Main Menu

Bob Gard: Proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”

Last year, independent researcher Bob Gard published a massive 1722-page book titled: “ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.”

Bob came by this blog to plug his book and comment on the topic, and I thought that rather that stress the open thread, which will close soon anyway, I decided to open this up and move those comments from the open thread over here.

I found a used copy of the book at Amazon and ordered it (to arrive Thursday). Obviously we can’t debate a 1722-page book in this forum but I expect that I will have some questions from looking at the book, and perhaps get a sense of why Bob went one way and all the authorities went the other way.

Print Friendly

,

815 Responses to Bob Gard: Proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”

  1. avatar
    Bob Gard February 4, 2013 at 7:20 pm #

    If you want to understand natural-born citizenry and why Obama is unconstitutional, please go to Amazon and look for my eBook, entitled ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Also visit The-Constitutionist.com. If people give up willful ignorance and self-educate, the game will be over. I challenge Dr. Conspiracy to disprove any historical fact. There are over 4,000 footnotes.

  2. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 4, 2013 at 7:22 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    If you want to understand natural-born citizenry and why Obama is unconstitutional, please go to Amazon and look for my eBook, entitled ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Also visit The-Constitutionist.com. If people give up willful ignorance and self-educate, the game will be over. I challenge Dr. Conspiracy to disprove any historical fact. There are over 4,000 footnotes.

    Why would anyone want to read your shameless plug when we already have Corsi’s piece of trash? Ooo wow you have 4,000 footnotes to long debunked birther articles. Obama is a constitutional president and is currently serving. It’s going to be another hard 4 years for you

  3. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 4, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

    Bob Gard: 4,000 footnotes.

    While you definitely deserve a prize for oneupsmanship in the game of excess, I must remind you that Количество над всеми is a com-ya-nists’ game.

    4,000 whiffs has got to be hell on your batting avg.

  4. avatar
    Dave B. February 4, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

    I went over to Amazon to see about Mr. Gard’s book. I found this in his blurb:

    “Bob Gard is the first person who pieces together this comprehensive definition of natural-born citizenship using both correlative and corroborative evidence. For more than 220 years, much of this evidence has been readily available within the public domain, but no one has yet brought the parts together into a conclusive whole.”

    Maybe we could get Bob and Paul Guthrie to duke it out over who really made this world-shattering discovery.

  5. avatar
    Bob Gard February 4, 2013 at 7:41 pm #

    Your’s was the definition of willful ignorance. You didn’t bother to look. By the way, Corsi didn’t get it right. I did. My book is 1700 pages long. It covers everything. Here is a small bit about Corsi’s book:

    “Kettner, a brilliant researcher, was guilty of drifting to and fro in this limbo logic and so was another more modern brilliant researcher, Jerome Corsi. I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Kettner and Mr. Corsi but neither pinned down his belief as to what natural-born citizen meant, although Mr. Corsi claimed in Where’s the Birth Certificate? that “The purpose of this chapter [Chapter 3] is to define natural-born citizen as the Founders understood it and intended it . . .” Corsi pointed out “The term natural-born citizen appears first in a treatise Vattel wrote in 1758 titled Law of Nations: or, Principles of the Natural Law Applicable to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. In Chapter 19, Section 212, Vattel specified:

    The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

    To begin with, Corsi made a critical mistake, the same as I made in my email to Mrs. Y on May 6, 2010 (Chapter 4). The above quote from Vattel came from the 1797 edition, not the 1758 edition, which was in French anyway, and had to wait for translation by Thomas Nugent in 1759 to supply the English prose. Corsi understood that:

    Using Vattel’s definition, natural-born is not a vague concept. Rather, applied to the U.S. Constitution, a natural-born citizen is someone born in the United States to two parents who are United States citizens. Given this definition, a person born in the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and a second who is a citizen of another country would not qualify. Obama’s situation is precisely this: He says he was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and a U.S. citizen mother.

    The assertion that a presidential candidate should be disqualified for being born on foreign soil was arguably weaker if both parents were U.S. citizens when the child was born. [Corsi’s train just jumped the tracks.] Under Vattel’s definition, if the child’s birth location were under U.S. jurisdiction at the time and both parents were U.S. citizens, the child was arguably a natural-born citizen. So, according to Vattel, Charles Curtis and Barry Goldwater would be considered natural-born citizens, provided we consider the territories of Kansas and Arizona to have been a part of the United States before they were granted statehood. [No wonder Corsi’s train left the tracks. The engineers controlling the locomotive were activist judges.]

    First of all, the minute a researcher puts words into someone’s mouth, he stops being an objective researcher. I opine that Corsi was spinning facts to arrive at his desired conclusion. Almost every author is guilty of that. In the inspired words of Obama, I want you to believe in the “hope” that I have not spun. I honestly believe I haven’t despite my sarcasm, but I leave that decision up to you.

    Vattel wrote nothing that would lead a researcher to think that Vattel would endorse Corsi’s conclusions about Curtis and Goldwater based on any proviso whatsoever. Vattel wrote “in the country” period. Second of all, Vattel was long dead when “natural-born citizens” replaced “indigenes” in his book. Corsi would have to answer the anti-birthers’ legitimate question: How can a term published ten years after the drafting of the Constitution have had any influence on the drafting? Corsi never got back on track. He spent most of the rest of his time casting doubt on Obama’s birth certificate and never picked a side between Vattel and the fraudulent birth certificate definitively, or said he was on both sides; i.e. a birther.bc,1 Corsi could be both, like I am, but he should have drawn a solid line between the two approaches to the constitutionality of Obama’s presidency. He blurred it with activist judicial decisions that unconstitutionally distorted the presidential eligibility clause and confused everything by using natural-born citizen interchangeably amongst the choices (1), (2) and (3) above. “

  6. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 4, 2013 at 7:43 pm #

    Bob Gard: ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

    A day after the brief exchange about the value of brevity in titling, and this shows up LOL
    Now that’s pattern recognition ;)

    From his own description:

    “… the history of natural-born citizenship from ancient Greece and Rome to the 1840s with a major emphasis on the framing of the U.S. Constitution.”

    My, what a curious point in time! How selective! Who might such a selection be convenient for?

    “This is a 1722-page eBook on Microsoft Word “docx” file extension for Windows 7. Opening this eBook with Microsoft Word can take as long as five minutes with warnings of intermittent “Not Responding,” which you can ignore. Beware, Mac users.”

    *whistling*

  7. avatar
    Majority Will February 4, 2013 at 7:45 pm #

    Donofrio should be demanding royalties for this birther stupidity he invented.

  8. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 4, 2013 at 7:52 pm #

    Bob Gard: Using Vattel’s definition, natural-born is not a vague concept. Rather, applied to the U.S. Constitution, a natural-born citizen is someone born in the United States to two parents who are United States citizens. Given this definition, a person born in the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and a second who is a citizen of another country would not qualify. Obama’s situation is precisely this: He says he was born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and a U.S. citizen mother.

    Vattel didn’t use Natural born in his book in the original french edition. Nowhere did he mention the french phrase for natural born citoyen de naissance. So you along with Corsi and other birthers got Vattel wrong. Also no proof the founders even looked to Vattel for citizenship considering they rejected his other notions on domestic affairs. Vattel didn’t define it. He never mentioned a need for two citizen parents.

    Okay so how do you differ from the other birther lunatics?

  9. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 4, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

    aesthetocyst: “This is a 1722-page eBook on Microsoft Word “docx” file extension for Windows 7. Opening this eBook with Microsoft Word can take as long as five minutes with warnings of intermittent “Not Responding,” which you can ignore. Beware, Mac users.”

    Who the hell uses docx format?

  10. avatar
    Bob Gard February 4, 2013 at 7:56 pm #

    Buy Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” in Russian. It’s available in Moscow for about $1,700. You may learn something if you do, but did we learn anything by this exchange of sarcasm?

  11. avatar
    Bob Gard February 4, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    People use “docx” if they want to know why Obama is unconstitutional. People who want to play electronic games belong in another section of Amazon.

  12. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 4, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Who the hell uses docx format?

    It’s Word 2010′s native format … all of Office traditional filetypes grew an extra ‘x’ for 2010 (.xlsx, .docx, .pptx, wtfx …)

    That said, good question, who the hell does use Word? (It hurts my face to look at!) Particularly for such a long pile of poo …. you really should have gone with … hehe … PDF(s). A superior solution in every way.

  13. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 4, 2013 at 8:03 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    Buy Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” in Russian. It’s available in Moscow for about $1,700. You may learn something if you do, but did we learn anything by this exchange of sarcasm?

    Yes that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also you don’t know how to use the quote function

  14. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 4, 2013 at 8:04 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    People use “docx” if they want to know why Obama is unconstitutional. People who want to play electronic games belong in another section of Amazon.

    No Docx is a native format for word 2010 most people don’t even use docx but the standard doc. For an ebook though docx is a horrible format. No reading your book only makes people realize there are crazy people with too much time on their hands.

  15. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2013 at 8:04 pm #

    Bob Gard: but did we learn anything by this exchange of sarcasm?

    YOU came here. I suggest you condense the nub of your argument into a paragraph and present it. We have had literally dozens, if not hundreds, like you before here, so unless you can show quickly that you have truly taken a never-before-trod path, frankly Scarlett, I don’t give a damn.

  16. avatar
    donna February 4, 2013 at 8:09 pm #

    Bob Gard:

    please translate this french phrase into english:

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

  17. avatar
    Bob Gard February 4, 2013 at 8:30 pm #

    “Vattel didn’t use Natural born in his book in the original french edition. Nowhere did he mention the french phrase for natural born citoyen de naissance.” Correct. He added a definition for “natives” and “indigenes” that has never found its way into a dictionary since its incipience in 1758. You will have to read the book to find your answers to the incredible influence Vattel had in everything over the framers and founders. I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the King’s Advocate to the British High Court of Admiralty, Sir William Scott, was the secret editor to the 1797 revised edition of Vattel’s “The Law of Nations,” where “natural-born citizens” appeared. When John Jay went to London in 1794 at the request of Washington to negotiate Jay’s Treaty with Lord Grenville, the latter put him into contact with Sir William. Sir William asked Jay, the author of the July 25, 1787 letter requesting Washington for the term natural born Citizen to be placed in the presidential eligibility clause, what the term meant. Jay told him. That’s why Scott substituted “natural-born citizens” for “indigenes.” I have many corroborations, correlations and circumstantial proof for the switch. If you don’t accept that, then explain how a totally otherwise ridiculous French-to-English and English-to-English translation would have been accepted? Find indigene in any French or English dictionary with a definition of natural-born citizen.

  18. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 4, 2013 at 8:34 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    “Vattel didn’t use Natural born in his book in the original french edition. Nowhere did he mention the french phrase for natural born citoyen de naissance.”Correct. He added a definition for “natives” and “indigenes” that has never found its way into a dictionary since its incipience in 1758. You will have to read the book to find your answers to the incredible influence Vattel had in everything over the framers and founders. I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the King’s Advocate to the British High Court of Admiralty, Sir William Scott, was the secret editor to the 1797 revised edition of Vattel’s“The Law of Nations,” where “natural-born citizens” appeared.When John Jay went to London in 1794 at the request of Washington to negotiate Jay’s Treaty with Lord Grenville, the latter put him into contact with Sir William. Sir William asked Jay, the author of the July 25, 1787 letter requesting Washington for the term natural born Citizen to be placed in the presidential eligibility clause, what the term meant. Jay told him. That’s why Scott substituted “natural-born citizens” for “indigenes.”I have many corroborations, correlations and circumstantial proof for the switch. If you don’t accept that, then explain how a totally otherwise ridiculous French-to-English and English-to-English translation would have been accepted? Find indigene in any French or English dictionary with a definition of natural-born citizen.

    I already have my answers. Obama is the lawfully elected President. John Jay wasn’t apart of the constitutional convention and served no part in it. He said nothing about what he thought a natural born citizen should be. Jay said nothing about presidential eligibility in the letter to Washington. John Jay mentioned something about Commander in Chief. At that time the commander in chief of the military and the President were going to be two different positions. Once again the french phrase for natural born citizen is citoyen de naissance that phrase appears nowhere in the passage you referenced. So again your claims that I should read your poorly written book are fruitless as I can tell from your claims here you failed to do your research.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 4, 2013 at 8:35 pm #

    Uhhh, where’s my free copy?


    Bob Gard: I challenge Dr. Conspiracy to disprove any historical fact. There are over 4,000 footnotes.

  20. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2013 at 8:42 pm #

    Bob Gard: Blah, blah, blah

    Brevity is the soul of wit, sir. Do you have a one paragraph summatiion or not? All scientific papers do, even Nobel-prize-winning ones that revolutionize our understanding of the Universe. That really isn’t too much to ask for a crank theory such as yours that frankly wouldn’t matter regardless.

  21. avatar
    Bob Gard February 4, 2013 at 8:43 pm #

    “Yes that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also you don’t know how to use the quote function.” Correct on the second. Please tell me how to use the quote function.

    I own many copies of Vattel. I almost bought that one in Moscow. I list 101 editions. I developed the most complete list in the world. I own many French, English, and Spanish editions and one Portuguese edition. I refer to sections of Vattel everywhere in my book; I show many photos; and I have a chapter dedicated to Vattel and his works. I also admit I am not a greater writer. I am a terrible proofreader. But I am a great researcher undaunted by childish remarks falling outside the realm of facts. I ferreted out the truth.

  22. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 4, 2013 at 8:46 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    “Yes that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also you don’t know how to use the quote function.” Correct on the second. Please tell me how to use the quote function.

    I own many copies of Vattel. I almost bought that one in Moscow. I list 101 editions. I developed the most complete list in the world. I own many French, English, and Spanish editions and one Portuguese edition. I refer to sections of Vattel everywhere in my book; I show many photos; and I have a chapter dedicated to Vattel and his works. I also admit I am not a greater writer. I am a terrible proofreader. But I am a great researcher undaunted by childish remarks falling outside the realm of facts. I ferreted out the truth.

    And again how much of the actual book did you read? Vattel was a monarchist who called for restriction of the press, the right to bear arms, ownership of property entirely by the state, establishment of religion and so on. Many things antithetical to the US Constitution. Vattel has no relation to the natural born citizenship clause.

    I’m still waiting for you to speak on the claims you confuse with facts.

  23. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2013 at 8:48 pm #

    Bob Gard: I refer to sections of Vattel everywhere in my book; I show many photos; and I have a chapter dedicated to Vattel and his works.

    Where did Vattel mention a President? He was a monarchist. Also, did you ever raid a neighboring country and kidnap a wife He recommended that. You seem to pick and choose when it comes to Vattel.

  24. avatar
    Bob Gard February 4, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

    Scientist: Brevity is the soul of wit, sir.Do you have a one paragraph summatiion or not?All scientific papers do, even Nobel-prize-winning ones that revolutionize our understanding of the Universe.That really isn’t too much to ask for a crank theory such as yours that frankly wouldn’t matter regardless.

    I am not sure if I am using the quote function correctly. Thank you again for another definition of willful ignorance. Brevity in history has little chance of explaining anything. You want brevity? Here is brevity. John Jay meant by “natural born Citizen” Vattel’s definition of natives or indigenes. Refer to:

    LON #1 2 tomes en 1, quartoa, 2 tomes, quarto, 7” x 9”; 10 x 17 cm., 12mo.
    M. DE VATTEL, LE DROIT DES GENES, OU PRINCIPES DE LA LOI NATURELLE, Appliqués la conduite & aux affaires des nations & des ʃouverains Tomes I & II. A Londres. M. DCC. LVIII. (1758) [This book found more favor and sold more copies in America than in France. My copy is a reprint in 1761 of the edition that was printed in Neufchâtel, given a London publishing, and sold as the 1758 edition (Gravés par: Traiteur Fecit 1761). Another printing with the 1758 publishing date and the “Londres” publishing location was actually printed at the Hague. Therefore there were actually three editions with the 1758 date. “It was also cited more frequently than any other writer on international law in early U.S. courts.” ] Fig. 110 Les Naturels ou Indigènes

  25. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 4, 2013 at 8:54 pm #

    Bob Gard: I am not sure if I am using the quote function correctly. Thank you again for another definition of willful ignorance. Brevity in history has little chance of explaining anything. You want brevity? Here is brevity. John Jay meant by “natural born Citizen” Vattel’s definition of natives or indigenes. Refer to:

    LON #12 tomes en 1, quartoa,2 tomes, quarto, 7” x 9”; 10 x 17 cm., 12mo.M. DE VATTEL, LE DROIT DES GENES, OU PRINCIPES DE LA LOI NATURELLE, Appliqués la conduite & aux affaires des nations & des ʃouverains Tomes I & II. A Londres. M. DCC. LVIII. (1758) [This book found more favor and sold more copies in America than in France. My copy is a reprint in 1761 of the edition that was printed in Neufchâtel, given a London publishing, and sold as the 1758 edition (Gravés par: Traiteur Fecit 1761). Another printing with the 1758 publishing date and the “Londres” publishing location was actually printed at the Hague. Therefore there were actually three editions with the 1758 date. “It was also cited more frequently than any other writer on international law in early U.S. courts.” ] Fig. 110 Les Naturels ou Indigènes

    How do you know John Jay meant that? John Jay was chief justice he had a chance to opine on the meaning of Natural Born citizenship but yet never did. He also talked about Commander in Chief and not the President. Once again the French version says nothing about Natural born citizenship.

    Here’s some help for you on the actual translation of the passage you quote from:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/

  26. avatar
    Bob Gard February 4, 2013 at 9:00 pm #

    Scientist: Where did Vattel mention a President?He was a monarchist.Also, did you ever raid a neighboring country and kidnap a wifeHe recommended that.You seem to pick and choose when itcomes to Vattel.

    All the information about your misinformation is in the book. Vattel was not a monarchist because natural-born subject was invented for the benefit of a monarch that cheered at the thought of perpetual allegiance. Natural born Citizen was invented for the benefit of a sovereign people. Vattel did not coin natural born citizen. He simply defined a new definition for natives and indigenes. Vattel revered his Switzerland and her acknowledgment of the right to expatriation. By the way, in Vattel, the term is almost always prince, not monarch.

  27. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

    Bob Gard: Thank you again for another definition of willful ignorance. Brevity in history has little chance of explaining anything

    The Gettysburg Address.

    I speak French. Indigene = native. The same meaning as indigenous. Now show me where Vattel discussed who the President should be. Thanks.

    Your ignorance isn’t willful it’s indigenous to you. You are in fact a natural born ignoramus. That says nothing about your parents who may have been perfectly fine people,

  28. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm #

    Bob Gard: All the information about your misinformation is in the book. Vattel was not a monarchist because natural-born subject was invented for the benefit of a monarch that cheered at the thought of perpetual allegiance. Natural born Citizen was invented for the benefit of a sovereign people. Vattel did not coin natural born citizen. He simply defined a new definition for natives and indigenes. Vattel revered his Switzerland and her acknowledgment of the right to expatriation. By the way, in Vattel, the term is almost always prince, not monarch.

    You obviously haven’t read vattel then since he was a monarchist he believed in the absolute power of the sovereign. Vattel didn’t invent natural born citizenship nor did he even talk about it.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 4, 2013 at 9:03 pm #

    Why in the world would anybody publish a book in Microsoft Word format? That’s totally weird.


    aesthetocyst: This is a 1722-page eBook on Microsoft Word “docx” file extension for Windows 7.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 4, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

    I tell you what. Document your statement below about Sir William’s request, and maybe somebody will take you seriously. Prove to me that you know something relevant that I don’t.


    Bob Gard: Sir William asked Jay, the author of the July 25, 1787 letter requesting Washington for the term natural born Citizen to be placed in the presidential eligibility clause, what the term meant. Jay told him.

  31. avatar
    Scientist February 4, 2013 at 9:08 pm #

    Bob Gard: He simply defined a new definition for natives and indigenes.

    He did no such thing. Native and indigenous means and always has meant born in a particular location. A native New Yorker was born in New York. Their parents were often not. Like the late Mayor Koch. I would have loved to hear the stream of invectives coming out of his mouth if you had tried to tell him he was not a native and natural born New Yorker. Oy, gevalt!!

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 4, 2013 at 9:10 pm #

    I have a hard time reconciling someone who has actually read Vattel with someone who asserts that he was not a monarchist.


    Bob Gard: Vattel was not a monarchist because natural-born subject was invented for the benefit of a monarch that cheered at the thought of perpetual allegiance.

  33. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 4, 2013 at 9:18 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have a hard time reconciling someone who has actually read Vattel with someone who asserts that he was not a monarchist.

    Not only that but his claim that natural born citizenship somehow benefited the monarch when the monarch passed their eligibility through jus sanguinis which had nothing to do with natural born citizenship. It shows a complete lack of serious thought on his part.

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 4, 2013 at 9:29 pm #

    Let me explain how things work around here.

    Folks like you come along espousing some view about what a natural born citizen is. Invariably there are many responses, and if the original commenter persists, the discussion gets huge. The original commenter is overwhelmed by a dozen comments to each of his comments and in the end nothing of any clarity arises. And the commenter will probably be insulted on the way (sorry about that).

    Since these discussions always go to pot, as my folks would have phrased it, I cannot offer you any tried advice on how to prevent it from going to pot.

    However, as an experiment, you might pick some small argument and stick to some narrow area of discussion. Before you get anywhere, you have to demonstrate that you can make a sound argument better than those who came before you and that you know useful information beyond what has already been discussed.

    Or, you might try honestly answering a question:

    In your research, did you ever find a framer of the Constitution or anyone at a ratifying convention state that a person born in the United States having a non-citizen parent meant:

    1. a person was a foreigner (“foreigner” is the word used in the Jay letter)?
    2. that they were possessed with foreign influence?
    3. that they were undesirable for any office of trust in the Untied States?
    4. that they had divided allegiance?
    5. that they questionable loyalty?

    Can you cite any American at all prior to 1790 expressing any concern about US-born persons of non-citizen parentage for any civic purpose?


    Bob Gard: All the information about your misinformation is in the book.

  35. avatar
    AlCum February 4, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    If you want to understand natural-born citizenry and why Obama is unconstitutional, please go to Amazon and look for my eBook, entitled ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Also visit The-Constitutionist.com. If people give up willful ignorance and self-educate, the game will be over. I challenge Dr. Conspiracy to disprove any historical fact. There are over 4,000 footnotes.

    Your claims are disproven as incorrect.

  36. avatar
    AlCum February 4, 2013 at 10:49 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    “Yes that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also you don’t know how to use the quote function.” Correct on the second. Please tell me how to use the quote function.

    I own many copies of Vattel. I almost bought that one in Moscow. I list 101 editions. I developed the most complete list in the world. I own many French, English, and Spanish editions and one Portuguese edition. I refer to sections of Vattel everywhere in my book; I show many photos; and I have a chapter dedicated to Vattel and his works. I also admit I am not a greater writer. I am a terrible proofreader. But I am a great researcher undaunted by childish remarks falling outside the realm of facts. I ferreted out the truth.

    Guess again!

  37. avatar
    SluggoJD February 4, 2013 at 11:38 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    If you want to understand natural-born citizenry and why Obama is unconstitutional, please go to Amazon and look for my eBook, entitled ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Also visit The-Constitutionist.com. If people give up willful ignorance and self-educate, the game will be over. I challenge Dr. Conspiracy to disprove any historical fact. There are over 4,000 footnotes.

    You pathetic piece of poop.

    You can’t prove anything, because Obama was born in Hawaii, and also because his mom was a U.S. citizen.

    Period. End of game. Finale’. Adios. Game over. And all the footnotes and BS and ebooks in the world cannot change these facts.

    Barack Obama is President of the United States, for another four years. And you are a loser.

    Thank you for dropping by, and may I suggest you contact Ed Hale, and write about Bigfoot next time.

  38. avatar
    Daniel February 4, 2013 at 11:46 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    “Yes that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also you don’t know how to use the quote function.” Correct on the second. Please tell me how to use the quote function.

    I own many copies of Vattel. I almost bought that one in Moscow. I list 101 editions. I developed the most complete list in the world. I own many French, English, and Spanish editions and one Portuguese edition. I refer to sections of Vattel everywhere in my book; I show many photos; and I have a chapter dedicated to Vattel and his works. I also admit I am not a greater writer. I am a terrible proofreader. But I am a great researcher undaunted by childish remarks falling outside the realm of facts. I ferreted out the truth.

    It’s “de Vattel” not “Vattel” Mr expert great researcher.

    You cannot remove the Germanic nobiliary particle and expect it to be the same name. You wouldn’t walk up to Jean Claude Van Damme, and address him as “Mr. Damme”…. well you wouldn’t do it twice, anyways.

    Whether it’s von, zu, van, de, etc. you must include it or you’re talking about someone completely different, legally and linguistically.

  39. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 12:16 am #

    Hey, did you see “JCVD”? Man, that soliloquy…

    Daniel: You wouldn’t walk up to Jean Claude Van Damme, and address him as “Mr. Damme”…. well you wouldn’t do it twice, anyways.

  40. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 1:38 am #

    Bob Gard: All the information about your misinformation is in the book.

    I appreciate the stunning demonstration on how to not sell and promote an eBook.

    I hope Lupin had a good laugh at this buffoonery.

  41. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 2:15 am #

    Bob, are you by any chance pen pals with General Jedi Pauly?

    Bob Gard: But I am a great researcher undaunted by childish remarks falling outside the realm of facts. I ferreted out the truth.

  42. avatar
    Whatever4 February 5, 2013 at 2:49 am #

    Bob Gard: All the information about your misinformation is in the book.

    More than 1700 pages and 4000 footnotes? Do you have excerpts on the web anywhere? Because I’m not shelling out for an ebook without having some idea of the quality of scholarship.

  43. avatar
    Paper February 5, 2013 at 2:54 am #

    Oh, I think you can get some idea right here and now, from these very posts, don’t you?

    Whatever4: More than 1700 pages and 4000 footnotes? Do you have excerpts on the web anywhere? Because I’m not shelling out for an ebook without having some idea of the quality of scholarship.

  44. avatar
    bovril February 5, 2013 at 4:22 am #

    So Bob, since you lap at the well of Saint Vattel, care to explain how in the very same book you furiously masturbate over, he also states quite plainly how certain countries, naming England as one, Jus Soli is the rule.

    You remember England, it was this country from which the USA derived it’s principles of law and where all the FF’s who were lawyers were trained in……English Law.

    The same one England and its Common Law where the Supreme Court has stated on the record on a substantial number of occassions is the reference when it comes to interpretation of the words and meaning thereof of Constitution

  45. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 5:10 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: No Docx is a native format for word 2010 most people don’t even use docx but the standard doc.For an ebook though docx is a horrible format.No reading your book only makes people realize there are crazy people with too much time on their hands.

    I had two years to complete my research and write my eBook before the next election. I didn’t know anything about publishing formats. I certainly picked the wrong one. I know that now. Your logic in attacking my format to infer my conclusions wrong about Obama’s status is meaningless. You win the docx argument. Now please use the docx argument to prove my conclusions are wrong.

  46. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 5:58 am #

    Daniel: It’s “de Vattel” not “Vattel” Mr expert great researcher.

    You cannot remove the Germanic nobiliary particle and expect it to be the same name. You wouldn’t walk up to Jean Claude Van Damme, and address him as “Mr. Damme”…. well you wouldn’t do it twice, anyways.

    Whether it’s von, zu, van, de, etc. you must include it or you’re talking about someone completely different, legally and linguistically.

    In the eBook, I list a number of ways Vattel’s name has been spelled and referred to both correctly and incorrectly. The American framers and founders never referred to him as “de Vattel” in their citations. They always listed him as Vattel in legal citations. Here are three examples from Jefferson— Vattel. 2. 157, Vattel L.3..104 and Vattel L. 4. . 51. James Wilson in one of his papers cited 2 Vattel 282. Edmund Randolph cited Vattel book. 4. section 65. In writing, the framers almost always said simply Vattel because he was so well known. When John Adams was asked if he had read Grotius and Puffendorf, he admitted in 1760 when Vattel was coming to America, “… natural Law, that I have never read, indeed I never read any Part of the best authors, Puffendorf and Grotius.” When asked later about his take on the office of an Ambassador, he had a completely different answer, which provided an example of a misspelling: “. . . all other Books I could find relative to the office of an Ambassador as Wickefort &c. Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattell &c. I had read before in America.” In Helvidius No. I, Madison wrote: “It will be found however, I believe, that all of them, particularly Wolfius, Burlamaqui, and Vattel, speak to the powers to declare war, to conclude peace, to form alliances, as among the highest acts of the sovereignty; of which the legislative power must at least be an integral and preeminent part.” I chose to refer to Vattel as the framers and founders did—good enough for me, sorry about your problem with it.

  47. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 6:04 am #

    Bob Gard: I had two years to complete my research and write my eBook before the next election.

    You honestly thought your “research” would change the election result? Well, the election is over now so you can stop. Because, the honest, unvarnished reality is no one cares. The people choose their leaders. If Vattel doesn’t like their choice, he is welcome to spin in his grave.

    Bob Gard: Now please use the docx argument to prove my conclusions are wrong.

    You are wrong in any conceivable format. No one is going to waste time reading 1722 pages. If you care to state the crux of your argument in a paragraph, I will be happy to destroy it. Otherwise, no one cares (see above). You are just another boring crank with a web site. Get over yourself.

  48. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 6:23 am #

    bovril:
    So Bob, since you lap at the well of Saint Vattel, care to explain how in the very same book you furiously masturbate over, he also states quite plainly how certain countries, naming England as one, Jus Soli is the rule.

    You remember England, it was this country from which the USA derived it’s principles of law and where all the FF’s who were lawyers were trained in……English Law.

    The same one England and its Common Law where the Supreme Court has stated on the record on a substantial number of occassions is the reference when it comes to interpretation of the words and meaning thereof of Constitution

    Vattel discussed all the forms of acquiring citizenship. He was the only one of the public jurists in history that defined the highest form of citizenship.

    Hundreds of pages in my eBook are devoted to debunking the belief that our Constitution and common law follow the British Constitution and English common law. How am I going to show you the error of your ways in a few sentences? For a little taste, you should visit my web site, The-Constitutionist.com.

    You will also find in the eBook the arguments of some of the founders that the Supreme Court was not authorized to interpret what is in the Constitution, only the constitutionality of the laws that came after. Such founders believed, as I do, that the Constitution was in plain English, not to be subverted by interpretational stretching. In no time in history, did “in” mean “under.” Jefferson concluded, if the “power given by the constitution to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare . . . permitted Congress to take everything under their management which they should deem for the public welfare, and which is susceptible to the application of money; consequently, that the subsequent enumeration of their powers was not the description to which resort must be had, and did not at all constitute the limits of their authority. What confidence could be placed in a government that transformed a jealously guarded constitution into a boundless charter to legislate for the ‘general welfare’?” Madison was in total agreement and had the prescience to predict that the Constitution had two dire enemies, “one that would stretch it to death, and one that would squeeze it to death.” Interpretation is the code name for stretch.

  49. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 6:46 am #

    Scientist: You honestly thought your “research” would change the election result? Well, the election is over now so you can stop.Because, the honest, unvarnished reality is no one cares.The people choose their leaders.If Vattel doesn’t like their choice, he is welcome to spin in his grave.

    You are wrong in any conceivable format.No one is going to waste time reading 1722 pages. If youcare to state the crux of your argument in a paragraph, I will be happy to destroy it.Otherwise, no one cares (see above).You are just another boring crank with a web site.Get over yourself.

    Pretty naive, uh? A number of people have read the book and left reviews at Amazon. I am sad to say that you are almost a hundred percent correct about so few caring. That won’t stop me. The book is not about me. It is about the truth and an attempt to inform people of the meaning of the Constitution in order to save it from people like you and our Supreme Court justices. Next time, please come up with a different argument than reinforcing the willful ignorance I already know about. My eBook is almost entirely about history. I presume from your depiction of me as a “boring crank” that you are bored by history. Why are you debating history then? You are more naïve than I if you believe the natural-born citizenry quandary can be summed up in one paragraph!

  50. avatar
    Andy February 5, 2013 at 6:58 am #

    Bob Gard: Pretty naive, uh? A number of people have read the book and left reviews at Amazon. I am sad to say that you are almost a hundred percent correct about so few caring. That won’t stop me. The book is not about me. It is about the truth and an attempt to inform people of the meaning of the Constitution in order to save it from people like you and our Supreme Court justices. Next time, please come up with a different argument than reinforcing the willful ignorance I already know about. My eBook is almost entirely about history. I presume from your depiction of me as a “boring crank” that you are bored by history. Why are you debating history then? You are more naïve than I if you believe the natural-born citizenry quandary can be summed up in one paragraph!

    Do tell, since you seem to quote de Vattel, where he defined natural born citizen? Or more importantly, where he defined it for a country that didn’t yet exist.

  51. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 6:59 am #

    Whatever4: More than 1700 pages and 4000 footnotes? Do you have excerpts on the web anywhere? Because I’m not shelling out for an ebook without having some idea of the quality of scholarship.

    The-Constitutionist.com. You can peruse the 50 pages of debate between Stephen Tonchen and me to get an idea of the scholarship. Read the reviews at Amazon to see how others have rated it. Remember, I do not claim to be a great writer, just readable. Besides, the overwhelming content is from historical figures. No one can beat the research.

  52. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 7:06 am #

    Bob Gard: I presume from your depiction of me as a “boring crank” that you are bored by history.

    Not at all. I am bored by YOU, though.

    Bob Gard: A number of people have read the book and left reviews at Amazon

    3 is a number.

    Bob Gard: You are more naïve than I if you believe the natural-born citizenry quandary can be summed up in one paragraph!

    I can do it. It is a foolish antiquated restriction on the basic human rights of the American people, limiting their choice of President to those who were citizens at birth. The lack of any need for such a restriction is clearly demonstrated by the many great countries that live happily without such a restriction.

    There, that wasn’t so hard.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 7:24 am #

    I read the 3 reviews at Amazon, and I recall that at least one of them said that said they read the book, but at 1722 pages, I have reservations as to the truth of the claim. One of the reviews was so utterly general (the one with the logic examples), that It wasn’t clear whether they had any of the book. A second reviewer just dumped a couple of quotations and didn’t really sound like he had read the book. Of the three reviewers, only 1 had the “Amazon verified purchase” indicator, and that was Stephen Tonchen, someone who has written his own paper on the topic (2009) also saying that President Obama in ineligible. Tonchen’s review had enough meat to suggest that he had at least read some of the book.


    Bob Gard: A number of people have read the book and left reviews at Amazon.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 7:39 am #

    I noticed that there you repeat a phrase you used here, “willful ignorance.” Knowing the strength of the argument in opposition to your thesis, the use of such a phrase is not one that leads to optimism as to your objectivity.

    In a way, the belief that an opponent disagrees with you because they choose to ignore the argument (willful ignorance) is a bit like the attribution of random events to malicious intent (“Agency” in my recent article, “Patternicity and Agency”).

    In any case, a claim of “willful ignorance” loses you points in a debate and also prevents you from understanding your opponents’ arguments also weakening your position.


    Bob Gard: The-Constitutionist.com. You can peruse the 50 pages of debate between Stephen Tonchen and me

  55. avatar
    AlCum February 5, 2013 at 8:04 am #

    Bob Gard: I had two years to complete my research and write my eBook before the next election. I didn’t know anything about publishing formats. I certainly picked the wrong one. I know that now. Your logic in attacking my format to infer my conclusions wrong about Obama’s status is meaningless. You win the docx argument. Now please use the docx argument to prove my conclusions are wrong.

    Your conclusions are prima facie wrong. They are wrong “on their face,” They state incorrect premises and conclusions. IOW, they are utter baloney.

  56. avatar
    bovril February 5, 2013 at 8:06 am #

    Bob, not even a good attempt at a dodge,

    Lets try again shall we.

    Vattel EXPLICTLY named England as a Jus Soli country….YES/NO

    Real simple Bob, England was named as a Jus Soli country, it’s in black and white in Vattels own words.

    As such trying to burble that the USA, a country created by the English, ruled by the English and with the laws of England will perforce NOT adhere to the interpretation of English Law in it’s Coinstitution is plain stupidity of the first water.

    Section the next……

    The FF’s who were lawyers were trained in English Law….YES/NO

    The institution that has the burden of interpreting law in the light of the Constitution and therefore rules on what is or is not Constitutional is the Supreme Court….YES/NO

    Every time the Constitution has been interpreted, it is referenced to the language and terms of the period of the Constitution….YES/NO

    Tae law of the US at the time of the Revolution was English Law and English Common LAw…YES/NO

    Since all the above are in fact statements of fact it is plain even to a brain damaged muppet as yourself that the Constitution was written in the context of English Law and English Common Law.

    Your whining and bloviating like a cheap ass Appuzzo simply exposes you as the vacuous ignoramus you are.

    Be so kind as to show any ruling in the last 100 years by SC justices or writing by actual Constitutional law experts and scholars that suppprt your inane drivel.

    Lets start with Wong Kim Ark shall we, there’s a nice on point case for you.

    I wait with particular relish to your attempt to weasel out the statements from the Chief Justice where even in the dissent he acknowledges that WKA, by this ruling could run for and if he won be seated as President.

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 8:14 am #

    The plain English meaning of “natural born” from the Oxford English Dictionary is: “Having a specified position or character by birth; used esp. with subject.” That is the only definition in that work which details all of the historical usages of words. Natural born citizens are citizens from birth. Stretching is what you do in an attempt to create a “highest form of citizenship” a phrase I daresay that you will not find in Vattel, nor in the writing of any early American.

    Presuming that you have read the debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, you should know that there is not word of discussion of parentage as a qualification for any federal office, but only discussions related to the length of time someone was a citizen.


    Bob Gard: You will also find in the eBook the arguments of some of the founders that the Supreme Court was not authorized to interpret what is in the Constitution, only the constitutionality of the laws that came after. Such founders believed, as I do, that the Constitution was in plain English, not to be subverted by interpretational stretching

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 8:26 am #

    Supreme Court justice Washington in the Court’s decision in The Venus says “Vattel” and not “de Vattel.” The same is true of James Kettner in his scholar work, “The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870″ saying “Vattel” in a list of authors. That is why I use “Vattel” in my writing here.

    There was a discussion some time back in comments about the “Vattel” vs “de Vattel” question that led me to drop the “de” in using the short form of the name. Here was Lupin’s comment http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/de-vattel-reprise/#comment-75647, and Lupin is our resident Vattel expert. Also see comments following that one.


    Daniel: It’s “de Vattel” not “Vattel” Mr expert great researcher.

  59. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 8:38 am #

    Let’s make this very easy, Mr. Gard. I’m sure you know who Mario Apuzzo is. He has been here many times and we have been over every one of his arguments. In what regard do you differ with him? If the answer is “None,” then further discussion is pointless. If you do differ with Apuzzo, then spell out precisely how and we can go from there.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 8:39 am #

    I think it would be difficult to argue that the 13 English Colonies were not practicing the English Common Law in 1775, and given the fact that all of the new American states adopted the English Common Law in their statutes, constitutions and judicial decisions, it would be hard to argue that we were not governed by the Common law thereafter, except insofar that a statute was passed that changed it.


    bovril: As such trying to burble that the USA, a country created by the English, ruled by the English and with the laws of England will perforce NOT adhere to the interpretation of English Law in it’s Coinstitution is plain stupidity of the first water.

  61. avatar
    Lupin February 5, 2013 at 8:51 am #

    Bob Gard: No one can beat the research.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    I’ll leave to others, more qualified than I, to discuss whether Vattel’s writings influenced your Founders and constitutional law, and if so, how.

    However, as a French lawyer & Vattel scholar myself, I can tell you (as I have done all too many times here) than there is nothing in Vattel’s writings that would hypothetically disqualify Mr Obama from being considered a native or indigene, had he been born in Switzerland during Vattel’s lifetime from, say, a British father and a Swiss mother.

    The reason why some birthers use Vattel as Billy Batson does “Shazam!” is due to either a genuine misunderstanding of the original text, or a heap of bad faith.

    I could go into details as to what Vattel exactly wrote, but all this has been covered at great length here. I’m sure our gracious host can help you put it together.

  62. avatar
    bovril February 5, 2013 at 8:53 am #

    But Doc, that would mean all of the first 13 states were “in on it” as well, all with the express intent and plan that over 200 years later an illegal Usurperator would be elected President……Damn but Soros is looking incredibly prescient as well as good looking for about 300 years old…….

  63. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 8:54 am #

    I note that “compilation” is merely the first step in the process known as “research”. At some point compiling becomes composting.

  64. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 9:04 am #

    Bob Gard: I had two years to complete my research and write my eBook before the next election. I didn’t know anything about publishing formats. I certainly picked the wrong one. I know that now. Your logic in attacking my format to infer my conclusions wrong about Obama’s status is meaningless. You win the docx argument. Now please use the docx argument to prove my conclusions are wrong.

    Wow a whole two years? Do you want a medal? 2 years worth of pisspoor research is wasted time. I’m not just attacking your format I’m attacking your conclusions as well or did you not notice I responded to other things you said as well. How about proving your conclusions are right? Thus far you’ve stated some rather obviously false information.

  65. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 9:10 am #

    Bob Gard: Vattel discussed all the forms of acquiring citizenship. He was the only one of the public jurists in history that defined the highest form of citizenship. Hundreds of pages in my eBook are devoted to debunking the belief that our Constitution and common law follow the British Constitution and English common law. How am I going to show you the error of your ways in a few sentences? For a little taste, you should visit my web site, The-Constitutionist.com. You will also find in the eBook the arguments of some of the founders that the Supreme Court was not authorized to interpret what is in the Constitution, only the constitutionality of the laws that came after. Such founders believed, as I do, that the Constitution was in plain English, not to be subverted by interpretational stretching. In no time in history, did “in” mean “under.” Jefferson concluded, if the “power given by the constitution to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare . . . permitted Congress to take everything under their management which they should deem for the public welfare, and which is susceptible to the application of money; consequently, that the subsequent enumeration of their powers was not the description to which resort must be had, and did not at all constitute the limits of their authority. What confidence could be placed in a government that transformed a jealously guarded constitution into a boundless charter to legislate for the ‘general welfare’?” Madison was in total agreement and had the prescience to predict that the Constitution had two dire enemies, “one that would stretch it to death, and one that would squeeze it to death.” Interpretation is the code name for stretch.

    No de Vattel discussed what his native country did and nothing more. He stated other countries like England had their own rules and those should be followed. He made no claims about natural born citizenship. Sorry but no de Vattel discussed nothing about the “highest form of citizenship”.

    You wonder why we continue to laugh at you when you make some glaring mistakes?

  66. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 9:12 am #

    Bob Gard: The-Constitutionist.com. You can peruse the 50 pages of debate between Stephen Tonchen and me to get an idea of the scholarship. Read the reviews at Amazon to see how others have rated it. Remember, I do not claim to be a great writer, just readable. Besides, the overwhelming content is from historical figures. No one can beat the research.

    Stephen Tonchen? Well by the mention of him it’s obvious the level of scholarship is pisspoor. Let’s see your reviews consist of puff pieces and stephen tonchen.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 9:33 am #

    Let me point you to a wonderful free utility called Calibre (download here) that can create eBooks in a number of standard formats from input document types including DOCX and PDF. Microsoft Word can, of course, create PDFs, a fairly standard publishing format.


    Bob Gard: Your logic in attacking my format to infer my conclusions wrong about Obama’s status is meaningless. You win the docx argument. Now please use the docx argument to prove my conclusions are wrong.

  68. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 9:38 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The plain English meaning of “natural born” from the Oxford English Dictionary is: “Having a specified position or character by birth; used esp. with subject.” That is the only definition in that work which details all of the usages of words. Natural born citizens are citizens from birth. Stretching is what you do in an attempt to create a “highest form of citizenship” a phrase I daresay that you will not find in Vattel, nor in the writing of any early American.

    I included in my eBook several lengthy tables on dictionaries with their definitions of natural-born, natural-born citizen, native-born, indigene, native etc. Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes was the one adopted by Jay. That is what I proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Vattel’s definition never found its way into a dictionary anywhere in the world. Take “indigene,” for example, in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary where he cited Vattel incorrectly as an expert user of the regular meaning of indigene. One of the biggest mistakes anti-birthers make is trying to use dictionaries to explain the 1758 definition of Vattel’s natives and indigenes.

    Here is the heading to Table I, without the carry-over formatting:

    TABLE I
    DICTIONARIES I
    Samuel Johnson

    Remember: If you merge the two translations for a higher form of citizenship in 212 of Volume I, Book I, Chapter XIX of Emer de Vattel’s The Law Of Nations, which bifurcated his work into two branches in 1797, Vattel’s unique, one-sentence definition for natives and indigenes, not contained clearly in any dictionary—English, French or other, not in 1787, not today—result in the word equation where naturals = natives = indigenes = natural-born citizens = those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Compare Vattel’s definitions to those in the listed Samuel Johnson dictionaries and the non-Samuel Johnson dictionaries.

    D SIZE DICTIONARY CITIZEN NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN
    D1Two volumes in folio, 43 cm.Johnson, Samuel, A Dictionary of the English Language, W. Strahan, London, England, 1755*, First Edition. Fig. 1 1. A freeman of a city, 2. A townfman, 3. An inhabitant, a dweller in any place. Fig. 2 None.

    Presuming that you have read the debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, you should know that there is not word of discussion of parentage as a qualification for any federal office, but only discussions related to the length of time someone was a citizen.

    The major three-volume work—later expanded to four volumes—on the Philadelphia Convention, afterwards dubbed the Constitutional Convention or the Federal Convention, was Max Farrand’s The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, published by the Yale University Press in Connecticut first in 1911. No references of any kind were made to native, native-born, native born, natural-born or natural born in Volume I. Vol. II, contrary to the beliefs of some anti-birthers, had a substantial number of references to natural-born citizen. You can find references on pages 494 and 498 for convention sessions beginning on Tuesday, September 4, 1787, page 536 for Friday, September 7, page 574 in a report from the Committee of Style on September 10, and another on page 598 having to do with Madison’s copy of the report from the Committee of Style. All came after the Jay letter of July 25, 1787. Hence, for all practical purposes, the term, as far as its use in the convention, seems to be Jay’s one hundred percent. Many mentions were made of native and natives in this volume but not one of native-born, which should logically lead to the question, what’s all the present-day confusion about natural-born being equal to native-born? Then there was in particular the term “native Citizens” once used on page 270 of Volume II of Max Farrand’s The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, by Mr. Sherman in the Monday, August 13, 1787 session as per Madison’s notes:

    The U. States have not invited foreigners nor pledged their faith that they should enjoy equal privileges with native Citizens. The Individual States alone have done this. The former therefore are at liberty to make any discriminations they may judge requisite.

    This quote should make us aware that the framers knew there was a difference in the meaning between “native Citizens” and “natural born Citizens.” If not, why did they not incorporate Sherman’s term instead of Jay’s term into the presidential eligibility clause? Elongating Sherman’s term to native born Citizen would have made no difference in meaning because all the dictionaries of the day defined native as “One born in any place; original inhabitant” either in these exact terms or in some fashion very similar. No world dictionaries had entries for native born Citizen or native Citizen, although the latter appeared very rarely in print in other books. No dictionaries exhibited any entry for native born. An opportunity to add an additional definition to the combination, distinct to their individual definitions, might be more confusing than striking the original term of natural born Citizen, which had never been incorporated in any dictionary.

    If native born was not in Volume I, not in Volume II, and not in Volume III, why would one deduce that native born is what the framers had in mind or that it was equivalent to natural born? Volume III had one reference to natural born by reprinting John Jay’s July 25th letter in Appendix A, whereas there were a substantial number of references to “native” but only one to “natives.” In other words, anti-birthers have it right when they say no real debate occurred about the natural born Citizen requirement in the eligibility clause for the presidency.

    I have included a chapter on the Constitutional Convention in which I quoted heavily from Farrand’s volumes. The lack of straightforward definitions for citizen and natural born Citizen is resolved by my book. Learning how would entail reading it.

    Here are some excerpts from the chapter on the Constitutional Convention from Farrand’s to demonstrate the framers’ fears of foreign influence. I think you asked me about that somewhere else: “July 25 [the day John Jay sent his letter about “natural born Citizen” to George Washington]
    Col. Mason approved the . . . election by the Natl. Legislature: Tho’ Candor obliged him to admit, that there was great danger of foreign influence, as had been suggested. . . .
    Mr Butler. The two great evils to be avoided are cabal at home, & influence from abroad. It will be difficult to avoid either if the Election be made by the Natl Legislature. . . .”

    Col. Mason was for opening a wide door for emigrants; but did not chuse to let foreigners and adventurers make laws for us & govern us. Citizenship for three years was not enough for ensuring that local knowledge which ought to be possessed by the Representative [affirmation of fear of foreigners in government]. This was the principal ground of his objection to so short a term. It might also happen that a rich foreign Nation, for example Great Britain, might send over her tools who might bribe their way into the Legislature for insidious purposes [re-affirmation]. He moved that ‘seven’ years instead of ‘three,’ be inserted.
    Mr. Govr. Morris moved to insert 14 instead of 4 years citizenship as a qualification for Senators; urging the danger of admitting strangers into our public Councils [paranoia or justifiable caution?]. Mr. Pinkney 2ds. him
    Mr. Elseworth [sic; Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut, liberal]. [sic] was opposed to the motion as discouraging meritorious aliens from emigrating to this Country.
    Mr. Pinkney. As the Senate is to have the power of making treaties & managing our foreign affairs, there is peculiar danger and impropriety in opening its door to those who have foreign attachments [conservative]. He quoted the jealousy of the Athenians [extremely conservative] on this subject who made it death for any stranger to intrude his voice into their legislative proceedings.
    Col. Mason highly approved of the policy of the motion. Were it not that many not natives of this Country had acquired great merit during the revolution, he should be for
    restraining the eligibility into the Senate, to natives.
    Mr. Butler was decidely opposed to the admission of foreigners without a long residence in the Country. They bring with them, not only attachments to other Countries; but ideas of Govt. so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous. He acknowledged that if he himself had been called into public life within a short time after his coming to America, his foreign habits opinions & attachments would have rendered him an improper agent in public affairs. He mentioned the great strictness observed in Great Britain on this subject.
    Mr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives. Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expence to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services— He was not singular in these ideas. A great many of the most influential men in Massts. reasoned in the same manner.
    Mr. Rutlidge. It might as well be said that all qualifications are disfranchisemts, and that to require the age of 25 years was a disfranchisement. The policy of the precaution was as great with regard to foreigners now Citizens; as to those who are to be naturalized in future.

    There are many more quotes from the convention and throughout the book. The only action where the fear of foreign influence gained complete foothold was in the adoption of the presidential eligibility clause necessitating the Presidency (and logically the Vice-Presidency) to be the only two offices banned to native-born citizens with no citizen parents or native-born citizens with one citizen parent.

  69. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 9:45 am #

    Bob Gard: blah blah blahP>

    Another length copy and paste that doesn’t even address what Doc said. Bob do you always ramble on about stuff you’re clueless about? The original french is what matters when it comes to de Vattel. de Vattel never used Natural Born Citizenship in his book. The phrase would be citoyen de naissance. I gave you a link to a translation early from a french lawyer who actually studied de Vattel in the original french. Did you ignore it?

    John Jay said nothing about what he thought Natural Born Citizen meant nor did he apply it to the Presidency. Instead he said Commander in Chief. At that time Commander in Chief wasn’t going to be the same position as the President. Also Jay was not a member of the constitutional convention and it’s not obvious what say Jay had if any in the constitution.

  70. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 9:55 am #

    The confirmation bias is strong in this one.

    - smh -

  71. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 9:57 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Let me point you to a wonderful free utility called Calibre (download here) that can create eBooks in a number of standard formats from input document types including DOCX and PDF. Microsoft Word can, of course, create PDFs, a fairly standard publishing format.

    That’s what I call debating like a gentleman. Thank you.

  72. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 10:03 am #

    Lupin: Of all possible cases I’m particularly impressed by that of Madison, because of his enthusiastic and grateful letter of acknowledgement to the French Government after being told he’d been granted French citizenship.

    Certainly one can’t argue that such a matter was totally unknown or hidden; his rivals at the very least must have known of this and could have made political hay of it during the campaign. Yet i could find no mention of such arguments used against Madison.

    He was therefore elected as a dual citizen fair and square.

    BTW, Dr. C, I understand from my LA office that someone with a name much like yours recently purchased an ebook copy of NEMOVILLE which includes the Vattel microcosmic story which I plugged here.

    If so, first, thank you! Also, I’d be interested if you were to give it a brief review here in the open thread (or another open thread when you get around to reading it).

    Frankly, like Voltaire, Vattel the fiction writer has aged better than Vattel the political/legal writer. (This in no way diminishes his latter role in history; I’m just saying that his fiction has aged better than his essays and treatises.)

    Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 10:09 am #

    Итак, как же они переводят “indegenes“?


    Bob Gard: Buy Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” in Russian. It’s available in Moscow for about $1,700. You may learn something if you do, but did we learn anything by this exchange of sarcasm?

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 10:14 am #

    You could start by explaining why you think what I quoted below is true.

    I have seen argument supporting the idea elsewhere, but you might have a different one. After you make the argument, I’ll answer it.


    Bob Gard: Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

  75. avatar
    Northland10 February 5, 2013 at 10:16 am #

    Bob Gard: Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

    Show some proof to that claim, please.

  76. avatar
    Northland10 February 5, 2013 at 10:19 am #

    Vattel did not define. He only opined.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 10:19 am #

    I don’t dispute historical fact; I dispute historical conjecture and conclusions. Writers on your topic (and I haven’t read your book) typically blur fact and conjecture and that’s their argument is invalid.

    My training is in mathematics, and one thing one learns quickly in that field, is that every step has to be justified.


    Bob Gard: I challenge Dr. Conspiracy to disprove any historical fact.

  78. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 10:20 am #

    “Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history.”

    That might win the most asinine statement of the week award.

    Here are a few good reasons why:
    129. Public establishment of religion.
    176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.
    122. Right of carrying off women.
    114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
    115. Marriages of aliens. (118)

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

  79. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 5, 2013 at 10:22 am #

    Look at it this way, Bob. In the Constitution there is a class called “slaves.”

    As time went on, Congress and the Supreme Court decided (no mean term) that slavery was incompatible with the spirit of our Republic. There are no longer slaves, even though their status is delineated in the main body of the Constitution.

    Congress and the Supreme Court have likewise decided that eligibility to the Presidency is to be a broad combination of “jus soli” and “jus sanguinis” considerations, i.e. anyone born on our soil, regardless of parentage, and anyone born abroad to US parents, is a NBC. In other words, if you were to be considered a citizen the second you were born, you can be President.

    My favorite demonstration of that fact is the case of Tom Vilsack. He has been a candidate for President. He is on the list of succession to serve as POTUS in case everybody in front of him on the list is dead. He was served as the Designated Survivor before. Nobody doubts that he is eligible to be President.

    Got that? OK, here’s the part where your entire argument goes down in flames, and proves that you have wasted your time writing a pointless book: VILSACK’S PARENTS ARE UNKNOWN. He was a foundling, abandoned on the steps of a hospital (if I remember right) in Philadelphia.

    Were his parents citizens? Visiting foreigners? Illegal aliens? Some combination of the above? Who knows? But being born here, he has always been considered eligible.

    THEREFORE, NBC status for someone born on our soil cannot be a matter of parentage. The two-citizen-parents-required-for-NBC-status theory is, to put it bluntly, crap.

  80. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 10:30 am #

    Bob Gard: Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

    That is complete horse spit. The founders rejected many of the claims de Vattel just look at the bill of rights. Vattel was for an establishment of religion, he was for the restriction of the right to bear arms. He was for state ownership of property, restriction of the press. In fact sifting through the founders own writings they failed to mention de Vattel as much you think. In fact de Vattel is near the bottom of the list when it comes to influence.

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=259&id=438&option=com_content&task=view

    1.St. Paul
    2.Montesquieu
    3.Sir William Blackstone
    4.John Locke
    5.David Hume
    6.Plutarch
    7.Cesare Beccaria
    8.John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon
    9.Delolme
    10.Samuel Pufendorf
    11.Sir Edward Coke
    12.Cicero
    13.Thomas Hobbes
    14.William Robertson
    15.Hugo Grotius
    16.Jean-Jacques Rousseau
    17.Lord Bolingbroke
    18.Francis Bacon
    19.Richard Price
    20.William Shakespeare
    21.Livy
    22.Alexander Pope
    23.John Milton
    24.Tacitus
    25.Plato
    26.Abbe Guillaume Raynal
    27.Abbe Gabriel Mably
    28.Niccolo Machiavelli
    29.Emmerich de Vattel
    30.William Petyt
    31.Voltaire
    32.John Robinson
    33.Algernon Sidney
    34.John Somers
    35.James Harrington
    36.Paul de Rapin-Thoyras

    Look at that de Vattel is 29 while Blackstone is at #3

  81. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 10:33 am #

    Bob Gard: Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

    The Constitution is municipal law, not public law. Vattel might have been the most cited writer on Public Law at the time of the founding, but he would fall out of favor in the 19th century. However, Public Law had very limited application in the United States outside of international disputes and there is no evidencre that any portion of our Constitution was based upon Public Law, particularly our citizenship law is a matter of municipal law. Accordingly, Blackstone, Coke and other English jurists were cited far more often than Vattel or any other writers on Public Law as we took most of our municipal law from England. The exaggeration of Vattel’s influence has gotten quite comical.

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 10:33 am #

    The obvious answer to your question is that the phrase “natural born citizen” was used instead of “native citizen” to indicate that anyone who was a citizen from birth could be President, not just those born in the country.

    I say that for two reasons:

    First, the British Naturalization Act that was in effect when the Constitution was drafted explicitly called foreign-born children of British subjects “natural born subjects.” Second the US Naturalization Act of 1790 called foreign-born children of US citizen fathers “natural born citizens.”

    Can you find any historical reference in early America where a person born in the United States (to a non-citizen parent) was called a “foreigner?”

    It would appear to me that the core error you are making is an unsupported assumption that the framers considered non-citizen parentage a foreign influence. Such an assumption, if false, would cause one to misread much of the material.

    Let me point you to my article:

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

    and the discussion that followed.

    I quote from Farrand too, but we arrive at different conclusions. Why is that. Is one of us making unwarranted assumptions?


    Bob Gard: The U. States have not invited foreigners nor pledged their faith that they should enjoy equal privileges with native Citizens. The Individual States alone have done this. The former therefore are at liberty to make any discriminations they may judge requisite.

    This quote should make us aware that the framers knew there was a difference in the meaning between “native Citizens” and “natural born Citizens.” If not, why did they not incorporate Sherman’s term instead of Jay’s term into the presidential eligibility clause?

  83. avatar
    Paper February 5, 2013 at 10:48 am #

    I think I am going to attempt being only a spectator on this one. I will note that Bob Gard’s website and his book seem textbook examples of original research gone astray. An hypothesis, if you will.

    One of my favorite posts from Dr. C. is on this topic:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/no-original-research/

    I’ll be interested to follow along and see how this back and forth goes, but I think I may have found my limit in going down the rabbit holes. Or I hope so!

  84. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 10:51 am #

    @ Bob Gard: Check out this copy of Obama’s Kenya birth certificate:

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html

    Bob Gard: I own many copies of Vattel.

    Who is “Vattel”? Do you mean Mattel? That would make sense.

    I almost bought that one in Moscow.

    So you’re a commie. Me too: Да здравствует Ленин!

    I ferreted out the truth.

    I agree. Ferrets make great pets, once you get them to stop biting.

  85. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 10:59 am #

    “… perhaps get a sense of why Bob went one way and all the authorities went the other way.”

    Are you expecting a surprise, Doc? From his own description, he states he chose to end his “History of Natural Born Citizenship” in the 1840s. This is before any high-profile cases were heard before federal courts, much less SCOTUS (that I am aware of).

    From this I infer Gard has decided to reject our country court system and its rulings and interpretations, and substitute his own. He is holding forth on his preferences and wishes, not what is. He’s rewriting the history of the country over short-term political concerns, or embracing long discarded interpretations of citizenship.

    He may have something interesting to say, but from what he has said here, nothing of practical, effectual value.

    If the case can’t be made in brief, then it’s wheelspinning. I assume his case in brief is the fauxVattelist standard “It takes two citizen parents to make a NBC”. Whoop. No support for that in the entire Anglo-American legal tradition going back to at least the 14th century (explicitly, to my knowledge), and implicitly, much farther.

  86. avatar
    Bob February 5, 2013 at 10:59 am #

    If you Birthers are wondering why you’re having such a difficult time selling Vattelism it might be because you have never been able to produce one mention of the two-citizen-parent-for-presidents-only-rule in any history book or school text book or law reference book. Absolutely no one was ever taught that this was a rule or that the concept was even in question. And then suddenly, in 2008 (for some reason) you “realize” that everyone else has been wrong for 200 years. It’s appears as if you want to retroactively change the rules.

  87. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 11:03 am #

    Bob Gard: inform people of the meaning of the Constitution in order to save it from…Supreme Court justices

    You owe me a new screen and keyboard.

    You’re not a lawyer, and not even a paralegal.

  88. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2013 at 11:04 am #

    Bob Gard: If native born was not in Volume I, not in Volume II, and not in Volume III, why would one deduce that native born is what the framers had in mind or that it was equivalent to natural born?

    Because of guys like St. George Tucker:

    That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” 1803, “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings…”

  89. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 11:08 am #

    Bob Gard: I do not claim to be a great writer

    True

    just readable

    Not true

  90. avatar
    Jim February 5, 2013 at 11:11 am #

    Bob Gard:I chose to refer to Vattel as the framers and founders did—good enough for me, sorry about your problem with it.

    Well, that’s your choice Mr. Gard, I choose to refer to the SCOTUS, Congress, and American teaching about my country. But, for your opinion, you were given one vote. And, pretty much overwhelmingly, the American people chose the Constitution over a Swiss writer. BTW, Doc here has spent over 4 years on research and cites people like retired Supreme Court Justices, Law Professors, Congressional Research…needless to say it kind of puts your research down to around a 5th-grade level. I’ll bet Doc could debate you here and all he would have to do is provide links to his articles that debunk every point you make. I wonder though…how much of your book is cut and paste from Mario?

  91. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 11:12 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I already have my answers.Obama is the lawfully elected President. John Jay wasn’t apart of the constitutional convention and served no part in it.He said nothing about what he thought a natural born citizen should be.Jay said nothing about presidential eligibility in the letter to Washington. John Jay mentioned something about Commander in Chief.At that time the commander in chief of the military and the President were going to be two different positions.Once again the french phrase for natural born citizen is citoyen de naissance that phrase appears nowhere in the passage you referenced.So again your claims that I should read your poorly written book are fruitless as I can tell from your claims here you failed to do your research.

    In the eBook, I was forthright in declaring I do not have the smoking-gun proof you seem to demand. John Jay was Washington’s best personal and political friend. Later, after the convention, Jay gave up his presidential aspirations for the benefit of Washington’s dire need to insure neutrality. That kind of loyalty was why Jay’s request was put into the Constitution without any floor debate.

    “Jay said nothing about presidential eligibility in the letter to Washington.” Do you think that there was any doubt that Washington was going to be the first President and the Command in Chief of the American army? History narrates otherwise and completely accepts that the letter was the reason for natural born Citizen to show up in the presidential eligibility clause. The fear of Washington and the knowledge he was going to be the first President cowered any opposition.

    “Once again the french phrase for natural born citizen is citoyen de naissance that phrase appears nowhere in the passage you referenced.” Find your term in a dictionary of that era. Below is what you’ll find.

    Citoyen. Citoyen, ou Citoyenne, Ciuis. (Jean Nicot: Le Thresor de la langue francoyse, 1606)
    Citoyen, [citoy]enne. s. Bourgeois, habitant d’une cité. (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 1st Edition, 1694)
    CITOYEN, ENNE. s. Habitant d’une Ville, d’une Cité. (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4th Edition, 1762)
    CITOYEN, ÈNE, subst. [Ci-toa-ien, iène, 3e è moyen dans le 2d; dans le 1er, en n’a pas le son d’an. — Richelet écrit Citoien, le P. Follard Citoïen; mais cette manière d’écrire ferait prononcer Cito-ien, contre l’usage.] Suivant l’Académie, Citoyen est un habitant d’une Ville, d’une Cité. (Jean-François Féraud: Dictionaire critique de la langue française, 1787-88)

    The closest you will come to it is found under ‘naturels.”

    Naturel, signifie aussi, Habitant originaire d’un pays. Les naturels François. les Espagnols naturels. les naturels habitans. En ce sens il s’employe aussi subst. Les naturels du pays. (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 1st Edition, 1694)
    NATUREL signifie aussi, Habitant originaire d’un pays. . . . Les naturels habitans (Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 4th Edition, 1762)

    Why do you insist on a term that did not exist in a dictionary of the times unless you can display a political document displaying it in the same era?

    “So again your claims that I should read your poorly written book are fruitless as I can tell from your claims here you failed to do your research.” You can tell how poorly a book is written without reading it? You are amazing. My job would have been easier if I had been able to. A lot less expensive too.

  92. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 11:20 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: 31.Voltaire

    @ Bob Gard: I have looked at the length of each post of yours. I have one observation:

    The secret of being a bore is to tell everything. – Voltaire, Discours en vers sur l’homme, 1737

  93. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    Jim: it kind of puts your research down to around a 5th-grade level

    I was going to venture 7th grade.

  94. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 11:24 am #

    Bob: And then suddenly, in 2008 (for some reason) you “realize” that everyone else has been wrong for 200 years.

    Leo Donofrio had some time to kill between poker games.

  95. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 11:24 am #

    Bob doesn’t seem to understand what legal argument is. It is simply a fact that Jay does not define “natural born citizen” or say what he thought a “storng check” was. To say otherwise is simply dishonest and rank speculation is not legal argument. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that a native-birth requirement was a sufficiently strong check as that was the only thing proposed in the Convention and was, of course, the law of England with respect to office holders.

    Again, it is simply dishonest to say that anything said in the Convention implied a parentage requirement, referenced Vattel’s defintion in any way or indicated that “native” meant something other than “natural born.” One can speculate all one wants. It is not legal argument. The facts are that only a native birth requirement was discussed and there is no evidence anyone thought the term “foreigner” applied to those with foreign parents. Wilson said he was a foreigner because he was foreign born. Baldwin said the porposal to restrict Congress to “natives” was a discrimination as to place of birth.

    At the end of the day, there is not a shred of evidence that any framer connected the phrase “natural born citizen” to Vattel and or that legal authority in the United States for the next half century, at least, did either. As with all birther arguments, they must claim people meant something they did not say as there is no actual authority that supports them.

  96. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 11:29 am #

    “[No wonder Corsi’s train left the tracks. The engineers controlling the locomotive were activist judges.]”

    “He blurred it with activist judicial decisions that unconstitutionally distorted the presidential eligibility clause and confused everything by using natural-born citizen interchangeably amongst the choices (1), (2) and (3) above. ”

    Disturbing opinions. Activist judges and judicial decisions? Who decided that? Are “activist” judges’ rulings less binding? According to whom? An unqualified birther? How is that in any way respectful of the law?

  97. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate February 5, 2013 at 11:32 am #

    Bob Gard: Using Vattel’s definition, natural-born is not a vague concept. Rather, applied to the U.S. Constitution, a natural-born citizen is someone born in the United States to two parents who are United States citizens.

    I commend Mr Gard for his efforts in singlehandedly culling the 2016 Republican presidential ticket. Using his definition, it is evident “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that neither Gov Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana to 2 non-citizen Indian graduate students) nor Sen Marco Rubio (born in Florida to 2 unnaturalized Cuban refugees) nor Sen Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a Cuban father & an American mother) meet the constitutional requirement of natural-born citizen. Well done, sir!

  98. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 11:32 am #

    Bob Gard: In the eBook, I was forthright in declaring I do not have the smoking-gun proof you seem to demand. John Jay was Washington’s best personal and political friend. Later, after the convention, Jay gave up his presidential aspirations for the benefit of Washington’s dire need to insure neutrality. That kind of loyalty was why Jay’s request was put into the Constitution without any floor debate.

    So in other words your claims are completely meaningless and lack merit. Again no matter how close John Jay was to Washington it does not change the fact that 1. John Jay didn’t claim what he perceived Natural Born Citizen to be and 2. That John Jay was even talking about the President. 3. That his input even mattered as he wasn’t apart of the Constitutional convention.

    Bob Gard: Do you think that there was any doubt that Washington was going to be the first President and the Command in Chief of the American army? History narrates otherwise and completely accepts that the letter was the reason for natural born Citizen to show up in the presidential eligibility clause. The fear of Washington and the knowledge he was going to be the first President cowered any opposition.

    Again at the time John Jay made the statement President and Commander in Chief were going to be two separate positions. John Jay refered to the Commander in Chief of the Army and not the Chief Executive of our government. History does not show that in fact I notice you’ve said nothing about the response from Washington. You’re making claims that are not in evidence. There is no proof that the letter was the reason.

    You seem to forget that John Adams had run against George Washington. Also according to your logic George Washington wouldn’t have been eligible according to John Jay’s letter.

    Bob Gard: Why do you insist on a term that did not exist in a dictionary of the times unless you can display a political document displaying it in the same era?

    The political document does not use the term as has been explained to you repeatedly here. Why do you continue to insist on lying?

    Bob Gard: You can tell how poorly a book is written without reading it? You are amazing. My job would have been easier if I had been able to. A lot less expensive too.

    If your arguments here are any indication of what is in your book then yeah we don’t need to read through your mess of a book to know you’re full of spit.

  99. avatar
    Sarina February 5, 2013 at 11:37 am #

    Bob Gard= Jedipauly?

  100. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 11:38 am #

    Bob Gard is an unfortunate example that volume cannot redeem a premise which is fundamentally flawed. His 1722 page book is worthless, not because it isn’t long enough, but because the flaws of his premise begin on page one. No matter how many pages he adds, the flaw persists. You cannot fix a poisoned well by dumping more water in it.

    I am not an expert on Constitutional law, and so I must defer to expertise. Considering that Bob Gard, for all his volume, has not been published or reviewed in any reputable legal journal, has not been peer reviewed, has not been cited by any recognized expert, and cannot even manage to sell his book in any significant volume, leads me to believe, and rightly so apparently, that no real expert on the subject regards his speculative pulp to be worthy of consideration.

    His flawed premise also goes against every recognized authority on the subject. Indeed he contradicts even the research branch of the Library of Congress, the entity upon which the legislative branch of our government does rely for accurate and timely information on such subjects.

    This combined with the lack of any apparent credentials of his own (at least that I can find and verify) leads any reasonable person to conclude that Mr. Gard is simply another obsessed, birther with too much time on his hands, and with a much greater belief in his own “expertise” than his spurious book warrants, despite it’s volume.

    In short, Bob Gard’s writings are an excellent example of how wasted space is no less wasted, no matter how much you increase the volume.

  101. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 11:39 am #

    Scientist: YOU came here. I suggest you condense the nub of your argument into a paragraph and present it.We have had literally dozens, if not hundreds, like you before here, so unless you can show quickly that you have truly taken a never-before-trod path, frankly Scarlett, I don’t give a damn.

    You have had no one like me. The mere fact that I explained how “natural-born citizens” ended up in the 1797 edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations is proof enough of what you ask. Isn’t that one of the favorite arguments of anti-birthers, that there was no way that Vattel could have been responsible for natural-born citizens since he died thirty years before the 1797 edition was published? I suggest that the person who thinks 1700 pages can be condensed in to a paragraph has a reality issue. Just remember that a lot of valuable original documents, notes, books and letters were burned up in that that famous fire.

  102. avatar
    Horus February 5, 2013 at 11:40 am #

    bovril:

    As such trying to burble that the USA, a country created by the English, ruled by the English and with the laws of England will perforce NOT adhere to the interpretation of English Law in it’s Coinstitution is plain stupidity of the first water.

    Did you actually mean to say; stupidity of the first order?

  103. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate February 5, 2013 at 11:45 am #

    Bob Gard: In the eBook, I was forthright in declaring I do not have the smoking-gun proof you seem to demand.
    ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    So, which is it? It sound like your “proof,” boldly proclaimed in your title as incontestable, is not as airtight as your text admits.

  104. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 11:46 am #

    Bob Gard: The-Constitutionist.com. You can peruse the 50 pages of debate between Stephen Tonchen and me to get an idea of the scholarship. Read the reviews at Amazon to see how others have rated it. Remember, I do not claim to be a great writer, just readable. Besides, the overwhelming content is from historical figures. No one can beat the research.

    Is this an interminably long discussion between two birthers who reached their conclusions on Presidential eligibility first and then searched for anything remotely connected for support however irrelevant?

    How is that a debate if the crux of the viewpoints are the same?

  105. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 11:48 am #

    1% Silver Nitrate:

    i have been anxiously waiting for the same scrutiny to be put forth for rubio, bojangles & cruz while THEY move forward with their aspirations

    someone mentioned (here) tom vilsack – i did not know that he was abandoned at birth and his parents unknown ….. but he was

    is it because vilsack is “white” and the other three “brown” that no birther issues have been raised? ……….. hmmmm

  106. avatar
    Rickey February 5, 2013 at 11:49 am #

    Bob Gard: Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

    “A History of American Law” by Lawrence M. Friedman was published in 1973 and has remained in print for 40 years. Friedman cites Blackstone 17 times. He never mentions Vattel.

    When an American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries was published, American subscribers ordered 1,557 sets. As Friedman notes, “Not all of the subscribers were lawyers and judges, but many were, and Blackstone’s text became ubiquitous on the American legal scene.” Friedman never mentions Vattel’s book. In fact, Vattel didn’t even make it into Friedman’s bibliography. That fact should give you a sense of how much influence Vattel had on American law.

    During your two years of working on your book, did you come across a single legal text, history text, or civics text which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents? If so, please provide us with a citation.

  107. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 11:51 am #

    Bob Gard: You have had no one like me. The mere fact that I explained how “natural-born citizens” ended up in the 1797 edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations is proof enough of what you ask. Isn’t that one of the favorite arguments of anti-birthers, that there was no way that Vattel could have been responsible for natural-born citizens since he died thirty years before the 1797 edition was published? I suggest that the person who thinks 1700 pages can be condensed in to a paragraph has a reality issue. Just remember that a lot of valuable original documents, notes, books and letters were burned up in that that famous fire.

    Actually we have had people like you. You’re repeating long discredited birther memes and essentially pulling a Jedi Paully thinking you somehow have a copyright on bad logic. Okay tell me then how one of the earliest mentions of Vattel by the Supreme Court includes a reference to Vattel which includes Naturels and indegenes?

  108. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 11:51 am #

    Bob Gard: You have had no one like me.

    I’ll say.

    Bob Gard: The mere fact that I explained how “natural-born citizens”

    The fact that you are not a lawyer explains how everything you say is moot.

    Bob Gard: I suggest that the person who thinks 1700 pages can be condensed in to a paragraph has a reality issue.

    Denialists have a reality issue. News flash: Obama is our president. He will have a library, hundreds of books will be written about him, he will be in history books until our civilization ends.

    Denialists will be a footnote. If they are studied at all, it will be in psychology textbooks on abnormal psychology.

  109. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 11:56 am #

    Bob Gard: You have had no one like me.

    Who ARE you?

    What are your credentials?

    What legal journals have you been published in?

    What experts cite you?

  110. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 11:56 am #

    Bob Gard: ON GARD, OBAMA, YOU ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, WHICH I SHALL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    ALL CAPS is used by the semi-literate and the insane.

  111. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 11:57 am #

    Daniel:
    Bob Gard is an unfortunate example that volume cannot redeem a premise which is fundamentally flawed. His 1722 page book is worthless, not because it isn’t long enough, but because the flaws of his premise begin on page one. No matter how many pages he adds, the flaw persists. You cannot fix a poisoned well by dumping more water in it.

    I am not an expert on Constitutional law, and so I must defer to expertise. Considering that Bob Gard, for all his volume, has not been published or reviewed in any reputable legal journal, has not been peer reviewed, has not been cited by any recognized expert, and cannot even manage to sell his book in any significant volume, leads me to believe, and rightly so apparently, that no real expert on the subject regards his speculative pulp to be worthy of consideration.

    His flawed premise also goes against every recognized authority on the subject. Indeed he contradicts even the research branch of the Library of Congress, the entity upon which the legislative branch of our government does rely for accurate and timely information on such subjects.

    This combined with the lack of any apparent credentials of his own (at least that I can find and verify) leads any reasonable person to conclude that Mr. Gard is simply another obsessed, birther with too much time on his hands, and with a much greater belief in his own “expertise” than his spurious book warrants, despite it’s volume.

    In short, Bob Gard’s writings are an excellent example of how wasted space is no less wasted, no matter how much you increase the volume.

    Apuzzo would love this guy!

  112. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 11:59 am #

    Daniel:
    Bob Gard is an unfortunate example that volume cannot redeem a premise which is fundamentally flawed. His 1722 page book is worthless, not because it isn’t long enough, but because the flaws of his premise begin on page one. No matter how many pages he adds, the flaw persists. You cannot fix a poisoned well by dumping more water in it.

    I am not an expert on Constitutional law, and so I must defer to expertise. Considering that Bob Gard, for all his volume, has not been published or reviewed in any reputable legal journal, has not been peer reviewed, has not been cited by any recognized expert, and cannot even manage to sell his book in any significant volume, leads me to believe, and rightly so apparently, that no real expert on the subject regards his speculative pulp to be worthy of consideration.

    His flawed premise also goes against every recognized authority on the subject. Indeed he contradicts even the research branch of the Library of Congress, the entity upon which the legislative branch of our government does rely for accurate and timely information on such subjects.

    This combined with the lack of any apparent credentials of his own (at least that I can find and verify) leads any reasonable person to conclude that Mr. Gard is simply another obsessed, birther with too much time on his hands, and with a much greater belief in his own “expertise” than his spurious book warrants, despite it’s volume.

    In short, Bob Gard’s writings are an excellent example of how wasted space is no less wasted, no matter how much you increase the volume.

    “His flawed premise also goes against every recognized authority on the subject.” That explains why the recognized authorities have been wrong for such a long time.

    Actually the research branch of the Library of Congress agreed with me that Jefferson had not issued a resolution in 1777 using the term “natural-born citizens,” a fact that your recognized authorities had embraced.

    The Liberty Fund agreed with me that their press had not listed the correct translator to the 1797 edition they published in 2008 due to an error in the Library of Congress. I emailed them:

    “I spent many hours scouring the Internet to find out who the new editor and/or translator could have been. None of my English-language copies from 1759 through 1797 mentioned an editor or translator. I ascertained nothing. Then, many months later, I noticed on the back of the title page of the Liberty Fund edition under the Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data that the Library of Congress had determined that the 1797 edition had been translated by Thomas Nugent.” Nugent died long before that edition. The Liberty Fund answered: “The section on the copyright page that states The Law of Nations was translated by Thomas Nugent is the CIP data (that is, the data comes directly from the Library of Congress for their cataloging purposes). We make it clear in our edition that the 1797 translation is anonymous. If we ever reprint, I will see if the CIP data can be amended.”

    I have no credentials but I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.

  113. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 12:01 pm #

    “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
    - retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

    Is she one of those “activist” judges?

  114. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 12:01 pm #

    misha marinsky: Denialists will be a footnote. If they are studied at all, it will be in psychology textbooks on abnormal psychology.

    one of my fave quotes: History will be harsh in its judgment against these peddlers of conspiracy theories—they won’t be seen as the patriots they imagine but as crackpot reactionaries who ended up hurting the credibility of their fellow conservatives.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/03/republican-conspiracy-nuts-on-obama-s-skeet-shooting-picture.html

  115. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

    “That explains why the recognized authorities have been wrong for such a long time.”

    The dictionary definition for hubris should include that as an example.

  116. avatar
    aarrgghh February 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

    meanwhile, at the white house, barack obama continues presidenting.

  117. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

    Bob Gard: I have no credentials but I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.

    It’s called Thorazine. Look into it.

  118. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm #

    misha marinsky: ALL CAPS is used by the semi-literate and the insane.

    That definitely proves Obama is constitutional. I’m sorry. A plural subject followed by a singular verb must be worse! Let’s ask the psychologist you consulted. Who was he?

  119. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 12:06 pm #

    Bob Gard: That explains why the recognized authorities have been wrong for such a long time.

    Ah so you’re one of those schitzos who believe all the authorities who actually know this stuff are wrong but only you can be right. Have you met Padawan Paul Guthrie yet? You both seem to have the same distorted ego problems.

    Bob Gard: Actually the research branch of the Library of Congress agreed with me that Jefferson had not issued a resolution in 1777 using the term “natural-born citizens,” a fact that your recognized authorities had embraced.

    What is Jefferson’s relevance? He didn’t write the constitution that would be Madison.

    Bob Gard: The Liberty Fund agreed with me that their press had not listed the correct translator to the 1797 edition they published in 2008 due to an error in the Library of Congress. I emailed them:

    Relevance? The constitution was adopted in 1787

    Bob Gard: I have no credentials but I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.

    Still waiting for that moment when you are actually right about something. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a long time.

  120. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    I have no credentials but I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.

    Without credentials or reviews to back it up, how are we to know that you actually have this “ability”.

    Every insane person since the beginning of time has known they were right, and so deferred to no one, despite having no credentials. It’s one of the symptoms.

    So please tell us how we are to conclude that you are, against all odds and reason, an amateur who is right when every expert is wrong, as opposed to an individual with delusions of grandeur?

    How are we to know?

  121. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

    Mr Gard: A non-natural born citizen as President (which has never occurred, but, in principle, could) would not be in the slightest bit unconstitutional. Surely you have read the ENTIRE Constitution, not just the 3 words you write 1722 pages on? Are you familiar with the 12th Amendment? If not, allow me to help you. It states, in part-

    “the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”

    Who had the greatest number of (electoral) votes for President in 2008 and 2012? Said person, Barack H Obama, SHALL be President. So says the Constitution.

    You are playing in the big leagues now, son. Not like your own blog, with no comments.

  122. avatar
    Rickey February 5, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    Daniel:

    This combined with the lack of any apparent credentials of his own (at least that I can find and verify) leads any reasonable person to conclude that Mr. Gard is simply another obsessed, birther with too much time on his hands, and with a much greater belief in his own “expertise” than his spurious book warrants, despite it’s volume.

    On his website he actually claims that he debated the definition of “natural-born citizen” with his 8th grade civics teacher in 1960. He says that he has a degree in political science. Apparently he was never taught about the value of brevity.

  123. avatar
    Bob February 5, 2013 at 12:28 pm #

    Rickey: On his website he actually claims that he debated the definition of “natural-born citizen” with his 8th grade civics teacher in 1960.

    So he’s a Science Fiction author?

  124. avatar
    Yoda February 5, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

    Perhaps I take a different approach than other people do. I couldn’t care less what the framers intended when it said “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”. In my opinion the most brilliant that the framers did was make the Constitution amendable. By this fact alone, the framers were telling the world that their intent was not sacrosanct.

    I am not arrogant enough to say that I know what the framer’s intent was when it used the term “Natural Born Citizen” in the Constitution. My best, most educated guess, is that it was our version of a natural born subject, as defined in Calvin’s Case, the 1608 case from English Common law, but I do not know that for sure.

    But it doesn’t matter. I know the framers did intend for the Supreme Court to be the last word in interpreting the Constitution. I also know that once the Supreme Court has spoken, that is the law of this Country, regardless of the original intent of the framers, unless and until another case comes along and the Court reverses itself.

    The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case, clearly and unambiguously rejected the two citizen parent rule, and stated that a person born on US soil is a natural born citizen. Moreover, whether the framers considered native born and natural born citizens to be different, the Supreme Court, in several cases, has said they are the same.

    That is the law of the land and I do not need a 1722 treatise to tell me what the framers intended when their intent becomes irrelevant once the Supreme Court rules.

  125. avatar
    bovril February 5, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

    Horus: Did you actually mean to say; stupidity of the first order?

    Horus,

    Nope, first water

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

    Of highest quality usually related to diamonds and their clarity, thought it went rather nicely with perforce…. 8-)

  126. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate: I commend Mr Gard for his efforts in singlehandedly culling the 2016 Republican presidential ticket.Using his definition, it is evident “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that neither Gov Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana to 2 non-citizen Indian graduate students) nor Sen Marco Rubio (born in Florida to 2 unnaturalized Cuban refugees) nor Sen Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a Cuban father & an American mother) meet the constitutional requirement of natural-born citizen.Well done, sir!

    You’re right. They aren’t.

  127. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 12:46 pm #

    Yoda:

    i agree with you and well said – if there was a discrepancy, then why haven’t the supremes requested papers from the defense? why haven’t they granted cert?

    oh yeah, i forget, they are bought and paid for, afraid or some other nonsense

  128. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2013 at 12:46 pm #

    Bob Gard: natural-born subject was invented for the benefit of a monarch that cheered at the thought of perpetual allegiance.

    Can you explain why between 1785 and 1791 the Massachusett’s legislature used the terms natural born citizen and natural born subject interchangeably?

  129. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 12:47 pm #

    Yoda:
    Perhaps I take a different approach than other people do.I couldn’t care less what the framers intended when it said “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”.In my opinion the most brilliant that the framers did was make the Constitution amendable.By this fact alone, the framers were telling the world that their intent was not sacrosanct.

    I am not arrogant enough to say that I know what the framer’s intent was when it used the term “Natural Born Citizen” in the Constitution.My best, most educated guess, is that it was our version of a natural born subject, as defined in Calvin’s Case, the 1608 case from English Common law, but I do not know that for sure.

    But it doesn’t matter.I know the framers did intend for the Supreme Court to be the last word in interpreting the Constitution.I also know that once the Supreme Court has spoken, that is the law of this Country, regardless of the original intent of the framers, unless and until another case comes along and the Court reverses itself.

    The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case, clearly and unambiguously rejected the two citizen parent rule, and stated that a person born on US soil is a natural born citizen.Moreover, whether the framers considered native born and natural born citizens to be different, the Supreme Court, in several cases, has said they are the same.

    That is the law of the land and I do not need a 1722 treatise to tell me what the framers intended when their intent becomes irrelevant once the Supreme Court rules.

    The framers did not mean for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

  130. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 5, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    Bob, 1722 pages and 4000 footnotes conclusively proves that you have confused quantity with quality, and that conciseness and precision are not your strengths. Footnotes do not impress me in the slightest; their excessive use is a device borrowed from academia to make you look “scholarly”. As for the 1722 pages…you should be able to condense your argument to 30 seconds or less, which you would need to in a court of law. Speaking of which, if your extremely lengthy tome is correct, why has not a single lawsuit succeeded in showing that the POTUS is not a natural-born citizen? (And before you start writing, any answer along the lines of “there’s a conspiracy of the illuminati” will drop your credibility so far off the scale we will need a submarine to find it).

  131. avatar
    Yoda February 5, 2013 at 12:49 pm #

    donna:
    Yoda:

    i agree with you and well said – if there was a discrepancy, then why haven’t the supremes requested papers from the defense? why haven’t they granted cert?

    oh yeah, i forget, they are bought and paid for, afraid or some other nonsense

    Thanks. I noticed that I left some words out, as I tend to do sometimes, I am glad it was understandable.

  132. avatar
    Yoda February 5, 2013 at 12:49 pm #

    Bob Gard: The framers did not mean for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

    Of course it did.

  133. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    Bob Gard: The framers did not mean for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

    Serioulsy? Really?

    All your “great research” and you can’t even get that one item, which every grade school kid in America is supposed to learn, right?

    Really?

  134. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

    Bob Gard: The framers did not mean for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

    wow – i can hear scalia et al screaming from here

  135. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 5, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

    aesthetocyst: It’s Word 2010′s native format … all of Office traditional filetypes grew an extra ‘x’ for 2010 (.xlsx, .docx, .pptx, wtfx …)

    That said, good question, who the hell does use Word? (It hurts my face to look at!) Particularly for such a long pile of poo …. you really should have gone with… hehe … PDF(s). A superior solution in every way.

    PDF or ePub for the 1700 page pile o’ poo. It might not make the contents any more sane, but at least it doesn’t scream “clueless amateur” like sending out a 1700 page .docx file would.

  136. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

    Bob Gard: The framers did not mean for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

    So when people disagree on what it means who decides? I’m sure your argument is that whoever writes the longest ebook with the most footnotes decides.

    Here is something that needs no interpretation:

    “the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”

    That is President Obama. No footnotes. Tough for you,

  137. avatar
    Sef February 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm #

    Bob Gard: I own many copies of Vattel. I almost bought that one in Moscow. I list 101 editions. I developed the most complete list in the world.

    Sounds like your time would have been better spent collecting a ball of string.

  138. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 5, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

    I own many copies of Vattel. I almost bought that one in Moscow. I list 101 editions. I developed the most complete list in the world. I own many French, English, and Spanish editions and one Portuguese edition. I refer to sections of Vattel everywhere in my book; I show many photos; and I have a chapter dedicated to Vattel and his works. I also admit I am not a greater writer. I am a terrible proofreader. But I am a great researcher undaunted by childish remarks falling outside the realm of facts. I ferreted out the truth.

    So then you’re familar with de Vattel’s other ideas, like:

    Book One:

    114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.

    I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.

    127. Of religion internal and external.

    Religion consists in the doctrines concerning the Deity and the things of another life, and in the worship appointed to the honour of the Supreme Being. So far as it is seated in the heart, if is an affair of conscience, in which every one ought to be directed by his own understanding: but so far as it is external, and publicly established, it is an affair of state.

    129. Public establishment of religion.

    But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.

    141. The sovereign’s authority over the ministers of religion.

    To the prince’s inspection of the affairs and concerns of religion we have joined an authority over its ministers: without the latter power, the former would be nugatory and ineffectual; — they are both derived from the same principle. It is absurd, and contrary to the first foundations of society, that any citizens should claim an independence of the sovereign authority, in offices of such importance to the repose, the happiness, and safety of the state. This is establishing two independent powers in the same society — an unfailing source of division, disturbance, and ruin. There is but one supreme power in the state; the functions of the subordinate powers vary according to their different objects: — ecclesiastics, magistrates, and commanders of the troops, are all officers of the republic, each in his own department; and all are equally accountable to the sovereign.

    176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.

    …Whoever should so far forget himself, as, either by word or deed, to insult a man who wears a sword, might be degraded from the rank of nobility, deprived of the privilege of carrying arms, and subjected to corporal punishment — even the punishment of death, according to the grossness of the insult…

    …Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only.

    Book Two

    81. The property of the citizens is the property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations.

    Even the property of the individuals is, in the aggregate, to be considered as the property of the nation, with respect to other states. It, in some sort, really belongs to her, from the right she has over the property of her citizens, because it constitutes a part of the sum total of her riches, and augments her power. She is interested in that property by her obligation to protect all her members. In short, it cannot be otherwise, since nations act and treat together as bodies in their quality of political societies, and are considered as so many moral persons. All those who form a society, a nation being considered by foreign nations as constituting only one whole, one single person, — all their wealth together can only be considered as the wealth of that same person.

    115. Marriages of aliens. (118)

    There exists no natural impediment to prevent foreigners from contracting marriages in the state. But, if these marriages are found prejudicial or dangerous to a nation, she has a right, and is even in duty bound to prohibit them, or to subject to certain conditions the permission to contract them: and, as it belongs to the nation or to her sovereign to determine what appears most conducive to the welfare of the state, other nations ought to acquiesce in the regulations which any sovereign state has made on this head. Citizens are almost everywhere forbid to marry foreign wives of a different religion

    122. Right of carrying off women.

    … A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force

  139. avatar
    Yoda February 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm #

    I am correcting my own post, I left out too many words.

    Yoda:
    Perhaps I take a different approach than other people do. I couldn’t care less what the framers intended when it said “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”.In my opinion the most brilliant that the framers did was make the Constitution amendable. By this fact alone, the framers were telling the world that their intent was not sacrosanct.

    I am not arrogant enough to say that I know what the framer’s intent was when it used the term “Natural Born Citizen” in the Constitution. My best, most educated guess, is that it was our version of a natural born subject, as defined in Calvin’s Case, the 1608 case from English Common law, but I do not know that for sure.

    But it doesn’t matter.I know the framers did intend for the Supreme Court to be the last word in interpreting the Constitution. I also know that once the Supreme Court has spoken, that is the law of this Country, regardless of the original intent of the framers, unless and until another case comes along and the Court reverses itself.

    The Supreme Court, in the Wong Kim Ark case, clearly and unambiguously rejected the two citizen parent rule, and stated that a person born on US soil is a natural born citizen. Moreover, whether the framers considered native born and natural born citizens to be different is irrelevant, the Supreme Court, in several cases, has said they are the same.

    That is the law of the land and I do not need a 1722 page treatise to tell me what the framers intended when their intent becomes irrelevant once the Supreme Court rules.

  140. avatar
    Pazuzu75 February 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm #

    Bob Gard: The framers did not mean for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

    Funny, the framers disagree with you: “[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents”
    Alexander Hamilton – Federalist #78

    You’re doing a really terrible job of trying to prove you understand the Constitution or its history.

  141. avatar
    Bro February 5, 2013 at 1:02 pm #

    Are you my brother? You sound just like him. But then I have a lot of brothers. As a result, I have a unique ability to ferret out cranks without credentials who all believe they have a unique ability to find the truth, deferring to none in their isolation and ineffectiveness.

    I might guess that one distinguishing mark between a crank and a genius (or some such talent) is this question of effectiveness. So, not to worry, once you have convinced everyone, you will prove you weren’t a crank, and that they should have deferred to you all along. I’m not sure how you will do that on your current path, but I leave that to you.

    Bob Gard: You have had no one like me.

    Bob Gard:
    I have no credentials but I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.

  142. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate February 5, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    Bob Gard: 1% Silver Nitrate: I commend Mr Gard for his efforts in singlehandedly culling the 2016 Republican presidential ticket.Using his definition, it is evident “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that neither Gov Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana to 2 non-citizen Indian graduate students) nor Sen Marco Rubio (born in Florida to 2 unnaturalized Cuban refugees) nor Sen Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a Cuban father & an American mother) meet the constitutional requirement of natural-born citizen.Well done, sir!

    You’re right. They aren’t.

    [Cruz] might even run for President in 2016. Though he was born in Canada, he informed me that he was qualified to serve. “The Constitution requires that one be a natural-born citizen,” he said, “and my mother was a U.S. citizen when I was born.” — The New Yorker, November 19, 2012

    Break it to him gently. He is, after all, a Harvard Law School graduate & former clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, so he probably hasn’t had to grapple with your cutting-edge scholarship.

  143. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 5, 2013 at 1:07 pm #

    Bob Gard: Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

    Here’s a list of the 37 “Authors Most Frequently Cited By the Founders of the United States”

    http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html

    Montesquieu is in second place. (8.30%)
    Sir William Blackstone is in third place (7.90%)
    Hugo Grotius is in 15th place (0.90%)

    Puffendorf, Hale and Burlamaqui isn’t on the list.

    De Vattel is in 30th place (0.50%)

    What were you saying again ??

  144. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion February 5, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

    Bob Gard: “His flawed premise also goes against every recognized authority on the subject.” That explains why the recognized authorities have been wrong for such a long time.

    (Snip)

    I have no credentials but I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.

    There’s a gentleman in Indiana named “Jedi” Paul Guthrie. He too is making many of the same claims in regards to discovering something nobody else has in over 200 years. He too also has some rather unique legal theories. He too also has a rather breathtaking level of sheer arrogance and inability to suspect they may actually be incorrect about something.

    You might want to team up with him

  145. avatar
    Whatever4 February 5, 2013 at 1:28 pm #

    Bob Gard: Pretty naive, uh? A number of people have read the book and left reviews at Amazon. I am sad to say that you are almost a hundred percent correct about so few caring. That won’t stop me. The book is not about me. It is about the truth and an attempt to inform people of the meaning of the Constitution in order to save it from people like you and our Supreme Court justices. Next time, please come up with a different argument than reinforcing the willful ignorance I already know about. My eBook is almost entirely about history. I presume from your depiction of me as a “boring crank” that you are bored by history. Why are you debating history then? You are more naïve than I if you believe the natural-born citizenry quandary can be summed up in one paragraph!

    If you are most concerned about the information getting out, why not put a sample chapter up for us to see? I saw the excerpts on your site and they don’t make sense on their own. I can’t imagine you are selling too many in the format you have.

  146. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    Somebody asked me to translate “J’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en Amérique.” I can’t find that entry but here’s the answer.

    I have relatives in Italy but my parents are here in America. Tengo parientes en Italia pero mis padres están aqui en America. Jag har släktingar i Italien, men mina föräldrar är här i Amerika. Tenho parentes na Itália, mas os meus pais estão aqui na América. I went to a university in Spain and one in Sweden. I took all my courses in the native languages. I travelled through a number of Portuguese-speaking countries. I am nowhere near as fluent as I used to be. I reproduced 212 in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian in my eBook. No edition was printed in Swedish, but editions were published in German, Chinese, Greek, Russian, Polish and Japanese. When you translate to Portuguese and Spanish a very important difference arises. “Padres” and “pais” can mean father or mother or both. It affects the meaning of “Como la sociedad no puede mantenerse y perpetuarse sino con los hijos de los ciudadanos, estos hijos siguen naturalmente la condicion de sus padres y entran en posesion de todos los derechos de que estos disfrutaban.” or “Como a sociedade não pode manter-se e perpetuar-se senão pelos filhos de seus cidadãos, esses filhos naturalmente seguem a condição de seus pais, dos quais incorporam todos os direitos.”

    I did not reproduce 212 published in German, Chinese, Greek, Polish, Russian or Japanese.

  147. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

    Bob Gard: The framers did not mean for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

    Get help.

  148. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 1:44 pm #

    Whatever4: If you are most concerned about the information getting out, why not put a sample chapter up for us to see? I saw the excerpts on your site and they don’t make sense on their own. I can’t imagine you are selling too many in the format you have.

    I will consider putting a whole chapter on the site. What is hard for me to understand is for a little over $10 the anti-birthers aren’t willing to find out what I have but are willing to spend a lot of time criticizing me without getting paid for it and without knowing what they are criticizing me for. I paid as much as $1,700 for one book in order to find out one small thing. It seems that the main intent for most is ridicule.

  149. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 5, 2013 at 1:45 pm #

    His entire argument basically comes down to, “I’m right, you’re wrong, neener neener.”

    Let me put it this way…

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

    How about William Rawle: “…he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

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

    How about another quote from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice: “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

  150. avatar
    scott e February 5, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

    Scientist: Where did Vattel mention a President?He was a monarchist.Also, did you ever raid a neighboring country and kidnap a wifeHe recommended that.You seem to pick and choose when itcomes to Vattel.

    where does wong kim ark mention a president ? why did they bother with natural born at all, and a grandfather clause ??
    no, this is for the supremes, no one else can define.

    personally i think the entire constitutional angle is a diversion, distraction seems to be the new world order of the day.

  151. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 1:47 pm #

    misha marinsky: Get help.

    Read the book and you will learn why. Andrew Napolitano calls people that follow blindly “sheeple.”

  152. avatar
    US Citizen February 5, 2013 at 1:47 pm #

    Bob,

    Here’s my one voice. My opinion…

    Your entire argument revolves around the definition of what a natural born citizen is.
    This presupposes that Obama is not a natural born citizen.
    However, not a shred of evidence has supported Obama being born anywhere else but Hawaii.
    Oppositely, evidence Obama was born in Hawaii is substantial.
    The health director and HI’s governor both agreed, certified it and from what I understand, both were Republicans too.
    No one in the RNC (nor McCain or Romney) brought forth any evidence that Obama was born outside of the USA and they had hundreds of millions of dollars, access to law, history and investigators.
    Surely they wouldn’t have bothered spending so much money on a contest if they could have proven the other contestant wasn’t qualified.

    As far as me being willfully ignorant, it’s true.
    I won’t read your book.
    But this is only because your book itself is based on willful ignorance.
    You’ve ignored providing reasonable proof that Obama is a foreigner to begin with, so discussion of laws regarding foreigners is moot.

  153. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2013 at 1:48 pm #

    Bob Gard: the Presidency (and logically the Vice-Presidency) to be the only two offices banned to native-born citizens with no citizen parents or native-born citizens with one citizen parent.

    Explain the following quotes:

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” St. George Tucker 1803, “View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings…”

    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” James Iredell, Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

    “The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the pontificate at Rome.” James Kent, Commentries on American Law

  154. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 1:49 pm #

    Bob Gard: I paid as much as $1,700 for one book

    I won’t believe you until I see the actual receipt, and have it verified by the store manager and owner.

    I will not accept an image on the ‘Net. You have to mail me the actual receipt, registered mail. I also want the name of the store, so I can confirm independently their ‘phone number.

  155. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 1:49 pm #

    Bob Gard: I will consider putting a whole chapter on the site. What is hard for me to understand is for a little over $10 the anti-birthers aren’t willing to find out what I have but are willing to spend a lot of time criticizing me without getting paid for it and without knowing what they are criticizing me for. I paid as much as $1,700 for one book in order to find out one small thing. It seems that the main intent for most is ridicule.

    One doesn’t have to read Mein Kampf to understand that hitler was crazy. You’ve made your flawed arguments known here reading your book won’t make you seem any more sane

  156. avatar
    Arthur February 5, 2013 at 1:50 pm #

    Bob Gard: Somebody asked me to translate “J’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en Amérique.” I can’t find that entry but here’s the answer.

    Bob, that question was offered by donna. Her request was near the top of this thread. I’m surprised that such a talented researcher as yourself doesn’t know how to do an electronic page search for key words. I’m just a junior researcher, but I found her post in 5 seconds.

    It seems to me, that If you’re asked to translate a sentence from French to English and respond by talking about how you were once fluent in Italian, Spanish, and Swedish, then that’s a non-answer of the most duplicitous kind.

  157. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

    Bob Gard: Read the book

    1,700 pages of 7th grade drivel? No thanks.

    Bob Gard: Andrew Napolitano calls people that follow blindly “sheeple.”

    Like the way you follow Donofrio, a third rate lawyer and fifth rate poker player?

  158. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    His entire argument basically comes down to, “I’m right, you’re wrong, neener neener.”

    Let me put it this way…

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

    How about William Rawle: “…he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

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

    How about another quote from a U>S. Supreme Court Justice: “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

    It’s handled in the book. “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.” Exactly. A natural-born subject is born with perpetual allegiance to a monarch or prince and a natural-born citizen is born with only allegiance to the sovereignty of the people and has the right of expatriation. You don’t see major differences?

  159. avatar
    Arthur February 5, 2013 at 1:54 pm #

    Bob Gard: I paid as much as $1,700 for one book in order to find out one small thing. It seems that the main intent for most is ridicule.

    In order to help your credibility and avoid being ridiculed, could you tell me three little things?

    1. The question or issue you had
    2. The name of the book you bought
    3. The relevant passage you consulted

  160. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 1:56 pm #

    misha marinsky: Like the way you follow Donofrio, a third rate lawyer and fifth rate poker player?

    You mean, he’s worse at poker???

  161. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 1:56 pm #

    “the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”-12 Amendment
    It is thus impossible for a President to be unconstitutional unless they were installed in a non-electoral process, like a military coup.

    When you give me a satisfactory answer, I will think about buying your book (don’t spend the money yet)…..

  162. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 1:57 pm #

    Arthur: 2. The name of the book you bought

    “U.S. Constitution For Dummies”

  163. avatar
    Bro February 5, 2013 at 1:58 pm #

    Why should I give you money?

    Bob Gard: What is hard for me to understand is for a little over $10 the anti-birthers aren’t willing to find out what I have…

  164. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 1:58 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    What is hard for me to understand is for a little over $10 the anti-birthers aren’t willing to find out what I have but are willing to spend a lot of time criticizing me without getting paid for it and without knowing what they are criticizing me for.

    There used to be a rather lengthy book on Amazon.com which explained in great detail how the Earth was not a speroid, but was rather a flat disk. The author wanted only about half of what you charged. I didn’t buy it because the premise was fundamentally flawed, and reading the book was not required to determine that.

    There are scores of books on Amazon explaining how to build overunity motors (devices that generate more energy than they consume. I don’t need to buy them because the premise is fundamentally flawed, and reading the book is not required to determine that.

    There are scores of books explaining how the Holocaust never happened. I don’t need to buy them because the premise is fundamentally flawed, and reading the book is not required to determine that.

    There are scores of books explaining how the Moon Landings were faked. I don’t need to buy them because the premise is fundamentally flawed, and reading the book is not required to determine that.

    There are scores of books explaining how the government is poisoning us with chem trails. I don’t need to buy them because the premise is fundamentally flawed, and reading the book is not required to determine that.

    Are you noticing a trend here?

  165. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2013 at 2:02 pm #

    Bob Gard: A natural-born subject is born with perpetual allegiance to a monarch or prince and a natural-born citizen is born with only allegiance to the sovereignty of the people and has the right of expatriation. You don’t see major differences?

    Consider the following:

    Here are a number of the Massachusetts Acts of naturalization from 1785 to 1791.

    In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.

    In February, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.

    In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.“

    In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

    In May, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

    In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.

    In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

    In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

    In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

    In March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.

    Why did natural born citizen and natural born subject mean the same thing in Massachusetts?

  166. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 2:02 pm #

    Bob Gard: Somebody asked me to translate “J’ai des parents en italie mais mes parents sont ici en Amérique.” I can’t find that entry but here’s the answer.

    YES, i did – i asked mario the same question and he told me to ask a french waiter – i created the sentence to illustrate the meaning/translation of the french “les parents”

    i too took courses in native languages …. 4 of them ……. but who cares?

    the 2-parent issue is ridiculous – i find it incredulous that the supremes would exclude thousands of citizens born on american soil from the presidency – to date, no court has

    i know children who were born after their fathers were killed on 9/11 – as the court in voeltz/klayman (sorta) pointed out in the hearing, they would be excluded – not to mention those born by in vitro fertilization, adoption (vilsack), etc

    ridiculous

  167. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 2:03 pm #

    Bob Gard: It seems that the main intent for most is ridicule.

    If you don’t wish to be ridiculed, then stop being ridiculous

  168. avatar
    Rickey February 5, 2013 at 2:03 pm #

    I have noticed that Mr. Gard has not responded to several posts which challenged his claims about Vattel’s influence on American law.

    We’re waiting, Mr. Gard.

  169. avatar
    Xyxox February 5, 2013 at 2:07 pm #

    If it wasn’t for so many tl;dr posts, this thread would be the purest comedy gold EVAR!

  170. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 2:08 pm #

    misha marinsky: 1,700 pages of 7th grade drivel? No thanks.

    Like the way you follow Donofrio, a third rate lawyer and fifth rate poker player?

    Really? Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz, and Mario Apuzzo, among others, suffer from the same lack of interest in reading 1,700 pages that you do, the same way that you are probably all ready to let more bills of over 2,000 pages pass without reading. It is called apathy. In my book, I have an Axiom 6: Political analysts must apply the same logic to both sides of any political dispute in order to be fair and consistent. I have read what the other side maintains. That’s also called education. Humor yourself and self-educate.

  171. avatar
    Whatever4 February 5, 2013 at 2:10 pm #

    Bob Gard:

    There are many more quotes from the convention and throughout the book. The only action where the fear of foreign influence gained complete foothold was in the adoption of the presidential eligibility clause necessitating the Presidency (and logically the Vice-Presidency) to be the only two offices banned to native-born citizens with no citizen parents or native-born citizens with one citizen parent.

    I can’t see the great leap from incremental changes in citizenship duration for Congress, to requiring birth in the US plus 2 citizen parents. That’s quite a jump. Why no discussion of that?

    Also, did women take the citizenship of their husbands upon marriage at that time?

    Last, the 1790 Naturalization act said “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens…” Although it was repealed 5 years later, the First Congress that passed it had many of the same people who signed the Constitution, such as Madison, Adams, Sherman, etc. if natural born required 2 citizen parents and birth on soil, why would this language have been passed?

  172. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 2:10 pm #

    Daniel: If you don’t wish to be ridiculed, then stop being ridiculous

    I only said that the intent of most seems to be ridicule.

  173. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 2:11 pm #

    Bob Gard: It seems that the main intent for most is ridicule.

    I am the product of the Lower East Side and the Borscht Belt.

    You were expecting the Spanish Inquisition, maybe?

  174. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

    Bob Gard: It’s handled in the book. “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.” Exactly. A natural-born subject is born with perpetual allegiance to a monarch or prince and a natural-born citizen is born with only allegiance to the sovereignty of the people and has the right of expatriation. You don’t see major differences?

    Several state constitutions like say Vermont use the phrase natural born subject are you saying they were talking about allegiance to a king?

  175. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 2:16 pm #

    Bob Gard: I only said that the intent of most seems to be ridicule.

    It is.

    You are ridiculous.

    Be glad it’s only us.

    If you took this crap in front of people who actually had the credentials, they’d tear you a new one. As it stands now, you’re getting ridiculed by educated amateurs, who can see a deluded poser a mile off.

  176. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 2:17 pm #

    Bob Gard: Political analysts must apply the same logic to both sides of any political dispute in order to be fair and consistent.

    I can’t wait to watch your ilk when Jindal and Rubio run for president – which they will, and to which they are Constitutionally entitled.

    Agnew’s father was not a US citizen when he was born. Not a word from your crowd.

  177. avatar
    MN-Skeptic February 5, 2013 at 2:17 pm #

    Isn’t it ironic that a book with 4,000 footnotes would become, itself, merely a footnote in history?

    As other posters have pointed out, Obama is the legal, constitutional President of the United States. Twice, every member of Congress has validated the electoral vote. That means that twice all of Congress has decided that Barack Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen of the United States. While all the discussion of Vattel is interesting, it obviously wasn’t persuasive to Congress, i.e., the folks who count. Literally. They have effectively declared that a child born in the United States does not have to have two citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. Not a court in the land will argue otherwise at this point in time. It has been decided!

    This reminds me of an article about bumblebees which I read when I was young. Scientists couldn’t figure out how they could fly. They just knew that they could. So, who was right? The flying bumblebees, or the scientists?

    Why would someone waste their time reading Bob’s irrelevant book???

  178. avatar
    Rickey February 5, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    Bob Gard: Read the book and you will learn why. Andrew Napolitano calls people that follow blindly “sheeple.”

    And the people who watch Fox News are less well-informed than people who watch no news at all.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/study-finds-fox-news-viewers-more-misinformed-than-non-news-watchers

  179. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 5, 2013 at 2:19 pm #

    Bob Gard: It’s handled in the book.“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.” Exactly. A natural-born subject is born with perpetual allegiance to a monarch or prince and a natural-born citizen is born with only allegiance to the sovereignty of the people and has the right of expatriation.You don’t see major differences?

    You do realize that the case that that quote was taken from (majority opinion from a circuit court, written by a U.S. Supreme Court Justice), was U.S. v. Rhodes. Neither of Rhodes parents were citizens when Rhodes was born. They did not have the right of citizenship.

    You leave out the rest of the quote. The rest of the quote, which was quoted by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, directly equates it to English Common Law. “Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.” The quote, which was used in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, directly equates our citizenship law to the citizenship law of England. Not to Switzerland, but to England. That goes directly against your argument that the founders did not use the citizenship rules of England to define our citizenship.

    Earlier commentators on American Jurisprudence, the quentential commentaries written in the lifetimes of the founders directly say that anybody born in the U.S. is a Natural Born Citizen. You can’t get around that.

  180. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

    Bob Gard: It’s handled in the book.“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.” Exactly. A natural-born subject is born with perpetual allegiance to a monarch or prince and a natural-born citizen is born with only allegiance to the sovereignty of the people and has the right of expatriation.You don’t see major differences?

    If you don’t recognize that “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” were conflated by our early courts, legislators and scholars, you are either dishonest or have not done any research. Actually, the term “natural born subject” continued to be the more popular term in the first several decades of the Republic. There were still being equated in the 14th Amendment Congress. One of our most famous early citizenship cases, actually I believe the one most cited in the 14th Amendment Congress, explained:

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

    The United States didn’t formally abandon the notion of perpetual allegiance until 1868, and even then there was debate in Congress as to whether the common law was still in place. Our courts had generally agreed with Blackstone’s doctrine that only the legislature could break the tie of natural allegiance. Our state department was more aggresive, but itself was inconsistent in its positions on the issue and didn’t until 1858 under Secretary of State Cass assert a full right of expatriation. England, on the other hand, slowing abandoned Coke’s doctrine over the centuries while maintaining the jus soli rule. Indeed, at the war of 1812 its foreign office had generally abandoned the doctrine in pratice. In would formally abandon it in 1870, 2 years after us.

    Sorry, no one is going to buy your book just because you keep promising you have good arguments. So far you have shown you have no arguments at all, just assertions you show no proof of backing up.

  181. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

    misha marinsky: Agnew’s father was not a US citizen when he was born. Not a word from your crowd.

    Correction: Not a word from your mob.

  182. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

    Bob Gard: I have read what the other side maintains.

    Have you read the works of Zephaniah Swift, US Congressman and future Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court?

    In 1795, He published, “A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: in Six Books”.

    In what is the first legal treatise published in the United States, Swift wrote, “The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

    So Connecticut used jus soli (as in England) to confer citizenship. Where and when did the Framers inform the citizens of Connecticut and Massachusetts that “natural born” meant born in the country to two citizen parents?

  183. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 2:24 pm #

    misha marinsky: Ferrets make great pets, once you get them to stop biting.

    That’s one of those details you don’t want to overlook.

    http://deadspin.com/5546844/the-king-of-the-ferret-leggers-the-classic-tale-of-the-sportsmen-who-put-carnivores-down-their-pants

  184. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 2:27 pm #

    So just how many of those 17 hundred and some odd pages consisted of such irrelevant wanking?

    Bob Gard: I reproduced 212 in Spanish, Portuguese and Italian in my eBook.

  185. avatar
    Paper February 5, 2013 at 2:33 pm #

    Maybe if you had given it out for free you could have changed the election results? I mean, don’t just rail against anti-birthers. Birthers don’t seem to be buying your book in droves either.

    Bob Gard: I will consider putting a whole chapter on the site. What is hard for me to understand is for a little over $10 the anti-birthers aren’t willing to find out what I have but are willing to spend a lot of time criticizing me without getting paid for it and without knowing what they are criticizing me for.

  186. avatar
    Bob February 5, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

    Birther porn with 4,000 footnotes.

  187. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 2:36 pm #

    gorefan: AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH

    I couldn’t find the references to natural born citizen you cited in Mass. at the state site easily. Would you be willing to make my life a bit easier by directing me to the correct legal site and act? I find the references very interesting because they coincide with a coded letter that supposedly had natural-born citizen in it. I would like to investigate if they were close to the natural born free Citizens used before or something different.

  188. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

    Well, this is the Internet, after all. You just have to ignore such things. If a criticism doesn’t hit home, I don’t see any that anyone has a need to respond. You’ll have more than enough to deal with from the substantive objections.


    Bob Gard: . It seems that the main intent for most is ridicule.

  189. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

    Paper: Birthers don’t seem to be buying your book in droves either.

    That’s the first lick of sense birthers have shown in 5 years.

  190. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 2:41 pm #

    Your comment, no matter how long, doesn’t seem at all responsive to my objection. You SAID that the Constitution should be understood according to its plain English meaning, and then you rather veered away from the plain English meaning into a wealth of irrelevancies.


    Bob Gard: There are many more quotes from the convention and throughout the book.

  191. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

    How about the Mass. Legislature in 1797 proposing an amendment to the natural born citizenship clause to include the Vice-President and Congress, as well as the President, and in the title to the Amendment saying such Amendment applied to “natural born subjects.” Guess they didn’t get the memo.

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

    “RESOLVE REQUESTING THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDING, THAT NONE BUT NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS BE ELIGIBLE TO CERTAIN OFFICES.

    Whereas it is highly expedient, that every constitutional harrier should be opposed to the Introduction of Foreign Influence, into our National Councils, & that ye Constitution of ye United States should be so amended as to effect and Secure in ye best manner ye great objects for which it was designed :

    Resolved that the Senators & Representatives of this Commonwealth in the Congress of the United States, be, and they hereby are requested to use their best endeavours, that Congress propose to the Legislatures of the several States, the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States, viz. “That (in addition to the other qualifications prescribed by said Constitution) no person shall be eligible as President or Vice President of ye United States nor shall any person he a Senator or Representative in ye Congress of ye United States except a natural born Citizen ; or unless he shall have been a Resident in the United States at ye time of ye declaration of Independence, and shall have continued either to reside within the same, or to be employed in its service from that period to ye time of his election.”

    Gorefan’s citations can be found in Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1786-87, (1893); Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1788-89 (1894).

  192. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

    gorefan: Consider the following:

    Here are a number of the Massachusetts Acts of naturalization from 1785 to 1791.

    In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.

    In February, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.

    In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.“

    In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

    In May, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

    In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.

    In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

    In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

    In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

    In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

    In March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.

    Why did natural born citizen and natural born subject mean the same thing in Massachusetts?

    I couldn’t find the references to natural born citizen you cited in Mass. at the state site easily. Would you be willing to make my life a bit easier by directing me to the correct legal site and act? I find the references very interesting because they coincide with a coded letter that supposedly had natural-born citizen in it. I would like to investigate if they were close to the natural born free Citizens used before or something different.

  193. avatar
    Jim February 5, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

    Bob Gard: Humor yourself and self-educate.

    I recommend you start with the Constitution…you really need to understand the separation of powers in our form of government and how they limit each. Then I recommend you move on to Wong Kim Ark’s SCOTUS case, it’s a wonderful reading of the history of Citizenship in the United States from before the US was discovered right up to 1898…and pay particular attention to the dissenting opinion. I really have no interest in reading the ramblings of an uneducated person with no knowledge of our country, history, Constitution, or unique place in history. So, basically I’m saying…”Writer, learn thyself before trying to teach others.”

  194. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 2:46 pm #

    Let me share with you a little trick: it’s the search box on this blog. Type in:

    Massachusetts walsh

    and it will take you right to article containing the text of the act and a link to the source.


    Bob Gard: I couldn’t find the references to natural born citizen you cited in Mass. at the state site easily. Would you be willing to make my life a bit easier by directing me to the correct legal site and act?

  195. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 2:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Your comment, no matter how long, doesn’t seem at all responsive to my objection. You SAID that the Constitution should be understood according to its plain English meaning, and then you rather veered away from the plain English meaning into a wealth of irrelevancies.

    If you mean that the Constitution did not define citizen and natural-born citizen, I am in agreement.

  196. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

    Uh, no. I said that the only definition for “natural” born in the comprehensive Oxford English Dictionary is “Having a specified position or character by birth; used esp. with subject.” That means that the plain English meaning if natural born citizen is having the position of a citizen by birth.” Obama was a US Citizen at birth, ergo, a natural born citizen.

    You didn’t respond to this. So do you still hold that the question is decided by the plain English reading of the Constitution?


    Bob Gard: If you mean that the Constitution did not define citizen and natural-born citizen, I am in agreement.

  197. avatar
    Jim February 5, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

    Bob Gard: If you mean that the Constitution did not define citizen and natural-born citizen, I am in agreement.

    Actually, according to SCOTUS they did: “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

    Minor v Happersett says there are only 2 types of citizens, you’re either born a citizen or are naturalized sometime later. If you’re born a citizen, you are eligible.

    You know, it’s quite amazing Mr Gard, it seems that every time you try to say something about the Constitution, you get it completely wrong. Have you even read it?

  198. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

    I bought a used copy for just under $10, but some of us have a moral objection to encouraging wrong things. This is why I waited for a used copy of Corsi’s books to become available before I bought them.

    It is simply beyond possibility that you have discovered something in plain sight that has eluded the rest of the entire human race, so the return on investment of buying your book to learn the truth about natural-born citizenship is vanishingly small.

    I should point out that along with your historical facts posted here (all of which are old news on this site), you have made a number of false assertions and have so far not responded when challenged. That’s also a bad omen for anything of value being in your book.


    Bob Gard: I will consider putting a whole chapter on the site. What is hard for me to understand is for a little over $10 the anti-birthers aren’t willing to find out what I have but are willing to spend a lot of time criticizing me without getting paid for it and without knowing what they are criticizing me for.

  199. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

    Jim: I recommend you start with the Constitution…you really need to understand the separation of powers in our form of government and how they limit each.Then I recommend you move on to Wong Kim Ark’s SCOTUS case, it’s a wonderful reading of the history of Citizenship in the United States from before the US was discovered right up to 1898…and pay particular attention to the dissenting opinion.I really have no interest in reading the ramblings of an uneducated person with no knowledge of our country, history, Constitution, or unique place in history.So, basically I’m saying…”Writer, learn thyself before trying to teach others.”

    My book ends in the 1840s. As I stated clearly, the intepretations of the Supreme Court meant nothing to my analysis before them. I plan to treat them in Part II. My book ends in the 1840s.

  200. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2013 at 2:56 pm #

    Bob Gard: Would you be willing to make my life a bit easier by directing me to the correct legal site and act?

    To find any of the Acts of naturalization in Massachusetts, go to Googlebooks and search for any of the named acts.

    For example: “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH” then scroll down the results for the “Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” or the ” Acts and Resolves Passed by the General Court”.

    Here is Michael Walsh:

    http://tinyurl.com/a9ceb8b

    And I still would like your comment on why the Massachusetts legislature used both terms? And why prominent Founders said the President needed to be “native-born”?

  201. avatar
    Yoda February 5, 2013 at 2:57 pm #

    Bob Gard: I will consider putting a whole chapter on the site. What is hard for me to understand is for a little over $10 the anti-birthers aren’t willing to find out what I have but are willing to spend a lot of time criticizing me without getting paid for it and without knowing what they are criticizing me for. I paid as much as $1,700 for one book in order to find out one small thing. It seems that the main intent for most is ridicule.

    I won’t criticize you or even mock you, but your research and your primary conclusions, even if correct, are irrelevant.

    In Luria v. US and others, the Supreme Court stated that native citizens are eligible to be President. It really doesn’t get any clearer than that.

  202. avatar
    US Citizen February 5, 2013 at 2:57 pm #

    Just to get this out of the way:

    Mr Gard? How many types of US citizenship are there?

  203. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

    Bob Gard: If you mean that the Constitution did not define citizen and natural-born citizen, I am in agreement.

    You said that the Constitution should be understood according to its plain English meaning. The plain English meaning of natural born is “from birth”. Nothing at all about parents, The parents of the characters in the book and film “Natural Born Killers” may have been perfectly nice people. If we say, “Derek Jeter is a natural born ballplayer”, surely we don’t mean his parents were Major Leaguers. Certainly his mother was not (his father wasn’t either).

    Natural born citizen = citizen from birth

    Now let’s take a crack at the 12h Amendment:

    “the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”

    Now THAT is plain English for President Obama

  204. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 3:02 pm #

    Bob Gard: I plan to treat them in Part II

    Part II? OMG!!!

  205. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 3:04 pm #

    Yoda: In Luria v. US and others, the Supreme Court stated that native citizens are eligible to be President. It really doesn’t get any clearer than that.

    Gard doesn’t recognize the Supreme Court. He alone says what is.

  206. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 3:06 pm #

    Bob Gard: You have had no one like me. The mere fact that I explained how “natural-born citizens” ended up in the 1797 edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations is proof enough of what you ask.

    But you haven’t proven your explanation.
    And, in that respect, yes, we have had many like you.

  207. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 3:10 pm #

    I felt bad enough when I bought “The Obama Nation” at the 99 cent store.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I bought a used copy for just under $10, but some of us have a moral objection to encouraging wrong things. This is why I waited for a used copy of Corsi’s books to become available before I bought them.

  208. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 3:12 pm #

    Jim: Actually, according to SCOTUS they did:“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

    Minor v Happersett says there are only 2 types of citizens, you’re either born a citizen or are naturalized sometime later.If you’re born a citizen, you are eligible.

    You know, it’s quite amazing Mr Gard, it seems that every time you try to say something about the Constitution, you get it completely wrong.Have you even read it?

    Two types of citizenship were listed in the Constitution: citizen and natural-born citizen. They were not defined in the ratification conventions or in the Federalist papers. The power was given to Congress to nauralize but there were already naturalized citizens in the country. A fairly good insight was made by Seybert:

    “SEAMEN’S BILL.—For the regulation of Seamen on board the public vessels, and in the merchant service of the United States. H.R.— February, 1813.

    Mr SEYBERT. . . Your constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred—the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the constitution—your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United States as native and naturalized—our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified, that of not being eligible to the Presidency of the United States. [Seybert did not attend the Constitutional Convention but he knew there were two forms of citizenship, first, native and naturalized, lumped into one, denominated “citizen,” and second, a higher form denominated “natural born Citizen,” of which both were established in the Constitution.] The only exception to the rule is expressed in the constitution; [Only “natural-born Citizen” was the special exception to the general category of “citizens.”] if other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed; none other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen—all freemen—citizens of the United States may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others—you cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep [an expression for manning ships that plow a furrow in the water as they sail the seas], the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right. [Remember, Seybert made clear the one exception of running for the Presidency.]

    Seybert clearly spoke of native and naturalized as being the two forms of citizens included in the constitutional category of “citizens” and that a higher form of citizenship, the exception he refers to twice, was required for the presidency. He did not mention “natural born Citizen” by name, but the exception he referred to could only be “natural born Citizen.” He could have easily said natural born Citizen and defined it. I imagine he neglected to define natural born Citizen on purpose. I believe only two reasons can exist: (1) nobody from the Constitutional Convention had told him exactly what it meant such that he worried about contradictions from other congressmen who hadn’t attended the convention, and (2) someone had told him and he did not want to define it for fear of exposing the person who had violated the secrecy oath.

  209. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 3:22 pm #

    Scientist:
    “the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”-12 Amendment
    It is thus impossible for a President to be unconstitutional unless they were installed in a non-electoral process, like a military coup.

    When you give me a satisfactory answer, I will think about buying your book (don’t spend the money yet)…..

    A presidential candidate is unconstitutional if he was not born on American soil of two American citizens.

  210. avatar
    gorefan February 5, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

    Bob Gard: Seybert clearly spoke of native and naturalized as being the two forms of citizens included in the constitutional category of “citizens” and that a higher form of citizenship, the exception he refers to twice, was required for the presidency.

    That’s not how I read it. Seybert is clearly saying that native and natural born are the same and that a naturalized citizen can be made to be like them only limited by the Constitution.

    My reading incorporates the views of prominent Founders who wrote that the President had to be “native” born. You seem to ignore those Founders.

  211. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Uhhh, where’s my free copy?

    Give me your address.

  212. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    Bob Gard: Two types of citizenship were listed in the Constitution: citizen and natural-born citizen. They were not defined in the ratification conventions or in the Federalist papers. The power was given to Congress to nauralize but there were already naturalized citizens in the country. A fairly good insight was made by Seybert:

    “SEAMEN’S BILL.—For the regulation of Seamen on board the public vessels, and in the merchant service of the United States. H.R.— February, 1813.

    Mr SEYBERT. . . Your constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred—the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the constitution—your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United States as native and naturalized—our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified, that of not being eligible to the Presidency of the United States. [Seybert did not attend the Constitutional Convention but he knew there were two forms of citizenship, first, native and naturalized, lumped into one, denominated “citizen,” and second, a higher form denominated “natural born Citizen,” of which both were established in the Constitution.] The only exception to the rule is expressed in the constitution; [Only “natural-born Citizen” was the special exception to the general category of “citizens.”] if other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed; none other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen—all freemen—citizens of the United States may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others—you cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep [an expression for manning ships that plow a furrow in the water as they sail the seas], the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right. [Remember, Seybert made clear the one exception of running for the Presidency.]

    Seybert clearly spoke of native and naturalized as being the two forms of citizens included in the constitutional category of “citizens” and that a higher form of citizenship, the exception he refers to twice, was required for the presidency. He did not mention “natural born Citizen” by name, but the exception he referred to could only be “natural born Citizen.” He could have easily said natural born Citizen and defined it. I imagine he neglected to define natural born Citizen on purpose.I believe only two reasons can exist: (1) nobody from the Constitutional Convention had told him exactly what it meant such that he worried about contradictions from other congressmen who hadn’t attended the convention, and (2) someone had told him and he did not want to define it for fear of exposing the person who had violated the secrecy oath.

    Why do you think anything Seybert says supports you? Looks like he is saying the President must be native born like everyone else. All your arguments seem to be trying to read support for your theory into statements that do not support them at all. Do you really not know that most early scholars said the President must be a native born citizen? Have you not done any actual research?

  213. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

    Bob Gard: A presidential candidate is unconstitutional if he was not born on American soil of two American citizens.

    There is no two citizen parent requirement. Chester A Arthur had a non citizen father when he was born and VP Charles Curtis’ mother was born on sovereign native american soil.

    Also if a child’s father dies before he is born do you think him to be eligible to be president one day?

  214. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

    Bob Gard: A presidential candidate is unconstitutional if he was not born on American soil of two American citizens.

    The Constitution disagrees with you.

    “the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President”

    That’s what the Constitution says

  215. avatar
    Jim February 5, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

    Bob Gard: A presidential candidate is unconstitutional if he was not born on American soil of two American citizens.

    And who does the Constitution give that authority to when considering Presidential Eligibility?

  216. avatar
    sfjeff February 5, 2013 at 3:30 pm #

    Bob Gard The book is not about me. It is about the truth and an attempt to inform people of the meaning of the Constitution in order to save it from people like you and our Supreme Court justices. P>

    Not about you?

    All about the truth and informing people?

    Are you providing it free of charge on your website?

    Unless you are providing it free of charge I would say those statements are clearly false.

  217. avatar
    MN-Skeptic February 5, 2013 at 3:30 pm #

    Bob Gard: A presidential candidate is unconstitutional if he was not born on American soil of two American citizens.

    And yet Congress apparently disagrees with you because, although they KNEW that Obama had only one American parent, they validated his electoral votes. Who’s going to win this argument? You? Or Congress? (Hint: You can tell by looking at who’s living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!)

  218. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 3:30 pm #

    Mr. Gard…in reading…”Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution.”

    It is saying that an alien that naturalizes is thus made a native with all the rights and privilege attached to the native (aka Natural Born Citizen) with the exception of becoming President.

  219. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

    Bob Gard: Andrew Napolitano calls people that follow blindly “sheeple.”

    on napolitano’s 4/28/2011 Fox Business show, Freedom Watch, Andrew Napolitano said that President Obama releasing his long-form birth certificate closed “a particularly ugly chapter in the politics of personal destruction.” Fox News political analyst Kirsten Powers mocked birthers who are “claiming that [the birth certificate] was Photoshopped,” saying that “you can’t reason with people who believe this kind of stuff.”

    the video is online

  220. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

    Instead of citing some Congressman no one has ever heard of, why not cite the leading scholars and judges:

    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statments of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788).

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States….Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States…..An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. There are some exceptions, however, to this rule, by the ancient English law, as in the case of the children of public ministers abroad, (provided their wives be English women,) for they owe not even a local allegiance to any foreign power. ” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

    “The president must, by law, be a native born citizen; so that none need aspire to that high calling, but those who might emphatically be termed natural sons of America.” Joseph Dennie, John Elihu Hall, The Port Folio, pg. 199, (1822)

    “By the provisions of the federal constitution, the President and Vice President of the United States are required to be native-born citizens; and the President is required to cause the laws of the Union to be executed. These high places of power, it was then thought, could not, with safety to the American people, be occupied by any but natural-born citizens” Rep. Russel, Congressional Globe, 24th Cong., 1st Sess. pg 4256 (1836)

    “It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1840 ed.)

    “Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)

    “No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales…” John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, M’Culloch’s Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)

    “Afterwards however, in Convention, the words “natural born citizen” were stricken out, and the word ” native” was substituted, as the original words might have left an uncertainty as to the meaning of the Convention, for ” natural born citizen” might have had some reference to the manner of birth, while the word ” native” would refer more particularly to the place of birth. ” Sherman Croswell, R. Sutton, Debates and Proceedings in the New-York State Convention – New York (State) Pg. 148 (1846)

    “No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native-born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, ….” Richard Swainson Fisher, The progress of the United States of America: from the earliest periods. Geographical, statistical, and historical, pg. 9 (1854)

    “The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term four years each to be a native born citizen…..Emma Willard, Abridged history of the United States, or, Republic of America, pg. 254 (1856)

    “They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, … Samuel Clagett Busey, Immigration: Its Evils and Consequences pg. 10 (1856)

    “Your committee is of opinion that no one can be eligible to discharge, for the time being, the functions of President, unless he be thirty-five years old, and a native born citizen. A Speaker of the House, or a President pro tempore, might not have these qualifications —and if so, he could not act as President in compliance with the Constitution.” Sen. Butler, 8/05/1856, Reports of Committees: 30th Congress, 1st Session – 48th Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 4., By United States Congress. Senate, Congress, Published 1856

    “One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of tho United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877)

    “It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, William Horatio Barnes, History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 387 (1868)

    “in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. (2 Kent’s Com. 3d ed. l ; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 1 Black. Com. 366; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. Rep. 139.)” Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    “Mr. HOWARD. I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who hasbeen naturalized and then become a citizenof the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)

    “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.” Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)

    “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)

    “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” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(quoting Luria v. United States”).

    “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.” Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting).

    “The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more.” United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931).

    “Citizenship obtained through natuvalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)

  221. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 3:32 pm #

    Bob Gard: Seybert clearly spoke of native and naturalized as being the two forms of citizens included in the constitutional category of “citizens” and that a higher form of citizenship, the exception he refers to twice, was required for the presidency. He did not mention “natural born Citizen” by name, but the exception he referred to could only be “natural born Citizen.”

    Now all I have to go on here is the quotation you’ve provided, but it’s pretty plain to me that the “exception” to which Seybert was referring was the single exception to the rule that “the alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every right and privilege attached to the native”. Why is that plain to me? Because that sentence continues “with the exception impressed on the constitution”. In other words, naturalized and native citizens have the same rights with the sole exception that only native citizens are eligible for the Presidency.
    Your interpretation doesn’t even make sense.

  222. avatar
    sfjeff February 5, 2013 at 3:35 pm #

    Bob Gard: A presidential candidate is unconstitutional if he was not born on American soil of two American citizens.

    The American people, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all clearly disagree with you.

    What you are really proposing is that everyone but yourself is wrong, that you alone know who is really eligible.

    That gets really close to the definition of insanity.

    You say the research took you two years. What I wonder is what compelled to you to research something that is well established?

    Was it just mere idle curiousity that happened to coincide with Obama being elected?

  223. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 3:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The obvious answer to your question is that the phrase “natural born citizen” was used instead of “native citizen” to indicate that anyone who was a citizen from birth could be President, not just those born in the country.

    I say that for two reasons:

    First, the British Naturalization Act that was in effect when the Constitution was drafted explicitly called foreign-born children of British subjects “natural born subjects.” Second the US Naturalization Act of 1790 called foreign-born children of US citizen fathers “natural born citizens.”

    Can you find any historical reference in early America where a person born in the United States (to a non-citizen parent) was called a “foreigner?”

    It would appear to me that the core error you are making is an unsupported assumption that the framers considered non-citizen parentage a foreign influence. Such an assumption, if false, would cause one to misread much of the material.

    Let me point you to my article:

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

    and the discussion that followed.

    I quote from Farrand too, but we arrive at different conclusions. Why is that. Is one of us making unwarranted assumptions?

    I touch on the same British Naturalization Act when I analyze the 1967 House debate on Romney’s eligibility. I certainly analyze Farrand’s differently, but what did you expect from someone that has tackled the issue from a different angle? I could care less whether Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud or not. I am almost certain that it is not a true replica of the original bound into the August 1961 birth certificate folio. I am convinced that the original is still there on the assumption that Hawaii hasn’t replaced it.

  224. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 3:39 pm #

    Bob Gard: I touch on the same British Naturalization Act when I analyze the 1967 House debate on Romney’s eligibility.

    Didn’t you say your book stopped at the 1840′s?

  225. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 3:39 pm #

    Daniel: If you don’t wish to be ridiculed, then stop being ridiculous

    You beat me to it. :-)

  226. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 3:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I bought a used copy for just under $10, but some of us have a moral objection to encouraging wrong things. This is why I waited for a used copy of Corsi’s books to become available before I bought them.

    It is simply beyond possibility that you have discovered something in plain sight that has eluded the rest of the entire human race, so the return on investment of buying your book to learn the truth about natural-born citizenship is vanishingly small.

    I should point out that along with your historical facts posted here (all of which are old news on this site), you have made a number of false assertions and have so far not responded when challenged. That’s also a bad omen for anything of value being in your book.

    Please list my false assertions. Let’s go over them. Never say impossible without verifying.

  227. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 5, 2013 at 3:43 pm #

    Bob Gard: My book ends in the 1840s. As I stated clearly, the intepretations of the Supreme Court meant nothing to my analysis before them. I plan to treat them in Part II.

    Let me see if I understand this correctly. You have written a book that runs to 1200+ pages, the analysis of which ends 170 years before the present, and you expect that this book will change the thinking of the entire judicial branch on the definition of citizenship?
    Best of luck. You’ll need a lot of it.

  228. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 3:44 pm #

    Bob Gard: I touch on the same British Naturalization Act when I analyze the 1967 House debate on Romney’s eligibility.I certainly analyze Farrand’s differently, but what did you expect from someone that has tackled the issue from a different angle?I could care less whether Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud or not. I am almost certain that it is not a true replica of the original bound into the August 1961 birth certificate folio. I am convinced that the original is still there on the assumption that Hawaii hasn’t replaced it.

    The difference is that Doc’s analysis is supported by the statements of the Framers and yours are not. Nothing in Farrand talked about parentage or Vattel. Rather, the only thing we know they proposed was a native birn requirement and a fear of the foreign born. Any claim that they feared persosns with foreign parents is making things up. If in fact they did, no one said so and broad statements about foreign influence do not support your theory simply because you say so.

  229. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 3:45 pm #

    “I am almost certain that it is not a true replica of the original bound into the August 1961 birth certificate folio.”

    More and more birthery goodness. Our cups runneth over.

  230. avatar
    Whatever4 February 5, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

    I’m looking up the debates on the Seamen’s bill from 1813, and came across this ironic quote:

    “Admit that there are men who hate this administration more than they love their country…” Rep. Felix Grundy (DR-tn)

    http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llac/025/0400/04800965.tif

  231. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    sfjeff: Not about you?

    All about the truth and informing people?

    Are you providing it free of charge on your website?

    Unless you are providing it free of charge I would say those statements are clearly false.

    You have to be kidding. Getting the information cost me $40,000. I am selling the disk for $12.45. I don’t believe in entitlements although I have given out hundreds of disks as complimentary copies. The new America–freebies. From the razzing I am getting, I can now understand a little why the conservatives are so afraid of the anti-birthers. You are really attack dogs. One of the few persons that seems to be interested in substance is Dr. Conspiracy. He is more subtle in his way of handling disagreements and brushing my responses aside. I wish your side was more like him because we might eventually get somewhere.

  232. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 4:02 pm #

    ballantine: The difference is that Doc’s analysis is supported by the statements of the Framers and yours are not.Nothing in Farrand talked about parentage or Vattel.Rather, the only thing we know they proposed was a native birn requirement and a fear of the foreign born.Any claim that they feared persosns with foreign parents is making things up.If in fact they did, no one said so and broad statements about foreign influence do not support your theory simply because you say so.

    Where did I say they feared native-born with foreign parents except for the presidency and vice-presidency? They were extremely wary of foreign influence in general and many wanted to limit naturalized citizens more than was ultimately enforced.

  233. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 4:03 pm #

    If you want to interest anyone, I suggest you actually try and show you have something we have not already seen a hundred times. You only looked to 1840, well then show us a single legal authority that said “native born” meant something other than “natural born.” I mean really says it, not you reading between the lines discovering some hidden meaning like you try with Seybert. Show us a single legal authority before 1840 that said natural born required citizen parents. Just one. If all you have is speculation as to what you think the framers thought, but did not say, we’ve heard it and it is not going to convince anyone.

  234. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 4:07 pm #

    Bob Gard: Where did I say they feared native-born with foreign parents except for the presidency and vice-presidency? They were extremely wary of foreign influence in general and many wanted to limit naturalized citizens more than was ultimately enforced.

    So where is there any evidence with respect to your definition of natural born citizen? The only debates were with respect to eligiblity for Congress at a time when Congress was going to pick the President. Nothing in those debates helps you as the only thing proposed was the English rule of native birth. There is nothing else in the debates dealing with the issue and absolutely no evidence to support the Vattel definition.

  235. avatar
    Jim February 5, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

    Bob Gard: You have to be kidding. Getting the information cost me $40,000.

    Unfortunately, your interpretation of the information isn’t even worth 2 cents. That was definitely money not well spent!

  236. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 4:08 pm #

    Bob Gard: They were extremely wary of foreign influence in general and many wanted to limit naturalized citizens more than was ultimately enforced.

    So why is it that they decided to let foreign-born citizens be as eligible for the Presidency as George Washington?

  237. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm #

    Bob Gard: Part II

    excuse me while i put fingers down my throat – part II?

    “Getting the information cost me $40,000″:?

    OMG – doc did you spend $40,000 or $4000 or $400 getting the info?

    this is analogous to those who say obama “spent millions hiding records” while, due to privacy laws, my records are hidden for FREE

  238. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

    Dave B.: So why is it that they decided to let foreign-born citizens be as eligible for the Presidency as George Washington?

    Don’t you know? American blood is pure and magical.

  239. avatar
    Jim February 5, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

    Majority Will: Don’t you know? American blood is pure and magical.

    Yep, I can trace my blood back before Columbus…before all you uppity white folks showed up and ruined the fun! :D

  240. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 4:15 pm #

    Scientist: Bob Gard: I plan to treat them in Part II

    Part II? OMG!!!

    ERMAHGARD!!

  241. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 4:19 pm #

    Bob Gard: From the razzing I am getting, I can now understand a little why the conservatives are so afraid of the anti-birthers.

    It’s got nothing to do with being Conservative.

    I am a Conservative and a member of the GOP, as are many here. Conservatives aren’t afraid of anti-birthers, because most educated Conservatives ARE anti-birthers. Birthers like you handed the election to Obama on a silver platter, and our failure was in that we didn’t call a spade a spade and out the birthers as being the anti-conservative, anti-patriot, anti-americans that you are.

    Don’t you dare pretend to speak for Conservatives

  242. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Vattel didn’t use Natural born in his book in the original french edition.Nowhere did he mention the french phrase for natural born citoyen de naissance.So you along with Corsi and other birthers got Vattel wrong.Also no proof the founders even looked to Vattel for citizenship considering they rejected his other notions on domestic affairs.Vattel didn’t define it.He never mentioned a need for two citizen parents.

    Okay so how do you differ from the other birther lunatics?

    You must not have been reading my comments. I state plainly that Vattel simply defined a higher form of citizenship–since requiring two citizen parents is higher than any other jurists’–by adding a new definition to natives or indigenes.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Let me explain how things work around here.

    Folks like you come along espousing some view about what a natural born citizen is. Invariably there are many responses, and if the original commenter persists, the discussion gets huge. The original commenter is overwhelmed by a dozen comments to each of his comments and in the end nothing of any clarity arises. And the commenter will probably be insulted on the way (sorry about that).

    Since these discussions always go to pot, as my folks would have phrased it, I cannot offer you any tried advice on how to prevent it from going to pot.

    However, as an experiment, you might pick some small argument and stick to some narrow area of discussion. Before you get anywhere, you have to demonstrate that you can make a sound argument better than those who came before you and that you know useful information beyond what has already been discussed.

    Or, you might try honestly answering a question:

    In your research, did you ever find a framer of the Constitution or anyone at a ratifying convention state that a person born in the United States having a non-citizen parent meant:

    1. a person was a foreigner (“foreigner” is the word used in the Jay letter)?
    2. that they were possessed with foreign influence?
    3. that they wereundesirable for any office of trust in the Untied States?
    4. that they had divided allegiance?
    5. that they questionable loyalty?

    Can you cite any American at all prior to 1790 expressing any concern about US-born persons of non-citizen parentage for any civic purpose?

    Since you would not believe in my arguments even if you read all of them in the 1,700 pages, I judge that you will not accept this quote or any other like it as an acceptable example. In a ratification convention, “Saturday, July 5, 1788. Sec. 2. Clause 2. Amendment moved by Mr M. SMITH,
    Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the congress should appoint, in such manner as they may think proper, a council to advise the president in the appointment of officers; that the said council should continue in office for four years; that they should keep a record of their proceedings, and sign the same, and always be responsible for their advice, and impeachable for mal-conduct in office; that the counsellors should have a reasonable allowance for their services, fixed by a standing law; and that no man should be elected a counsellor who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and who is not either a natural born citizen, or has not become a citizen before the 4th day of July, 1776.”
    Now why on Earth do you think Mr. Smith would have used the term “natural born citizen” if it didn’t mean anything special? Why would he insist that the counselors share the same citizenship restriction as the president? If he had wanted to exclude just naturalized citizens, he could have simply said “citizens, not naturalized” or “non-naturalized citizens” excluded. He used natural born citizen because he wanted to exclude plain citizens and naturalized citizens after the expiration of the grandfather clause. In every legal resolution ever made up to that time, citizens included native born citizens (and very frequently naturalized citizens) but not natural born citizens. Smith was not an attendee to the Constitutional Convention but he seemed cognizant of the division between Citizen and natural born Citizen. He was crystal clear as to the separation of natural born citizen from “or a citizen before the 4th day of July 1776.” He knew that the presidential eligibility clause had meant for “at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” to modify Citizen only. He just wanted the limiting date to go farther back than the adoption of the Constitution. This is strong corroborative proof of my conclusion.

  243. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 4:35 pm #

    donna:
    Bob Gard: Part II

    excuse me while i put fingers down my throat – part II?

    “Getting the information cost me $40,000″:?

    OMG – doc did you spend $40,000 or $4000 or $400 getting the info?

    this is analogous to those who say obama “spent millions hiding records” while, due to privacy laws, my records are hidden for FREE

    Check the market for Vattel’s editions from 1758 to 1797. It would raise the hair on your arm.Obviously, information isn’t worth anything to you.

  244. avatar
    elmo February 5, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

    While we’re throwing around challenges here, how about this one: I challenge Mr. Gard to disprove the fact that no court anywhere has ever bought any of his crackpot legal theories.

  245. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 4:43 pm #

    Still nothing to say about the 12th Amendment? I intend to keep asking. Answer that correctly and I may buy your book. Obviously you aren’t really interested in making a sale.

  246. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 4:44 pm #

    Bob Gard: You must not have been reading my comments. I state plainly that Vattel simply defined a higher form of citizenship–since requiring two citizen parents is higher than any other jurists’–by adding a new definition to natives or indigenes.

    Since you would not believe in my arguments even if you read all of them in the 1,700 pages, I judge that you will not accept this quote or any other like it as an acceptable example. In a ratification convention, “Saturday, July 5, 1788. Sec. 2. Clause 2. Amendment moved by Mr M. SMITH,Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the congress should appoint, in such manner as they may think proper, a council to advise the president in the appointment of officers; that the said council should continue in office for four years; that they should keep a record of their proceedings, and sign the same, and always be responsible for their advice, and impeachable for mal-conduct in office; that the counsellors should have a reasonable allowance for their services, fixed by a standing law; and that no man should be elected a counsellor who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and who is not either a natural born citizen, or has not become a citizen before the 4th day of July, 1776.”Now why on Earth do you think Mr. Smith would have used the term “natural born citizen” if it didn’t mean anything special? Why would he insist that the counselors share the same citizenship restriction as the president? If he had wanted to exclude just naturalized citizens, he could have simply said “citizens, not naturalized” or “non-naturalized citizens” excluded. He used natural born citizen because he wanted to exclude plain citizens and naturalized citizens after the expiration of the grandfather clause. In every legal resolution ever made up to that time, citizens included native born citizens (and very frequently naturalized citizens) but not natural born citizens. Smith was not an attendee to the Constitutional Convention but he seemed cognizant of the division between Citizen and natural born Citizen.He was crystal clear as to the separation of natural born citizen from “or a citizen before the 4th day of July 1776.” He knew that the presidential eligibility clause had meant for “at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” to modify Citizen only. He just wanted the limiting date to go farther back than the adoption of the Constitution. This is strong corroborative proof of my conclusion.

    Again, there is nothing in Smith’s language that says native born is different that natural born or there is a third type of citizen. You are simply trying to read it in and not doing a very good job. It is a perfectly reasonable reading that he is excluding citizens who are not native born, i.e., naturalized, from holding office just like the English did and making exceptions for any kind of citizens during the grandfather period (which is somewhat odd since there really were no citizens before 1776). I am sorry, there is absolutely no real authority that says citizens do not include natural born citizens. Do you not think natural born citizens could sit in Congress which says one needs to be a citizen. Duh! Again, show us some authority that actually says there is a third type of citizen or native is different than natual born. Did you not see my citations from all the leading early scholars above saying you are wrong? Seems to me you are the one not interested in learning the truth.

  247. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm #

    Bob Gard: You must not have been reading my comments. I state plainly that Vattel simply defined a higher form of citizenship–since requiring two citizen parents is higher than any other jurists’–by adding a new definition to natives or indigenes.

    I have been reading your comments which is why I can say you don’t different much from the other lunatics in the crowded birther field. Vattel did no such thing. He stated what was done in his country and only his country. He stated other countries have different laws and those should be followed. He said nothing about two citizen parents.

  248. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 4:48 pm #

    Bob Gard: Check the market for Vattel’s editions from 1758 to 1797. It would raise the hair on your arm.Obviously, information isn’t worth anything to you.

    What’s the point? You still haven’t shown the founders even looked to Vattel on citizenship considering how much of his ideas they threw away with the bill of rights.

  249. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 4:48 pm #

    Bob Gard: Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

    Please explain.

    For example, are the following de Vattel references below in our Constitution?

    Thanks.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Book One:

    114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.

    I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.

    127. Of religion internal and external.

    Religion consists in the doctrines concerning the Deity and the things of another life, and in the worship appointed to the honour of the Supreme Being. So far as it is seated in the heart, if is an affair of conscience, in which every one ought to be directed by his own understanding: but so far as it is external, and publicly established, it is an affair of state.

    129. Public establishment of religion.

    But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.

    141. The sovereign’s authority over the ministers of religion.

    To the prince’s inspection of the affairs and concerns of religion we have joined an authority over its ministers: without the latter power, the former would be nugatory and ineffectual; — they are both derived from the same principle. It is absurd, and contrary to the first foundations of society, that any citizens should claim an independence of the sovereign authority, in offices of such importance to the repose, the happiness, and safety of the state. This is establishing two independent powers in the same society — an unfailing source of division, disturbance, and ruin. There is but one supreme power in the state; the functions of the subordinate powers vary according to their different objects: — ecclesiastics, magistrates, and commanders of the troops, are all officers of the republic, each in his own department; and all are equally accountable to the sovereign.

    176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.

    …Whoever should so far forget himself, as, either by word or deed, to insult a man who wears a sword, might be degraded from the rank of nobility, deprived of the privilege of carrying arms, and subjected to corporal punishment — even the punishment of death, according to the grossness of the insult…

    …Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only.

    Book Two

    81. The property of the citizens is the property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations.

    Even the property of the individuals is, in the aggregate, to be considered as the property of the nation, with respect to other states. It, in some sort, really belongs to her, from the right she has over the property of her citizens, because it constitutes a part of the sum total of her riches, and augments her power. She is interested in that property by her obligation to protect all her members. In short, it cannot be otherwise, since nations act and treat together as bodies in their quality of political societies, and are considered as so many moral persons. All those who form a society, a nation being considered by foreign nations as constituting only one whole, one single person, — all their wealth together can only be considered as the wealth of that same person.

    115. Marriages of aliens. (118)

    There exists no natural impediment to prevent foreigners from contracting marriages in the state. But, if these marriages are found prejudicial or dangerous to a nation, she has a right, and is even in duty bound to prohibit them, or to subject to certain conditions the permission to contract them: and, as it belongs to the nation or to her sovereign to determine what appears most conducive to the welfare of the state, other nations ought to acquiesce in the regulations which any sovereign state has made on this head. Citizens are almost everywhere forbid to marry foreign wives of a different religion

    122. Right of carrying off women.

    … A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force

  250. avatar
    scott e February 5, 2013 at 4:54 pm #

    Bob Gard: I only said that the intent of most seems to be ridicule.

    wow bob gard, you got these people cookin. a breath of fresh air.. bravo bob gard.
    and bravo doc for hosting a good discussion !

  251. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 4:54 pm #

    Dave B.: But you haven’t proven your explanation.
    And, in that respect, yes, we have had many like you.

    Read the book or for a little taste visit The-Constitutionist.com and read an excerpt from Chapter 22:
    This letter provided the reason why I surmised that the major editor of the 1797 edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations was William Scott. I felt John Nicholl was the secondary editor and the third was Christopher Robinson. Another basis I have for placing Nicholl second is that he was the British expert most Americans wrote to for advice after Sir William. Regarding prizes and impressments, Sir John Nicholl’s opinion was sought by George W. Erving, Rufus King, and Ira Allen.
    After most of the negotiations had been completed with respect to the treaty, John Jay stayed over in London quite a long time. He still held out hope to add an article to the treaty to resolve America’s problem with British ship seizures and the impressments of American seamen. There seems to be, at least to my mind, an inference in the following letter written on January 9, 1795, by Scott to Jay that the two of them had carried on a long series of personal meetings. The letter was carried by a British courier, who waited while Jay responded to Scott’s message:
    Sir William Scott called upon Mr. Jay, to say that he had been pleased that the Engagement which prevented him from doing Himself the Honour which he much wished of waiting upon Mr. Jay tomorrow—and therefore, if his coming will not incommode Mr. Jay, He will do Himself that Honour—[unless] it interfere’s with the Convenience of Mr. Jay’s Table, as already formed, He will be glad to be acquainted.
    [When Jay opened the folded and sealed page, the courier waited as he wrote his response on the blank half:]
    Mr. Jay presents his compts to Sir William Scott, and thanks him for his friendly attention. He is happy that the obstacle to His seeing Sr. Wm. Tomorrow is removed, and that the Arrangemt. of his Table will be improved by the seat which Sir William does him the Honor to accept.
    Royal Hotel. Pall Mall

    This letter showed a familiarity between the two in the same sense that Jay had entertained important politicians, dignitaries and relatives at his dining and drawing rooms in New York. Add it to all the evidence in Chapter 22 and that in the chapters before it; you arrive at the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level proving that John Jay informed William Scott that he had meant Vattel’s “indigenes” from The Law of Nations. Scott was a translator of French commensurate to Nugent and Jefferson. He never would have translated indigenes as natural-born citizens if there would not have been a good reason. There is an immense amount of corroborative evidence that fleshes out this conclusion. It was in the public domain. Yes, I was the one to put it together. No, I don’t expect a person who has already made up his mind to give it a second thought. Did you know this relationship existed between the author of the July 25, 1787 letter and the anonymous editor of the 1797 edition?

  252. avatar
    Jim February 5, 2013 at 4:54 pm #

    Bob Gard: attained to the age of thirty-five years, and who is not either a natural born citizen, or has not become a citizen before the 4th day of July, 1776.”Now why on Earth do you think Mr. Smith would have used the term “natural born citizen” if it didn’t mean anything special?

    Seems that you’ve been reading your own biases into this…again.

    What is a natural-born Citizen? Very simply, not naturalized. That’s it. So basically all that your saying is he said it one way and you think he should have said it another…since it was his speech, I’ll go with his way.

  253. avatar
    Yoda February 5, 2013 at 4:55 pm #

    Bob Gard–I have heard you and other birthers claim that the founding fathers were very leery of foreign influence in the WH. How do you justify that position with the eligibility requirements to be President?

    We all know that a person must be 35 years of age and a natural born citizen, but birthers seem to gloss of the residency requirement. A person is only required to live in the United States for 14 years in order to be eligible to be President. Therefore, the founding fathers, who you claim were so terrified of foreign influence, made it a requirement that AT MOST person is only required to live in the US for 40% of his/her life (14 years is 40% of 35) in the US to be eligible to be President.

    How do you explain that?

  254. avatar
    Bob February 5, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

    Bob Gard,

    Before the Vattel-rule can be applicable to the president you first need to convince the Obama-faked-his-birth-certificate Birthers that the birth certificate is real. Come back when you’ve done that.

  255. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 5:02 pm #

    Bob Gard: proving that John Jay informed William Scott that he had meant Vattel’s “indigenes” from The Law of Nations. Scott was a translator of French commensurate to Nugent and Jefferson. He never would have translated indigenes as natural-born citizens if there would not have been a good reason. There is an immense amount of corroborative evidence that fleshes out this conclusion. It was in the public domain. Yes, I was the one to put it together. No, I don’t expect a person who has already made up his mind to give it a second thought. Did you know this relationship existed between the author of the July 25, 1787 letter and the anonymous editor of the 1797 edition?

    Say what? You’re making an inference about a letter somehow pointing to vattel when Jay mentioned nothing about vattel nor vattel’s phrasing. Also John Jay was the first Chief Justice you’d think he would have stated something on Natural born citizenship or citizenship in general that backed up what vattel said.

  256. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 5:06 pm #

    Bob Gard:

    you are clueless about MOI – i am a sponge for information ….. verifiable information ……. credible information ………… and i am revolted by those who don’t change their minds in the face of new, reliable, verifiable information – it’s like still using your fingers and toes when you have already learned to count to 10 – silly me since i believe the opinions of nearly 200 courts, etc and not those of the birthers whose comments can be boiled down to those of racists, bigots and haters

    there is certainly no reason to conclude that the framers, constitutional scholars, courts, etc would imagine 3 classes of citizens and one exclusively for the office of president (excluding the exceptions) – i can imagine a revolt by the (perhaps) millions of americans who would be excluded by the birther 2-parent interpretation – por ejemplo, think of those who “adopted” frozen embryos and have children referred to as “snowflake babies” – we are an inclusive nation and i can’t foresee rubio, jindal etc being excluded as possible candidates – i heard nothing about vilsack who was abandoned at birth – it’s only the eligibility of a “black guy” that has been questioned ad nauseum and refuted –

    so write book II and twenty and spend whatever – you and your ilk will never be considered credible and respected

  257. avatar
    ballantine February 5, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

    Bob Gard:

    This letter showed a familiarity between the two in the same sense that Jay had entertained important politicians, dignitaries and relatives at his dining and drawing rooms in New York. Add it to all the evidence in Chapter 22 and that in the chapters before it; you arrive at the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level proving that John Jay informed William Scott that he had meant Vattel’s “indigenes” from The Law of Nations. Scott was a translator of French commensurate to Nugent and Jefferson. He never would have translated indigenes as natural-born citizens if there would not have been a good reason.There is an immense amount of corroborative evidence that fleshes out this conclusion. It was in the public domain. Yes, I was the one to put it together. No, I don’t expect a person who has already made up his mind to give it a second thought. Did you know this relationship existed between the author of the July 25, 1787 letter and the anonymous editor of the 1797 edition?

    Seems to me you don’t know what reasonable doubt means. Seems you are saying you suspect, but can’t prove, Scott was the translator of hte 1797 edition. Seems you suspect Scott met with Jay. However, how does that lead to any conclusion that Jay told him what he meant by his letter to Washington or how Jay translated Vattel. Again, seems like rank speculation on your part. If you actually have proof, then show it to us. All I see in post after post from you is you trying to connect dots and suggest people said things they didn’t really say. That is really not legal argument.

  258. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate February 5, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

    Bob Gard: My book ends in the 1840s. As I stated clearly, the intepretations of the Supreme Court meant nothing to my analysis before them. I plan to treat them in Part II.

    The title of your e-book clearly states that you “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that Obama is ineligible to be president. If your book does that, why do you need to go further & release a Part II?

  259. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

    I at a loss to see the smallest implication in the evidence you presented in this comment of the conclusion you arrived at.


    Bob Gard: Add it to all the evidence in Chapter 22 and that in the chapters before it; you arrive at the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level proving that John Jay informed William Scott that he had meant Vattel’s “indigenes” from The Law of Nations.

  260. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 5:17 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate: The title of your e-book clearly states that you “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” that Obama is ineligible to be president. If your book does that, why do you need to go further & release a Part II?

    Isn’t that double jeopardy, which is unconstitutional?

  261. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 5:20 pm #

    I did that back in 2009 when I was researching this material, and they were quite pricey. I guess not a lot of them were or printed. :evil:


    Bob Gard: Check the market for Vattel’s editions from 1758 to 1797. It would raise the hair on your arm.Obviously, information isn’t worth anything to you.

  262. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

    OK, so I take your response (or lack thereof) as your admission that no early American writer identified parentage as a matter of consequence in allegiance or fitness for office.

    As for your citation, you are plainly begging the question, assuming a definition so as to affirm the definition. You are equally making a straw man argument that “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are different. Of course they are different. No one says they are the same. What you fail to do is demonstrate that “natural born citizen” and “citizen from birth” are different (and you could not even if you tried).

    If one substitutes “citizen from birth” for “natural born citizen” in your quotation, no problems or contradictions arise. Therefore, you cannot use the quote as evidence that the two are not equivalent, as the plain dictionary definition says that they are. If both phrases work equally as well, then you cannot use the quote to differentiate between them.

    You have gone down the same road as others who have tried to make an originalist argument, reading things into the text that are not there, and trying to use open-ended questions in place of argument. You’re employing the same fallacies and making the same mistakes, just making them on more material.

    NO points.


    Bob Gard: Now why on Earth do you think Mr. Smith would have used the term “natural born citizen” if it didn’t mean anything special? Why would he insist that the counselors share the same citizenship restriction as the president? If he had wanted to exclude just naturalized citizens, he could have simply said “citizens, not naturalized” or “non-naturalized citizens” excluded. He used natural born citizen because he wanted to exclude plain citizens and naturalized citizens after the expiration of the grandfather clause. In every legal resolution ever made up to that time, citizens included native born citizens (and very frequently naturalized citizens) but not natural born citizens. Smith was not an attendee to the Constitutional Convention but he seemed cognizant of the division between Citizen and natural born Citizen. He was crystal clear as to the separation of natural born citizen from “or a citizen before the 4th day of July 1776.” He knew that the presidential eligibility clause had meant for “at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” to modify Citizen only. He just wanted the limiting date to go farther back than the adoption of the Constitution. This is strong corroborative proof of my conclusion.

  263. avatar
    Whatever4 February 5, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

    Ok , I waded through the debates on the Seamen’s bill of 1813 in the House, where Seybert sat. The debates are quite contentious. Speakers repeatedly referred to native born, naturalized, and alien. Only when referring to the President did anyone use natural born –EXCEPT in the formal language of the actual bill when it was officially read for the second time. http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llac/025/0500/05071019.tif. There was zero discussion of parents anywhere. My conclusion is that natural born is the more formal version of native.

    “All officers and three-forths, at least, of all persons employed as seamen or sailers on board any public ship or vessel of the United States, or any ship or vessel owned by Citizens of the United States, shall be natural born citizens of the United States, or citizens thereof at the termination of such war, or servents or citizens of the United States, or Persons who, being resident in the United States, shall at the time of passing of this act, have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States…” the bill did refer to natives of Great Britain and Ireland and France. See the link as it’s too much typing for an iPad.

    http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwaclink.html#anchor12 starting around page 960.

  264. avatar
    Punchmaster via mobile February 5, 2013 at 5:36 pm #

    I just read this entire thread, Mr. Guard. You’re stalling. Stop dodging, and answer the damned challenges already!

  265. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 5:38 pm #

    It seems rather obvious that it means he has convinced himself.


    ballantine: Seems to me you don’t know what reasonable doubt means.

  266. avatar
    HKL (Keith away from home) February 5, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

    Bob Gard: My book ends in the 1840s. As I stated clearly, the intepretations of the Supreme Court meant nothing to my analysis before them. I plan to treat them in Part II. My book ends in the 1840s.

    So all the controlling law about citizenship happened AFTER your book ends and somehow you consider that your 1700 pages magically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Obama is in fact ineligible?

    Thanks. That’s all I needed to know about you and your book.

  267. avatar
    Joey February 5, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

    Quite a few courts have ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. No court has ruled that he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen.
    Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
    Page 13 of the decision.

    Barnett v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Gordon: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
    http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf

    Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Taiitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”– Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0

    Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”– Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012

    Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

    Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

    Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

    Voeltz v Obama (1st Ruling), Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint

    Voeltz v Obama (2nd Ruling), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
    http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV

  268. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 5:49 pm #

    Joey:
    Quite a few courts have ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. No court has ruled that he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen.
    Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19809978/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-13-ORDER-denying-3-Motion-for-TRO-granting-8-Motion-to-Dismiss-Ordered-by-Judge-Clay-D-Land-on-09162009-CGC-Entered-0
    Page 13 of the decision.

    Barnett v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Gordon: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
    http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf

    Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    Taiitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”– Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0

    Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”– Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012

    Swensson, Powell, Farrar and Welden v Obama, Administrative Law Judge Michael Mahili, State of Georgia Administrative Hearings, Farrar et. al., Welden, Swensson and Powell v Obama: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

    Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

    Pupura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

    Voeltz v Obama (1st Ruling), Judge Terry P. Lewis, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”—June 29, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/99025994/FL-2012-06-29-Voeltz-v-Obama-order-dismissing-amended-complaint

    Voeltz v Obama (2nd Ruling), Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
    http://judicial.clerk.leon.fl.us/image_orders.asp?caseid=77182640&jiscaseid=&defseq=&chargeseq=&dktid=57485906&dktsource=CRTV

    Perhaps all of those decisions were made by the “activist” judges referenced earlier.

  269. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

    Would you reconsider the alternative of “citizen from birth” instead of “native?” I looked at the bill and it seemed to me that the two requirements “native born citizen or citizen at the time of the act” reasonably means “anyone who was born a citizen or became one by the time the act was passed.” A native requirement doesn’t make sense when any naturalized citizen was eligible so long as it was before the act. What does “native” add to the requirement? Nothing because all native citizens are also citizens at the time of the enactment. Natural born citizen, however, at least makes some oratorical sense, if not changing the qualification either.

    My observation is: does striking “natural born citizen” from the act change who is eligible, and my view is that the answer is no.


    Whatever4: My conclusion is that natural born is the more formal version of native.

  270. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

    I doubt that he understands them.

    I don’t mean that he’s not smart enough to understand them, or that he lacks sufficient background knowledge to understand them. What I mean is that for folks who get as invested in a theory as Mr. Gard obviously is, it is very difficult to comprehend the existence of contradictory evidence, and therefore the need to respond to it. Remember, he sees evidence in the form of connections and evidence that we don’t.


    Punchmaster via mobile: I just read this entire thread, Mr. Guard. You’re stalling. Stop dodging, and answer the damned challenges already!

  271. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

    Bob Gard: Read the book or for a little taste visit The-Constitutionist.com and read an excerpt from Chapter 22:

    For the moment I’ll confine myself to what you provided in that comment. Is that your excerpt from Chapter 22? If not, where would one find this excerpt in the opacity of your website?
    You talk about what you “surmised”, what you “felt”; you say “There seems to be, at least to my mind, an inference…”. Is that your idea of a persuasive argument towards establishing a fact? After all, what demonstrations we’ve seen here of your powers of interpretation leave very much to be desired. Very much indeed. You say “I don’t expect a person who has already made up his mind to give it a second thought.” Do you think you were immune to such bias when you felt, surmised, and inferred those things?
    You add “This letter showed a familiarity between the two in the same sense that Jay had entertained important politicians, dignitaries and relatives at his dining and drawing rooms in New York. Add it to all the evidence in Chapter 22 and that in the chapters before it; you arrive at the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level proving that John Jay informed William Scott that he had meant Vattel’s “indigenes” from The Law of Nations.” I have more than a reasonable doubt that your conclusions are not nearly so well-supported as you might think.
    And no, I didn’t know of this connection. Its existence– to the extent that you have established it exists– I find utterly underwhelming.
    I have great regard for proper use of authentic sources. I have a great deal of respect for genuine scholarship. I have little use for that which masquerades as such. You may have spent great sums of your money in the pursuit of this will-o’-the-wisp of yours; that’s your red wagon. I’m not going to waste any amount of mine on your book.
    I have plenty of Zombie lit yet to read.

  272. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 6:16 pm #

    Thanks for the offer, but I’ve already bought one to arrive Thursday.


    Bob Gard: Give me your address.

  273. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 6:22 pm #

    You asserted: “Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.”

    That’s a false assertion. Two people have already asked you to support it, and two have already published evidence that it is false. That’s why I speculated that you’re too averse to such things to see them.

    There are other examples of stunningly unresponsive replies to challenges. It’s bizarre.


    Bob Gard: Please list my false assertions. Let’s go over them. Never say impossible without verifying.

  274. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 6:24 pm #

    Damn, 10 activist judges in a row! How unlucky could the birthers be? :shock:


    Majority Will: Perhaps all of those decisions were made by the “activist” judges referenced earlier.

  275. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 5, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    Buy Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” in Russian. It’s available in Moscow for about $1,700. You may learn something if you do, but did we learn anything by this exchange of sarcasm?

    Црфе еру агсл (йгщештп Щкдн Ефшея)!

    Russian Wikipedia has no article on Vattel, however, Brockhaus-Efron mentions him, but gives the French name of his most famous work.

    http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%A1%D0%91%D0%95/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C,_%D0%AD%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%85

    It took me some time to find a Russian version of Le Droit des gens but I found one.

    Ваттель Эмер де. Право народов или принципы естественного права, применяемые к поведению и делам наций и суверенов. Предисл. В. Н. Дурденевского. М., Госюриздат, 1960

    Looking it up in Google books, I found a number of books referencing it and adding some more detail. There was a second edition in 1966. the translation was based on the French version of 1863 (the last historical publication) and … on the American version of 1916. (for anyone who knows a little bit of Russian, that is from the Politolohiia reference)

    Two remarks:

    1) how are we going to learn anything from a book like that, if it was based on versions published when the Founding Fathers were no longer alive?

    2) you really want to make us believe someone asked you 1,700 dollars for a soviet publication that only legal historians might be interested in? 17 dollars would have been too high a bid – unless you visited Moscow during the last two-three years.

  276. avatar
    Whatever4 February 5, 2013 at 6:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Would you reconsider the alternative of “citizen from birth” instead of native. I looked at the bill and it seemed to me that the two requirements “native born citizen or citizen at the time of the act” reasonably means “anyone who was born a citizen or became one by the time the act was passed.” A native requirement doesn’t make sense when any naturalized citizen was eligible so long as it was before the act. What does “native” add to the requirement? Nothing because all native citizens are also citizens at the time of the enactment. Natural born citizen, however, at least makes some oratorical sense, if not changing the qualification either.

    My observation is: “does striking natural born citizen” from the act change who is eligible, and my view is that the answer is no.

    I assume that the bill was intended to go forward after the war. But my point is that in more that 50 pages of debate, the terms used were “native” and “naturalized” and “alien”, that citizen seemed to mean native + naturalized, that natural born was only in reference to the presidency, and nowhere were anyone’s parents mentioned.

  277. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 6:45 pm #

    Bob Gard: Getting the information cost me $40,000.

    Ha! It cost you $4.00. Prove that it cost more.

    Bob Gard: You are really attack dogs.

    I’m a semi-pro comedian. Take my mistress – please.

    Bob Gard: we might eventually get somewhere.

    Mars?

  278. avatar
    Whatever4 February 5, 2013 at 6:45 pm #

    ballantine:
    How about the Mass. Legislature in 1797 proposing an amendment to the natural born citizenship clause to include the Vice-President and Congress, as well as the President, and in the title to the Amendment saying such Amendment applied to “natural born subjects.”Guess they didn’t get the memo.

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

    “RESOLVE REQUESTING THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDING, THAT NONE BUT NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS BE ELIGIBLE TO CERTAIN OFFICES.

    Whereas it is highly expedient, that every constitutional harrier should be opposed to the Introduction of Foreign Influence, into our National Councils, & that ye Constitution of ye United States should be so amended as to effect and Secure in ye best manner ye great objects for which it was designed :

    Resolved that the Senators & Representatives of this Commonwealth in the Congress of the United States, be, and they hereby are requested to use their best endeavours, that Congress propose to the Legislatures of the several States, the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States, viz. “That (in addition to the other qualifications prescribed by said Constitution) no person shall be eligible as President or Vice President of ye United States nor shall any person he a Senator or Representative in ye Congress of ye United States except a natural born Citizen ; or unless he shall have been a Resident in the United States at ye time of ye declaration of Independence, and shall have continued either to reside within the same, or to be employed in its service from that period to ye time of his election.”

    Gorefan’s citations can be found in Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1786-87, (1893); Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1788-89 (1894).

    The New York version of this was championed by John Jay himself, in The New York Gazette and General Advertiser February 13, 1799

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

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

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

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

  279. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 6:46 pm #

    Is there a single person here who believes the claim on Bob Gard’s website that in 1960, he argued for days with his eighth grade civics teacher in favor of the 2-citizen parent definition? Now let’s be serious what middle school student in the entire history of middle school has ever argued for days over the fine points of a definition of some term like natural born citizen? The idea is preposterous on its face.

    But were it true, it would actually speak very poorly of Bob Gard because it would mean that when Barack Obama announced his candidacy, Bob knew he was ineligible, yet kept silent. All through the 2008 campagn he kept silent. All through Obama’s first term, he kept silent. Only in October 2012, on the eve of the election, did he step forward. By then it was way to late, because even the most dilgent reader wouldn’t be able to get through he 1722 pages befoe the election.

    Bob let his country down when it needed him. Bad, bad, Bob.

  280. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 6:58 pm #

    Scientist: Is there a single person here who believes the claim on Bob Gard’s website that in 1960, he argued for days with his eighth grade civics teacher in favor of the 2-citizen parent definition?

    It sounds like something my good friend Bob Sacamano would do.

  281. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

    Scientist: Is there a single person here who believes the claim on Bob Gard’s website that in 1960, he argued for days with his eighth grade civics teacher in favor of the 2-citizen parent definition?

    I was spending my time in the school’s darkroom, telling others it wasn’t a good idea to print pornographic pictures.

  282. avatar
    Reality Check February 5, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

    So we are supposed to believe Bob Gard is an ace researcher on the hidden meaning of the term natural born citizen but when he researched how to publish a 1700 page eBook his research led him to use MS Word .docx format vs. say something like ummmm, Portable Document Format? Sure…. right…..

    Mr. Gard, have you consulted Mr. Paul Guthrie from Indiana? I think he has some unique theories on the subject he could share with you.

  283. avatar
    Scientist February 5, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

    misha marinsky: I was spending my time in the school’s darkroom, telling others it wasn’t a good idea to print pornographic pictures.

    It wasn’t?

  284. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

    Scientist:
    Is there a single person here who believes the claim on Bob Gard’s website that in 1960, he argued for days with his eighth grade civics teacher

    Is there a single person here who believes he spent $40000 on multiple original translations of de Vattel’s work into multiple languages?

    I sure don’t.

  285. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 7:23 pm #

    Daniel: Is there a single person here who believes he spent $40000 on multiple original translations of de Vattel’s work into multiple languages?

    i want verifiable proof, certified by court qualified forensic experts and rendered proven by multiple triers of fact

  286. avatar
    Whatever4 February 5, 2013 at 7:24 pm #

    Daniel: Is there a single person here who believes he spent $40000 on multiple original translations of de Vattel’s work into multiple languages?

    I sure don’t.

    If he did, he did it as a book collector. He should be able to recoup most by reselling. Unless most of that is travel expenses in his quest to top Robert Langdon.

    The De Vattel Code.

  287. avatar
    sfjeff February 5, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

    Bob Gard: You have to be kidding. Getting the information cost me $40,000. I am selling the disk for $12.45. I don’t believe in entitlements although I have given out hundreds of disks as complimentary copies.

    I applaud your attempts to make a profit on your investment.

    But as I pointed out- restricting access to ‘the truth’ that you claim you want to show to the American people is contradictory to charging $12.45.

    I would be more likely to pay $1.00 on I-Tunes for a song by Adele than I would pay $12.45 for the opportunity to read a book by an author I have never heard of, on a subject that seems to have as much likelihood of credibility as “the Secrets of Atlantis”

  288. avatar
    FRAUD February 5, 2013 at 7:32 pm #

    There’s 287 comments in this thread that do not address the main issue of ‘fraud’ performed by some person or persons to make a clown the POTUS.

    The NBC issue is self explanatory… those who needed the documents to prove eligibility ‘forged’ documents to be eligible and doing so, they hung themselves. Nixon and Clinton were found guilty of ‘cover ups’ and so will the stink in the White House be found ‘guilty’ of fraud and covering up the illegal attempt to overthrow America’s Republic.

    Keep arguing Vattel etc… it’s is a wast of time… it is not the issue that’s being processed in the courts.

  289. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 7:35 pm #

    Majority Will: Please explain.

    For example, are the following de Vattel references below in our Constitution?

    Thanks.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Book One:

    114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.

    I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.

    127. Of religion internal and external.

    Religion consists in the doctrines concerning the Deity and the things of another life, and in the worship appointed to the honour of the Supreme Being. So far as it is seated in the heart, if is an affair of conscience, in which every one ought to be directed by his own understanding: but so far as it is external, and publicly established, it is an affair of state.

    129. Public establishment of religion.

    But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.

    141. The sovereign’s authority over the ministers of religion.

    To the prince’s inspection of the affairs and concerns of religion we have joined an authority over its ministers: without the latter power, the former would be nugatory and ineffectual; — they are both derived from the same principle. It is absurd, and contrary to the first foundations of society, that any citizens should claim an independence of the sovereign authority, in offices of such importance to the repose, the happiness, and safety of the state. This is establishing two independent powers in the same society — an unfailing source of division, disturbance, and ruin. There is but one supreme power in the state; the functions of the subordinate powers vary according to their different objects: — ecclesiastics, magistrates, and commanders of the troops, are all officers of the republic, each in his own department; and all are equally accountable to the sovereign.

    176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.

    …Whoever should so far forget himself, as, either by word or deed, to insult a man who wears a sword, might be degraded from the rank of nobility, deprived of the privilege of carrying arms, and subjected to corporal punishment — even the punishment of death, according to the grossness of the insult…

    …Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only.

    Book Two

    81. The property of the citizens is the property of the nation, with respect to foreign nations.

    Even the property of the individuals is, in the aggregate, to be considered as the property of the nation, with respect to other states. It, in some sort, really belongs to her, from the right she has over the property of her citizens, because it constitutes a part of the sum total of her riches, and augments her power. She is interested in that property by her obligation to protect all her members. In short, it cannot be otherwise, since nations act and treat together as bodies in their quality of political societies, and are considered as so many moral persons. All those who form a society, a nation being considered by foreign nations as constituting only one whole, one single person, — all their wealth together can only be considered as the wealth of that same person.

    115. Marriages of aliens. (118)

    There exists no natural impediment to prevent foreigners from contracting marriages in the state. But, if these marriages are found prejudicial or dangerous to a nation, she has a right, and is even in duty bound to prohibit them, or to subject to certain conditions the permission to contract them: and, as it belongs to the nation or to her sovereign to determine what appears most conducive to the welfare of the state, other nations ought to acquiesce in the regulations which any sovereign state has made on this head. Citizens are almost everywhere forbid to marry foreign wives of a different religion

    122. Right of carrying off women.

    … A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force

    The answer is no. I am glad that the answer is no for the most part. I am not against certain aspects of the right to defend oneself however.

    I believe you must have the Liberty Fund edition of the 1797 edition. You have switched the order in 176, Book I Chapter XIII or there is a difference in your printing. The English differs somewhat from the 1759, 1760 and other English editions up to 1797.
    The influence of Vattel is still remarkable. You might be engrossed by my comparison of The Declaration of Independence to Jefferson’s 1775 Amsterdam edition of the Law of Nations.

    To give an example of popularity, if you are willing to take repeat business as evidence, The Law of Nations greatly outstripped the number of editions of The Federalist Papers, Hume’s History of England and Grotius’ Rights of War and Peace. Unfortunately, unless you read my eBook, you won’t have a chance to review many of the influences it had.

    Take the following as another example of what was rather common in the citation of sections: “Examine Authorities.—how far they weigh.—danger of understg. Vattel witht restrn. [I believe that this shorthand meant Jefferson foresaw a danger “of underestimating Vattel without restraint.” Because of his Francophilic agenda, he wanted to downplay Vattel’s section pertinent to the dispute. If taken as the main philosophy, that section upheld Hamilton’s conclusion and not Jefferson’s.]
    Grotius—Puff.—Wolf—Vattel
    Vattel. 2. 160. 158. 159. 163. 219. 220. 233. [I will not quote these, but mull over the glaring fact that Jefferson noted seven sections of Vattel (21 sections in the first note) and not a single one from Grotius, Puffendorf, or Wolf.”

  290. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

    FRAUD:
    There’s 287 comments in this thread that do not address the main issue of ‘fraud’ performed by some person or persons to make a clown the POTUS.

    The NBC issue is self explanatory… those who needed the documents to prove eligibility ‘forged’ documents to be eligible and doing so, they hung themselves.Nixon and Clinton were found guilty of ‘cover ups’ and so will the stink in the White House be found ‘guilty’ of fraud and covering up the illegal attempt to overthrow America’s Republic.

    Keep arguing Vattel etc… it’s is a wast of time… it is not the issue that’s being processed in the courts.

    Clinton wasn’t found guilty of a cover up and neither was Nixon. Nixon resigned and there was no investigation that ended with him being charged. Same thing with Clinton. When you get historical facts wrong is it any wonder you get the current things wrong either?

  291. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 7:39 pm #

    Bob Gard: Take the following as another example of what was rather common in the citation of sections: “Examine Authorities.—how far they weigh.—danger of understg. Vattel witht restrn. [I believe that this shorthand meant Jefferson foresaw a danger “of underestimating Vattel without restraint.” Because of his Francophilic agenda, he wanted to downplay Vattel’s section pertinent to the dispute. If taken as the main philosophy, that section upheld Hamilton’s conclusion and not Jefferson’s.]
    Grotius—Puff.—Wolf—Vattel
    Vattel. 2. 160. 158. 159. 163. 219. 220. 233. [I will not quote these, but mull over the glaring fact that Jefferson noted seven sections of Vattel (21 sections in the first note) and not a single one from Grotius, Puffendorf, or Wolf.”

    Again absolutely no relevance to our constitution. Do you always go on such long winded diatribes to not prove any point?

  292. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 7:39 pm #

    Gosh, that’s the first I’ve heard of that– do you think there’s anything to it?

    FRAUD:
    There’s 287 comments in this thread that do not address the main issue of ‘fraud’ performed by some person or persons to make a clown the POTUS.

    The NBC issue is self explanatory… those who needed the documents to prove eligibility ‘forged’ documents to be eligible and doing so, they hung themselves.Nixon and Clinton were found guilty of ‘cover ups’ and so will the stink in the White House be found ‘guilty’ of fraud and covering up the illegal attempt to overthrow America’s Republic.

    Keep arguing Vattel etc… it’s is a wast of time… it is not the issue that’s being processed in the courts.

  293. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 7:40 pm #

    Birthers are so charming.

  294. avatar
    sfjeff February 5, 2013 at 7:48 pm #

    Scientist: Is there a single person here who believes the claim on Bob Gard’s website that in 1960, he argued for days with his eighth grade civics teacher in favor of the 2-citizen parent definition? Now let’s be serious what middle school student in the entire history of middle school has ever argued for days over the fine points of a definition of some term like natural born citizen? The idea is preposterous on its face.

    Even assuming that he actually did have that argument with this 8th grade teacher- that would at best mean that even in 1960 he was right and his teacher- and every 8th grade civics teacher(including mine) – and all of us- and Congress and Chief Justice Roberts- all of us were wrong.

    Here is my thought:

    Any fundamental legal principal that takes 1700 pages to establish and that is contrary to all conventional thought is not likely to be read, let alone become popular enough to affect something.

    Here is another thought:

    What he is a proposing is a fundamental legal change in how our entire country thinks of eligibility.

    Why is he publishing a book rather than submitting his argument to a legal journal were it could be peer reviewed?

  295. avatar
    aarrgghh February 5, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

    diogenesLamp: “It is my personal opinion that the entire Judiciary is filled with people who do not actually understand the meaning, the purpose, and the intent of Article II. They have all been taught wrong, going back centuries.

    Till the legal system has been educated to correct their wrong understanding, they will rule wrongly on this every single time.”

    only a few centuries from now, diogenesLamp, jedi pauly and bob gard will all be finally vindicated

  296. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

    And that pretty much demonstrates why nobody’s taking you seriously.

    Bob Gard: Take the following as another example of what was rather common in the citation of sections: “Examine Authorities.—how far they weigh.—danger of understg. Vattel witht restrn. [I believe that this shorthand meant Jefferson foresaw a danger “of underestimating Vattel without restraint.” Because of his Francophilic agenda, he wanted to downplay Vattel’s section pertinent to the dispute. If taken as the main philosophy, that section upheld Hamilton’s conclusion and not Jefferson’s.]
    Grotius—Puff.—Wolf—Vattel
    Vattel. 2. 160. 158. 159. 163. 219. 220. 233. [I will not quote these, but mull over the glaring fact that Jefferson noted seven sections of Vattel (21 sections in the first note) and not a single one from Grotius, Puffendorf, or Wolf.”

  297. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 7:50 pm #

    elmo:
    While we’re throwing around challenges here, how about this one: I challenge Mr. Gard to disprove the fact that no court anywhere has ever bought any of his crackpot legal theories.

    I have always admitted to my opponents that they would win in a court of law, given the kinds of courts we have. I explained it in part:

    My Dad had brought me up with many adages. One was “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.” Karl Rove was extremely gracious in answering a nobody like me. I still have a great deal of respect for him personally, his overall intelligence, and his knowledge. However, he had many times described birthers publicly on television in pejorative terms like referring to them as the “nutty right,” and referring to birtherism as “silliness.” One time his adjectives were as onerous as the descriptors of wackos and cranks employed by other high-ranking conservatives. Rove called us “cranks and conspiracy nuts.”

    In June of 2011, Mr. Rove read my first email. He responded:
    sorry – no court in the history of America has agreed with your argument

    Mr. Rove and I exchanged several emails until I sent the following paragraph:

    I am truly gratified that you read my email. But what argument do you refer to? You haven’t heard my argument. You will never hear it unless you come to my abode and sign a non-disclosure agreement. Yours is a foolish response. No court in America has ever been presented with the evidence I have. Even if a court were presented with it, activist judges on the bench would likely judge by their agenda and not the facts. I am interested in reaching the American people. You make the same mistake all lawyers have made. You think the proof lies in legal precedent. Lawyers have contributed so much to the downfall of our country by way of their stilted reasoning. The truth of natural-born citizenship is an historical, linguistic, and legal problem, not just a legal problem. When my book comes out, your response will be properly noted as will all the other foolish responses I have received. Obama may be in office and you will look like the fools you are. You, like all those before you, cannot think outside the box. No surprise. You will eat crow. I guarantee it. For now, you can think you are clever. Enjoy it while it lasts.

    Mr. Rove responded:

    Thanks, but again, no U.S. court has every [sic] agreed with your theory that only someone born on American soil of two American citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Never. Ever.
    I’ve seen sections of your email (e.g., Vattel – a Swiss philosopher!) in other birther missives and it is all hogwash. No court has ever held your theory is correct and I don’t need to waste any more time with someone who calls me an idiot. Your future emails will be routed directly to the trash.
    -Karl Rove

    I was naïve to think that a respectable part of the electorate would be interested in what I had to say about the Constitution and the presidential eligibility clause. They don’t seem to be. Rove didn’t eat crow. You are right—no court would listen for a minute. That does not mean my conclusions are wrong. It means they aren’t heard.

  298. avatar
    Rickey February 5, 2013 at 7:50 pm #

    Scientist:
    Is there a single person here who believes the claim on Bob Gard’s website that in 1960, he argued for days with his eighth grade civics teacher in favor of the 2-citizen parent definition?Now let’s be serious what middle school student in the entire history of middle school has ever arguedfor days over the fine points of a definition of some term like natural born citizen? The idea is preposterous on its face.

    But were it true, it would actually speak very poorly of Bob Gard because it would mean that when Barack Obama announced his candidacy, Bob knew he was ineligible, yet kept silent.All through the 2008 campagn he kept silent.All through Obama’s first term, he kept silent. Only in October 2012, on the eve of the election, did he step forward.By then it was way to late, because even the most dilgent reader wouldn’t be able to get through he 1722 pages befoe the election.

    At least he is acknowledging, in a backhand sort of way, that he wasn’t taught the “two citizen parent’ requirement in school

    He has a lot in common with Corsi, who also didn’t discover the “two citizen parent” requirement until Obama was well into his first term as President.

  299. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm #

    FRAUD: Keep arguing Vattel etc… it’s is a wast of time…

    Well, duh, “FRAUD”, thanks for demonstrating how to miss the point of a thread in spectacular fashion!

  300. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    Okay, that nails it.

    Bob Gard: You haven’t heard my argument. You will never hear it unless you come to my abode and sign a non-disclosure agreement.

  301. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:01 pm #

    So Mr. Gard, Rove who would do just about anything to keep Obama from being reelected rejected your theory. That should tell you something. Goodness.

  302. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 8:02 pm #

    We are multi-threaded.


    FRAUD: There’s 287 comments in this thread that do not address the main issue of ‘fraud’ performed by some person or persons to make a clown the POTUS.

  303. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 8:03 pm #

    Bob Gard: That does not mean my conclusions are wrong. It means they aren’t heard.

    Actually, it does mean your conclusions are wrong but you will most likely never understand why.

  304. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:06 pm #

    The argument was heard in Indiana, and they disagreed with the argument.

  305. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 8:06 pm #

    Dunno. With someone who wrote a 1722-page book, it’s hard to tell.


    Daniel: Is there a single person here who believes he spent $40000 on multiple original translations of de Vattel’s work into multiple languages?

  306. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 8:09 pm #

    “Even if a court were presented with it, activist judges on the bench would likely judge by their agenda and not the facts.”

    Again, that’s a very disturbing sign. We’ve seen this aspect of a birther profile and from conspiracy theorists quite a few times.

  307. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 5, 2013 at 8:09 pm #

    Since Mr. Gard didn’t have then access to all the research he has now, I find it difficult to understand why he would have held that position in the 8th grade, or what he would have argued with. It is a very dubious claim.


    Scientist: Is there a single person here who believes the claim on Bob Gard’s website that in 1960, he argued for days with his eighth grade civics teacher in favor of the 2-citizen parent definition?

  308. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 8:11 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: It sounds like something my good friend Bob Sacamano would do.

    I kept a test to remind me of the dangers that I knew were ahead. It is pictured in the eBook. The dangers have materialized.

  309. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 8:13 pm #

    Bob Gard: I kept a test to remind me of the dangers that I knew were ahead. It is pictured in the eBook. The dangers have materialized.

    ah yes imagined dangers to which you’ve imagined materialization. How much do you pay your therapist?

  310. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:15 pm #

    Mr. Gard, so did you argue about only whites with 2 citizen parents being eligible for President? That is the only thing that makes sense as to your argument in 6th grade. Can you give us a little background as to your upbringing?

  311. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 8:16 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate: If your book does that, why do you need to go further & release a Part II?

    Here’s hoping his sequels are more substantial than say …. Corsi’s.

    ______________________

    Let’s see, what’s it called when someone rejects reality, loses themselves in a preferred reality, and engages compulsively in repetitive process, to the point that the means become the end, resulting in a mindset that places no value at all on effectuality?

    Could be autism … could be asperger’s … can’t provide a diagnosis via a chatroom, but there does seem to be cause for an intervention and evaluation in Mr. Gard’s case.

    _________________

    Like my daddy always told me, “Son, it’s better to be thought a fool, than to pile up seventeen hunnert an’twenny-too pages in Macruh-soft Wurd, burn’em to DVDs, start sellin’ on Amazon and prove it.”

  312. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 8:16 pm #

    Bob Gard: no court would listen for a minute. That does not mean my conclusions are wrong. It means they aren’t heard.

    Actually it does mean that they are wrong, for all practical purposes.

    I can’t imagine there is a single peer review board in the discipline of astronomy that would listen to an amateur promote a claim that the world is flat. According to your logic, that doesn’t mean he is wrong. However, he is wrong, and the fact that the real experts won’t entertain to listen to a crackpot theory further supports the fact that he’s wrong. If there were any possible merit at all to his premise, the astrophysicists would be all over it. The fact that they aren’t interested is a good indication of the lack of merit.

    Or more simply, should we have to debate whether 2+2=5? Does the lack of interest from the Mathematicians in reading 1700 pages about how 2+2=5 indicate that the idea has merit? Or rather does it indicate that the premise is simply flawed on the face of it?

    The reason the courts don’t care about your ideas, is the same reason the mathematicians don’t care about 2+2=5. The matter is well settled, there is no more debate amongst those that know the subject. You’re just wrong.

    And no, stamping your feet and holding your breath just isn’t going to change that. It’s just sad that so many electrons had to die in vain.

  313. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 8:17 pm #

    How many birthers are there who fully support the President (just being a Democrat doesn’t count) but have a problem with his eligibility?

  314. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 5, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

    Yeah, because as we all know, that’s what 13 year old boys are impassioned about, Constitutional politics.

  315. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 8:20 pm #

    Daniel: Is there a single person here who believes he spent $40000 on multiple original translations of de Vattel’s work into multiple languages?

    Fools and their money are not long for each other.

    Mr. Gard strikes me as a seller’s dream … the bottom rung on a pyramid scheme. The one that tries soooooo hard, never realizing in which direction the scam operates! ;)

  316. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 8:22 pm #

    You have to admit that the randomly assigned avatar icon for Bob Gard is pretty darn funny.

    Now there’s a conspiracy.

  317. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 8:24 pm #

    Daniel: It’s just sad that so many electrons had to die in vain.

    The electrons were merely shared, fleetingly, and are quickly freed to return to productive tasks. Like illuminating teens’ cell phones, passing on mind-rotting television broadcasts, and supporting the next conspiracy nut’s wasted time!

  318. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:25 pm #

    Mr. Gard, there is nothing wrong with debating a teacher. I was known for it. Got into trouble a few times. One time talking about platelets in 8th grade I made a point that platelets were made up of red blood cells. (Not sure it I said dead) Anyway, it’s okay to debate with a teacher. If I asked a doctor if platelets are made up of red blood cells they would agree. (Or I think they would) Your problem is you argued with a teacher (as other pointed out…where were you in the 70′s…and before the 2008 election?), but no expert would agree with you in your argument.

  319. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:26 pm #

    Majority Will:
    You have to admit that the randomly assigned avatar icon for Bob Gard is pretty darn funny.

    Now there’s a conspiracy.

    Yeah, but I don’t like mine. LOL ;)

  320. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 8:27 pm #

    Yes, every necropsy performed on the Republicans’ attempt to defeat President Obama has come to the same conclusion: they failed to listen to Bob Gard.

    Bob Gard: When my book comes out, your response will be properly noted as will all the other foolish responses I have received. Obama may be in office and you will look like the fools you are. You, like all those before you, cannot think outside the box. No surprise. You will eat crow. I guarantee it. For now, you can think you are clever. Enjoy it while it lasts.

  321. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 8:28 pm #

    Bob Gard: I kept a test to remind me of the dangers that I knew were ahead.

    Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a childhood prodigy folks!

    Seriously, you kept a test? from the 8th grade?!? Riiight.

    This is reminding me to finish that textbook project. The one I lost all interest in due to the lack of posititves.

    Since you kept your tests, I trust you also insisted on keeping your textbooks? I would love to see them. Perhaps if you cold just post the title, edition, pub date, and publisher?

    Thanks in advance.

  322. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

    I’m quite pleased with mine. It’s a rather flattering likeness.

    JRC: Majority Will:
    You have to admit that the randomly assigned avatar icon for Bob Gard is pretty darn funny.

    Now there’s a conspiracy.

    Yeah, but I don’t like mine. LOL ;)

  323. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 8:30 pm #

    JRC: Yeah, but I don’t like mine.LOL

    Mine actually looks like me. How weird is that?

  324. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:31 pm #

    Have a feeling that Book Number 2 will only talk about 14th Amendment Citizens and how someone of color can’t be President. Call me crazy, but that is the feeling I’m getting from Mr. Gard.

  325. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:32 pm #

    Majority Will: Mine actually looks like me. How weird is that?

    Okay, you got me…mine looks like me too.

  326. avatar
    Rickey February 5, 2013 at 8:33 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You asserted: “Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.”

    That’s a false assertion. Two people have already asked you to support it, and two have already published evidence that it is false. That’s why I speculated that you’re too averse to such things to see them.

    There are other examples of stunningly unresponsive replies to challenges. It’s bizarre.

    He might also want to avoid responding to these quotes from “The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States” (1992):

    “The common law was received in the American colonies and adopted as the basis of American legal systems after the Revolution in the state and federal constitutions.” (p. 171)

    “Constitutional historians are nearly unanimous in their conclusion that the framers of the First Amendment intended to codify the English common law as taught by Sir William Blackstone.” p. 669

    “Legal historian [Leonard] Levy argued that at the time the First Amendment was adopted the universal understanding of the words ‘freedom of the press’ came from the renowned compiler of English law, William Blackstone.” p. 809

    References to Vattel in the book: Zero.

  327. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 8:34 pm #

    Bob Gard: You haven’t heard my argument. You will never hear it unless you come to my abode and sign a non-disclosure agreement. Yours is a foolish response. No court in America has ever been presented with the evidence I have. Even if a court were presented with it, activist judges on the bench would likely judge by their agenda and not the facts. I am interested in reaching the American people. You make the same mistake all lawyers have made. You think the proof lies in legal precedent. Lawyers have contributed so much to the downfall of our country by way of their stilted reasoning. The truth of natural-born citizenship is an historical, linguistic, and legal problem, not just a legal problem. When my book comes out, your response will be properly noted as will all the other foolish responses I have received. Obama may be in office and you will look like the fools you are. You, like all those before you, cannot think outside the box. No surprise. You will eat crow. I guarantee it. For now, you can think you are clever. Enjoy it while it lasts.

    Ooooh, Rove didn’t respond favorably to that? Delusions of grandeur …. keeping an enemies list … misuse of basic lingusitic elements …

    I hope your personal and professional lives are successful, abundant, and fulfilling.

    Please confirm you have no access to firearms.

  328. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 8:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You asserted: “Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.”

    That’s a false assertion. Two people have already asked you to support it, and two have already published evidence that it is false. That’s why I speculated that you’re too averse to such things to see them.

    There are other examples of stunningly unresponsive replies to challenges. It’s bizarre.

    You won’t accept as evidence the greater distribution and editions of Vattel’s The Law of Nations over all the other jurists. You won’t accept the greater citation rate among many early politicians. I gave a few examples to one of your commentators. I can’t reproduce an entire book. In the book, I show how the The Law of Nations has been disseminated and sections quoted all around the world, thanks to statistics gathered by Google. Bizarre is denial of such evidence as indicators.

  329. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 5, 2013 at 8:40 pm #

    Bob Gard: You won’t accept as evidence the greater distribution and editions of Vattel’s The Law of Nations over all the other jurists. You won’t accept the greater citation rate among many early politicians. I gave a few examples to one of your commentators. I can’t reproduce an entire book. In the book, I show how the The Law of Nations has been disseminated and sections quoted all around the world, thanks to statistics gathered by Google. Bizarre is denial of such evidence as indicators.

    Again relevance? There is nothing pointing to the founders looking to vattel on citizenship since they ignored many other things he said when writing the constitution. It doesn’t matter how many editions you have since you’re making no point.

  330. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:42 pm #

    Mr. Gard, the world is not the U.S. I believe you said in the U.S., if not then I apologize. But I don’t care about the rest of the world when it comes to the U.S. Constitution or our Founders. What counts is what the Founders put into the U.S. Constitution. And Vattel is at the bottom of the list.

  331. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 8:42 pm #

    Basic question for Mr. Gard:

    Was the Constitution an original composition, a new legal framework written from scratch …. that is, more or less without American precedent?

  332. avatar
    Rickey February 5, 2013 at 8:45 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Yeah, because as we all know, that’s what 13 year old boys are impassioned about, Constitutional politics.

    If the debate did happen, I wonder if Gard’s classmates have forgiven him for stealing several days of their education.

  333. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:47 pm #

    Mr Gard, as far as International Law, or Law that Nations accept among one another, then yes he had some influence but he wasn’t the end all be all on that either. Again Mr. Gard, please give us some background into your upbringing. Are you a natural born citizen yourself under your definition? Are you a natural born citizen under my definition meaning born on U.S. soil? I want to know more about Mr. Gard. Nothing personal, just generic info. Are you another Orly who comes to our country and tells us what our Constitution is supposed to mean according to you and not our history and laws?

    Are you all about 14th Amendment Citizens, and only white males with 2 citizen parents being able to be President? Are you progressive in that a Woman can actually be President?

  334. avatar
    Joey February 5, 2013 at 8:47 pm #

    Bob Gard: You won’t accept as evidence the greater distribution and editions of Vattel’s The Law of Nations over all the other jurists. You won’t accept the greater citation rate among many early politicians. I gave a few examples to one of your commentators. I can’t reproduce an entire book. In the book, I show how the The Law of Nations has been disseminated and sections quoted all around the world, thanks to statistics gathered by Google. Bizarre is denial of such evidence as indicators.

    Can you name any civil action in which a judge cited The Law Of Nations in rendering a decision on Barac Obama’s eligibility or ineligibility as a natural born citizen?

  335. avatar
    Bob Gard February 5, 2013 at 8:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: he

    I will try one last time to email an abridged invoice. Perhaps you can’t email the format it was sent to me in from Italy. I tried to extract just text:

    You don’t mind if I don’t give you the bank transfer numbers and other personal information, do you?
    Antiquariato Librario Bado e Mart s.a.s.
    di Bado R. e C.
    Sede legale:
    Via S. Francesco n. 152
    35121 Padova, Italia
    Sede operativa:
    Spett.le Mr. Bob Gard
    United States Padova 28/09/2010
    Fattura/Invoice proforma
    03 Vol. VATTEL, Emmeric de. Il diritto delle genti…
    Lione s.t. 1781-1783, [ma Venezia, Giovanni Gatti] euro 880
    Spese di spedizione
    Shipping costs euro 80 Totale fattura / Total invoice euro 960
    Pagamento con bonifico bancario/payment with bank transfer

  336. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

    Bob Gard: You won’t accept as evidence the greater distribution and editions of Vattel’s The Law of Nations over all the other jurists. You won’t accept the greater citation rate among many early politicians. I gave a few examples to one of your commentators. I can’t reproduce an entire book. In the book, I show how the The Law of Nations has been disseminated and sections quoted all around the world, thanks to statistics gathered by Google. Bizarre is denial of such evidence as indicators.

    So, for you, Blackstone was inconsequential?

  337. avatar
    US Citizen February 5, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

    Daniel: I can’t imagine there is a single peer review board in the discipline of astronomy that would listen to an amateur promote a claim that the world is flat.

    Well when I was in sixth grade, I argued for days that the world was flat.
    Then the 2nd time I was in sixth grade, I argued it was a mobius.
    The teacher told me my arguments were never ending.

  338. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:54 pm #

    US Citizen: Well when I was in sixth grade, I argued for days that the world was flat.
    Then the 2nd time I was in sixth grade, I argued it was a mobius.
    The teacher told me my arguments were never ending.

    Okay, that was great, and I agree with your teacher.

  339. avatar
    donna February 5, 2013 at 8:55 pm #

    Bob Gard:

    has orly or any other birther attorney/plaintiff contacted you about becoming one of their “experts”? after all, you spent $40k, 2 years of research, wrote a 1722-page book and are about to publish book II – are any of their other “experts” as/more qualified?

  340. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    Bob Gard: You won’t accept as evidence the greater distribution and editions of Vattel’s The Law of Nations over all the other jurists. You won’t accept the greater citation rate among many early politicians. I gave a few examples to one of your commentators. I can’t reproduce an entire book. In the book, I show how the The Law of Nations has been disseminated and sections quoted all around the world, thanks to statistics gathered by Google. Bizarre is denial of such evidence as indicators.

    You said, “Even if a court were presented with it, activist judges on the bench would likely judge by their agenda and not the facts.”

    Are there any judges that meet your approval?

    If so, what is your approval process?

  341. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 8:59 pm #

    Majority Will: You said, “Even if a court were presented with it, activist judges on the bench would likely judge by their agenda and not the facts.”

    Are there any judges that meet your approval?

    If so, what is your approval process?

    Only the ones that agree with Mr. Gard. So basically all judges are activist judges, except for the ones that actually would be activist judges that would agree with him.

  342. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 9:09 pm #

    JRC: Only the ones that agree with Mr. Gard.So basically all judges are activist judges, except for the ones that actually would be activist judges that would agree with him.

    That can’t be true. That sounds like delusion and paranoia.

  343. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 5, 2013 at 9:31 pm #

    Bob, here is your problem in a nutshell. You have created a parallel universe that you currently inhabit, where the definition of Natural Born Citizen is derived almost exclusively from the works of Vattel. However, your parallel universe is not the real universe. The judicial branch long ago coalesced around a definition of Natural Born Citizen that does not match your definition. They have consistently and persistently ruled against hundreds of attempts since 2007 to challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama to run for and hold the office of POTUS. In terms of defining “Natural Born Citizen”, you are the best part of 200 years too late to the party. The train left the station centuries ago.
    I am starting to wonder if you are a serious scholar, or merely a troll operating under a pseudonym to irritate us. Your arguments (such as they are) really are just a string of poorly-sourced, unsupported assertions.
    In terms of the acceptance of reality, you are stuck at Stage 1 – Denial. Your response to the numerous attempts to point out the weaknesses and inconsistencies of your arguments is to become shrill and insistent.
    In answer to the question that you have posed several times in varying forms – “why are you ridiculing me?”, the answer is fairly simple. Your arguments are ridiculous, therefore by definition they deserve only ridicule. You are behaving like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.
    If you wanted to achieve a positive result, you would be better advised to start campaigning for a change to the Constitution and Federal law to modify the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”. I would be more impressed if you tried that, instead of ranting and raving about your pile of voluminous cack of a book.

  344. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 9:33 pm #

    Another illustration of why nobody takes Bob seriously:

    Bob Gard: I will try one last time to email an abridged invoice. Perhaps you can’t email the format it was sent to me in from Italy. I tried to extract just text:

    You don’t mind if I don’t give you the bank transfer numbers and other personal information, do you?
    Antiquariato Librario Bado e Mart s.a.s.
    diBado R. e C.
    Sede legale:
    Via S. Francesco n. 152
    35121 Padova, Italia
    Sede operativa:
    Spett.le Mr. Bob Gard
    United StatesPadova 28/09/2010
    Fattura/Invoice proforma
    03 Vol. VATTEL, Emmeric de. Il diritto delle genti…Lione s.t. 1781-1783, [ma Venezia, Giovanni Gatti] euro880
    Spese di spedizione
    Shipping costs euro80 Totale fattura / Total invoice euro960
    Pagamento con bonifico bancario/payment with bank transfer

  345. avatar
    Majority Will February 5, 2013 at 9:49 pm #

    Bob,

    When was the first time you read about Donofrio’s ineligibility theory?

  346. avatar
    Keith February 5, 2013 at 9:50 pm #

    Reality Check:
    So we are supposed to believe Bob Gard is an ace researcher on the hidden meaning of the term natural born citizen but when he researched how to publish a 1700 page eBook his research led him to use MS Word .docx format vs. say something like ummmm, Portable Document Format? Sure…. right…..

    Mr. Gard, have you consulted Mr. Paul Guthrie from Indiana? I think he has some unique theories on the subject he could share with you.

    If Bob used .docx format, then he might have used MS Office Word, LibreOffice Write, or OpenOffice Write (possibly others). Each of those three has a ‘publish as PDF’ button.

    One button press and it is a portable format that anybody can read whether they have appropriate word processors or not. You could read it on a smart phone or a tablet. You could read it on a Kindle or a Kobo, You can read it on a Windows XP box, or an old Mac. But no; Bob wants to keep it weird, wants people to work for it.

    I’m just not that interested in someone with so much ego that he thinks he knows more than 200 years of Supreme Court justices, can read the secret real meanings behind their words, whose absolute proof beyond a doubt completely ignores the Constitutional amendments, supporting laws, and court decisions since 1840. and yet thinks so little of his intended audience that he hides it in a proprietary format.

    He’s not worth the keystrokes it took to write this comment, frankly.

  347. avatar
    Keith February 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    Majority Will: Mine actually looks like me. How weird is that?

    So the nuts on ATS are right? There really are green skin aliens walking amongst us?

  348. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 5, 2013 at 10:11 pm #

    C’mon, Keith, he’s too busy “researching” to worry about marketing and distribution.

    To pile on to the technical woes …. HE’S SELLING AN ‘eBOOK’ … ON DVD-ROM … ON AMAZON?!?

    The site that tries to shove a kindle down your throat every time you even think about swingin’ by?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Housewives writing lurid bodice-rippers while the rugrats are napping are more sophisticated … and more effective.

    Jesus, Gard, if for some reason you can’t puzzle out publishing for Kindle, Amazon will practically send someone to your house to do it for you. They are more than happy to sell anything.

  349. avatar
    Northland10 February 5, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

    Mr. Gard has been repeating the love of John Jay’s “strong check” letter, absent of context, of course. In the past, Mario and others have hinted at wanting an “advisory opinion” from the court. Oddly, I happened to fall upon the following which has a slightly familiar ring:

    We have considered the previous question stated in a letter written by your direction to us by the Secretary of State on the 18th of last month, [regarding] the lines of separation drawn by the Constitution between the three departments of the government. These being in certain respects checks upon each other, and our being judges of a court in the last resort, are considerations which afford strong arguments against the propriety of our extra-judicially deciding the questions alluded to, especially as the power given by the Constitution to the President, of calling on the heads of departments for opinions, seems to have been purposely as well as expressly united to the executive departments.

    John Jay to George Washington in regards to a request for an “advisory opinion” from Washington.

    8 Aug. 1793Correspondence 3:488–89
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s34.html

    Provide a strong check.. afford strong agruments… It sounds like Justice Jay had an affinity for “strong.” In this case, is argument (where he interpreted the Constitution) was that they cannot give an advisory opinion in response got George Washington’s request to “interpret the Constitution.” They must have a case or controversy.

    This could be a “strong statement” that founders were busy interpreting the Constitution and Jay likes the word Strong.

  350. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 10:21 pm #

    Bob Gard: You won’t accept as evidence the greater distribution and editions of Vattel’s The Law of Nations over all the other jurists. You won’t accept the greater citation rate among many early politicians.

    You are correct. I don’t accept fallacies of equivocation, shoulda/woulda/coulda/ and speculation arising from conjecture, as evidence of anything.

    No reasonable person would.

  351. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 10:24 pm #

    Bob Gard: I will try one last time to email an abridged invoice. Perhaps you can’t email the format it was sent to me in from Italy. I tried to extract just text:

    You don’t mind if I don’t give you the bank transfer numbers and other personal information, do you?
    Antiquariato Librario Bado e Mart s.a.s.
    diBado R. e C.
    Sede legale:
    Via S. Francesco n. 152
    35121 Padova, Italia
    Sede operativa:
    Spett.le Mr. Bob Gard
    United StatesPadova 28/09/2010
    Fattura/Invoice proforma
    03 Vol. VATTEL, Emmeric de. Il diritto delle genti…Lione s.t. 1781-1783, [ma Venezia, Giovanni Gatti] euro880
    Spese di spedizione
    Shipping costs euro80 Totale fattura / Total invoice euro960
    Pagamento con bonifico bancario/payment with bank transfer

    I’m sorry, is this supposed to be evidence of something?

  352. avatar
    Dave B. February 5, 2013 at 10:32 pm #

    Oh, but it is, Daniel, it is indeed.

    Daniel: I’m sorry, is this supposed to be evidence of something?

  353. avatar
    Reality Check February 5, 2013 at 10:34 pm #

    A fool and his money … ?

    Daniel: I’m sorry, is this supposed to be evidence of something?

  354. avatar
    Daniel February 5, 2013 at 10:35 pm #

    Dave B.:
    Oh, but it is, Daniel, it is indeed.

    Ok I’ll be more specific. Bob… Is this supposed to be evidence of something, not related to your state of mind?

  355. avatar
    Northland10 February 5, 2013 at 10:38 pm #

    Speaking of Jay’s “strong check” statement, I was just rereading the debates regarding the chief executive where Madison on 25 July talks about foreign influence. This discussion is related to the creation of the electoral college. It was argued by Madison and others that a single purpose, one time only, body would reduce the possibility that “Ministers of foreign powers would have and make use of, the opportunity to to mix their intrigues & influence with the Election.” Thus, instead of a standing body, they chose the electoral college.

    Could it be that Gard and others are thinking that statements about foreign interference refer to the candidates birth circumstance (including parentage) and not the method of election?

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_2-3s2.html

    p.s. I cannot find anything about Vattel on the above University of Chicago site.

  356. avatar
    JRC February 5, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

    Northland10:
    Speaking of Jay’s “strong check” statement, I was just rereading the debates regarding the chief executive where Madison on 25 July talks about foreign influence.This discussion is related to the creation of the electoral college.It was argued by Madison and others that a single purpose, one time only, body would reduce the possibility that “Ministers of foreign powers would have and make use of, the opportunity to to mix their intrigues & influence with the Election.” Thus, instead of a standing body, they chose the electoral college.

    Could it be that Gard and others are thinking that statements about foreign interference refer to the candidates birth circumstance (including parentage) and not the method of election?

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_2-3s2.html

    p.s.I cannot find anything about Vattel on the above University of Chicago site.

    You have to remember that anything that comes out of Chicago is part of the Conspiracy. So this means nothing to birthers…neither does anything out of Hawaii.

  357. avatar
    BillTheCat February 5, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

    FRAUD:
    There’s 287 comments in this thread that do not address the main issue of ‘fraud’

    That’s because your arguments have been long debunked, and frankly, we got bored with you. Bob is much more entertaining right now :)

    Don’t worry, we’ll allow the courts to continue destroying your theories and attempts to smear a lawfully elected president. Thanks for stopping by though!

  358. avatar
    BillTheCat February 5, 2013 at 10:52 pm #

    Reality Check:

    Mr. Gard, have you consulted Mr. Paul Guthrie from Indiana? I think he has some unique theories on the subject he could share with you.

    Paulie is a virulent misogynist, not sure Bob is a woman hater too, so that marriage might not work out.

  359. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 11:33 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It is a very dubious claim.

    It’s clinical insanity.

  360. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 11:40 pm #

    Bob Gard: You will never hear it unless you come to my abode

    John Wayne Gacy

  361. avatar
    MN-Skeptic February 5, 2013 at 11:41 pm #

    Gard claims he argued about the definition of natural born citizen with his 8th grade civics teacher. Shoot. Think about it. I’m sure the textbook gave the standard definition that anyone born in the U.S. could grow up to be president. So who would argue against that? I wonder if Gard grew up in an area with a large migrant population. It’s the same crap being put out there by the right wing that “anchor babies” shouldn’t be U.S. citizens. I vote for Gard fostering a long-time prejudice against immigrants. This book is his chance to validate his long held prejudices

  362. avatar
    misha marinsky February 5, 2013 at 11:50 pm #

    sfjeff: “the Secrets of Atlantis”

    OMG, I just bought it. You mean it’s fiction?!

  363. avatar
    C. Stanton February 5, 2013 at 11:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I read the 3 reviews at Amazon, and I recall that at least one of them said that said they read the book, but at 1722 pages, I have reservations as to the truth of the claim.

    It is my personal and most trusted friend who has read the entirety of Bob Gard’s book. As Bob’s editor I can also assure you that he has striven to maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity in this work. Anyone who desires a more compact synopsis of his book merely needs to visit his website, the-constitutionist.

    Most disappointing of all is the alacrity with which participants here hurl invective and smears in what could just as easily be polite and constructive debate. Those who stoop to such immature conduct really damage their own credibility, not Bob’s. This sort of ready resort to name-calling is the hallmark of bleeding-heart Liberals everywhere and demonstrates a clear deficit in terms of actual forensic ability.

    C. Stanton

  364. avatar
    Publius February 6, 2013 at 12:00 am #

    Bob Gard,

    Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that:

    1) Two citizen parents are required in order for one to be a natural born citizen?

    2) Two citizen parents are legally required for Presidential eligibility?

    3) The Founders and Framers meant or were referring to Vattel’s idea “indigenes” when they said “natural born citizen?”

    4) There is any legal distinction between “citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen?”

    5) There is any significant legal distinction between a “native-born citizen” born in the United States and a “natural born citizen,” born in the United States, or that being a native-born citizen of the United States does not necessarily make one a natural-born citizen of the United States?

    Finally, are you familiar with the 1856 candidacy of John Charles Fremont, the first Republican candidate for President? And can you provide any evidence whatsoever that any person ever objected to Fremont’s candidacy on any grounds that he was supposed to ineligible?

    Fremont ran his campaign for President very openly stating and proclaiming that he was the child of a non-naturalized citizen of France. His father never became a US citizen, never had the slightest intention of doing so, and was planning to return to France with his wife and children at the time of his death.

    This being the case, if ANYBODY in the year 1856 (which was no further historically from the drafting of the Constitution that we are from the end of World War II) — if ANYBODY in the entire country had felt that Fremont was Constitutionally ineligible, don’t you think we would have a record of that?

  365. avatar
    gorefan February 6, 2013 at 12:08 am #

    C. Stanton: As Bob’s editor I can also assure you that he has striven to maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity in this work.

    Thank you for the response, but I have to disagree with your statement about intellectual integrity. I feel that Bob has been intellectual dishonest in his comments here and I therefore must assume the same holds true for his book. He has stated

    Bob Gard: If native born was not in Volume I, not in Volume II, and not in Volume III, why would one deduce that native born is what the framers had in mind or that it was equivalent to natural born?

    He has refused to respond to comments asking him to explain the statements of Founders who explicitly said that the requirement to be President including being “native born”. His deliberate avoidance of these statements that contradict one of his main ideas, clearly shows he is not interested in a legitimate debate or intellectual integrity.

  366. avatar
    Daniel February 6, 2013 at 12:10 am #

    C. Stanton: As Bob’s editor I can also assure

    Your assurance and a dollar will buy a cup of very weak coffee. Your credentials are no better than Bob’s

    The fact is that Bob’s premise fails on the face of it, therefore his research, flowery and sweet to the ear as it may be, is spurious at best.

  367. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2013 at 12:12 am #

    From Bob’s Home Page on his website:
    “No matter how nice a guy Rubio is, he will be influenced by Latin America and Mexico. That’s the way the world turns and our forefathers knew it.”

    MN-Skeptic: I vote for Gard fostering a long-time prejudice against immigrants.

  368. avatar
    Publius February 6, 2013 at 12:14 am #

    7) Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that the Founding Fathers meant something completely different by “natural born citizen” than they meant by “natural born subject?”

    If so, please also explain why the two terms were used synonymously by the Massachusetts legislature during the early days of the Republic.

    8) You claim that “John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.” Please provide a statement from John Jay, or other compelling evidence, that demonstrates this point.

    9) Can you explain why the Founding Fathers and Framers would derive their idea of citizenship from a Swiss writer rather than from our own culture, heritage, and language, all of which we acquired from England? Can you provide a statement from any Founder or Framer that we chose to derive our ideas of citizenship from Vattel?

  369. avatar
    Daniel February 6, 2013 at 12:15 am #

    C. Stanton:
    This sort of ready resort to name-calling is the hallmark of bleeding-heart Liberals everywhere and demonstrates a clear deficit in terms of actual forensic ability.

    I am not a Liberal. I am a Conservative and a member of the Republican Party. I guess that’s just one more ridiculous assumption of yours that you’re completely wrong about.

    I find it interesting that you resort to name calling (“bleeding-heart Liberals”), in the very sentence where you drip and moan about name calling. If it were not for the fact that you appear to be serious, I’d think you were being overly ridiculous on purpose to punk us.

    You can hardly expect anyone to take you or Bob seriously, based on what you’ve delivered.

    If you don’t wish to be ridiculed, stop being ridiculous.

  370. avatar
    misha marinsky February 6, 2013 at 12:17 am #

    C. Stanton: This sort of ready resort to name-calling is the hallmark of bleeding-heart Liberals everywhere and demonstrates a clear deficit in terms of actual forensic ability.

    So there.

  371. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 12:20 am #

    C. Stanton: As Bob’s editor

    He had an editor?!?!?

    Mr. Gard, you may want to consider the hired help.

    Publius: Finally, are you familiar with the 1856 candidacy of John Charles Fremont,

    Oh, but Publius, the tome du jour terminates abruptly at 1840. I am sure Mr. Gard is setting everyone straight on Frémont—and a great many other things!—in Birflaw II: The Other Parent.

    MN-Skeptic: This book is his latest attempt to validate his long held prejudices

    Suggested correction.

  372. avatar
    Publius February 6, 2013 at 12:20 am #

    C. Stanton,

    I am curious as to your role as editor of Bob’s ebook, which appears to be a self-published effort (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that).

    Are you a professional editor? If so, why was Bob’s ebook not published more professionally? What is your editorial experience? What is your relationship to Bob?

  373. avatar
    justlw February 6, 2013 at 12:24 am #

    C. Stanton: This sort of ready resort to name-calling is the hallmark of bleeding-heart Liberals everywhere

    *drops mike*

  374. avatar
    MN-Skeptic February 6, 2013 at 12:26 am #

    C. Stanton:
    As Bob’s editor I…
    C. Stanton

    Most editors worth anything would have advised the author to put the book out in pdf and/or Kindle format. I’m not impressed by you.

  375. avatar
    misha marinsky February 6, 2013 at 12:27 am #

    C. Stanton: Most disappointing of all is the alacrity with which participants here hurl invective and smears in what could just as easily be polite and constructive debate.

    Reasoning with cranks has never worked. Humoring them, maybe.

    C. Stanton: As Bob’s editor I can also assure you that he has striven to maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity in this work.

    Bob’s CV, please. Also, where and when did he receive his JD?

  376. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 12:27 am #

    The birther blogs are much worse, for example, this at ObamaReleaseYourRecords:

    So but the good news is Doc Conspiracy looks pasty, flatulent, probably a congestive heart failure candidate, who will get, if he’s lucky, a few years of poorly-dosed digoxin and diuretics as he weakens and then he’ll get a send-home pill (or hint hint as leftwing PBS keeps pushing on its endless runs of “how to suicide” programs, use some party-balloon helium, take a big whiff, but tie your hands so you don’t autonomically jerk your mask away as you pass out and die and wind up in a coma–but Embalmacare will take care of that situation too by dehydration, it’s just ugly).


    C. Stanton: This sort of ready resort to name-calling is the hallmark of bleeding-heart Liberals everywhere and demonstrates a clear deficit in terms of actual forensic ability.

  377. avatar
    AlCum February 6, 2013 at 12:28 am #

    C. Stanton:
    Dr. Conspiracy: I read the 3 reviews at Amazon, and I recall that at least one of them said that said they read the book, but at 1722 pages, I have reservations as to the truth of the claim.

    It is my personal and most trusted friend who has read the entirety of Bob Gard’s book. As Bob’s editor I can also assure you that he has striven to maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity in this work. Anyone who desires a more compact synopsis of his book merely needs to visit his website, the-constitutionist.

    Most disappointing of all is the alacrity with which participants here hurl invective and smears in what could just as easily be polite and constructive debate. Those who stoop to such immature conduct really damage their own credibility, not Bob’s. This sort of ready resort to name-calling is the hallmark of bleeding-heart Liberals everywhere and demonstrates a clear deficit in terms of actual forensic ability.

    C. Stanton

    How do you square your comments with the fact that Mr. Gard’s entire argument has been proven false?

  378. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 12:30 am #

    What are your credentials as an editor? People say lots of things.


    C. Stanton: As Bob’s editor I can also assure you that he has striven to maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity in this work.

  379. avatar
    misha marinsky February 6, 2013 at 12:30 am #

    Publius: What is your relationship to Bob?

    They’re an item.

  380. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 12:34 am #

    I suspect Stanton means “proofreader” when he claims to be an editor. From the bloat and presentation alone, it is plain to see there was no editor.

    I’m also willing to wager there’s no index …. in a pile that desperately needs one.

    Hey, Stanton, did you submit this ‘project’ to the Library of Congress? If so, what was their response? If not, why not? Didn’t need the refusal? Or didn’t know how?

  381. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2013 at 12:35 am #

    aesthetocyst: Mr. Gard, you may want to consider the hired help.

    That’s not just his editor, that’s his web designer. Having visited Bob’s website, I can definitely say your advice is well-founded.

  382. avatar
    Publius February 6, 2013 at 12:43 am #

    Oh, one more question for an even 10:

    10) A lot of people who read this site would be very familiar with the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen.

    What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?

  383. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 12:43 am #

    Dave B.: That’s not just his editor, that’s his web designer.

    Oh, so Misha is right, they are an item! Heh.

    At least he is ahead of Taitz in knowing when not to DIY. But, as in his product, his staffing is all quantity.

  384. avatar
    misha marinsky February 6, 2013 at 12:44 am #

    C. Stanton: This sort of ready resort to name-calling is the hallmark of bleeding-heart Liberals

    My irony meter sent shrapnel across the room.

  385. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 12:46 am #

    Publius: What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t?

    A few days later, Gard’s opus is found to be little more than birfer blogs repackaged …. a l a Strunk-style omnibus filing!

    (just a guess)

  386. avatar
    Publius February 6, 2013 at 12:50 am #

    I doubt they’re an item. Word on the web is that Bob has a wife, and I don’t think she would put up with that.

  387. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2013 at 12:51 am #

    MN-Skeptic: Gard claims he argued about the definition of natural born citizen with his 8th grade civics teacher.

    And what an argument he made. He describes it over at his website (and good luck if you try to navigate your way around that maze– way to go, C. Stanton, Ed.):

    http://the-constitutionist.com/Page_5.html#Significant_Chapter_Excerpts:

    It’s the excerpt from Chapter 1. It’s definitely another piece of the puzzle. He does a lot of declaring and deciding.

  388. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 12:52 am #

    First, citations, distribution and edutions of Vattel “around the world” are irrelevant to his influence in America, which is what you claimed.

    As for citations in early America, Blackstone is multiples more than Vattel.

    Professor Lawrence M. Friedman’s highly influential work A HISTORY OF AMERICAN LAW cites Blackstone 15 times, but there is not a single reference to Vattel. In fact, Vattel’s LAW OF NATIONS doesn’t even merit inclusion in Friedman’s bibliography, and his bibliography is 19 pages long (Blackstone’s COMMENTARIES is included).

    Kettner’s History of American Citizenship 1608-1870 mentions Vattel only once as part of a list of authors, Blackstone 14.
    Donald Lutz figured out who were the most commonly cited sources by the Founders.

    1.St. Paul
    2. Montesquieu
    3. Sir William Blackstone
    4. John Locke

    10. Samuel Pufendorf
    11. Sir Edward Coke

    15. Hugo Grotius

    29 Vattel


    Bob Gard: You won’t accept as evidence the greater distribution and editions of Vattel’s The Law of Nations over all the other jurists. You won’t accept the greater citation rate among many early politicians. I gave a few examples to one of your commentators. I can’t reproduce an entire book. In the book, I show how the The Law of Nations has been disseminated and sections quoted all around the world, thanks to statistics gathered by Google. Bizarre is denial of such evidence as indicators.

  389. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 12:57 am #

    I’m gonna mostly drop out of the discussion until I get my copy of the “book.”

  390. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 6, 2013 at 1:03 am #

    Northland10: Could it be that Gard and others are thinking that statements about foreign interference refer to the candidates birth circumstance (including parentage) and not the method of election?

    Yes, Birthers make that tortured interpretation of “foreign” and “foreigner” in complete disregard for the sense in which Jay used the term during his public career and retirement.

    Bob Gard could not have used such a readily accessible source as Google Books, for example to research Jays published writings, without encountering numerous instances of Jay using the terms, and always obviously referring to persons born in foreign countries.

    And the Birther meme that Jay had some special concern about foreign influence aimed only at the Presidency/Vice-presidency is debunked by Jay himself years later in a letter he wrote to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, in which he expressed the same mistrust of foreigners (as people born outside the country, not the children of such people,) when he argued for the same prohibition on foreigners being giving any office in the government as a matter to be incorporated into the soon to be revised naturalization laws, laws which would apply only to those born” across the sea”.

    Page 407 The Life of John Jay by William Jay

    “TO TIMOTHY PICKERING.*
    “13th May, 1798. “DEAR SIR,
    “It is said that the Naturalization Act is to be revised and amended. Permit me to suggest an idea which I have for many years deemed important.
    “We doubtless may grant to a foreigner just such a portion of our rights and privileges as we may think proper. In my opinion it would be wise to declare explicitly, that the right and privilege of being elected or appointed to, or of holding and exercising any office or place of trust or power under the United States, or under any of them, shall not hereafter be granted to any foreigner; but that the president of the United States, with the consent of the Senate, be nevertheless at liberty to appoint a foreigner to a military office.
    “I am, dear sir,
    “Your most obedient servant,
    “JOHN JAY.”

    Ironically, this appeal represented no change from the intent Jay note to Washington conveyed, because Birthers incorrectly attribute Jay’s use in that note of the term ‘administration’ to only the executive branch, whereas then contemporary use of that term acrually included all offices of federal government, including Senators, Representatives, and the Judiciary.

    But then, your research probalby has already confirmed these facts, right?

  391. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 1:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Donald Lutz figured out who were the most commonly cited sources by the Founders.

    29 Vattel

    Aww, Doc, the context is the best part …. right behind Macchiavelli, but just a bit above Voltaire … LOL!

    de Vattel was extremely influential in matters of international law. Those addicted to his now famous phrase insist on swallowing a whole ocean of bath water to get that stolen baby. Fuhgawdssake, the title is translated, The Law of Nations, not Laws of the Nation. And it was written for a specific audience: the plurality of European principalities and powers.

    When it comes to matters domestic, “… away with your Vattel!”

  392. avatar
    Publius February 6, 2013 at 1:09 am #

    Dave B.: And what an argument he made.He describes it over at his website (and good luck if you try to navigate your way around that maze– way to go, C. Stanton, Ed.):

    Oh, gosh. This is awful. It’s not that it’s indecipherable. It’s that it’s just plain awful. It is logical BS, and no doubt a sad indicator of the quality of the rest of his book.

    I asked my teacher to sit down with a piece of paper and pencil and list all the ways a person could be a citizen, while applying the basic mathematical principles of n = n, n+1 = n+1, but n n+1, and attacking the list from the viewpoint of logic. I vehemently declared that simple logic dictated that this was the way it had to be from the precise English in which the eligibility clause was written. He laughed and told me to show him and the rest of the class on the blackboard. I admit that I probably wrote more concise and less lengthy phrases with my chalk, but I am sure that I adequately covered the information following directly and later in the table presented on the next page.

    Using the aforementioned axioms of mathematics and replacing the letter n and the number one with word descriptions, I declared that the following formulas were inescapable:

    n = the number of categories or forms of citizenship required to run for Representative and Senator that equals itself, and

    1 = the one category or form of citizenship required to run for President that equals itself, when added to the number of categories or forms of citizenship required to run for Representative and Senator, equals

    n + 1 = the number of categories to run for Representative and Senator plus the category to run for President, together equaling itself, which is the total number of categories for Representative, Senator, and President, but where

    n n + 1 = the number of categories to run for Representative and Senator does not equal those categories plus the category to run for President.

    So he basically argues that because being elected President has a special requirement, that means there is a category of citizenship for being elected President, beyond those categories for election as Representative or Senator.

    He ignores what ought to be obvious even to an 8th-grader: That if a person is Constitutionally eligible to run for President, that person is also eligible to run for Representative or Senator.

    I hope Bob was simply illustrating how little he actually knew about logic in the 8th grade. Otherwise, his book has some very clear signs in the very first chapter of having been written by someone who was not at all qualified to write such a work.

  393. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 1:13 am #

    Benji Franklin: Birthers incorrectly attribute Jay’s use in that note of the term ‘administration’ to only the executive branch, whereas then contemporary use of that term acrually included all offices of federal government, including Senators, Representatives, and the Judiciary.

    Wow, another failure to appreciate that America was in transition from the British monarchical tradition! How does that keep happening? *cough*

  394. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2013 at 1:49 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I at a loss to see the smallest implication in the evidence you presented in this comment of the conclusion you arrived at.

    From “A Treatise on Admiralty and Prize: Together with Some Suggestions for the Guide and Government of United States Naval Commanders in Maritime Wars”, by David Roberts, 1869 (page 452):
    “In 1794, Sept. 10, when John Jay was the American plenipotentiary at London, as an act of comity, a succinct summary of the course of proceeding in prize cases was prepared for him by Sir William Scott (the recipient of Jay’s letter to which Bob refers) and Sir John Nicholl, the former then presiding in the High Court of Admiralty, the latter subsequently succeeding Sir Christopher Robinson in the same high judicial position.”
    http://books.google.com/books?id=NLABAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=true
    I’m just throwing that little snippet in to point out that Sir William Scott (who at the time was King’s Advocate and had been in Admiralty practice since 1780, and was in the process of becoming the foremost authority on Admiralty law) and John Jay had a lot of business going on between them, dealing with (as Bob says) “America’s problem with British ship seizures and the impressments of American seamen”. I would imagine their correspondence was a great deal more substantial than an exchange of notes over dinner invitations, which is the tiny, insignificant fragment from which Bob has constructed not merely a bone, or a skeleton, but a wholly fleshed-out body of a theory about how “indigenes” came to be replaced with “natural born citizens” in the 1797 edition of “The Law of Nations”.
    The truly odd thing is that Bob himself alluded to that much more substantial relationship.

  395. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2013 at 1:56 am #

    Publius: Oh, gosh. This is awful. It’s not that it’s indecipherable. It’s that it’s just plain awful. It is logical BS, and no doubt a sad indicator of the quality of the rest of his book.

    I’d tried to keep the carnage offstage. Did you find the eight different classes of birthers defined in the Reviewer’s Guide? I thought the definition given for “Anti-birther” was unusually elegant for the team of Gard and Stanton.

  396. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 2:06 am #

    Dave B.: I thought the definition given for “Anti-birther” was unusually elegant for the team of Gard and Stanton.

    True, but the use of ‘or’ as the conjuncion was a bit odd.

  397. avatar
    C. Stanton February 6, 2013 at 2:17 am #

    gorefan: Thank you for the response, but I have to disagree with your statement about intellectual integrity. I feel that Bob has been intellectual dishonest in his comments here and I therefore must assume the same holds true for his book.

    Without wishing to speak for Bob—while also keeping in mind that I have not been able to read through this entire thread—would you please cite exactly where you consider Bob to be intellectually dishonest.

    Your considerate response is one which I am confident that Bob would wish to address.

    He has refused to respond to comments asking him to explain the statements of Founders who explicitly said that the requirement to be President including being “native born”.

    Please allow for time zone differences. I’m sure that Bob will seek to provide you with a reasonable response. Again, thank you for maintaining a solid degree of decorum. It’s very refreshing.

    Note to all: I have sat in Bob Gard’s home and personally reviewed his library as used in this project. One major reason for the book’s exceptional length is his insistence on providing images of all crucial passages that he cites. It can only be hoped that this might be seen as a sincere concern about factuality upon his part.

  398. avatar
    C. Stanton February 6, 2013 at 2:23 am #

    Daniel: The fact is that Bob’s premise fails on the face of it, therefore his research, flowery and sweet to the ear as it may be, is spurious at best.

    Please point to the particular comment in which you (or other contributors), have conclusively proven this alleged failure of premise and its spurious nature.

    Again, I must ask that you please keep in mind the fact that I’ve yet to read through this entire thread.

  399. avatar
    C. Stanton February 6, 2013 at 2:34 am #

    Daniel: I find it interesting that you resort to name calling (“bleeding-heart Liberals”), in the very sentence where you drip and moan about name calling.

    While I cannot claim to have visited every last Conservative website on the Internet (far from it), there still remains a strong perception—from both online and real life interactions—that Liberals more readily resort to name-calling. My own experience is that Conservative websites often tend to constructively engage Liberal participants instead of immediately tarring them with whatever nom du jour. Perhaps your own experience dictates otherwise.

    Incidentally, my use of the term “bleeding-heart” was an earnest attempt to distinguish between modern Liberals and the more honorable Classical Liberals.

  400. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 2:47 am #

    C. Stanton: My own experience is that Conservative websites often tend to constructively engage Liberal participants instead of immediately tarring them with whatever nom du jour.

    Please recommend some “Conservative” websites where this dynamic may be witnessed. Seriously.

    C. Stanton: my use of the term “bleeding-heart” was an earnest attempt to distinguish between modern Liberals and the more honorable Classical Liberals.

    The hits just keep on a’rollin’. What about the Post-Moderns? Modernity begin and ended long ago.

  401. avatar
    Lupin February 6, 2013 at 3:00 am #

    Bob Gard: Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

    Maybe he was, maybe he was not, I’m not competent to judge.

    I am however competent to tell you that there is nothing in Vattel that would prevent Mr Obama from being deemed a native or indigene.

    However that translates in modern US terms is up to you to decide. But if you equate this with your term “natural-born citizen”, then for sure Mr Obama is (according to Vattel, at least) such a thing.

  402. avatar
    JRC February 6, 2013 at 3:04 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’m gonna mostly drop out of the discussion until I get my copy of the “book.”

    Seriously I feel sorry for you, but thank you at the same time.

  403. avatar
    C. Stanton February 6, 2013 at 3:05 am #

    Publius: Are you a professional editor?

    Thank you for your polite inquiry. The answer is, absolutely not. I am a rank amateur at best but felt, as Bob did, that his work could benefit from both proofreading and some additional editing.

    If so, why was Bob’s ebook not published more professionally?

    While Bob is best qualified to answer that question I would venture that, after having spent so many thousands of dollars on the source library, hiring a professional editor wasn’t a particularly attractive (or, perhaps, even a viable) option. The chosen format and its attendant indelicacies were all cut in stone by the time of my eleventh hour arrival. My task was one of salvaging his earnest effort to the best of my abilities.

    What is your editorial experience?

    Limited at best but, at the same time, I also have had a polyglot Oxford PhD praise my command of English while we were in the course of publishing several technical papers related to thin film vacuum metallurgy. Needless to say (then why say it?), he wasn’t the only one who has demonstrated a measure of respect for my abilities. Large companies with very short names have also benefited from my skills.

    What is your relationship to Bob?

    We are the best of friends after becoming acquainted in a professional capacity unrelated to this current project. Bob has proven to be one of the most trustworthy and uncompromising individuals that I have met in my entire life. Even so far as to successfully challenge some of my own most firmly held positions. Not an easy thing, please trust me on that. I hope that this has answered your questions.

  404. avatar
    Lupin February 6, 2013 at 3:08 am #

    Bob Gard: I have no credentials but I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.

    I admit I am confused by all your ramblings.

    Is your contention that according to Vattel, Obama would not be deemed a “natural-born citizen”?

    If so, you are unarguably and totally wrong.

    According to Vattel, Obama would indeed be a “nbc” (assuming you equate this term with Vattel’s indigene) because of his family on his mother’s side.

    End of story.

  405. avatar
    Lupin February 6, 2013 at 3:11 am #

    Bob Gard: I have no credentials but I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.

    I admit I am confused by all your ramblings.

    Ifs your contention that according to Vattel, Obama would not be deemed a “natural-born citizen”?

    If so, you are unarguably and totally wrong.

    According to Vattel, Obama would indeed be a “nbc” (assuming you equate this term with Vattel’s indigene) because of his family on his mother’s side.

    C. Stanton: Please point to the particular comment in which you (or other contributors), have conclusively proven this alleged failure of premise and its spurious nature.

    I think my own comments achieve that (modest) goal.

  406. avatar
    C. Stanton February 6, 2013 at 3:15 am #

    misha marinsky: My irony meter sent shrapnel across the room.

    Permit me to offer you a gently used—driven to church only on Sundays while wearing tennis shoes—Frink-O-Matic™ sarcasm detector.

  407. avatar
    Lupin February 6, 2013 at 3:18 am #

    C. Stanton: While Bob is best qualified to answer that question I would venture that, after having spent so many thousands of dollars on the source library, hiring a professional editor wasn’t a particularly attractive (or, perhaps, even a viable) option.

    I feel sorry for Mr Gard.

    If he had hired a single French lawyer — not just myself but anyone really — he or she could have squashed his obvious misinterpretation of Vattel in a few paragraphs and saved Mr. Gard a bundle of cash.

    Frankly, I don’t understand the birthers: they use a French legal text and no one (that I know of) has bothered hiring a French legal expert to find out what it really means!

    If I were to publish some revolutionary legal treatise in France on, say, the writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes, wouldn’t expect me to consult some American sources? I would be a fool not to do so!

    Why on Earth should anyone take the writings of Mario Apuzzo or Bob Gard seriously – at least as far as Vattel is concerned — when they have not bothered consulting any French experts?

    I appreciate your desire to help your friend, but he really is totally wrong in this matter.

  408. avatar
    C. Stanton February 6, 2013 at 3:37 am #

    At this point, before continuing any further, I’d like to thank Dr. Conspiracy for his willingness to host this tidy little donnybrook.

    If I may suggest, while waiting for your copy of the eBook to arrive, please drop by The Constitutionist for a useful introduction to all of the most salient arguments that you will encounter in the eBook itself.

    Again, thank you for possessing the rare courage to actively examine this political mare’s nest. Few do and our nation is the poorer for it.

  409. avatar
    C. Stanton February 6, 2013 at 3:52 am #

    Dave B.: That’s not just his editor, that’s his web designer. Having visited Bob’s website, I can definitely say your advice is well-founded.

    Permit me to inquire; how many websites have you designed and constructed? Have you ever been obliged to use GoDaddy’s archaic Website Builder tool set?

    Feel free to direct me to whatever online sites that you’ve constructed in the past. Bob’s was the very first that I have ever built and I remain proud of the effort, however crude it might be.

    I would also invite you to walk a mile in my shoes first. That way, you’ll be a mile away from me and I will finally be able to enjoy some fresh air.

  410. avatar
    Lani February 6, 2013 at 4:14 am #

    C. Stanton:
    Again, I must ask that you please keep in mind the fact that I’ve yet to read through this entire thread.

    Well, that’s rather lazy. How can you even comment if you haven’t read the foregoing? You are starting from the position of admitted ignorance.

    Here’s the Cliff Notes: Already settled law. You lose. Thanks for playing!

  411. avatar
    C. Stanton February 6, 2013 at 4:18 am #

    Publius: Oh, one more question for an even 10:

    10) A lot of people who read this site would be very familiar with the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen.

    Then I certainly hope that you will have taken time to read through the exchanges between Stephen Tonchen and Bob Gard at The Constitutionist. However lengthy his replies have been, Bob has made a sincere effort to address the challenges made by Stephen. Even Tonchen himself has had this to say about Bob’s work in the final paragraph of his Amazon.com review:

    Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his analysis and conclusions, Gard’s document is a goldmine of information for history buffs and those who are seriously investigating President Obama’s “natural born citizen” status. Its “raw” information alone makes this document well worth its price.

    What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?

    These are questions that I must direct to Bob Gard.

  412. avatar
    PatriotUSA February 6, 2013 at 4:22 am #

    I am one of those who have read Mr. Gard’s book, ALL OF IT. Yes, it is a massive work at over 1700 pages but I have read it and yes, it took some time to read it. You people who tread here are quick to call names and immediately drop yourselves to being to bottom feeders of the worst sort. I will leave the name calling at that.

    So you doubt I read the entire book well none of you here have, have you.? Yet you claim to be so knowledgeable and come off as experts. I make neither of those claims but I am a student of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers. Islam and sharia law. BTW, I have read three different version of the qur’an yet I am not an expert on Islam I have no interest in wasting my time here other than this comment in support of Bob Gard’s book. My expertise is in U.S. Military history yet I choose not to toss this about nor brag about it like some of you arm chair critics. The research is exceptional but then you folks would have to make the choice to commit the time to READ the book to really see how in depth, accurate and true it is.

    Yes, it is a game changer and had this book been released earlier could it have changed the election outcome? Doubtful but it can change what may transpire down the road for our kids, my kids and your kids? I cringe to think that some of you geniuses have spawned children.

    How nasty and foolish to attack the format and not everyone is a computer ‘experten’ and Mr. Gard is aware of this poor choice and he admitted this. I had no problems opening the book, none nor did take a long time. You lump us in with the ‘birthers’ and how sad and wrong you are, Lupin, read the book and then tell us how wrong we are.

    Thank you to the good Dr. for hosting this and allowing me to comment.

  413. avatar
    Lani February 6, 2013 at 5:16 am #

    PatriotUSA:
    I am one of those who have read Mr. Gard’s book, ALL OF IT. Yes, it is a massive work at over 1700 pages but I have read it and yes, it took some time to read it.

    That’s so sad. I’m sorry you had such a traumatic experience. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has settled the issue, so you needn’t worry any more.

  414. avatar
    Majority Will February 6, 2013 at 6:27 am #

    Terms like bleeding heart liberals and bottom feeders is also name calling but just not very clever. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it and at least be honest about it.

    And to the bigots who assume everyone posting here is a liberal or a supporter of the President, you’re wrong. You might want to look up cognitive dissonance.

  415. avatar
    Majority Will February 6, 2013 at 6:35 am #

    C. Stanton:
    Dave B.: That’s not just his editor, that’s his web designer. Having visited Bob’s website, I can definitely say your advice is well-founded.

    Permit me to inquire; how many websites have you designed and constructed? Have you ever been obliged to use GoDaddy’s archaic Website Builder tool set?

    Feel free to direct me to whatever online sites that you’ve constructed in the past. Bob’s was the very first that I have ever built and I remain proud of the effort, however crude it might be.

    I would also invite you to walk a mile in my shoes first. That way, you’ll be a mile away from me and I will finally be able to enjoy some fresh air.

    Why are you whining and what size shoes? Are they flats or pumps?

  416. avatar
    Northland10 February 6, 2013 at 7:28 am #

    C. Stanton: Without wishing to speak for Bob—while also keeping in mind that I have not been able to read through this entire thread—would you please cite exactly where you consider Bob to be intellectually dishonest.

    Here is a brief summary. Remember, many here were responding to his comments made here not any book or website that we had not the time no the inclination to review. We were commenting only on the present comments.

    1. He “surmises” and admits to supposition. To come to his point, he is filling in the blanks in his research with his own supposition (read, opinion). Some of the blanks do exist, even from good research but you cannot just fill-in the holes with your own opinion just to get the answer you want.

    2. “Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.” He never backed up this claim, or responded when others showed differently.

    3. “Vattel was not a monarchist.” Has he even read the book?

    4. “Vattel defined citizenship.” No, Vattel opined on citizenship in his current local.

    5. If Vattel was the most influential, what about his “definition” of gun control, state religion, the monarchy (fyi. Princes are a form of monarchy).

    6. He stated that Natural-born subject was a monarchical term and others would be Jus Sanguinis. How does that explain the monarchies of continental Europe who were Jus Sanguinis.

    7. He does not mention where the founders believed we should invade Quebec and carry off their women.

    8. He is adding supposition on what John Jay meant without actually having any evidence.

    All of these above contain little to know citation for the claim. When others asked, or provided their own refutation with citations, there was no response. Making a claim without citation and without explanation is intellectually dishonest.

  417. avatar
    aarrgghh February 6, 2013 at 7:30 am #

    isaac asimov: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

    amateur constitutional scholars, amateur lawyers, amateur forensic scientists and even amateur editors and web designers insist that their overnight expertise trumps decades, even centuries, of earnestly-debated, empirically-tested and well-settled questions of fact, science and law. instead of discovering fatal flaws in entire fields of study, they zealously expose only their own capacity for self-delusion.

  418. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 6, 2013 at 8:03 am #

    Daniel: 40000

    Daniel: Is there a single person here who believes he spent $40000 on multiple original translations of de Vattel’s work into multiple languages?

    I sure don’t.

    Though even a pristine version of a Soviet publication from 1960 would never cost 1,700 dollars (has the guy ever been to Moscow – he obviously does not know the real prices), he seems to be claiming he bought antiquarian versions.

    Why, in heaven’s sake? Normally, people who write treatises referencing other works, just buy or rent any readable copy and trust their readers to believe them (after all, readers can do the same thing if they doubt a reference).

    The only reason I can see for buying at such prices is that you want to show off a lot of neat-looking photo copies of the “relevant” passages. Yes, that sure smells birfer.

  419. avatar
    AlCum February 6, 2013 at 8:17 am #

    C. Stanton:
    Daniel: I find it interesting that you resort to name calling (“bleeding-heart Liberals”), in the very sentence where you drip and moan about name calling.

    While I cannot claim to have visited every last Conservative website on the Internet (far from it), there still remains a strong perception—from both online and real life interactions—that Liberals more readily resort to name-calling. My own experience is that Conservative websites often tend to constructively engage Liberal participants instead of immediately tarring them with whatever nom du jour. Perhaps your own experience dictates otherwise.

    It does. You must not read or watch much conservative material. It is replete with invective, hatred and irrationality,

  420. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 8:18 am #

    I personally do not consider Bob “intellectually dishonest” in his participation here (and I haven’t read the book). I may change that opinion at some point, but I am not anticipating it. What I have found so far is that Bob is reading his sources and evaluating his evidence using presuppositions that he confuses with facts.

    There is a good reason why the Wikipedia has a rule: “no original research.” It is because lone researchers easily convince themselves of things, or to butcher a quote: “it takes a village to have a consensus.”

    C. Stanton: Without wishing to speak for Bob—while also keeping in mind that I have not been able to read through this entire thread—would you please cite exactly where you consider Bob to be intellectually dishonest.

  421. avatar
    AlCum February 6, 2013 at 8:20 am #

    We are the best of friends after becoming acquainted in a professional capacity unrelated to this current project. Bob has proven to be one of the most trustworthy and uncompromising individuals that I have met in my entire life. Even so far as to successfully challenge some of my own most firmly held positions. Not an easy thing, please trust me on that. I hope that this has answered your questions.

    Uncompromising is a euphemism for blind to his obvious errors. That indeed answers the question.

  422. avatar
    AlCum February 6, 2013 at 8:23 am #

    I have no credentials but I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.

    You only think you do. This is the root of all your errors… the inability to recognize tht you in fact are not “unique” in any ability to find “the truth” over the rest of the population. There is nothing special about you except your ability to fool yourself into believing that you and you alone have been able to uncover the super secret hidden “truth” that is universally rejected by the actual experts.

  423. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 6, 2013 at 8:27 am #

    C. Stanton: Permit me to inquire; how many websites have you designed and constructed? Have you ever been obliged to use GoDaddy’s archaic Website Builder tool set?

    No serious web designer uses the web host’s tools. Most can design sites outside of the host environment and then just FTP in the files required for the site.

  424. avatar
    AlCum February 6, 2013 at 8:28 am #

    What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?

    Yes. The claim that one must have parents who already are citizens of the US to be a natural born citizen is plainly incorrect on its face. It is fabricated with no foundation in history, in fact it is contradicted by tradition, law and Supreme Court decision.

  425. avatar
    AlCum February 6, 2013 at 8:30 am #

    PatriotUSA:

    Thank you to the good Dr. for hosting this and allowing me to comment.

    It is a courtesy that right-leaning sites typically deny to those who disagree,

  426. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 6, 2013 at 8:39 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Bob is reading his sources and evaluating his evidence using presuppositions that he confuses with facts.

    Bob Garbage in, Bob Garbage out.

  427. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 6, 2013 at 9:17 am #

    Dave B.: That’s not just his editor, that’s his web designer. Having visited Bob’s website, I can definitely say your advice is well-founded.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if it was his dentist, real estate agent and lawyer as well.

  428. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 6, 2013 at 9:23 am #

    Once I get the book, I’d like to propose a debate with Mr. Gard here, just between him and me. If he agrees, I have to figure out some way for just the two of us to be able to comment on this particular thread, so as to keep the discussion linear.

    If someone else would like to contribute to either side, they might do it by email or in the open thread.

    Looking for a plug-in.

  429. avatar
    James M February 6, 2013 at 9:45 am #

    PatriotUSA:
    I am one of those who have read Mr. Gard’s book, ALL OF IT. Yes, it is a massive work at over 1700 pages but I have read it and yes, it took some time to read it.

    I hear you and can relate.

    I read all 1022 pages of Public Law 111-148 (“Obamacare”) and studied some of the prior legislation that is cited therein. Whenever an opponent of health care reform chimes in to claim some specific effect of this law, I invite them to discuss the law in terms of what is written in the act, or if they want to go further, any Federal Register item or CFR that follows from the authority of this law.

    I never really get any engagement. I am confronted with claims about the document that are simply false (“it’s 2800 pages!” or “nobody read it, not even the lawmakers who passed it!). These discussions usually end with some repeated claim about effects of the law (“It raised the costs for my business so much I had to fire all the liberals who worked for me!”)

    My favorite thing is when they quote Rep. Pelosi (“But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”) I have yet to be confronted with this quote by anyone who understands the relationship and the distinctions between legislative acts and the federal rulemaking process, or who understands the role of the Federal Register or the CFR, e.g., that many laws tend to have rules developed under the authority of the laws, but that those rules are never known in advance.

    I’ve tried to engage critics on the text and merits of the law they think they are criticizing, sometimes being told that there’s no possible way I could have read this law either because it is too long to be possible to read, or because it has been kept secret and has been read by no one. More often than not, I am directed instead to popular commentary on the law, cut-and-pasted lists of poorly justified claims about the effects of “Obamacare.”

    I have not once been engaged by a critic of the law who has been willing to discuss the law as it is written, or to discuss actual verifiable effects of the law the rules it produces.

    I won’t be reading Mr. Gard’s book, but I can certainly relate to the frustration one would feel if one did read the book and was being confronted about its contents by people who did not. If Mr. Gard explores more about the President than just his controversies, it could be interesting. Unfavorable biographies can be the most enlightening.

  430. avatar
    Scientist February 6, 2013 at 9:53 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I personally do not consider Bob “intellectually dishonest” in his participation here

    I would be interested to know what your standard is for “intellectually dishonest”. If you limit it to knowingly and willfully mis-stating factual information, then perhaps he is not (although I am far from certain that Mr. Gard did not do that i several insances). But, from my own point of view, the following are also intellectually dishonest:
    -Ignoring facts that lead away from your conclusion
    -Ignoring questions or sloughing them off with non-responsive answers
    -Imputing bad or corrupt motives to those who disagree with you
    In my own field of science, if anyone did that I would call them intellectually dishonest, even if their experiments were not actually fraudulent.

  431. avatar
    Thinker February 6, 2013 at 10:20 am #

    The people who comment on this blog are mostly people who are very interested in the definition of natural born citizen. They are a natural audience for Mr. Gard’s book. Many of the commenters are telling him that they aren’t likely to read it because it is too long. If Mr. Gard is serious about convincing people he is correct, writing a book that his intended audience will not read is a pretty stupid thing to do. But, he’s a birfer, and one commonality among all birfers is that they do stupid things.

    Instead of doubling down on the idiocy, Mr. Gard should be considering ways to trim his book and change its format to make it more accessible to his intended audience. But, again, he’s a birfer. Another commonality among birfers is that they always double down on the idiocy rather than admit that they are wrong.

  432. avatar
    aesthetocyst February 6, 2013 at 10:56 am #

    Thinker: Instead of doubling down on the idiocy, Mr. Gard should be considering ways to trim his book and change its format to make it more accessible to his intended audience. But, again, he’s a birfer. Another commonality among birfers is that they always double down on the idiocy rather than admit that they are wrong.

    …. failure to / inability to appreciate the perspectives of others. Birfers are trapped in their own minds, no capacity for externality. This limitation explains so much of what they do. They must be hell to live with … the reports we hear here from those who do confirm that.

  433. avatar
    roadburner February 6, 2013 at 11:40 am #

    PatriotUSA: Yet you claim to be so knowledgeable and come off as experts. I make neither of those claims but I am a student of the Constitution,

    is that a fact?

    then how come you support this 2 parent drivel? because it does not appear anywhere in the constitution.

  434. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 6, 2013 at 11:46 am #

    Bob Gard: Vattel was the most

    Of course the founding fathers were familiar with Vattel who was a scholar on INTERNATIONAL LAW; however as to MUNICIPAL LAW or DOMESTIC LAW he was not the source of our statutes regarding citizenship which is in the providence of a nation’s municipal law. “Citizenship depends, however, entirely on municipal law and is not regulated by international law. “ Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166, 169 (DC 1951).

    Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that our citizenship laws were inherited from English common law. “Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant. See Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964).

    “We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)

    Nowhere in over 200 years of court opinions have had any court suggested that our citizenship law was based on Vattel’s concept of citizenship. In fact, there are many court cases that held that children born in the United States to parents other than citizen parents are natural born citizens. “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States. Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F. 3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999). “Abdel-Karim A. El-Nobani is a legal resident of the United States, is married to a natural born United States citizen, and is the father of two natural born United States citizens, ages two and eight, respectively. He was born in Jordan and moved to the United States in 1988. El-Nobani became a permanent resident of the United States in 1993.” US v. El-Nobani, 145 F. Supp. 2d 906, 909 (ND OH 2001)

    As for the drafting of the Constitution, Blackstone’s influence is noted throughout the document, such as, Law of Nations clause in which it was noted: “”In the fourth volume of his Commentaries, Blackstone has a chapter on “Offences against the Law of Nations.” Guided by Blackstone, the Founding Generation viewed the law of nations as a system of rules deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world. Justice Story would later put it, “every doctrine that may be fairly deduced by correct reasoning from the rights and duties of nations, and the nature of moral obligation, may be said to exist in the law of nations.” 3 Dartmouth C. Undergraduate J.L. 51 (2005)

    Moreover, “[t]he two ideas central to Blackstone’s understanding — due process as the right secured, and habeas corpus as the instrument by which due process could be insisted upon by a citizen illegally imprisoned—found expression in the Constitution’s Due Process and Suspension Clauses. See Amdt. 5; Art. I, 9, cl. 2. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507, 556-557 (2004)

    Another example of Blackstone’ influence “The universal maxim of the common law of England, as Sir William Blackstone expresses it, `that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence,’ is embraced in article V of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and in the constitutions of several States, in the following language: `Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;’ and in many other States the same principle is incorporated in the organic law, Kepner v. United States, 195 US 100, 132 (1904)

    As for Vattel’s contribution to the Constitution, there has not been one decision in which a court has cited Vattel’s influence on drafting of the CONSTITUTION. This is not to say that courts have not cited Vattel on the INTERNATIONAL LAW in which his book “Law of Nations” have been cited by the courts but as to the CONSTITUTION AND MUNICIPAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, Vattel’s influence was nonexistent.

  435. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 6, 2013 at 11:50 am #

    Publius:
    7) Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that the Founding Fathers meant something completely different by “natural born citizen” than they meant by “natural born subject?”

    If so, please also explain why the two terms were used synonymously by the Massachusetts legislature during the early days of the Republic.

    8) You claim that “John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.” Please provide a statement from John Jay, or other compelling evidence, that demonstrates this point.

    9) Can you explain why the Founding Fathers and Framers would derive their idea of citizenship from a Swiss writer rather than from our own culture, heritage, and language, all of which we acquired from England? Can you provide a statement from any Founder or Framer that we chose to derive our ideas of citizenship from Vattel?

    I agree.

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

    Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries the following:

    The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. (Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765)

    Blackstone further 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. Id.

    As such, Blackstone recognized and affirmed Chief Justice Lord Coke’s opinion in Calvin’s Case in 1608 that children born of aliens within the dominions of England were natural born subjects.

    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.”

    Vattel’s “Law of Nations” in which he described the Civil Law’s concept of citizenship that only natural born citizens are born to citizens of a country; nevertheless, Vattel himself acknowledged the difference between CIVIL LAW and English COMMON LAW regarding natural born 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 Constitution does not defined Natural Born Citizen. As such, when language in a statute does not define a common law term, courts are “guided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)

    That at the time of the drafting of the Constitution Blackstone’s Commentaries including his definition of natural born subjects was available to the founding fathers. 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.”

    In addition the court in Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1957) stated “that two of the greatest English jurists, Lord Chief Justice Hale and Sir William Blackstone—men who exerted considerable influence on the Founders” id at 26.

    Moreover, “As with many other elements of the common law, it was carried into the jurisprudence of this Country through the medium of Blackstone, who codified the doctrine in his Commentaries. Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784 795 (1969)

    Finally, the court in Briehl v. Dulles, 248 F.2d 561 (DC Cir. 1957) noted that: “Professor Crosskey refers to the [Blackstone’s] Commentaries as “that great `best-seller’ of the eighteenth century” and points out that some of the members of the Constitutional Convention were on the subscription list of the original American edition in 1772. Politics and the Constitution, Vol. 1, p. 411, and Vol. 2, p. 1326, n. 3 (1953). Id. at fn 88

    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 books were required readings by lawyers in colonial America.

  436. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 6, 2013 at 11:54 am #

    Bob Gard: Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

    Bob Gard:
    Vattel was the most influential public jurist in American history. More than Blackstone, Montesquieu, Grotius, Puffendorf, Hale, Burlamaqui, etc.

    Of course the founding fathers were familiar with Vattel who was a scholar on INTERNATIONAL LAW; however as to MUNICIPAL LAW or DOMESTIC LAW he was not the source of our statutes regarding citizenship which is in the providence of a nation’s municipal law. “Citizenship depends, however, entirely on municipal law and is not regulated by international law. “ Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166, 169 (DC 1951).

    Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that our citizenship laws were inherited from English common law. “Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant. See Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964).

    “We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)

    Nowhere in over 200 years of court opinions have had any court suggested that our citizenship law was based on Vattel’s concept of citizenship. In fact, there are many court cases that held that children born in the United States to parents other than citizen parents are natural born citizens. “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States. Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F. 3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999). “Abdel-Karim A. El-Nobani is a legal resident of the United States, is married to a natural born United States citizen, and is the father of two natural born United States citizens, ages two and eight, respectively. He was born in Jordan and moved to the United States in 1988. El-Nobani became a permanent resident of the United States in 1993.” US v. El-Nobani, 145 F. Supp. 2d 906, 909 (ND OH 2001)

    As for the drafting of the Constitution, Blackstone’s influence is noted throughout the document, such as, Law of Nations clause in which it was noted: “”In the fourth volume of his Commentaries, Blackstone has a chapter on “Offences against the Law of Nations.” Guided by Blackstone, the Founding Generation viewed the law of nations as a system of rules deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world. Justice Story would later put it, “every doctrine that may be fairly deduced by correct reasoning from the rights and duties of nations, and the nature of moral obligation, may be said to exist in the law of nations.” 3 Dartmouth C. Undergraduate J.L. 51 (2005)

    Moreover, “[t]he two ideas central to Blackstone’s understanding — due process as the right secured, and habeas corpus as the instrument by which due process could be insisted upon by a citizen illegally imprisoned—found expression in the Constitution’s Due Process and Suspension Clauses. See Amdt. 5; Art. I, 9, cl. 2. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507, 556-557 (2004)

    Another example of Blackstone’ influence “The universal maxim of the common law of England, as Sir William Blackstone expresses it, `that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence,’ is embraced in article V of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and in the constitutions of several States, in the following language: `Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;’ and in many other States the same principle is incorporated in the organic law, Kepner v. United States, 195 US 100, 132 (1904)

    As for Vattel’s contribution to the Constitution, there has not been one decision in which a court has cited Vattel’s influence on drafting of the CONSTITUTION. This is not to say that courts have not cited Vattel on the INTERNATIONAL LAW in which his book “Law of Nations” have been cited by the courts but as to the CONSTITUTION AND MUNICIPAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, Vattel’s influence was nonexistent.

  437. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 6, 2013 at 12:00 pm #

    Bob Gard: Hundreds of pages in my eBook are devoted to debunking the belief that our Constitution and common law follow the British Constitution and English common law. How am I going to show you the error of your ways in a few sentences? For a little taste, you should visit my web site, The-Constitutionist.com

    The drafters of the Constitution were learned men who understood the necessity of writing in clear and concise language. “Our Government is founded upon a written Constitution. The draftsmen expressed themselves in careful and measured terms corresponding with the immense importance of the powers delegated to them. The Framers of the Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have used words in their natural meaning, and to have intended what they said.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 500(1971)(Black, J concurring and dissenting)

    Those Vattelites would have us disregard our common law heritage from the English in which Chief Justice Marshall observed “whose language is our language and whose laws form the substratum of our laws.” U.S. v. Burr 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807

    Moreover, “[w]hen the Constitution was adopted, the common law was something more than a miscellaneous collection of precedents. It was a system, then a growth of some five centuries, to guide judicial decision. One of its principles, certainly as important as any other, and that which assured the possibility of the continuing vitality and usefulness of the system, was its capacity for growth and development, and its adaptability to every new situation to which it might be needful to apply it.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 US 474, 495-496 (1935)(Stone, J. dissenting)

    Courts have observed that “The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers.” In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362 , 363 (ED PA 1928)

    As such, “[w]hen the Constitution was adopted, it was not the design of the framers thereof to create any new systems of general law, nor to supplant those already in existence. At that time there were in existence and in force in the Colonies or States, and among the people thereof, the law of nations, the law admiralty and maritime, the common law, including commercial law, and the system of equity. Upon these foundations the Constitution was erected. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 231 ( 1917)(Pitney, J. dissenting)

    The framers adopted common law terms in the Constitution including natural born which was mentioned in Blackstone’s Commentaries that “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 from cover to cover. A source book of legal science, a landmark in law and literature, it is safe to say that its contents were familiar to every American lawyer in public life in 1789 and 1791.” Sunray Oil Corporation v. Allbritton, 187 F. 2d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 1951)

    “When Congress legislates against a backdrop of common law, without any indication of intention to depart from or change common law rules, the statutory terms must be read as embodying their common law meaning. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Management, 425 F. 3d 735, 763 (10th Cir. 2005)

    The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.

  438. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund February 6, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Once I get the book, I’d like to propose a debate with Mr. Gard here, just between him and me.

    It appears to me that the centerpiece of Mr. Gard’s argument revolves around the link between John Jay and Sir William Scott and the idea that Scott was the primary editor of the 1797 edition, and John Jay’s alleged definition of natural born citizen. I would focus on those issues first.

    One thing in particular to keep in mind is that even if Sir William consulted with John Jay on the correct translation of “indigenes” and Jay agreed that “natural born citizen” was a valid translation. it does not mean that Jay agreed with de Vattel on the definition as it applied to the US.There is a big difference between saying “Yes, that’s what de Vattel meant” and “I agree with de Vattel”

  439. avatar
    Atticus Finch February 6, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

    Bob Gard: It’s handled in the book.“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.” Exactly. A natural-born subject is born with perpetual allegiance to a monarch or prince and a natural-born citizen is born with only allegiance to the sovereignty of the people and has the right of expatriation.You don’t see major differences?

    The term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution was derived from the English common law term “natural born subject” since the term citizen is analogous to the common law term subject.

    Courts have long recognized that the term “citizen” and “subject” were interchangeable to reflect the change of government.

    “Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” 2 Kent Com. 258. Medvedieff v. Cities Service Oil Co., 35 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (SD NY 1940)

    The Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 26, (quoted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649,) said: “The term `citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a `subject of the King’ is now `a citizen of the State.’” Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 US 25, 34 (1903)

    “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)

    Did you know that after the Declaration of Independence and before the ratification of the United State Constitution that the term Natural Born Subject was written in several state Constitutions?

    1786 Vermont Constitution

    XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence. (emphasis added)

    1776 Pennsylvania Constitution

    SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.
    (emphasis added)

    See also the 1778 Constitution of the State of Maryland (“immunities, rights, and privileges of a natural-born subject of this State.”); 1776 Constitution of the State of Delaware (“immunities, rights, and privileges of a natural-born subject of this State”)

    Now if Vattel was such an “inspiration” to the drafters of the Constitution then why didn’t they use Vattel’s term “Natural born citizen” instead of “natural-born subject” in their respective state Constitutions since most of the drafters of the Constitution were also the drafters of their respective state Constitutions?

  440. avatar
    Majority Will February 6, 2013 at 12:11 pm #

    Bob Gard:
    “Yes that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Also you don’t know how to use the quote function.” Correct on the second. Please tell me how to use the quote function.

    I own many copies of Vattel. I almost bought that one in Moscow. I list 101 editions. I developed the most complete list in the world. I own many French, English, and Spanish editions and one Portuguese edition. I refer to sections of Vattel everywhere in my book; I show many photos; and I have a chapter dedicated to Vattel and his works. I also admit I am not a greater writer. I am a terrible proofreader. But I am a great researcher undaunted by childish remarks falling outside the realm of facts. I ferreted out the truth.

    When you were studying political science, which textbooks taught that two citizen parents were required for presidential eligibility?

    Which textbooks taught that de Vattel was (in your words) the most influential public jurist or that he was the influence for the natural born citizen clause?

    Do you have footnotes with citations for those references?

  441. avatar
    Paper February 6, 2013 at 12:31 pm #

    If you want to listen to Bob Gard discuss these points, he is here:

    http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/tlafradio/169-tlafradio20121008a.html

  442. avatar
    Dave B. February 6, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

    C. Stanton:
    Dave B.: That’s not just his editor, that’s his web designer. Having visited Bob’s website, I can definitely say your advice is well-founded.

    Permit me to inquire; how many websites have you designed and constructed? Have you ever been obliged to use GoDaddy’s archaic Website Builder tool set?

    Feel free to direct me to whatever online sites that you’ve constructed in the past. Bob’s was the very first that I have ever built and I remain proud of the effort, however crude it might be.

    I would also invite you to walk a mile in my shoes first. That way, you’ll be a mile away from me and I will finally be able to enjoy some fresh air.

    Yes, that’s nice. But trying to shift the focus onto me doesn’t improve that opaque mess you made for Bob. That’s your baby.
    And you know, if you want some fresh air, you could try walking away from your own shoes and see if that helps.

  443. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    US Citizen: Well when I was in sixth grade, I argued for days that the world was flat.
    Then the 2nd time I was in sixth grade, I argued it was a mobius.
    The teacher told me my arguments were never ending.

    When I was in seventh grade, my teacher Mrs. Fitzgerald told the class that the Grand Canyon is in Colorado. I told her that she was mistaken, and when she insisted that she was right I pulled out an atlas and showed her that it is in Arizona.

    “The atlas is wrong,” she responded.

    Bob Gard reminds me of Mrs. Fitzgerald.

  444. avatar
    Paper February 6, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    Squeeky also touched on Bob Gard back in October, viz. the word play involved with “On Gard” and the PR aspects of how his book was being publicized at that time–specifically in how the Birther Report made it seem like Yahoo News was supporting the premise, rather than just republishing a press release.

    (A situation of press releases being copied more or less verbatim, not all that unusual in practice, if regrettable, which is interesting considering Gard’s extended PR concerns on his website, re: freedom of speech.)

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/touche-birther-report-blog-dissembles-again/

  445. avatar
    Publius February 6, 2013 at 12:55 pm #

    C. Stanton: Thank you for your polite inquiry. The answer is, absolutely not. I am a rank amateur at best but felt, as Bob did, that his work could benefit from both proofreading and some additional editing.

    And thank you, C. Stanton, for your polite and very honest response.

    Along with Daniel, I self-identify as a conservative, not at all as a “liberal.” In some ways I’m a bit of a libertarian, but probably more of a conservative. I’m for limited government, personal responsibility, self-reliance as much as is reasonably possible, and traditional values.

    I’ve seen the conversation on birther web sites and non-birther (or anti-birther) web sites. The conversation has often been fairly sharp, and in any given birther/ anti-birther conversation there’s always likely to be someone who is less than polite.

    From what I’ve seen, the conversation here and at other “anti-birther” web sites is far more sane, civil and fair than at most birther web sites. This includes some “conservative” sites in general that are not “supposed” to be birther web sites.

    I’m also not prepared to label Mr. Gard (at this point) as “intellectually dishonest.” I do see a couple of hints that he may not have been qualified or suitable to take on the task that he’s taken on.

    Here’s what seems to happen: Someone gets an idea in his head. Hey, maybe Obama is ineligible because his dad wasn’t an American citizen. Maybe they do a little reading. Hey, here’s so-and-so who agrees with that idea. And then they start digging, and lo and behold! They find some things that just might confirm that. Hmm. Maybe John Jay meant you had to have citizen parents. So then they go and look for some “evidence” to confirm that. And lo and behold! They find something!

    Except the process was all wrong to start with. What they should have done was not start out trying to dig up stuff to “prove” their particular idea. If you want to “prove” any particular idea, you can probably dig up some “evidence” to support it.

    What they should have done was look at the evidence (ALL of it), without making any judgment at all until all the evidence was in.

    So then someone points this out. “But that’s what I did,” protests our researcher, with hardly even a twinge of self-doubt.

    Because by now he has written 1700 pages on the subject and has convinced himself he’s a true expert. THE expert, in fact. And there is no way he’s going to back off now. There’s no way he’s going to be convinced by any contrary evidence.

    Why? Because he’s convinced himself that he’s the true expert, the only one in the world who understands this particular topic.

    Only he isn’t. He’s just a guy who started out trying to prove something, and built up a house-sized pile of “hints” that his thesis is correct, all the while ignoring the mountain of actual evidence that says that his original idea is all wrong. And the house-sized pile of “hints” is PLENTY to convince him that his idea is true. It’s also PLENTY to convince others who totally want to believe the idea. In fact, it’s enough to convince them that anyone who believes in the mountain of actual evidence is a “liberal,” or even an “agent of Obama.”

    And he’s chained himself to his pile of evidence. And there is no way he will ever unchain himself from his idea. Because for all of his virtues (and surely there are at least a few virtues in a man persisting until he scrapes up a house-sized pile of “evidence”)… he has lost the virtue of objectivity.

    That’s the more likely scenario.

  446. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2013 at 12:57 pm #

    MN-Skeptic:
    Gard claims he argued about the definition of natural born citizen with his 8th grade civics teacher. Shoot. Think about it. I’m sure the textbook gave the standard definition that anyone born in the U.S. could grow up to be president. So who would argue against that? I wonder if Gard grew up in an area with a large migrant population. It’s the same crap being put out there by the right wing that “anchor babies”shouldn’t be U.S. citizens. I vote for Gard fostering a long-time prejudice against immigrants. This book is his chance to validate his long held prejudices

    He lives in the San Francisco bay area. Whether he grew up in California I cannot say, but it certainly is possible.

  447. avatar
    Rickey February 6, 2013 at 1:03 pm #

    Publius:
    I doubt they’re an item. Word on the web is that Bob has a wife, and I don’t think she would put up with that.

    He also has children. I wonder if they are mortified by the way he is spending his golden years.

  448. avatar
    Paper February 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    I was struggling how to put it, but I think you got it straight on, Publius.

    Publius:

    I’m also not prepared to label Mr. Gard (at this point) as “intellectually dishonest.” I do see a couple of hints that he may not have been qualified or suitable to take on the task that he’s taken on.

    Here’s what seems to happen: …

  449. avatar
    Bob Gard February 6, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    I have been responding to emails from my email. I have been told I cannot do that. I will try to repeat some of them.

  450. avatar
    Publius February 6, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

    For the sake of convenience, I’m going to put my 10 questions for Bob all in one post. Some are a bit multi-part.

    Oh – if you can answer “yes” to any of the questions asking for a particular piece of evidence, could you please describe your evidence and provide a source reference?

    Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that:

    1) Two citizen parents are required in order for one to be a natural born citizen?

    2) Two citizen parents are legally required for Presidential eligibility?

    3) The Founders and Framers meant or were referring to Vattel’s idea “indigenes” when they said “natural born citizen?”

    4) There is any legal distinction between “citizen by birth” and “natural born citizen?”

    5) There is any significant legal distinction between a “native-born citizen” born in the United States and a “natural born citizen,” born in the United States, or that being a native-born citizen of the United States does not necessarily make one a natural-born citizen of the United States?

    Finally, are you familiar with the 1856 candidacy of John Charles Fremont, the first Republican candidate for President? And can you provide any evidence whatsoever that any person ever objected to Fremont’s candidacy on any grounds that he was supposed to ineligible?

    Fremont ran his campaign for President very openly stating and proclaiming that he was the child of a non-naturalized citizen of France. His father never became a US citizen, never had the slightest intention of doing so, and was planning to return to France with his wife and children at the time of his death.

    This being the case, if ANYBODY in the year 1856 (which was no further historically from the drafting of the Constitution that we are from the end of World War II) — if ANYBODY in the entire country had felt that Fremont was Constitutionally ineligible, don’t you think we would have a record of that?

    7) Do you have a single clear, unambiguous statement, from any Framer, any Founder, or any genuine legal authority in the history of the United States, to the effect that the Founding Fathers meant something completely different by “natural born citizen” than they meant by “natural born subject?”

    If so, please also explain why the two terms were used synonymously by the Massachusetts legislature during the early days of the Republic.

    8) You claim that “John Jay attached Vattel’s definition for natives and indigenes to his term.” Please provide a statement from John Jay, or other compelling evidence, that demonstrates this point.

    9) Can you explain why the Founding Fathers and Framers would derive their idea of citizenship from a Swiss writer rather than from our own culture, heritage, and language, all of which we acquired from England? Can you provide a statement from any Founder or Framer that we chose to derive our ideas of citizenship from Vattel?

    10) A lot of people who read this site would be very familiar with the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo and Stephen Tonchen.

    What significant information or evidence do you have that they don’t? And on what significant points, if any, do you disagree with Apuzzo and Tonchen? For example, are there claims made by either of these writers that you find are clearly wrong?

  451. avatar
    Bob Gard February 6, 2013 at 1:07 pm #

    Atticus Finch: The term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution was derived from the English common law term “natural born subject” since the term citizen is analogous to the common law term subject.

    Courts have long recognized that the term “citizen” and “subject” were interchangeable to reflect the change of government.

    “Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” 2 Kent Com. 258.Medvedieff v. Cities Service Oil Co., 35 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (SD NY 1940)

    The Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 26, (quoted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649,) said: “The term `citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject’ in the commonlaw, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a `subject of the King’ is now `a citizen of the State.’” Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 US 25, 34 (1903)

    “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)

    Did you know that after the Declaration of Independence and before the ratification of the United State Constitution that the term Natural Born Subject was written in several state Constitutions?

    1786 Vermont Constitution

    XXXVI. Every person of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or. by other just means, acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and, after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years’ residence. (emphasis added)

    1776 Pennsylvania Constitution

    SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of aNATURAL BORN SUBJECT of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.
    (emphasis added)

    See also the 1778 Constitution of the State of Maryland (“immunities, rights, and privileges of a natural-born subject of this State.”); 1776 Constitution of the State of Delaware (“immunities, rights, and privileges of a natural-born subject of this State”)

    Now if Vattel was such an “inspiration” to the drafters of the Constitution then why didn’t they use Vattel’s term “Natural born citizen” instead of “natural-born subject” in their respective state Constitutions since most of the drafters of the Constitution were also the drafters of their respective state Constitutions?

    You would make a fine candidate to answer a question I posed today: Why would the U.S. Constitution adopt a form of citizenship equivalent to the British if adopting it would legally derail the United States of America from her inception? If the citizenship of the Constitution were based on the British natural-born subject, the British could have legally under international law come to our shores and arrested Washington, transported him back to London, and tired him for treason because he violated perpetual allegiance. Please lay out your logic why a mutually exclusive citizenship would be adopted. This constitutes exclusive disjunction.

  452. avatar
    Bob Gard February 6, 2013 at 1:08 pm #

    Bob Gard: You would make a fine candidate to answer a question I posed today: Why would the U.S. Constitution adopt a form of citizenship equivalent to the British if adopting it would legally derail the United States of America from her inception? If the citizenship of the Constitution were based on the British natural-born subject, the British could have legally under international law come to our shores and arrested Washington, transported him back to London, and tired him for treason because he violated perpetual allegiance. Please lay out your logic why a mutually exclusive citizenship would be adopted. This constitutes exclusive disjunction.

    I had already sent you a more complete reply:

    That is pure bologna. Read my book and debate all the information I have included to prove otherwise. You list references way after the Constitution and references to natural-born subject in state constitutions. I cover that in the book. Answer this question: Why would the U.S. Constitution adopt a form of citizenship equivalent to the British if adopting it would legally derail the United States of America from her inception? If the citizenship of the Constitution were based on the British natural-born subject, the British could have legally under international law come to our shores and arrested Washington, transported him back to London, and tired him for treason because he violated perpetual allegiance. Please lay out your logic why a mutually exclusive citizenship would be adopted. This constitutes exclusive disjunction.

  453. avatar
    Bob Gard February 6, 2013 at 1:09 pm #

    Scientist: I would be interested to know what your standard is for “intellectually dishonest”.If you limit it to knowingly and willfully mis-stating factual information, then perhaps he is not (although I am far from certain that Mr. Gard did not do that i several insances).But, from my own point of view, the following are also intellectually dishonest:
    -Ignoring facts that lead away from your conclusion
    -Ignoring questions or sloughing them off with non-responsive answers
    -Imputing bad or corrupt motives to those who disagree with you
    In my own field of science, if anyone did that I would call them intellectually dishonest, even if their experiments were not actually fraudulent.

    I found your question about the 12th Amendment. I would like to make an analogy. The law dictates that you must have a valid driver’s license to drive. Another law says you must be over 16 years old to drive legally. Just because you are over 16 doesn’t mean you can drive legally without a driver’s license. Just because a presidential candidate receives the most votes doesn’t mean he can legally take power if he is not a natural-born citizen.

    I also interpret the last sentence in that amendment quite differently from liberals. I believe it was inserted because of the real definition of natural-born citizen.

  454. avatar
    Bob Gard February 6, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    Though even a pristine version of a Soviet publication from 1960 would never cost 1,700 dollars (has the guy ever been to Moscow – he obviously does not know the real prices), he seems to be claiming he bought antiquarian versions.

    Why, in heaven’s sake? Normally, people who write treatises referencing other works, just buy or rent any readable copy and trust their readers to believe them (after all, readers can do the same thing if they doubt a reference).

    The only reason I can see for buying at such prices is that you want to show off a lot of neat-looking photo copies of the “relevant” passages. Yes, that sure smells birfer.

    I am also answering your question about my experience in Russia. The answer to your question about the 1960 Law of Nations is simply that the one I referred to was published in the 18th centuiry, making it more valuable:

    I went to Russia in the days of Brezhnev. I was arrested four times under trumped up charges. I refused to sign a confession there too.These are the experiences that made me love the Constitution even more. I have been there recently. I often make the statement that the reason for the success of glasnost was that our two countries approached each other in ideology. Three examples under Brezhnev: the Russians had life-time ID cards; we hadn’t instituted the SSNs at birth. The Russians had property and body searches on demand; we didn’t. The Russians could arrest without probable cause; we didn’t have that feature before a few security acts came our way culminating in The Patriot Act. The Russians could wiretap; we couldn’t. The Russians mounted random roadblocks; we didn’t until MADD inspired them. I could go on for a long time. We live in a benevolent police state but we don’t know it.

  455. avatar
    Arthur February 6, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

    Bob Gard: I went to Russia in the days of Brezhnev. I was arrested four times under trumped up charges.

    Really? That’s amazing. Do you have any proof to back up this extraordinary claim? I want to believe, but you know that old saw, “Trust but verify”?

  456. avatar
    Bob Gard February 6, 2013 at 1:20 pm #

    AlCum: Yes. The claim that one must have parents who already are citizens of the US to be a natural born citizen is plainly incorrect on its face. It is fabricated with no foundation in history, in fact it is contradicted by tradition, law and Supreme Court decision.

    I made the mistake of answering emails from my email. I can’t do that. I am answering a different email from you:

    Uncompromising means feeling or showing no willingness to compromise or back down. That may mean in my instance not straying from the truth. I was ready to give up what I believed in the 8th grade if I could not find evidence in favor. I was ready to write a book on the topic one way or the other.

  457. avatar
    Bob Gard February 6, 2013 at 1:22 pm #

    Arthur: Really? That’s amazing. Do you have any proof to back up this extraordinary claim? I want to believe, but you know that old saw, “Trust by verify”?

    Another answer to a previous email:

    Please visit The-Constitutionist.com and read about a manuscript on Africa I wrote. CalTech Professor Edwin Munger, the head of CalTech’s Africana Library Notes, told me it was the best manuscript he had read in all his years.

    While gathering the information, I almost lost my life in front of a firing squad at the order of Francisco Macias Nguema, the African dictator who was deemed the most blood thirsty in all of Africa. I had uncovered an international bank conspiracy that both the CIA and the Spanish equivalent were trying to unearth. My manuscript was banned in the country of the colonizer and the colonized. I know you will probably not agree, but I opine that being able to uncover and verify a bank fraud that neither country’s secret service could supports my statement: “I have a unique ability to find the truth. When I am right, I defer to no one.” I almost lost my life; I was beat up with a one-finger brass knuckle, and had old Enfields pointed at me to induce me to sign a confession that I was a spy, which I never did.