person with aspiration for the presidency?

    No wonderment whatsoever is an admission of a closemindedness that speaks volumes.

  105. avatar
    SluggoJD January 27, 2013 at 12:57 am #

    Dionisio Lopez:
    Most Americans believe the long form image is a “birth certificate”.

    The White House intentionally pushed this impression, while stressing that the short form is the legal document.

    At a minimum, this is misleading. The long form can best be described as a “composite” or “abstraction”.

    I’m fake? You guys are hysterical.

    You need credentials to believe water is wet? I could be a hot dog vendor, it still doesn’t change the facts.

    I write software that produces and consumes PDFs. It is impossible for that pdf to have been created the way the White House purports.

    The White House Communications Director took the lead on orchestrating the deception. Read press gaggle transcript.

    Dionisio Lopez.

    Fake dude,

    You write software that consumes PDFs? Wow, impressive!

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 12:58 am #

    Clearly A. P. Hinman knew it in 1881.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/chester-a-arthur-rest-in-peace/

    Teddy Roosevelt knew it in 1916.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/10/teddy-roosevelt-on-dual-nationality/

    Now, you said that it was a “proven fact” that it was not known. Will you present YOUR proof or confess that you are a liar.

    Pieter Nosworthy: By all means cite where someone knew in the late 19th century that VP and later Prez Arthur was known to be the US born and yet son of a specifically un-naturalized immigrant.

  107. avatar
    SluggoJD January 27, 2013 at 12:59 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Doc KN, what about that utterly human concept of doubt? I wonder as to one particular and very specific aspect of presidential eligibility (i.e. those born in the US to a foreign father).

    You, you are comfortable in condemning any question as ridiculous or racist. Admit it. You have done the “analysis” and consider the matter utterly closed and subject to condemnation that is suitable for personal entertainment for those not unlike yourself.

    Am I wrong?

    Yes, you’re wrong, and you’re also boring as hell, and starving for attention.

  108. avatar
    SluggoJD January 27, 2013 at 1:03 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    All,

    Who will be the first to admit a modicum of doubt in a bill that doesn’t acknowledge the parents of person with aspiration for the presidency?

    No wonderment whatsoever is an admission of a closemindedness that speaks volumes.

    WKA is not the definitive notion for NBC despite your effort for self delusion and greater import on others,

    You are gum. You’re boring as hell, and you just go on and on and on.

    GET A LIFE.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 1:06 am #

    Redirect attention? That’s just one of Donofrio’s delusions.

    The Chancery Court of New York a few years before in the case of Lynch v. Clarke opined that the child born of alien parents was a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President, and not only that, but that this was the “universal impression of the public mind.” Why would Chester A. Arthur, a New York Lawyer, have thought he needed to hide anything?

    Your comment is ridiculous.

    Pieter Nosworthy: Go figure that Arthur would obscure and redirect attention in his case.

  110. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 1:07 am #

    Liar?

    Liars are persons who will not admit their fallibility. What are you? I read your cited points and do not see the relevance. Are we speaking of citizenship or eligibility for the presidency? Your ability to focus is appreciated.

    Last I asked, I couldn’t even get an admission from anyone that the matter bears scrutiny. One would think I asked an opinion of “climate change” which is a matter of science and inscrutable

    Isn’t this fun?.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 1:09 am #

    I have rescued it from the spam filter.

    Pieter Nosworthy: My last comment didn’t post…done. Have a good evening.

  112. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 1:13 am #

    Thanks, Doc. I do have faith. You have restored it. I thought my effort at wit was wasted,

  113. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2013 at 1:17 am #

    Yes Pieter you are a liar you’ve had your claims addressed repeatedly here and on the fogbow.

  114. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 1:26 am #

    Doc KN, so I am a liar. OK. What other statements would you like to make? That you are incapable of having a civil discourse on a matter that someone who might be your peer could possibly discuss?

    I’m 46, have a GED, and a 1SG in the army. Not notable in most regards, but have been around in most meaningful terms.

    I have questions regarding presidential eligibility. Specifically with regard to those born to foreign nationals in context with the ineligibility of those who are nationalized.

    Thanks for making me smarter. I have both a BMW motorcycle and car, no need for you to fill the need for me to feel like a c&^k.

  115. avatar
    Xyxox January 27, 2013 at 1:31 am #

    I’ll say this much. I actually saw and held in my hand the Certificate of Live Birth in July of 2008 at Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago, IL. I had paid a visit to insure I had some yard signs and a friend showed it to me.

    His had the exact same information the one I acquired from the state of Maryland had. Funny thing is, the DHS would not accept my original for a passport. Seems they needed something new on new paper from the state of Maryland as my original was too easy to counterfeit.

  116. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2013 at 1:39 am #

    And your question was answered long ago the citizenship of the parents does not matter

  117. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 1:39 am #

    Naturalized. Not nationalized. What a maroon,

  118. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 1:41 am #

    Why do you have no doubt, no wonderment about who his father was? Is that not an indication of a closed mind? Do you just write off all those who think Frank Marshall Davis was his father? Why are you not more appreciative of their concerns?

    Do you not wonder how you can say this here and also be the person who just wrote that “not wondering is a blatant admission of hypocrisy…?”

    Are only the topics you deem not closed open to wonder? Or perhaps there are some topics that simply are closed and settled, that are known and undoubted?

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Rickey, persons born to unknown fathers have been given certain leeway, despite the fact their mothers’ might have been harlots. I know who Mr. Obama’s father was, what is your point?

  119. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 1:45 am #

    Doc KN, thanks for your precious time discussing a matter significant with us lesser folk.

    Thanks ever so much of your conviction that those born without regard to citizenship of parents are eligible to be commander of the armed forces. Your esteemed and lucid opinion is not lost on us inferior and uneducated person.

    Don’t make me translate my french understanding of you…

  120. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 1:49 am #

    It doesn’t actually matter if he is capable of such or not. Reality doesn’t change either way. Children born in this country of even illegal alien parents are eligible to be president. There is no doubt. The wonder is not that this is so. Perhaps you should wonder and doubt how you came to the notion that it is otherwise?

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    That you are incapable of having a civil discourse on a matter that someone who might be your peer could possibly discuss?

  121. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2013 at 1:51 am #

    Doc he’s resorted to petty trolling and adds nothing to the discussion same as he did at fogbow

  122. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 1:55 am #

    Paper, fair enough. Are you not filled with disquiet that our highest court considers those such as McCain ineligible?

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

    You can’t have it both ways…WKA 14th the litmus and what exactly is encompassed per the USSC? Not those foreign born in any regard if you read the case law.

    Some of us wonder if WKA understanding is applicable to presidential eligibility.

  123. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 1:58 am #

    Doc KN, I enjoyed my acceptance on FB. I screwed up. They were right to draw the line.

  124. avatar
    J.D. Sue January 27, 2013 at 1:58 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy: Who will be the first to admit a modicum of doubt in a bill that doesn’t acknowledge the parents of person with aspiration for the presidency?

    I would doubt any bill that did “acknowledge the parents” since it would set eligibility requirements that contradict the Constitution. When I “wonder” about such a bill–which would institutionalize prejudice based on parentage–I am disgusted.

  125. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2013 at 2:04 am #

    Umm dimwit rogers v beleil has no application to McCain who was bornoverseas to two citizen parents nor to Obama who was born in the united states. You didn’t bother reading the case either. Also the naturalization and immigration act no longer removes citizenship and had been changed since that case. Also out would never have applied to McCain anyway as he was living on the united states for five years between ages 14 and 28

  126. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 2:10 am #

    Doc KN, read the paragraphs prior to what is cited…

    “Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”

    Sure I have a public education…but it is english and somewhat straightforward.

  127. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 2:11 am #

    First, I personally don’t believe you wonder or just have questions. If you did, you would be trying to answer them, instead of merely and repetitively asserting your doubt, and otherwise making clear that you believe “Obama is the antithesis of NBC.”

    Be that as it may, we have already discussed this. Rogers v. Bellei does not say people such as McCain are ineligible to be president. So to answer your question, I have no disquiet about something that doesn’t exist.

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Paper, fair enough. Are you not filled with disquiet that our highest court considers those such as McCain ineligible?

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

    You can’t have it both ways…WKA 14th the litmus and what exactly is encompassed per the USSC? Not those foreign born in any regard if you read the case law.

    Some of us wonder if WKA understanding is applicable to presidential eligibility.

  128. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 2:24 am #

    And McCain, which is your example, fits the bill as a result of “proper congressional action.”

    There is no doubt that to be a natural born citizen at least requires being born a citizen. Thus, if Congress, through its proper action, excludes you from citizenship at birth, then you would be ineligible. Congress has no such proper action with regard to anyone born here. They have been explicitly excluded from that action. However, they do have that responsibility for those born abroad. Who fits *that* bill has varied over the centuries.

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Doc KN, read the paragraphs prior to what is cited…

    “Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.”

    Sure I have a public education…but it is english and somewhat straightforward.

  129. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 2:25 am #

    Article I, Section 8: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

    The question exists as to whether the congress has the power not only to naturalize but establish the condition of those considered NBC in Art II.

    Isn’t this fun?

  130. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 2:31 am #

    Except it is all old hat. Why don’t you go read the in-depth discussions that have already occurred on this very topic, if you want to have even more fun? The various implications of your post here have been hashed out at length already.

    So don’t get too excited or cocky. It’s not like you have brought anything new to the table.

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Article I, Section 8: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

    The question exists as to whether the congress has the power not only to naturalize but establish the condition of those considered NBC in Art II.

    Isn’t this fun?

  131. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 2:35 am #

    Ah, the infamous old hat retort. Can’t argue that…

    RvB in 1971 reflected as precedent that those born abroad are ineligible for the presidency, Isn’t it popular conviction that WKA speaks for those eligible?

    McCain eligible because the congress had a non-binding say so?

    At what instance am I to disregard the court?

  132. avatar
    Dionisio Lopez January 27, 2013 at 2:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    I appreciate that you started this blog, but it is clear by your comments you are not familiar with the portable document format specification (including object offsets, streams and filters). I’m sorry you did not acquire this knowledge in your 30 years of working with PDFs.

    The reason everyone on this forum needs an “expert” to “give and opinion” on the PDF is because none of you even understand what you’re looking at.

    From my point of view, you guys are debating simple arithmetic (and call everyone else morons).

    I’m also very amused by the attacks on my credibility, identity, etc. But from reading the archives, I expected that.

    This is more like a religious forum.

    Anyway, look forward to yet another analysis of this ridiculous topic. I’ll send you a link, Doc.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So far, you’ve provided no evidence of technical competence, nor have you made a technical argument. You have made some vague unsupported assertions, so you will excuse me for basically dismissing your comments.

    You said in an earlier comment: “Anyone with experience with the Adobe API will know immediately the Long Form PDF was manually manipulated. That DOES NOT means any information was changed.” Besides being a fallacious appeal to generalized anonymous authority, it is curiously nonsensical. The White House birth certificate was not created with the Adobe API, it was created with a different set of libraries, lastly using Preview on a Mac. There’s no Adobe markup in the document whatever.

    In the context of your remark, a competent expert would have given a technical argument. Someone lacking in evidence relies on a fallacious appeal that “anyone knows.” By all the evidence you have shown so far, you’re a fraud with an inflated resume, just like all the other birther so-called document experts.

    The fact that one of the world’s foremost experts on document compression looked at the long form and didn’t find it was manually manipulated is an authority far above your own and above mine. He said it would be crazy for someone to manually do what he found in the document.

    By the way, as I said before, I have 36 years software experience, including using the Adobe API, and guess what I used that API for? It was for printing birth certificates, because that’s what kind of software our company developed.

    Let me further add that you say that the PDF could not have been produced in the manner described by the White House. In fact, the White House said nothing about how the document was produced. This is another sign of your faulty command of the facts.

    –Dionisio Lopez

  133. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 2:42 am #

    No it did not. That has been explained multiple times.

    Pieter Nosworthy:

    RvB in 1971 reflected as precedent that those born abroad are ineligible for the presidency,

  134. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 2:46 am #

    Paper, explain again in very simple terms as to why RvB is not the hypocrisy I believe it to be. I’m all ears. In fact, if your point is clear I will be amenable to accepting much of what has troubled me these past few years.

    Thank you very much.

  135. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 2:50 am #

    The point is that it might be fun except it has been covered in depth already, and if you aren’t going to take the time to review it, your discussions are about as fun as a student artist who doesn’t study art but just does their own thing and acts like they discovered Impressionism.

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Ah, the infamous old hat retort. Can’t argue that…

  136. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 2:55 am #

    Paper, I take it you don’t like me or care for my welfare…

    I had hoped that you would have convinced this misguided soul regarding the wierdness of WKA, RvB, and McCain’s mysterious eligiblity…

    Too busy or impatient, no doubt.

    Thanks, anyway.

  137. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 27, 2013 at 2:58 am #

    Dionisio Lopez: I think you have done a great service by providing this forum. I hope you keep all the comments, as they will teach us valuable lessons in critical thinking and logical fallacies.

    Hear! hear!

    Dionisio Lopez: I could be a hot dog vendor, it still doesn’t change the facts.

    Then why name drop? LOL!

    Dionisio Lopez: 30 years of working with PDFs.

    I guess I’ll be charitable and assume that is sarcasm. :D

  138. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 3:18 am #

    Paper, great comment;

    “There is no doubt that to be a natural born citizen at least requires being born a citizen. Thus, if Congress, through its proper action, excludes you from citizenship at birth, then you would be ineligible. Congress has no such proper action with regard to anyone born here. They have been explicitly excluded from that action. However, they do have that responsibility for those born abroad. Who fits *that* bill has varied over the centuries.”

    I wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence.

    The second sentence is subject to question…is NBC arbitrary or was it understood when originally written?

    The third sentence is very interesting…have the states’ no say in citizenship, what of foreign nationals (ambassadors and indians), or those born that require USSC determination for citizenship (WKA 14th)?

    I liked your comment very much. Made me think.

  139. avatar
    Majority Will January 27, 2013 at 3:19 am #

    “Sure I have a public education…but it is english and somewhat straightforward.”

    “english”
    Mastering spin is a common birther trait.

  140. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 3:28 am #

    Majority, I forget…which Alinsky rule are you employing?

    11 and 12 would be my guess. Good job multi-tasking.

    RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
    RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

  141. avatar
    Majority Will January 27, 2013 at 3:39 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: “Senior Technical Consultant” Such a generic nonsense title.Again you’re trying to make an appeal to authority.Your problem remains that the PDF’s contents have been verified to match the content DOH has on record.You can’t get around that the issuing authority backs up the content of the document.

    “You can’t get around that the issuing authority backs up the content of the document.”

    And curiously, the birther troll is still ignoring this fundamental point and continues to post asinine, meaningless and nonsensical drivel.

    That is BIZARRE.

  142. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 3:43 am #

    Rogers v. Bellei says Congress has authority over the citizenship status of those born abroad, not those born here. They do not say foreign born citizens are ineligible for the presidency.

    This case has no bearing on presidential eligibility once Congress says you are born a citizen abroad. That is a separate question, which also has been much discussed here.

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Paper, explain again in very simple terms as to why RvB is not the hypocrisy I believe it to be. I’m all ears. In fact, if your point is clear I will be amenable to accepting much of what has troubled me these past few years.

    Thank you very much.

  143. avatar
    Majority Will January 27, 2013 at 3:44 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Majority, I forget…which Alinsky rule are you employing?

    11 and 12 would be my guess. Good job multi-tasking.

    RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
    RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

    I thought that was Sun Tzu. Good job trolling but your reply doesn’t apply. It’s nonsense. You have many things wrong but the biggest is based on simple bigotry. You don’t have questions. You started with answers and now you desperately need to prove you are right in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  144. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 3:46 am #

    Majority, what are your thoughts on the bills recently introduced? Or are you merely happy to ridicule the “troll”?

    I stated many hours earlier that;

    “The bills introduced concern whether there should be empirical proof of birth within the US for those hoping to hold the office of US president. This of course, pisses me off.

    The fact Orly et al have hijacked the “birfer” movement has had dire results. The fact 14th amendment (WKA) citizens are eligible for the presidency is the issue, for those that need a birth certificate to reason.”

    Your point of view is most welcome.

  145. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 27, 2013 at 3:48 am #

    Majority Will: That is BIZARRE.

    Bizarre? Maybe. Desperate, definitely. He was a rMoney guy, still stuck in post-election syndrome.

    I wonder if he has any thoughts on ‘birther’ bills. Or does he intend to ramble about the long debunked distraction that is PDF madness on every thread that catches his fancy?

  146. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2013 at 3:53 am #

    Dionisio Lopez: Most Americans believe the long form image is a “birth certificate”.

    Wrong. Most Americans believe the long form image is an IMAGE of a “birth certificate”.

    The White House intentionally pushed this impression, while stressing that the short form is the legal document.

    Wrong. The White House stressed that the short form is ALSO the legal document.

    Do you have a cognitive disability?

  147. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2013 at 3:56 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy: I’m a high school drop out

    I apologize for the crack about a cognitive disability.

  148. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 3:56 am #

    Paper, thank you for your reply.

    OK, not sure I understand your response. Congress “has authority over the citizenship status of those born abroad, not those born here”. Per RvB, what you said is true. Those born abroad are subject to the power of congress to statutorily naturalize and thus cannot ever be considered 14th amendment citizens or worse, NBCs.

    McCain, though born to two American citizens, required congressional review and yet Mr. Obama born to a foreign father did not.

    Fun?

  149. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 4:06 am #

    Kieth, no worries. I win some and lose some. It is not a matter of education or intellect…it is the premise of the argument.

    I’ve been wrong many times.

  150. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 27, 2013 at 4:07 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy: McCain, though born to two American citizens, required congressional review and yet Mr. Obama born to a foreign father did not.

    A lil jus soli clears that right up for ya. There. Feel better?

  151. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 4:11 am #

    aesthetocyst, I think you just said something important but I didn’t understand. McCain was found eligible due what…jus soli? He was born on US soil?

    I did not know that…last I heard it was Panama.

  152. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2013 at 4:12 am #

    Dionisio Lopez: If you believe the Obama long form birth certificate posted on the White House website is NOT a computer generated forgery, you are either ignorant, a liar or both.

    Or correct. Let’s not forget that possibility, shall we?

    Anyway, none of us here think that “the Obama long form birth certificate posted on the White House website” is actually a birth certificate. Get it? We all know that it is an IMAGE of a birth certificate.

    And more importantly, we all know that how the PDF file was created is totally irrelevant. What is important is the information displayed on that file about the President’s birth event – it was on U.S. soil in 1961 – that says he is old enough to be President and is a Natural Born Citizen.

    That is all that is important about the birth certificate. There is absolutely nothing else that is of any interest what-so-ever about it with regards to his eligibility and the Constitution. Period.

  153. avatar
    Pieter Nosworthy January 27, 2013 at 4:13 am #

    Good lord, it’s 3AM! Good night, one and all.

  154. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2013 at 4:22 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy: The proven fact that Chester’s dad nationality was not known for more than a hundred years later means nothing?

    It was well known at the time Arthur was running for President because his political opponents knew everything about him, and attempted to prove that he was born overseas.

    They didn’t have any problem with his British father, and they did not attempt to attack him from that angle. They just tried to convince people that he was born in Canada, not the U.S. We didn’t have birth certificates back then, you see.

    National Portrait Gallery: Chester Arthur: A Birthplace Controversy, 1880

  155. avatar
    Majority Will January 27, 2013 at 4:25 am #

    aesthetocyst: A lil jus soli clears that right up for ya. There. Feel better?

    You’ll most likely get a snarky, obtuse reply. Obviously, many of these obstinate birthers aren’t very good at being clever.

  156. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2013 at 4:29 am #

    Paper: Why do you have no doubt, no wonderment about who his father was?

    Because I know who his father was.

    Is that not an indication of a closed mind?

    No, it is an indication of a mind that has asked a question, recognized the answer, and moved on to more important things.

    Do you just write off all those who think Frank Marshall Davis was his father?

    Yes

    Why are you not more appreciative of their concerns?

    Because they are morons.

  157. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2013 at 4:47 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy: Paper, fair enough. Are you not filled with disquiet that our highest court considers those such as McCain ineligible?

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html

    Rogers v Bellei does NOT consider John McCain or those ‘like him’ ineligible. Rogers v Bellei says that Congress can pass laws that define the path to citizenship for those people not born under the protection of the 14th amendment. Congress has chosen to specifiy that children born overseas who meet certain criteria, such as two citizen parents or even 1 citizen parent, and who meet certain other criteria are in fact “citizens at birth” (i.e. Natural Born Citizen) and need not go through the naturalization process.

    Bellei failed to meet the residency criteria and was arguing that he shouldn’t have to. RvB found that Congress did have the authority to set such criteria and Bellei failed to do so despite several warnings. Since he was born outside the US, he was not a ‘born in the US’ citizen and the 14th doesn’t apply to him.

    RvB wasn’t about Natural Born Citizenship, per se. It was about Congress authority to set criteria for foreign born people to qualify for citizenship. Some of those foreign born people are born citizens and some need to be naturalized to be a U.S. CItizen. That is all there is to it.

    McCain, in that respect, is also not a ’14th amendment citizen’ as he was not born in the US. He has, however, unlike Bellei, met ALL other criteria specified by Congress and is therefore a Natural Born Citizen. There is no doubt that he is eligible, and your assertion that our highest court considers him so is false.

  158. avatar
    aarrgghh January 27, 2013 at 4:53 am #

    no matter how many ways, on how many websites, birfers insist on slicin’ dicin’ n’ splicin’ it, doubt is not, cannot and never will be evidence. courts are not websites. courts deal with evidence and walking into court without it is like bringing unicorn farts to a knife fight. that the birfer scorecard stands at zero for 198 and counting is a surprise only to birfers.

  159. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2013 at 4:57 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    aesthetocyst, I think you just said something important but I didn’t understand. McCain was found eligible due what…jus soli? He was born on US soil?

    I did not know that…last I heard it was Panama.

    No. Are you being purposely disingenuous?

    Obama is a jus soli citizen; he was born on American soil. Congress has no need to comment on his citizenship status.

    McCain was born overseas. Congress is the arbitrator of who is or is not a ‘born citizen’ when if they are born overseas.

    That is the difference: McCain = overseas – jus sanguinis; Obama = American Soil = jus soli.

    Congress did its job with regards to McCain. It had no job to do with regards to Obama.

  160. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 4:59 am #

    There is nothing arbitrary here. It is simply a logical and understandable distinction between those born here and those not. If you are not born here, there are no simple, unchangeable rules; decisions need to be made about varying circumstances, especially across the span of centuries. Who is to make those decisions? The Constitution gives those decisions to Congress.

    This is a separate matter from natural born citizenship. There is much substantial support that once Congress has recognized a particular foreign born citizen as a citizen at birth that they are a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency. This fits McCain’s case. I myself am confident at this point, I think that is the natural and clear conclusion once you’ve done the research, all the way back to the beginning, but if you want to wonder and doubt, here’s where to do it. That question, however, has no bearing on anyone born in the country.

    Pieter Nosworthy:

    The second sentence is subject to question…is NBC arbitrary or was it understood when originally written?

    ************************************************************

    The states have no say over US citizenship, correct.

    There is no question about children of ambassadors or the children of invading soldiers as well…the answer is no, they are not born citizens. But Native Americans pretty much are at this point. I’m not sure if there are any exceptions there. All of these relate to “subject to jurisdiction.”

    As for your question: “or those born that require USSC [United States Supreme Court] determination for citizenship (WKA 14th)?”

    First, the answer is yes, they are born citizens. But they do not “require” Supreme Court determination. They also do not require Congressional determination. Nor Executive branch determination.

    While WKA upheld this principle, it was not “determined” by the Supreme Court, not created by the court. The 14th amendment put what was common law into the Constitution as a constitutional guarantee, and arguably to repair the Constitution itself from its embrace of slavery, or to make sure that there was no doubt that this previously accepted principle applies to *everyone.*

    So if any of us require USSC determination, as you put it, we all do. If the argument is that there is a category of 14th amendment citizens, we all are such citizens, or none of us are. If such so-called 14th amendment citizens are not natural born citizens, then none of us are and no one is eligible to be president.

    Pieter Nosworthy:

    The third sentence is very interesting…have the states’ no say in citizenship, what of foreign nationals (ambassadors and indians), or those born that require USSC determination for citizenship (WKA 14th)?

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Paper, great comment;

    “[1] There is no doubt that to be a natural born citizen at least requires being born a citizen. [2] Thus, if Congress, through its proper action, excludes you from citizenship at birth, then you would be ineligible. [3] Congress has no such proper action with regard to anyone born here. They have been explicitly excluded from that action. However, they do have that responsibility for those born abroad. Who fits *that* bill has varied over the centuries.”

  161. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 5:13 am #

    Keith, I hope it was clear I was asking rhetorical questions to drive home a point, that point being directed at Pieter Nosworthy’s insistence that we all wonder and doubt on command or be hypocrites as firstly irrelevant and secondly more of a question for himself than anyone else.

    Keith: Because I know who his father was.

    No, it is an indication of a mind that has asked a question, recognized the answer, and moved on to more important things.

    Yes

    Because they are morons.

  162. avatar
    Scientist January 27, 2013 at 7:09 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy: Doc KN, thanks for your example in nuance and rationalization. What is your point? The proven fact that Chester’s dad nationality was not known for more than a hundred years later means nothing?I’m in my forties. I rationalize many things. You’re not helping.

    There are multiple precedents regarding the eligibility of those with a foreign father:
    1. Chester Arthur-Despite Mr Nosworthy’s claims, it was well known at the time that Arthur’s father had been born in Ireland and his opponents hired a well-respected New York lawyer, Arthur Hinman, to investigate his eligibility. Hinman spent quite a bit of time in Vermont, where Arthur was born, investigating whether he had been born in Canada, where his parents had lived. Yet this very experienced and diligent attorney never bothered to check at the courthouses whether or when his foreign-born father had been naturalized.
    2. John Fremont, a General and explorer and the first Republican candidate for President was born in Charleston, SC to a French father who remained a French citizen and spoke constantly about his plan to return to France, though he died when John was a small child, before he could do so. Not a single opponent at the time ever questioned Fremont’s eligibility.
    3.Spiro Agnew (remember that the qualifications for Vice President are the same as for President). His father was born in Greece, a fact everyone knew, and it is still unclear whether he was naturalized before or after Spiro was born. Yet in 2 campaigns, never a word was said on the topic.

    So, there is quite a history here that no one considered a foreign father to be a factor until, oddly enough, the late fall of 2008. Interesting, isn’t it?

  163. avatar
    Scientist January 27, 2013 at 7:22 am #

    Dionisio Lopez: Run away? From who? As far as I can tell, I’m the only commenter on this blog that understands PDFs. Reading all your hypothesis for how the pdf was generated is comical. If you believe the Obama long form birth certificate posted on the White House website is NOT a computer generated forgery, you are either ignorant, a liar or both.

    OK, let’s pretend the pdf is a “computer generated forgery”. Yet the State of Hawaii has officially verified on multiple occasionsthat the information on it is genuine. So, if I accept your argument, they used a computer to generate an accurate document. Now you can cry that is still fraud but actually it isn’t, because an essential element of fraud is a material intent to deceive. Since only the information on the form is material, this fails the legal definition of fraud or forgery. It would be, at worst, an honest attempt to accurately recreate a document that for whatever reason was difficult to render legible in electronic form.

  164. avatar
    Greenfinches January 27, 2013 at 7:49 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy: RvB in 1971 reflected as precedent that those born abroad are ineligible for the presidency, Isn’t it popular conviction that WKA speaks for those eligible?

    What makes you think that WKA has anything to do with the position of those born abroad? The whole issue was the rights of one born in the US to non – naturalised aliens.

    Try reading the case, all of it – dissent included.

  165. avatar
    Northland10 January 27, 2013 at 8:20 am #

    Scientist: There are multiple precedents regarding the eligibility of those with a foreign father:

    Not to mention Chief Justice Waite administering the oath. He must have forgotten his “Minor” precedent. Mario liked to complain that, Waite had to because it would have caused to many issues, but the Arthur had already been sworn in by a state judge. Waite only administered it a second time out of abundance of caution.

  166. avatar
    Majority Will January 27, 2013 at 8:27 am #

    Greenfinches: What makes you think that WKA has anything to do with the position of those born abroad?The whole issue was the rights of one born in the US to non – naturalised aliens.

    Try reading the case, all of it – dissent included.

    It’s another feeble and pathetic attempt to confuse the issue and a typical birther bigot tactic.

  167. avatar
    bobj January 27, 2013 at 8:36 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Majority, I forget…which Alinsky rule are you employing?

    11 and 12 would be my guess. Good job multi-tasking.

    RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
    RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

    If you need to quote Mr. Alinsky, at least get it right. In the chapter on Tactics in Rules for Radicals, the 12th rule is: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

    The 13th rule is: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

    But Mr. Alinsky was not writing about tactics for an argument. If you actually read the book you would know that.

  168. avatar
    Paper January 27, 2013 at 8:54 am #

    Everything after “and thus” is incorrect.

    There is no “thus [they] *cannot* ever be considered.” [My emphasis.]

    There are no 14th amendment citizens. (That is clumsy language. The 14th amendment guarantees all of our citizenships, *all* of us born here. It does not create a new kind of citizenship. It guarantees and repairs citizenship.)

    There is no rule that such foreign born citizens are not NBC. The weight and likelihood goes the other way, toward their being NBC. It remains untested, as McCain lost. But the mere fact of the non-binding resolution suggests he would have been fine in the eyes of Congress, and there is, as mentioned, other support for this likelihood. Use the conspiracy search bar above to find some others.

    McCain did not *require* Congressional “review.” A non-binding resolution is not a review, nor was it required. Congress was simply letting it be known that they thought it is fine. A heads-up, if you will.

    The actual review, if you want to use that word, happens when Congress certifies the electoral college votes. McCain never made it that far, never was reviewed. President Obama, on the other hand, has passed that gauntlet twice!

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Paper, thank you for your reply.

    OK, not sure I understand your response. Congress “has authority over the citizenship status of those born abroad, not those born here”. Per RvB, what you said is true. Those born abroad are subject to the power of congress to statutorily naturalize and thus cannot ever be considered 14th amendment citizens or worse, NBCs.

    McCain, though born to two American citizens, required congressional review and yet Mr. Obama born to a foreign father did not.

    Fun?

  169. avatar
    Majority Will January 27, 2013 at 9:01 am #

    bobj: If you need to quote Mr. Alinsky, at least get it right. In the chapter on Tactics in Rules forRadicals, the 12th rule is: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

    The 13th rule is: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

    But Mr. Alinsky was not writing about tactics for an argument. If you actually read the book you would know that.

    I seriously doubt many birther bigots understand what they are quoting.

    If they had a clue, they probably wouldn’t be birther bigots.

  170. avatar
    Andy January 27, 2013 at 10:17 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    All,

    Who will be the first to admit a modicum of doubt in a bill that doesn’t acknowledge the parents of person with aspiration for the presidency?

    No wonderment whatsoever is an admission of a closemindedness that speaks volumes.

    I have no doubt. Why? Because I am not my parents. I never have been. Did they raise me? Yes, but I am who I am not BECAUSE of the, but IN SPITE of them.

    Your ignorant “concern” is because you are apparently a clone of your parents. I am not. For you to group me with you attempts to lessen who I am.

  171. avatar
    Bob January 27, 2013 at 10:23 am #

    In Gerald Ford’s autobiography he says that his mother left his real father because he was violent and abusive. I don’t remember Wingnuts fretting that Gerald Ford would be abusive because his real father was.

  172. avatar
    Reality Check January 27, 2013 at 10:23 am #

    That’s funny. Several legal scholars including one of the most brilliant attorneys of that period seemed to think WKA could have been eligible to be president some day as a result of the the ruling.

    http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/funk-wagnalls-president-obama-is-eligible/

    Pieter Nosworthy: WKA is not the definitive notion for NBC despite your effort for self delusion and greater import on others,

  173. avatar
    Scientist January 27, 2013 at 10:37 am #

    Scientist: There are multiple precedents regarding the eligibility of those with a foreign father:

    I can add one more precedent for a President with a foreign father-Barack Obama himself. Just imagine, if you would, that Arnold Schwarzenegger calls a press conference tomorrow to announce that he is running for President in 2016. It’s a safe bet that before he finished speaking, there would be a chorus of voices pointing out that he was ineligible.

    Yet, when Barack Obama announced he was running in February 2007, it was well known that his father was Kenyan (I believe there was a best-selling book on that very subject) yet not a single voice was raised. No scholars, no opponents spoke up in the 15 months in which he competed in the Democratic primaries and the 6 months after that when he competed in the general election. Even Mr Pieter Nosworthy was silent on the issue of Mr Obama’s father. I challenge him to show that he expressed any concerns. Magically, only a week or so before the election did any concerns surface and those from a poker player with a law degree who had never litigated a single case in his life. Forgive me for concluding that the entire issue is but a manufactured POS that may have taken in a few uninformed folks, but has received no backing from the courts, the Congress or legal scholars.

  174. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2013 at 10:51 am #

    Paper:
    Keith, I hope it was clear I was asking rhetorical questions to drive home a point, that point being directed at Pieter Nosworthy’s insistence that we all wonder and doubt on command or be hypocrites as firstly irrelevant and secondly more of a question for himself than anyone else.

    Not when I wrote the reply, but I realized it shortly after hitting submit.

    Sorry about that.

  175. avatar
    Atticus Finch January 27, 2013 at 11:47 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    MN-S, cowardice or ignorance thrice is not legal reflection of law. Chester was admitted due to a misunderstanding of his birth (he was not born Canadian or Irish but from someone who had not nationalized until 14 years after the birth).

    Perhaps you feel good about someone born with fealty to both Great Britain and United States who later has aspirations for the presidency. Eh, me not so much.

    The status of Obama’s dual citizenship at the time of his birth is completely irrelevant as to his natural born citizenship status.

    What is relevant is the fact that he was born in the United States. Obama was born in the allegiance of the United States. “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. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866)

    Courts on numerous times have held that a native born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)(“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)

    In fact, the courts on numerous occasions observed that native born citizens are natural born citizens and thus are eligible to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913) (“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”) See also ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.”)

    Furthermore, if Obama was not a natural born citizen then he is either a naturalized citizen or an alien. But this is a false dilemma fallacy since Naturalization Acts do not confer citizenship on native born citizens in the United States nor is he an alien since courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizen.

    In Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949 )
    the court noted:

    “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. (internal citations omitted) And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents. (internal citations omitted)

    Similarly the court in United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43 , 56 (CD Ca. 1967) observed:

    “Obedient primarily to that unequivocal constitutional language, but also to the lately quoted Title 8 U.S.C., section 1401(a) (1), it has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.); and that upon the subject, his or her color or racial origin is immaterial.”(internal citation omitted)

    Furthermore, Justice Jackson in his concurring opinion in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) noted:

    “The language of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring two kinds of citizenship is discriminating. It is: “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.” While it thus establishes national citizenship from the mere circumstance of birth within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States,” Id. at 183.

    In the New Jersey Supreme Court case Benny v. O’Brien, 32 Atl 696 (1895), Justice Van Syckel addressed the issue before the court: “The question presented is whether a person born in this country of alien parents, who, prior to his birth, had their domicile here, is a citizen of the United States?”

    In answering in the affirmative Justice Van Syckel declared: “The words of the fourteenth amendment are, “born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.” Those provisions by implication concede that there may be instances in which the right to citizenship does not attach by reason of birth in this country. 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.” Id

    As such, Obama’s dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is legally sufficient to be a natural born citizen

  176. avatar
    Atticus Finch January 27, 2013 at 11:51 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Where in that passage did they claim Emmerich de vattel was looked to on citizenship?I notice the founders ignored most of what Vattel wrote.

    Correct.

    It was Blackstone’s influence and not Vattel’s influence that was the source of the natural born citizen term in the Constitution.

    Blackstone noted the difference between Civil Law and Common Law regarding children born of aliens in England:

    The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien. (Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765)

    The natural born citizen language in the Constitution is derived from its English Common Law counterpart natural born subject. This idea is based on courts understanding that the term citizen is analogous with term subject. “The term `citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”). Rather, the terms are meant to encompass persons living under distinct forms of government: “A monarchy has subjects; a republic has citizens.” Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F. 3d 76 , 85 (2nd Cir. 1997)

    The court in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) stated in clear and concise language the common law’s influence in the Constitution:
    “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    That at the time of the drafting of the Constitution the drafters were acquainted with Blackstone’s Commentaries including his definition of natural born subjects. Justice Stone observed: “It is noteworthy that Blackstone’s Commentaries, more read in America before the Revolution than any other law book.” CJ Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 US 133 , 151-152 (1943) . Similarly, the court in United States v. Green, 140 F. Supp. 117, 120 (SD NY 1956) noted: “ Blackstone, whose Commentaries probably did much to influence the thinking of American lawyers at and before the time of the framing of the Federal Constitution.”

    Moreover, “Blackstone’s Commentaries had a wide circulation in America at the time of the Constitutional Convention. It is said that sixteen signers of the Declaration of Independence knew the book cover to cover. A source book of legal science, a landmark in law and literature. It is safe to say that it contents were familiar to every American lawyer in public life in 1789 and 1791. Sunray Oil Corp. v.Allbritton, 187 F.2d 475,478 (5th Cir. 1951)

    As such, it is inconceivable for the framers of the Constitution to “import” a foreign idea of citizenship based on the bloodline of fathers and not based on the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case and reaffirmed by Blackstone in his Commentaries whose book was required reading by lawyers in colonial America.

  177. avatar
    Reality Check January 27, 2013 at 11:51 am #

    BTW, I challenged Mario Apuzzo to find just one contemporary legal article that agreed with his opinion that the 1874 Minor v Happersett definitively established who were natural born citizens. He of course cannot find a single article.

    In one of his lectures William D. Guthrie, whom I quoted in the blog article I wrote said after the WKA decision:

    This case is not altogether a new one but has been previously decided in three cases in inferior courts, Lynch v Clark ,1 Sandf Ch NY 583 1844,; Gee Fook Sing v United States, 49 Fed Rep 146 1892; In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed Rep 905 1884; in the last of which the opinion was rendered by the present Justice Field of the Supreme Court all three adopting the Common Law rule viz that birth within the realm is conclusive. The question seems never to have been before the Supreme Court of the United States for decision. It has however been incidentally there and in one case, Minor v Happersett, 21 Wall 168 1874, they refused to decide the point and in another The Slaughtcr House Cases, 16 Wall 73 1872, they,by a dictum, construe the clause in direct conflict with the decision of Field J when in the lower court. It is worthy of note that Justice Field dissents in the latter case.

    Apuzzo’s only answer is that “Guthrie was wrong.”. Of course, it takes Apuzzo several thousand words to say that. He also has said that a host of current judges starting with the Akeny court in Indiana and in his own failed cases are wrong too.

  178. avatar
    Atticus Finch January 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm #

    Reality Check: WKA

    According to the dissent in the Wong Kim Ark Case, Wong Kim Ark’s majority opinion would allow Wong Kim Ark to be eligible to be president:

    “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898) (C.J. Fuller, dissenting)

  179. avatar
    No Matter! January 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm #

    The issues that the “Real American Threat” (R.A.T) in Wa. DC. has concocted to validate his fraud will always come back to haunt his lying derrière. This “rat’ will go down in history as the one that caused a huge magnitude of distrust for the minority community in America.
    The minority community voted for their disgrace rather than pushing for the ‘rule of law’; laws that provided the basis of a major grievance for their pursuit of ‘equal opportunity’ as the Supreme Laws of America state on the Supreme Law parchments.

    The game playing with language exhibited on this blog is senseless; it has no meaning whatsoever, because the only solution to resolving the “rat” issue is a court of law.

    The declamations posted on this blog leaves one to wonder if any of the posters are able to function in America’s highway system given the evidence of their inability to use common sense in developing an understanding of “real serious and egregious” fraud actions ‘created’ by the White House “rat”.

    Enforce the laws… there is without a doubt ‘probable cause’ to indict that fraudulent ‘rat’ who disgraced the minority community.

    A better president could’ve been Alan Keyes who is a solid American and truly believes in the American’s “Supreme Law”; moreover America’s Supreme Law has problems that need corrective actions, but pursuing the ‘rat’s’ agenda to solve America’s problems is the DEATH OF FREEDOM in America.

    The ignorant pursuit of the ‘rat’s’ agenda is explained by a true ‘racist’ who accurately states where America is headed as it moves away from the “Supreme Law” toward the ‘rat’s’ agenda. The “racist” audio begins after 1hr into the audio stream. Listen to what this “racist” anti ‘rat’ has to say about America’s tomfoolery.
    http://is.gd/hB1IDB

    The anti ‘rat’ racist has more to say here… http://loyaltoliberty.com/. This racist could’ve made a great Commander In Chief for America.

  180. avatar
    richCares January 27, 2013 at 12:41 pm #

    what hole did “No Matter” crawl out of, the hole of delusion, the hole of hate, or both. What a sad sad anti ‘rat’ racist person!

  181. avatar
    Reality Check January 27, 2013 at 12:45 pm #

    Alan Keyes? Who is he? :lol:

  182. avatar
    Xyxox January 27, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

    A better president could’ve been Alan Keyes who is a solid American and truly believes in the American’s “Supreme Law”; moreover America’s Supreme Law has problems that need corrective actions, but pursuing the ‘rat’s’ agenda to solve America’s problems is the DEATH OF FREEDOM in America.

    That’s pretty danged hilarious! Alan Keyes is a poor loser and a fool. He couldn’t even muster 30% of the vote nor win in 10% of the counties against The Natural Born Citizen, Barack Obama, for the Illinois Senate seat in 2004!

  183. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 12:55 pm #

    It bore scrutiny in 2008 when the issue was first raised. Since then several noted constitutional scholars, 10 court cases, and members of Congress have all declared the answer and we moved on.

    You don’t appear interested in the topic either; all you want to do is talk about talking about the topic.

    Pieter Nosworthy: Last I asked, I couldn’t even get an admission from anyone that the matter bears scrutiny.

  184. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    If you want to have a civil discourse, you could start by being honest with your self and the readers here.

    To make a point one should state the point and then give a reason that someone should agree with it. You, on the other hand, make a point and make a false assertion that proof exists, but making no actual argument and offering no evidence. To lie to someone is highly offensive, and you have done so repeatedly.

    You are probably blind to the fact that you are lying, just believing things to be self-evident which are actually false. Your debating skills are so lacking that you probably believe that you are debating or contending; you’re not.

    Pieter Nosworthy: Doc KN, so I am a liar. OK. What other statements would you like to make? That you are incapable of having a civil discourse on a matter that someone who might be your peer could possibly discuss?

  185. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 1:07 pm #

    Thank you for listing some technical terms. What you have NOT done is to even attempt to explain WHY you assert that Obama’s certificate is a forgery. All you have said is “I am an expert and it is a forgery.” You have not explained why you think “offsets, streams and filters” make it a forgery, nor have you even acknowledged that the White House PDF wasn’t created with the Adobe API.

    Given that credentialed experts, I think the count is up to 5 now, do not say that it is a forgery, I must therefore conclude that YOU are not an expert. I think that is reasonable.

    Dionisio Lopez: I appreciate that you started this blog, but it is clear by your comments you are not familiar with the portable document format specification (including object offsets, streams and filters). I’m sorry you did not acquire this knowledge in your 30 years of working with PDFs.

  186. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 1:10 pm #

    They might well have had in 1789.

    Paper: The states have no say over US citizenship, correct.

  187. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 1:18 pm #

    Uhh, that has already been tried 200 times.

    If you don’t want Obama in office for 4 more years, the courts will not help you. Read the Constitution. Impeachment is your only avenue, and despite your delusions, President Obama had run an exemplary administration.

    As for Keyes, I have debated him and I was not impressed.

    No Matter!: The game playing with language exhibited on this blog is senseless; it has no meaning whatsoever, because the only solution to resolving the “rat” issue is a court of law.

  188. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 1:25 pm #

    So why did you copy my remarks into your comment if you were not going to respond to their substantive charges? Did you think that by copying them that you would fool someone into thinking that you had answered them?

    Dionisio Lopez: I appreciate that you started this blog, but it is clear by your comments you are not familiar with the portable document format specification (including object offsets, streams and filters). I’m sorry you did not acquire this knowledge in your 30 years of working with PDFs.

  189. avatar
    Andy January 27, 2013 at 1:25 pm #

    No Matter!:
    The issues that the “Real American Threat” (R.A.T) in Wa. DC. has concocted to validate his fraud will always come back to haunt his lying derrière.This “rat’ will go down in history as the one that caused a huge magnitude of distrust for the minority community in America.
    The minority community voted for their disgrace rather than pushing for the ‘rule of law’; laws that provided the basis of a major grievance for their pursuit of ‘equal opportunity’ as the Supreme Laws of America state on the Supreme Law parchments.

    Ironically, you say the minority is what voted for him, yet he got the majority of the votes. Doesn’t that mean that your “minority” is actually the majority in this case?

  190. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 27, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: They might well have had in 1789.

    I believe they would have. The early republic was a collection of sovereigns, citizens of any of the states were American citizens. Having 13 different citizenship standard was unworkable. One of the main (tho not nearly as acute as the inability of the federal gov’t to tax) under the Articles was unwillingness of states to automatically recognize rights of citizens of other states, particularly naturalized citizens. Thus the call in the new Constitution for Congress to immediately establish a ‘uniform rule of naturalization’.

    Hard to be one country if you can’t agree who belongs to it!

  191. avatar
    Sef January 27, 2013 at 1:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    They might well have had in 1789.

    In point of fact, there is no mention in the Constitution, prior to the 14th Amendment of how to actually become a U.S. citizen, other than by naturalization. Nevertheless, there are specific requirements for congresscritters & the CJ to be citizens and the President and VP to be a specific type of citizen. Therefore it seems logical, at least to me, that the definition was outside the Constitution in 1789 and commonly known. Hence the comments in WKA.

  192. avatar
    J.D. Sue January 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm #

    No Matter!: This “rat’ will go down in history as the one that caused a huge magnitude of distrust for the minority community in America.

    More likely: This huge magnitude of distrust for the minority community in America will go down in history as what caused trolls like Nomatter! to call the first African American President a real American threat.

  193. avatar
    justlw January 27, 2013 at 3:16 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez: Anyway, look forward to yet another analysis of this ridiculous topic.

    Something we can agree on.

    There are other images of the same piece of paper we can look at. This one and this one are kind of well known. There are even higher-resolution images available–posted on birther sites, as it happens.

    All of these images show the same piece of paper. None of them differ visually in what they show in any way that matters. They all show the same data. The data has been certified by the State of Hawaii, multiple times over.

    Given this, I ask: why are you obsessing over the internal workings of one of the images, and ignoring the fact that that image shows exactly what it’s supposed to show?

    Does the internal format of that image change its data compared to the other images — at all? No, it does not. Does the internal format of that image materially change how it looks to the naked eye, compared to other images of the same piece of paper? No, it does not.

    The objects within the image file are completely consistent with MRC. They are not consistent with any manipulation a human would do — or would be able to do, without tools that implement MRC.

    But the key point is: it doesn’t matter what the internal format looks like. Not at all. Because there are other images of the same piece of paper, and the data has been certified by the canonical authority for that data.

  194. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    They might well have had in 1789.

    In 1788, Alexander Hamilton was a naturalized citizen of New York. There was no ‘national’ United States citizenship.

    (I don’t know what year Hamilton was naturalized, I just feel confident that it was before 1789 and the Constitution).

  195. avatar
    Reality Check January 27, 2013 at 4:18 pm #

    Was that via email or did he comment here at one time? I invited him to come on RC Radio but he never responded.

    Dr. Conspiracy: As for Keyes, I have debated him and I was not impressed.

  196. avatar
    Scientist January 27, 2013 at 4:36 pm #

    No Matter!: the “Real American Threat” (R.A.T) in Wa. DC.

    Obama is a Real American and he is a Threat to the continued existence of the Republican party as a viable force nationally.

  197. avatar
    y_p_w January 27, 2013 at 4:36 pm #

    justlw:

    Given this, I ask: why are you obsessing over the internal workings of one of the images, and ignoring the fact that that image shows exactly what it’s supposed to show?

    It’s called “confirmation bias”.

  198. avatar
    Sean January 27, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Keith, I understand that Mr. Obama was born to a father that barely was…his mom soon after his birth returned to WA for college and he continued his unconcern as a randy polygamist. Per Vattel and our nation’s early understanding of citizenship, Obama is the antithesis of what constitutes a NBC.

    What on Earth are you blathering about?!

  199. avatar
    Northland10 January 27, 2013 at 5:27 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Alan Keyes? Who is he?

    He was that carpetbagger who said, even if he lost, he would stay in Illinois and help rebuild the Illinois Republican Party. Fortunately for the Illinois GOP, he was gone they day after the election, never to be heard from again.

    As for “No Matter’s” supposed minority vote. Assuming he is not talking about the minority, AKA 47%, that voted for Romney, most people of all races are often less supportive of a candidate who insinuates that the voter is a lazy, take government handout voters. The racial stereotypes used by some in the GOP (like our Papers Please Texas rep) also have an odd tendency to make some voters less supportive.

    What is it about these birther trolls who seam obsessed with pointing out the racial minorities only vote race? Projection?

  200. avatar
    Sean January 27, 2013 at 5:30 pm #

    “I’m also very amused by the attacks on my credibility, identity, etc. But from reading the archives, I expected that.”

    The problem is, Dionisio, that working with PDFs for many years isn’t uncommon. PDFs are used all the time and a great many people are better authorities than you to confirm a conspiracy.

    You, Dionisio, are LOOKING for a conspiracy. And if you look for one, I guarantee you’ll find one. Even if you have to put the PDF through filters.

    Try that with other birth certificates and you’ll find the same thing. It was tried with Donald Trump’s birth certificate.

  201. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2013 at 5:45 pm #

    If anyone wants to see Pieter’s continued dishonesty one only has to look at his posts at the fogbow
    http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/search.php?author_id=2894&sr=posts

    He’s had every single question he’s asked here answered over there and instead he continues to pretend there is some honest doubt. His first posts go back to December of 2009.

  202. avatar
    Joey January 27, 2013 at 6:13 pm #

    There are two professional organizations whose members are experts in document analysis for legal purposes: The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners and The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. Professionals certified by either of these organizations would be readily admitted as experts in any court proceeding.
    I find it very telling that those who challenge the authenticity of the Presdents vital records have never enlisted a certified document examiner to make their case for forgery or alteration.

  203. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 6:18 pm #

    It was on some forum where he participated, not here. I think it may have been on his site. One must recall that he brought a birther lawsuit that included some outright lies about Hawaiian law. Rather than debate, he bobbed and weaved and changed the subject. He might be a little better propagandist than the average birther, but no better at argument.

    Of course, anyone who was good at argument wouldn’t be a birther in the first place.

    Reality Check: Was that via email or did he comment here at one time? I invited him to come on RC Radio but he never responded.

  204. avatar
    Rickey January 27, 2013 at 6:31 pm #

    Scientist:

    Yet, when Barack Obama announced he was running in February 2007, it was well known that his father was Kenyan (I believe there was a best-selling book on that very subject) yet not a single voice was raised.No scholars, no opponents spoke up in the 15 months in which he competed in the Democratic primaries and the 6 months after that when he competed in the general election.Even Mr Pieter Nosworthy was silent on the issue of Mr Obama’s father.I challenge him to show that he expressed any concerns.

    It’s worth reminding everyone that Jerome Corsi, with his PhD in Political Science, managed to write an entire book about Barack Obama (“The Obama Nation”) in the summer of 2008 and never once mentioned that he was ineligible to be President even though it was then common knowledge that Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.

    I once encountered Farah in an online chat and I tried to ask him when Corsi learned about the “two citizen parent requirement.” He ignored the question and left the chat.

  205. avatar
    JD Reed January 27, 2013 at 6:37 pm #

    No Matter!:

    A better president could’ve been Alan Keyes who is a solid American and truly believes in the American’s “Supreme Law…
    http://is.gd/hB1IDB

    Wow! Alan Keyes, the great “black hope’ of the Obamaphobes who trot Keyes out as proof they they’re not racist and would gladly vote for the RIGHT black candidate.
    Keyes was an early plaintiff in one of the birther cases, in which he declared that college student Obama visited Pakistan at at time that a travel ban prevented travel there on a U.S. passport. Now I don’t have a doctorate from Harvard, as Keyes does, but it was easy for me to quickly discover that the travel ban was a myth, or more harshly, a lie. Others actually had already discovered this; but I had sufficient Internet research skills to double-check and confirm that some malicious and dishonest soul just made it up. It took me maybe 15 minutes to do so, so if Dr. Keyes is such a wonderful intellect, why didn’t he do this before embarking on his quixotic quest?
    Also, Keyes claims that in their 2004 Senate campaign debate, Mr. Obama admitted he wasn’t a natural born citizen. The problem with that is that surely, among thousands of viewers, some would have videotaped or prehaps audiotaped the debate and kept the tape, and a few would have surely stepped forward to buttress Dr. Keyes’ recollection. But I haven’t heard of a soul doing so.
    I hope that you, No Matter, four years later, are aware that the Pakistan travel ban is a myth.
    And that Dr. Keyes provided no proof for his assertion regarding the debate.

  206. avatar
    misha marinsky January 27, 2013 at 6:51 pm #

    No Matter!: Alan Keyes who is a solid American

    Keyes is a carpetbagging crackpot, who disowned his daughter.

  207. avatar
    misha marinsky January 27, 2013 at 6:57 pm #

    JD Reed: a doctorate from Harvard, as Keyes does

    Corsi has a doctorate. Which reminds me of what I heard in college: ‘You can tell a Harvard graduate, but you can’t tell him much.’

  208. avatar
    misha marinsky January 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm #

    Rickey: I once encountered Farah in an online chat…He ignored the question and left the chat.

    Farah had a rendezvous with a ruminant.

  209. avatar
    JPotter January 27, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: If anyone wants to see Pieter’s continued dishonesty one only has to look at his posts at the fogbow

    I’ve only seen him here, but he reminds me of TrollerJack Osborne. A frustrated guy scratching his itch by endless Saying Anything™. Pieter writes at a higher level, but same attitude, same pointlessness. Finding a winger willing to toss out birfer memes at this late date is nothing special, but finding more than one willing to go at at endlessly … yeesh.

  210. avatar
    JPotter January 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

    justlw: There are other images of the same piece of paper we can look at. This one and this one are kind of well known. There are even higher-resolution images available–posted on birther sites, as it happens.

    An important corollary: the various images available weren’t created from the PDF. Have to be sure you slam that door. Demand a demonstration of anyone fool enough to assert that they were.

  211. avatar
    aarrgghh January 27, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

    JD Reed: Keyes claims that in their 2004 Senate campaign debate, Mr. Obama admitted he wasn’t a natural born citizen. The problem with that is that surely, among thousands of viewers, some would have videotaped or prehaps audiotaped the debate and kept the tape, and a few would have surely stepped forward to buttress Dr. Keyes’ recollection. But I haven’t heard of a soul doing so. … Dr. Keyes provided no proof for his assertion regarding the debate.

    while the debate admission is a widely held false memory among birfers, keyes himself denies it happened, certainly not in the way birfers love to recall it.

    OBAMA: I don’t need Mr. Keyes lecturing me about Christianity. That’s why I have a pastor. That’s why I have my Bible. That’s why I have my own prayer. And I don’t think that any of you are particularly interested in having Mr. Keyes lecture you about your faith.

    What you’re interested in is solving problems like jobs, and health care, and education. I’m not running to be the minister of Illinois. I’m running to be its United States Senator. (oct 21 2004)

    ——–

    Charles,

    Your instincts are right. That exchange never happened. It was the invention of somebody on the internet, one which seems to have sort of taken on a life of its own.

    Thanks for your diligence in getting at the truth.

    Tom Hoefling
    Chairman, America’s Independent Party
    Chairman, Alan Keyes for President 2008

  212. avatar
    john January 27, 2013 at 7:45 pm #

    “If you don’t want Obama in office for 4 more years, the courts will not help you. Read the Constitution. Impeachment is your only avenue, and despite your delusions, President Obama had run an exemplary administration.”

    Not necessarily. If Obama is not eligible then he not eligible to be impeached because was never a “real” President. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdomeners. Being ineligible is not a crime. Actually, there is no precident on the removal of a president who is not eligible. Impeachment is only for eligible presidents. However, I highly doubt the courts will ever remove him.

  213. avatar
    Arthur January 27, 2013 at 8:12 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Of course, anyone who was good at argument wouldn’t be a birther in the first place.

    Good at argument? No. But enjoy arguing? Mos def. I think Mario, for example, would argue over whether it was a cloudy day during a rain storm.

  214. avatar
    Atticus Finch January 27, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

    Sef: In point of fact, there is no mention in the Constitution, prior to the 14th Amendment of how to actually become a U.S. citizen, other than by naturalization. Nevertheless, there are specific requirements for congresscritters & the CJ to be citizens and the President and VP to be a specific type of citizen. Therefore it seems logical, at least to me, that the definition was outside the Constitution in 1789 and commonly known. Hence the comments in WKA.

    Jus Soli doctrine that citizenship follows place of birth has been the guiding principle of United States citizenship laws since the founding of this nation.

    Justice Thompson in his majority opinion in Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbour, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), stated: “It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and IN THOSE OUF OUR OWN COUNTRY, that ALL PERSONS born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were NATURAL BORN BRITISH SUBJECTS and it must necessarily follow, that the character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state, and the acknowledgement of their independence.” Id at 120-121 (emphasis added)

    Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case noted: [W]e find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.” Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Curtis, J, dissenting)

    Likewise, Justice Story in Levy v. McCartee 31 U.S. 102 (1832), observed the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Chief Justice Coke: “[I]f an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenæ, subjects born, because they are born within the realm. Id at 113. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99, 164(1830) (Story, J., concurring )(” Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are SUBJECTS BY BIRTH.”)

    Furthermore, Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:

    “The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the JUS SOLI,” Id at 660 (emphasis added)

    Moreover, “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)

    Finally, “[a]t common law and under the early judicial determinations in the United States it was established that birth in a country conferred citizenship. In re Reid, 6 F. Supp. 800, 802 (D. Or. 1934)

  215. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 27, 2013 at 9:47 pm #

    There has never been an ineligible President. The current system of press, election, electoral college and Congress always works.

    There is certainly no distinction in the Constitution between impeaching an eligible or an ineligible President. Obama is now President, whether he is eligible or not. Who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

    You may not believe that Obama is an eligible President, or you may say that is not the rightful President, but he is the President. That essential denial that Obama is the President is what has always led me towards a racist interpretation of birtherism. It is the essential denial of what happened that indicates that their is a clash between Obama being President and their world view — not a disagreement over eligibility, but a clash between the person and the office. Birthers have to go beyond just saying that a mistake was made, on to saying that it really didn’t happen.

    If it were just a matter of a mistake, then birthers would be happy for Congress to correct the mistake through impeachment. Birthers, however, don’t only want Obama out of the White House, they want him never to have been there.

    Nevertheless, in the hypothetical case of an ineligible President, it is still the Congress who is constitutionally tasked with dealing with removing the President from office, whether it be for crimes or for disability. The courts have no role, and I can not believe that they will assert one.

    john: Actually, there is no precident (sic) on the removal of a president who is not eligible. Impeachment is only for eligible presidents. However, I highly doubt the courts will ever remove him.

  216. avatar
    Jim January 27, 2013 at 9:56 pm #

    john:
    Impeachment is only for eligible presidents.However, I highly doubt the courts will ever remove him.

    Courts can’t remove him…and who, according to the Constitution, decides if a President is eligible? That’s right, the Electoral College and Congress. So, since they both thought he was eligible and installed him into office, he is eligible according to the Constitution and no amount of made-up evidence (or crap to describe it better) will ever persuade the courts. So, John, here’s what you need to do. Contact all pub congress people and keep putting the pressure on them for the next 4 years. The courts are no longer the answer…only Congress. Better gather up your millions of people who believe like you and march on Washington!

  217. avatar
    misha marinsky January 27, 2013 at 11:53 pm #

    john: Impeachment is only for eligible presidents. However, I highly doubt the courts will ever remove him.

    When did you get your law degree? Do you regularly consult with clients? Let’s hear more.

  218. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 28, 2013 at 12:30 am #

    john: Not necessarily. If Obama is not eligible then he not eligible to be impeached because was never a “real” President. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdomeners. Being ineligible is not a crime. Actually, there is no precident on the removal of a president who is not eligible. Impeachment is only for eligible presidents. However, I highly doubt the courts will ever remove him.

    John, the 12th Amendment, ratified AFTER Article 2 was ratified, altered the calculus of whether a President is eligible under the Constitution. It employs the word “shall”, the imperative command from which the provisions of the Constitution get their status as requirements, in a way that deals with a situation where a candidate for President who has received more than half of the votes in the electoral college, might later have their compliance with the Article 2 requirements challenged.

    It reads: “…The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; ….”

    So “shall be the President” legitimizes the status of the sufficient EC vote getter as a “real” President, establishing an Article 2-modifying blanket of POTUS eligibility for that person, and its up to Congress then to decide whether any later discovered insufficiency of compliance with the original Article 2 eligibility requirements (or any other unacceptable circumstance like being an android or the like) merits impeachment going forward.

  219. avatar
    The Magic M January 28, 2013 at 4:27 am #

    john: If Obama is not eligible then he not eligible to be impeached because was never a “real” President. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdomeners. Being ineligible is not a crime. Actually, there is no precident on the removal of a president who is not eligible.

    Usually I don’t nitpick on spelling, but if someone claims he knows “the truth” or “the law” better than the real experts, yet has a problem spelling any English word that is outside 4th grade vocabulary, I think it warrants pointing out that dissonance.

    john: If Obama is not eligible then he not eligible to be impeached because was never a “real” President.

    If that were the case, you’d have a loophole in the Constitution – any judge could just declare the President ineligible and thus remove him. A power that the Founders didn’t want to grant the courts, obviously.

    OTOH, there is no loophole about impeachment. The President stated under penalty of perjury that he is eligible when he filed his candidacy statements, so he could be impeached the same way they tried to impeach Clinton for lying under oath.

  220. avatar
    Monkey Boy January 28, 2013 at 5:41 am #

    ….
    Yet, when Barack Obama announced he was running in February 2007, it was well known that his father was Kenyan (I believe there was a best-selling book on that very subject) yet not a single voice was raised. No scholars, no opponents spoke up in the 15 months in which he competed in the Democratic primaries and the 6 months after that when he competed in the general election.
    ….

    The irony is that Republicans and RWers were actively pulling for Obama during the primaries (Remember operation chaos?.

    The idea was that the black guy with a mooslim-sounding name would be dead-bang easy to clobber. For two generations Republicans were very successful in mobilizing the resentment of working class Whites to often vote against their interests by repeating the mantra: “The Jigs are coming to kidnap your daughters and eat the food from you refrigerator!” It was only after he won the nomination that the bogus assertions concerning his religion and real name were floated by Republican underground rumor mongerers.

    It was only after it became apparent that Obama would likely win when the smear machine went into high gear with bogus charges and claims of ineligibility.

    Indeed, RW and Republican plotters got what they wished for–and buyer’s remorse is still rampant.

  221. avatar
    The Magic M January 28, 2013 at 6:19 am #

    Monkey Boy: It was only after it became apparent that Obama would likely win when the smear machine went into high gear with bogus charges and claims of ineligibility.

    Even Jerome Corsi, who is among those who claim that “everybody always knew you need two citizen parents”, did not even devote a single sentence to the Vattelist issue in his first anti-Obama book that listed all the ways in which he was a bad choice for President.

    But of course every conspiracy theory has to deny its own history to remain credible to its followers.

  222. avatar
    Hermitian January 28, 2013 at 7:54 am #

    These states are just trying to head off Obama’s third term.

  223. avatar
    Scientist January 28, 2013 at 7:56 am #

    The Magic M: OTOH, there is no loophole about impeachment. The President stated under penalty of perjury that he is eligible when he filed his candidacy statements, so he could be impeached the same way they tried to impeach Clinton for lying under oath.

    Not to nitpick you, but perjury is not just saying something untrue under oath. Rather it is willfully saying something you knew to be untrue at the time. When Barack Obama filed his statements, he had every reason to believe, based on centuries of jurisprudence, not to mention that no legal scholar or even his opponents questioned his eligibility, that having a non-citizen father was immaterial. So, in the fictional scenario where some court, even the Supreme Court, later ruled otherwise, that would not mean the original statement was perjury.

  224. avatar
    The Magic M January 28, 2013 at 8:11 am #

    I was speaking within the what-if-birthers-were-right bracket (where Obama has forged his own BC and knows you need two citizen parents), so I mean willful perjury.

    (BTW, in German law, there is a difference between willfully lying in court and telling the untruth under oath. The latter is a crime even if you didn’t willfully lie because this is meant to deter people from attesting to things under oath they are not actually certain of. I know, in the real world this wouldn’t apply to Obama even if his parents duped him on where he was born or if he relied on the settled meaning of NBC, but my point was that “john”‘s reasoning was wrong even in the logic of his own bizarro world.)

  225. avatar
    AlCum January 28, 2013 at 8:23 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    My fear is that the bills were spawned due to a concern of the president being foreign born (i.e. Kenya or Canada). Those that have concern give me qualms depending on their beliefs. This of course is a never ending chain of concern, most of you have qualms with my doubt regarding Mr. Obama’s birth to a foreign national father.

    Vattel is irrelevant to the issue of a US natural born citizen.

  226. avatar
    AlCum January 28, 2013 at 8:26 am #

    Pieter Nosworthy:
    Rickey, persons born to unknown fathers have been given certain leeway, despite the fact their mothers’ might have been harlots. I know who Mr. Obama’s father was, what is your point?

    His point is that your claim is ipso facto incorrect. Obama was born on US soil and is therefore a natural born citizen. This is well-established law and tradition.

  227. avatar
    AlCum January 28, 2013 at 8:30 am #

    Dionisio Lopez:
    Run away? From who? As far as I can tell, I’m the only commenter on this blog that understands PDFs.

    Reading all your hypothesis for how the pdf was generated is comical.

    If you believe the Obama long form birth certificate posted on the White House website is NOT a computer generated forgery, you are either ignorant, a liar or both.

    It is not only not a forgery, is has been authenticated by the issuing entity, which prima facie makes it genuine.

  228. avatar
    Scientist January 28, 2013 at 8:47 am #

    The Magic M: (BTW, in German law, there is a difference between willfully lying in court and telling the untruth under oath. The latter is a crime even if you didn’t willfully lie because this is meant to deter people from attesting to things under oath they are not actually certain of.

    Unlike john, IANAL, so you should not take this as gospel, but US law only punishes willfull lying. That is why perjury is a rarely prosecuted offense, because proving that willfull element, rather than the witness merely being mistaken or sincerely believing nonsense, is very hard to do.

  229. avatar
    Paper January 28, 2013 at 9:24 am #

    Beyond what Dr. C. said, which is the basic reality, how exactly did this so-called ineligible president become President, or rather how did he manage to get sworn in as President?

    *Being* ineligible may not be a crime, but according to your imagination were not crimes committed in the process? Unless you are saying it is a totally innocent usurpation, where everyone (including the President, including Congress which has just re-certified him, including the Supreme Court as expressed in individual words or implicit in their actions) thinks he is eligible? And only a select, elite group of birthers know the truth of this totally innocent circumstance?

    You are right to think the courts will not remove him. None of them are that stupid. Certainly not in the Supreme Court. None of them pretend they have such power, none of them are ignorant of the utter mess they would create by trying. Which is just how judges rise in their careers, by creating irresponsible crisises (not). Beyond the fantasy that the Supreme Court would ever find the President ineligible, what would be the remedy? You think anyone is going to allow nine people that *power*, most especially when the *power* of removing a president is already clearly given to Congress?

    Forget the President refusing to go along with such nonsense, much of Congress would tell the Court to go stick it (to use the legal term).

    What is your remedy for such chaos then? Beyond perhaps patting yourself on the back for a job well done in your mind? Is it any wonder your thinking has no power in these circumstances? You may continue to think you are right. But perhaps you would benefit from a deep think about why your views have no *power.*

    john:
    Not necessarily.If Obama is not eligible then he not eligible to be impeached because was never a “real” President. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdomeners.Being ineligible is not a crime.Actually, there is no precident on the removal of a president who is not eligible.Impeachment is only for eligible presidents.However, I highly doubt the courts will ever remove him.

  230. avatar
    Paper January 28, 2013 at 9:30 am #

    Interesting choice of year. Certainly under the Articles, but under the Constitution? Kind if fascinating to wonder about that period between the new constitutional government going online and the passing of the 1790 naturalization act.

    (I’ve got a lot of work to do right now, so I probably will miss out on a lot of these current threads. In case it seems like I am not responding…)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    They might well have had in 1789.

  231. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 28, 2013 at 10:00 am #

    Hermitian:
    These states are just trying to head off Obama’s third term.

    Herms mans the goalposts …. “Heave … ho! Heave…”

  232. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 28, 2013 at 10:04 am #

    john: I highly doubt the courts will ever remove him.

    Yep, set those expectations appropriately. It’s a happy win-win you’ve created for yourself. Your birfer dreams unfulfilled? You can still say “I told you so”. The universe inverts itself and Obama is impeached? You can be happily surprised. Yay.

    Consider your ‘prophecy’ self-fulfilled.

    Hey, drop the birferism, and you can be happy and right. Something to think about ;)

  233. avatar
    Rickey January 28, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    The Magic M:
    If that were the case, you’d have a loophole in the Constitution – any judge could just declare the President ineligible and thus remove him. A power that the Founders didn’t want to grant the courts, obviously.

    OTOH, there is no loophole about impeachment. The President stated under penalty of perjury that he is eligible when he filed his candidacy statements, so he could be impeached the same way they tried to impeach Clinton for lying under oath.

    There also is finality about impeachment, because upon conviction there is no appeal.

    Imagine the chaos if a lower court actually ruled that the sitting President is ineligible. It would of course immediately be appealed, but for at least a brief period there would be serious questions about his or her legitimacy.

  234. avatar
    gorefan January 28, 2013 at 11:52 am #

    Hermitian: These states are just trying to head off Obama’s third term.

    You need to start immediately on organizing a ballot challenge in every state to keep his name off the ballots. Don’t wait until the last minute like this past election.

    These might help:

    http://tinyurl.com/aan2qjh

  235. avatar
    The Magic M January 28, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

    Rickey: Imagine the chaos if a lower court actually ruled that the sitting President is ineligible.

    Now you’re making the birthers’ case that this is the reason no court dares to touch the issue.
    I think you should’ve said “if a lower court was actually constitutionally empowered to rule that the sitting President is ineligible”.

  236. avatar
    sfjeff January 28, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

    Pieter Nosworthy: McCain, though born to two American citizens, required congressional review and yet Mr. Obama born to a foreign father did not.
    Fun?

    Probably already answered but I feel like responding.

    American voters understood this distinction just fine. All of us growing up in the United States learned by middle school that anyone born in the United States could aspire to become President.

    When voters looked at Senator Barack Obama, and learned he was born in Hawaii, the issue was over for all of us. Americans, other than a small fringe movement, recognize that we citizens consist of Natural Born and Naturalized and that is it. There is no ’14th Amendment’ citizen.

    My 12 year old knows this. I know this. The American voters know this.

  237. avatar
    sfjeff January 28, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

    Hermitian: These states are just trying to head off Obama’s third term.

    Wow Birthers must be really concerned about Obama becoming the most popular President since FDR.

    After all only an incredibly popular President would lead to a movement to repeal Presidential term limits in Congress and get 2/3′s of the States to approve- all in less than 4 years.

  238. avatar
    misha marinsky January 28, 2013 at 1:12 pm #

    AlCum: Vattel is irrelevant to the issue of a US natural born citizen.

    Who’s Vattel? Do these others mean “Mattel”? Sounds right to me.

  239. avatar
    misha marinsky January 28, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    Hermitian: These states are just trying to head off Obama’s third term.

    Curses…foiled again.

  240. avatar
    misha marinsky January 28, 2013 at 1:21 pm #

    The Magic M: he could be impeached the same way they tried to impeach Clinton for lying under oath.

    Clinton’s other crime was to have a Jewish girlfriend.

  241. avatar
    misha marinsky January 28, 2013 at 1:23 pm #

    misha marinsky: Clinton’s other crime was to have a Jewish girlfriend.

    I should add, Jewish with a Russian last name.

    Gotta watch out for them libruls…they’s commies.

  242. avatar
    misha marinsky January 28, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    sfjeff: After all only an incredibly popular President would lead to a movement to repeal Presidential term limits in Congress and get 2/3′s of the States to approve- all in less than 4 years.

    Obama is magic. Just ask any Republican…

  243. avatar
    Graham Shevlin January 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm #

    Why is it that idiot Twitterers like forgotten_man_ are busy claiming that this posting is about Obama trying to finagle a third term of office? Can these berks not read?

  244. avatar
    AlCum January 28, 2013 at 10:00 pm #

    john:
    “If you don’t want Obama in office for 4 more years, the courts will not help you. Read the Constitution. Impeachment is your only avenue, and despite your delusions, President Obama had run an exemplary administration.”

    Not necessarily.If Obama is not eligible then he not eligible to be impeached because was never a “real” President. Impeachment is for high crimes and misdomeners.Being ineligible is not a crime.Actually, there is no precident on the removal of a president who is not eligible.Impeachment is only for eligible presidents.However, I highly doubt the courts will ever remove him.

    They won’t remove him because he is the first and only president in history to fully document his eligibility. There is no cause for removal.

  245. avatar
    AlCum January 28, 2013 at 10:07 pm #

    OTOH, there is no loophole about impeachment. The President stated under penalty of perjury that he is eligible when he filed his candidacy statements, so he could be impeached the same way they tried to impeach Clinton for lying under oath.

    As I recall, that didn’t work out too well for the Repugs. Clinton left office after all that with a higher approval rating than St. Ronald.

  246. avatar
    The Magic M January 29, 2013 at 4:26 am #

    misha marinsky: Clinton’s other crime was to have a Jewish girlfriend.

    They should’ve asked every (male) Republican member of Congress under oath if he was having an affair. Might have resulted in some more impeachments. ;)

  247. avatar
    misha marinsky January 29, 2013 at 10:28 am #

    The Magic M: They should’ve asked every (male) Republican member of Congress under oath if he was having an affair. Might have resulted in some more impeachments.

    Bob Livingston did resign: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/flynt121998.htm

    Flynt’s role began in October when he bought a full-page ad in The Washington Post, announcing a reward of up to $1 million for anyone who could prove having had “an adulterous sexual encounter with a current member of the United States Congress or a high-ranking government official.” More than 2,000 calls came in.

    The Hustler publisher said yesterday he will release details in roughly two weeks about what he described as four extramarital affairs by incoming House Speaker Robert Livingston, along with sexual disclosures about other lawmakers or senior officials. It was Flynt’s million-dollar reward offer that prompted the allegations that prompted Livingston to acknowledge his past affairs late Thursday.

    “I just wanted to expose hypocrisy,” Flynt said in an interview. “If these guys are going after the president, they shouldn’t have any skeletons in their closet. This is only the beginning.”

    Dan Burton, Helen Chenoweth and Henry Hyde, all House Republicans, have admitted infidelities in recent months after being faced with media exposure.

    And some journalists were essentially trying to scoop Hustler by learning the identity of Livingston’s paramours. “The source of this gutter journalism, Larry Flynt, is paying for dirt on people,” said National Review Editor Rich Lowry.

    It is still unclear why Livingston, who has been married for 33 years, acknowledged the affairs Thursday, since publication was not imminent. “Obviously he knew that we had the goods on him,” Flynt said.