Main Menu

Yeah, Cruz is eligible

While I do not think that Congress can change the definition of “natural born citizen,” I do believe that they can change the status of individuals so that they meet the definition. I don’t see any qualitative difference between legislation adding a new state to the union (and thereby making new US citizens at birth) and Congress making citizens at birth through legislation under their naturalization powers. No one would argue that only people born in the 13 original states can be President, so why should they argue that only people born under the English Common Law provisions governing citizenship in 1789 can be President?

I should point out that the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen.” One has to look elsewhere for the definition. For a definition, I look to the first Congress, who in 1790 by legislation made certain persons natural born citizens who were not natural born citizens before. Those Congressmen, one of whom, James Madison, is recognized as the principal author of the Constitution, decided that they could by legislation create natural born citizens, and the former President of the Constitutional Convention George Washington signed that bill into law. I do not think that the actions of the First Congress and President Washington are easily dismissed, nor are arguments of carelessness on their part credible.

The clear implication of the 1790 Act (and the Oxford English Dictionary) is that to our founders “natural born citizen” meant “citizen at birth.” So the question that remains is whether the Constitution’s naturalization provision gives Congress the power to create citizens at birth (in contrast to the usual understanding of naturalization–making someone a citizen after birth). The Congress has and does create citizens at birth (even in some cases retroactively) and I don’t know of any challenge to them doing that. (Judge Alsup in Robinson v. Bowen even opined that a retroactive act of Congress made John McCain a natural born citizen.) I see no objection to Congress changing membership in the pool of natural born citizens, through its naturalization powers.

If one were to invoke the English Common Law as both defining the term “natural born subject” and limiting which persons meet the definition, then I would point them to the various British acts that create natural born subjects, as argument against that position. That is, in 1789 Americans had a contemporary example of British legislation that expanded the pool of natural born subjects. Or put another way, I think that saying that English Common Law defines membership in the class of natural born subjects is the same mistake as saying that Minor v. Happersett defines membership in the class of natural born citizens–confusing necessary with sufficient conditions.)

Since according to U. S. Law, Canadian-born Ted Cruz was a U. S. citizen at birth, then yeah, he’s eligible to run for President.

, , , , ,

231 Responses to Yeah, Cruz is eligible

  1. avatar
    Jim August 20, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

    I think also that Cruz is eligible, although I doubt that he’s electable. I think you’ll see something from congress like they did for McCain. However, I WILL enjoy poking birthers every chance I get about Cruz…I’m just asking questions. hehehe

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 20, 2013 at 2:20 pm #

    Here’s a graphic depiction of the issue:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017139776

  3. avatar
    donna August 20, 2013 at 2:31 pm #

    WAPO: No, Ted Cruz ‘birthers’ are not the same as Obama birthers

    The reason? Because about the only thing these two situations have in common is that they involve a birth certificate and a presidential candidate.

    Questions about Cruz’s eligibility have everything to do with interpretation of the law; the questions about Obama’s eligibility had everything to do with a dispute over the underlying facts — more specifically, conspiracy theories about whether the president was actually born in the United States, as he claimed, and whether he somehow forged a birth certificate that said he was born in Hawaii.

    Some will accuse the media of instituting a double standard when it comes to these two cases because Cruz is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat. But nobody is accusing Cruz of lying about his past as part of a vast conspiracy to become president.

    It’s just not an apples-to-apples comparison.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/19/no-ted-cruz-birthers-are-not-the-same-as-obama-birthers/

  4. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

    A very well-reasoned and internally consistent argument Doc. The birthers will never buy it. 😉

    I like the bit about England extending NBS and Minor v. Happersett.

  5. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 20, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Here’s a graphic depiction of the issue:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017139776

    I particularly like the comment from jberryhill: “It would be clearer if Obama’s citizenship were indicated as “US”, since Canadians are also “Americans”.”

    Hmmm…..if Canadians are Americans then what are Mexicans? Oh, oh.

  6. avatar
    Arthur August 20, 2013 at 3:11 pm #

    In the Washington Post article, the author writes, “As we wrote back in March, that makes [Cruz] a U.S. citizen himself, but it’s not 100 percent clear that that is the same thing as a “natural born citizen” — the requirement for becoming president.”

    Could someone explain what a “U.S. citizen” is? I was under the impression that there are two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized, and that if you were not naturalized, you were, therefore, natural born.

    The idea of there being a type of citizen that is neither natural born or naturalized strikes me as a birther concept.

  7. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 20, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    Well, Doc, your Lincoln’s birth BOOM shell has probably gotten the more racist Birthers returning to the light preferences of their dark sides and preparing to retrospectively throw usurper Abe under what they still see as today’s uppity black runaways’ collective school bus.

    I can hear Carl Gallup extrapolating it already to ask, “Are these Satanic Obots say that if our Congress allowed the rest of the World to become our 51st State, that NOBODY’s uncertain loyalty to the United States could be a reason to make them Article 2 ineligible??

    I wish I could hear the remains of Natural Born Citizen Timothy McVeigh reply, “No, Carl, not even mine.

    Although I wish more that God would appear and proclaim Obama eligible so we could all read Gallups opine, “That’s unimportant.”

  8. avatar
    Jim August 20, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    Well, it looks like it could take up to 8 months for Cruz to get this done

    http://news.yahoo.com/senator-cruz-may-wait-eight-months-stop-being-180432893.html

    In the meantime, I’ll just call him that Canadian who’s running for President. 😆

  9. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 20, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

    I wanna see him run, just to hear birthers collectively scream “NOT AGAIN!!!”, because surprisingly the birthers(at least the Birther Report loonies) are throwing a fit about him even being considered to run. And if it brings that lot a bunch of pain and misery, then it can’t be all that bad.

  10. avatar
    Steve August 20, 2013 at 4:04 pm #

    Arthur:
    In the Washington Post article, the author writes, “As we wrote back in March, that makes [Cruz] a U.S. citizen himself, but it’s not 100 percent clear that that is the same thing as a “natural born citizen” — the requirement for becoming president.”

    Could someone explain what a “U.S. citizen” is? I was under the impression that there are two types of citizens: natural born and naturalized, and that if you were not naturalized, you were, therefore, natural born.

    The idea of there being a type of citizen that is neither natural born or naturalized strikes me as a birther concept.

    That’s always the way I saw it.

  11. avatar
    JimmyJam August 20, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

    The birther forums have lots of heads exploding at the moment. It’s great fun to lurk and observe their consternation. Birther on birthed cage matches are being scheduled as we speak.

  12. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion August 20, 2013 at 4:23 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    I wanna see him run, just to hear birthers collectively scream “NOT AGAIN!!!”, because surprisingly the birthers(at least the Birther Report loonies) are throwing a fit about him even being considered to run. And if it brings that lot a bunch of pain and misery, then it can’t be all that bad.

    Oh come on. They’re going to absolutely go though the entire Boy Scout Handbook when it comes to tying themselves into logical knots in an attempt to explain away why they could vote for Cruz after all.

  13. avatar
    slash2k August 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm #

    Arthur:

    “US citizen” encompasses both natural-born and naturalized, and the argument goes that Cruz was made a citizen by act of Congress (the law that says children born abroad to a citizen parent are themselves citizens if the parent meets various conditions). That act of Congress derives from their constitutional power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, so therefore Cruz is “naturalized at birth” rather than “natural born.”

    Personally, I think that argument is wrong; the power to naturalize must also include the power to determine who doesn’t need naturalizing in the first place. However, it’s not really a birther argument as such, because there have been genuine controversies about who is or is not a citizen under the Constitution.

  14. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 4:40 pm #

    Despite the language in Robinson v. Bowen, which as mentioned elsewhere was just just a Preliminary Injuction, that only discussed the ability of Congress in the most passing way, I’m still not convinced. As Doc says, NBC is not defined in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has stated very clearly where we go in such an instance, the Common Law. Not to other legislation. Not to the OED. The Common Law. The clearest statement we have on the Common Law definition is WKA. WKA stated that “naturalization by descent” was not part of the Common Law, but a statutory enactment. Two things to note there. The use of the term “naturalization” and that it is not part of the Common Law.

    The other problem is the one case I’ve seen that says McCain was NBC was Robinson v. Bowen, which cites to Rogers v. Bellei. I’ve stated my issues with that elsewhere, so I won’t go into that much detail…the bigest problem is that although not 100% the opinion heavily implies that Bellei was a naturalized citizen. While as Robinson v. Bowen correctly cited Rogers v. Bellei as holding that Congress has the power to even grant citizenship at birth, citizen at birth, as far as I know, is not NBC. Schneider v. Rusk, 401 U.S. 815 held, “rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalzied person are of the same dignity and are coextensive….” with the only differnce being “natural born” can be president. Native and natural born in Schneider, as elsewhere are equated. “Born citizen” is only used as an equivalent in Robinson v. Bowden as far as I know, and they cite to a case that is even Justice Black considered a naturalization case.

    As for the 1790 act…again, you’ll note it is titled as a “naturalization” act. The fact that it called the citizens born abroad NBC is interesting, but hardly determinative. They stripped that laguage out pretty quickly. Add to that you’re dealing with a brand spanking new country. The Constitution was only ratified 3 years earlier. The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review would not be established for another 19 years. It’s really hard to say what they thought, if anything, since the legislative record is thin on the whole early American history of the term NBC. The drafting of the Constitution was a negotiation. It wasn’t God handing down the 10 Commandments. For all we know, they weren’t exactly sure what all of these details actually meant. However, as of today, we do have a way of dealing with Constitutional questions. Undefined terms look to the Common Law. We have the English Common law in Calvin’s case, and we have WKA firmly defining how we treat that. Among those statements are “naturalization by descent” is not part of the common law.

    So I’m still leaning in the direction that Mr. Cruz, like Mr. McCain are indeed naturalized citizens. Will the courts ever say that? I’m not holding my breathe. Unless the courts have a really good case, with genuine standing, against a candidate that probably won’t win the nomination….I’m guessing they won’t touch the issue.

  15. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 5:02 pm #

    slash2k: Personally, I think that argument is wrong; the power to naturalize must also include the power to determine who doesn’t need naturalizing in the first place.

    I disagree. I would argue the only people that do not need naturalization are those that fit the Common law defintion. Native born, and subject to the jurisdiciton. There are two types of citizen, natural born, which is used interchangably with native born, and naturalized. If you’re not one, then you only can be the other. The Constitution doesn’t dictate how naturalization must occur, only that the Congress has the power to establish uniform rules. Just because it’s not the normal process of being naturalized, doesn’t make it natural born. The children of aliens who become citizens can become citizens based on their parent’s naturalization. Does that make them NBC just because they didn’t have to go through the normal process? So why then would we consider those born abroad, claiming citizenship based on a statute, not a common-law concept, NBC?

  16. avatar
    helen August 20, 2013 at 5:12 pm #

    I expected that position!

    And , many people will believe it, if it is their candidate!

    there are native born citizens, naturalized citizens, and natural born citizens.

    Native born citizens are citizens born in the USA to non citizen parents,

    Naturalized citizens are citizens by action of federal law.

    Natural born citizens are citizens born in the USA to to American Citizens who have no cloud on their citizenship.

    Natural born citizens have more rights than the other classes of citizens in regards to their citizenship.

    They can run for all elective offices! It is harder to remove their citizenship from them.

    Cruz may not be eligible as their is no sign he was subject to American Jurisdiction when he was born!

    But feel free to believe what you wish to believe if it is necessary to make you happy

  17. avatar
    slash2k August 20, 2013 at 5:18 pm #

    JoZeppy: I would argue the only people that do not need naturalization are those that fit the Common law defintion.

    Ok, so what was the common law definition as it existed and was understood in 1789, and who had the power to make it so? The courts don’t get involved until there is an actual case or controversy, so who (if not the Congress) had the power to declare that “this group over here meets our understanding of the common law definition, and that group over there does not and therefore needs naturalizing”?

  18. avatar
    slash2k August 20, 2013 at 5:20 pm #

    helen: there are native born citizens, naturalized citizens, and natural born citizens.

    From whence do you obtain your three categories? There are only two in the Constitution: natural born and those made under the naturalization power.

  19. avatar
    Arthur August 20, 2013 at 5:24 pm #

    helen: there are native born citizens, naturalized citizens, and natural born citizens.

    Helen, from what source did you get this information?

  20. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 20, 2013 at 5:33 pm #

    helen: They can run for all elective offices!

    Any citizen is eligible for most elected offices in the United States…..from dog catcher to member of Congress.

    The only two offices with any extra requirement are President and Vice President.

  21. avatar
    Jim August 20, 2013 at 5:39 pm #

    helen:

    But feel free to believe what you wish to believe if it is necessary to make you happy

    I’ll believe the SCOTUS and the Constitution over an anonymous keyboard warrior.

    Minor V Happersett

    “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 provides [n6] 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,” [n7] 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. ”

    Simply put, if you’re born a citizen then you’re eligible, if you gain your citizenship later through naturalization then you aren’t. Makes it easy, as it would have to be during the time of the writing of the Constitution.

  22. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 5:39 pm #

    helen: I expected that position!
    And , many people will believe it, if it is their candidate

    Some of us are far more interested in what the law actually says, than playing a petty game of politics.

    helen: there are native born citizens, naturalized citizens, and natural born citizens.

    There are only two kinds of citizens. Born, and naturalized.

    helen: Native born citizens are citizens born in the USA to non citizen parents,

    The courts have used native born and natural born interchangably. There is nothing in the entire body of law to support your claim.

    helen: Naturalized citizens are citizens by action of federal law.

    Yeah…you got that right.

    helen: Natural born citizens are citizens born in the USA to to American Citizens who have no cloud on their citizenship.

    Nothing anywhere in American jurisprudence to support that statement. Natural born citizens are those born in the territory subject to the jurisdiction per Wonk Kim Ark. That’s it. Nothing about parents, nothing about clouds.

    helen: Natural born citizens have more rights than the other classes of citizens in regards to their citizenship.

    The ONLY difference is NBC can be President.

    helen: But feel free to believe what you wish to believe if it is necessary to make you happy

    Well, you certainly seem to ascribe to that mantra, don’t you? The rest of us actually rely on this little something known as the law.

  23. avatar
    Joey August 20, 2013 at 5:40 pm #

    helen:
    I expected that position!

    And , many people will believe it, if it is their candidate!

    there are native born citizens, naturalized citizens, and natural born citizens.

    Native born citizens are citizens born in the USA to non citizen parents,

    Naturalized citizens are citizens by action of federal law.

    Natural born citizens are citizens born in the USA to to American Citizens who have no cloud on their citizenship.

    Natural born citizens have more rights than the other classes of citizens in regards to their citizenship.

    They can run for all elective offices!It is harder to remove their citizenship from them.

    Cruz may not be eligible as their is no sign he was subject to American Jurisdiction when he was born!

    But feel free to believe what you wish to believe if it is necessary to make you happy

    Sixteen court decisions have ruled that Barack Hussein Obama II qualifies as a natural born citizen:

    Allen v. Obama, Arizona (2012)
    Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana (2009)
    Fair v. Obama, Maryland (2012)
    Farrar v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
    Freeman v. Obama, Illinois (2012)
    Galasso v. Obama, New Jersey (2012)
    Jackson v. Obama, Illinois (2012)
    Paige v. Obama, Vermont (2012)
    Powell v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
    Purpura, et. al. v. Obama, New Jersey (2012)
    Strunk v. N.Y. Board of Elections, New York (2012)
    Swensson v. Obama, Georgia (2012)
    Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto), Washington, D.D. (2010)
    Tisdale v. Obama, Virginia (2012)
    Voeltz v. Obama, Florida (2012)
    Welden v. Obama, Georgia (2012)

    No court decision and no action of Congress has ever determined that the President does not qualify as a natural born citizen.

    Here are two examples from the list of rulings above:
    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

    Purpura & 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

  24. avatar
    donna August 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

    helen:

    where to begin?

    cite one court decision which states that obama is ineligible because he’s NOT a “Natural born citizen” OR that there are 3 categories for the president and VP

    what about the CRS report: There is no requirement of two “citizen-parents,” CRS found.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

    what about the legal opinions of Laurence H. Tribe and Theodore B. Olson: “And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/25457698/The-Tribe-Olson-Natural-Born-Citizen-Memo

  25. avatar
    sfjeff August 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

    helen: Natural born citizens are citizens born in the USA to to American Citizens who have no cloud on their citizenship.

    thats not what I learned growing up here in the U.S of A.

    My conservative ex-Marine civics teacher would have had little patience with one of his students making up a new definition. He was a stickler for accuracy. That answer would have dropped your grade from a C to a D.

  26. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 5:47 pm #

    slash2k: Ok, so what was the common law definition as it existed and was understood in 1789,

    WKA tells you that, citing to Calvin’s case. Born on the territory, subject to the jurisdiciton.

    slash2k: and who had the power to make it so?

    No one really. It is what it is.

    slash2k: The courts don’t get involved until there is an actual case or controversy, so who (if not the Congress) had the power to declare that “this group over here meets our understanding of the common law definition, and that group over there does not and therefore needs naturalizing”?

    But the courts have said it. Just read Wonk Kim Ark. It defined it as born on the territory, subject to the jurisdiciton. That was over 100 years ago. WKA refered to claiming citizenship via parents as “naturalization by decent” and clearly stated it was not part of the common law. WKA cited Calvin’s Case, which goes back to the 16th Century. The whole point of the common law is that it’s case law that builds upon itself.

  27. avatar
    Sef August 20, 2013 at 5:49 pm #

    The only thing that is clear about Cruz’ citizenship is that he does not have a 14th Amendment guarantee of citizenship (cf. Rogers v. Bellei). This also means that Congress could enact a law to remove his citizenship, since his citizenship does not derive directly from the Constitution, but from legislation. I would also argue that he is not a native born citizen. Courts have stated that native- and natural-born citizenship are equivalent, but the cases under discussion were not like this. Was there a requirement that his parents go to a consulate and get a certificate? And did they do it? If a consular certificate is required does U.S. citizenship attach at birth or when the certificate is issued? If the latter then there is a question about him being NBC. Yes, there are questions, but I doubt that there will be a chance to get them resolved before Jan. 20, 2017.

  28. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 20, 2013 at 5:52 pm #

    helen: Natural born citizens are citizens born in the USA to to American Citizens who have no cloud on their citizenship.
    Natural born citizens have more rights than the other classes of citizens in regards to their citizenship.
    They can run for all elective offices! It is harder to remove their citizenship from them.

    —-

    “cloud on their citizenship”?
    “more rights than the other classes of citizens”?
    “harder to remove their citizenship”?

    I’m beginning to think that “Helen” is not an American at all. S/he seems really unfamiliar with the most basic notions of U.S. citizenship.

  29. avatar
    donna August 20, 2013 at 6:04 pm #

    J.D. Sue: I’m beginning to think that “Helen” is not an American at all. S/he seems really unfamiliar with the most basic notions of U.S. citizenship.

    “cloud on their citizenship”? it was cloudy and not sunny on the day they were born – my parents limited that possibility since my siblings and i are all “leos”

    “more rights than the other classes of citizens”? they only get parts of the constitution and amendments to be decided by the opposing party

    “harder to remove their citizenship”? “white out” doesn’t work on their birth records which is why they need competent forgers

  30. avatar
    slash2k August 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm #

    JoZeppy: WKA tells you that, citing to Calvin’s case. Born on the territory, subject to the jurisdiciton.

    No, Calvin’s Case says that being born within the allegiance of the king is the important part; a Scotsman could own land in England because he was born owing allegiance to King James, even though he was *not* born on English soil.

    Wong Kim Ark does not stand for the proposition that ONLY birth on U.S. soil confers natural-born status. Since WKA was not born abroad to citizen parents, that simply was not an issue before the court. The court did, however, note that since the time of Edward III:

    Statute of Edward III: all children inheritors, which from henceforth shall be born without the ligeance of the King, whose fathers and mothers at the time of their birth be and shall be at the faith and ligeance of the King of England, shall have and enjoy the same benefits and advantages to have and bear the inheritance within the same ligeance as the other inheritors aforesaid, in time to come; so always, that the mothers of such children do pass the sea by the licence and wills of their husbands.

  31. avatar
    slash2k August 20, 2013 at 6:30 pm #

    Sef: Was there a requirement that his parents go to a consulate and get a certificate? And did they do it? If a consular certificate is required does U.S. citizenship attach at birth or when the certificate is issued?

    The consular certificate is proof of citizenship, even as a state-issued birth certificate is proof of citizenship, but in neither case is the certificate a requirement before you possess citizenship. Citizenship attaches at birth, and the certificate merely documents that pre-existing fact; it doesn’t establish citizenship as a new fact.

  32. avatar
    Sef August 20, 2013 at 6:38 pm #

    slash2k: The consular certificate is proof of citizenship, even as a state-issued birth certificate is proof of citizenship, but in neither case is the certificate a requirement before you possess citizenship. Citizenship attaches at birth, and the certificate merely documents that pre-existing fact; it doesn’t establish citizenship as a new fact.

    So he was “naturalized at birth”.

  33. avatar
    slash2k August 20, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

    Sef: So he was “naturalized at birth”.

    He became a citizen at birth. 🙂

  34. avatar
    predicto August 20, 2013 at 6:56 pm #

    It is laughable to see these contortions. English Common Law provided that anyone born on English soil was automatically a natural born subject of the King. Even Vattel says that.

    And any first year law student can tell you that the USA follows the English Common Law as it existed prior to 1789, and as modified thereafter in this country.

    Birthers will believe any convoluted nonsense as long as it gets them to their preferred destination of disavowing Obama. Too bad not a single court in the nation buys in to the nonsense.

  35. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

    slash2k: No, Calvin’s Case says that being born within the allegiance of the king is the important part; a Scotsman could own land in England because he was born owing allegiance to King James, even though he was *not* born on English soil.

    Wong Kim Ark does not stand for the proposition that ONLY birth on U.S. soil confers natural-born status. Since WKA was not born abroad to citizen parents, that simply was not an issue before the court. The court did, however, note that since the time of Edward III:

    And note exactly what the paragraph preceeding that list of statutes said:

    “Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport, and they have never been considered in either country as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.”

    And following the list of statutes:

    “So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. ”

    It aslo goes through a laundry list of authorities stating that these additions were not part of the common law, including, “It has been pertinently observed that, if the statute of Edward III had only been declaratory of the common law, the subsequent legislation on the subject would have been wholly unnecessary.”

    Furthermore, quoting Binney, “There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.”

    The Court in no sense as far as I can see seems to be accepting anything but born in the territory/subject to the jursidiction is part of the common law. The can be additions to citizenship, but that is not part of the common law definition as put forward by WKA.

  36. avatar
    JD Reed August 20, 2013 at 7:09 pm #

    sfjeff: thats not what I learned growing up here in the U.S of A.My conservative ex-Marine civics teacher would have had little patience with one of his students making up a new definition. He was a stickler for accuracy. That answer would have dropped your grade from a C to a D.

    Good!

  37. avatar
    Northland10 August 20, 2013 at 7:32 pm #

    helen:
    Natural born citizens are citizens born in the USA to to American Citizens who have no cloud on their citizenship.

    Please provide one school textbook that states this.

  38. avatar
    nbc August 20, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

    helen: Natural born citizens are citizens born in the USA to to American Citizens who have no cloud on their citizenship.

    That one was rejected by US v WKA…

    Nice try though

  39. avatar
    JD Reed August 20, 2013 at 7:45 pm #

    Helen: “Natural born citizens have more rights than the other classes of citizens in regards to their citizenship.
    They can run for all elective offices! It is harder to remove their citizenship from them.”
    OK Helen, I’ll bite. Where have you found “native-born” citizens being treated differently from natural born citizens in regard to having their citizenship stripped. Actual cases, not some generality.
    What do you suppose happens – when the government considers stripping someone’s citizenship, its agents go back and look at the records of the individual’s parents? What if no birth records were available? Universal birth certificates are a relatively recent phenomenon. Determining that someone was naturalized was, of course, an easy matter. But making the distinction that you assert – beyween native born and natural born, not so much.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 20, 2013 at 9:02 pm #

    The Supreme Court (Rogers v. Bellei) ruled that persons who became citizens at birth outside the United States were neither born in the United States, nor naturalized in the United States, and therefore were not afforded the equal protection of the 14th Amendment.

    So if we define “native born citizen” as someone born a citizen in the United States, then we can say that a “native born citizen” has more rights than a non-native person who is born a citizen (would be by my reasoning a natural born citizen). Specifically, additional requirements can be made by Congress for the retention of citizenship, and such requirements existed in the past.

    Rogers v. Bellei syllabus:

    Syllabus

    Appellee challenges the constitutionality of 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253, and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163.

    Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished. Pp. 401 U. S. 820-836.

    JD Reed: OK Helen, I’ll bite. Where have you found “native-born” citizens being treated differently from natural born citizens in regard to having their citizenship stripped. Actual cases, not some generality.

  41. avatar
    Rickey August 20, 2013 at 9:03 pm #

    Northland10: Please provide one school textbook that states this.

    I asked “Helen” that same question four days ago. Deafening silence ensued.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 20, 2013 at 9:06 pm #

    If you continue to randomly make stuff up, chances are that you will eventually get it right, but not so far.

    helen: Native born citizens are citizens born in the USA to non citizen parents,

    Naturalized citizens are citizens by action of federal law.

    Natural born citizens are citizens born in the USA to to American Citizens who have no cloud on their citizenship.

    Natural born citizens have more rights than the other classes of citizens in regards to their citizenship.

  43. avatar
    slash2k August 20, 2013 at 9:13 pm #

    JoZeppy: And note exactly what the paragraph preceeding that list of statutes said:

    And that paragraph proves my point, not yours. There is a body of law concerning the citizenship of those born within the country of alien stock, and a separate body of law concerning those born without the country of native stock. Those two bodies of law intersect, but they do not overlap, and neither restricts the other.

    JoZeppy: The whole point of the common law is that it’s case law that builds upon itself.

    Therefore, what the common law was in 1350 is not the same thing as what the common law was in 1789. The common law doesn’t exist in a vacuum and it’s not writ in flaming letters on the side of a mountain somewhere; for all intents, the common law at any point is whatever the majority of authorities say it is.

    The opinion goes on to quote Chief Justice Marshall:

    It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.

    Discussions of the citizenship of persons born abroad is clearly beyond the case of Wong Kim Ark, because he was NOT born abroad. WKA therefore cannot control a case about persons born abroad to American parents.

  44. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 20, 2013 at 9:20 pm #

    She uses a time-honored birther debate technique: the ass pull.

    slash2k: From whence do you obtain your three categories? There are only two in the Constitution: natural born and those made under the naturalization power.

  45. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater August 20, 2013 at 9:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The Supreme Court (Rogers v. Bellei) ruled that persons who became citizens at birth outside the United States were neither born in the United States, nor naturalized in the United States, and therefore were not afforded the equal protection of the 14th Amendment.

    So if we define “native born citizen” as someone born a citizen in the United States, then we can say that a “native born citizen” has more rights than a non-native person who is born a citizen (would be by my reasoning a natural born citizen). Specifically, additional requirements can be made by Congress for the retention of citizenship, and such requirements existed in the past.

    Rogers V Bellei used the law at the time to basically say that Bellei had to have a number of years inside the US in order to maintain his citizenship. However; the case is now a moot point since Congress amended that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 back in 1978 removing the requirement. Thus this isn’t current standing law.

  46. avatar
    JPotter August 20, 2013 at 9:30 pm #

    Slartibartfast: She

    “She”? That ain’t no woman! It’s a man, man!

  47. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 9:31 pm #

    slash2k: Discussions of the citizenship of persons born abroad is clearly beyond the case of Wong Kim Ark, because he was NOT born abroad. WKA therefore cannot control a case about persons born abroad to American parents.

    True, discussions about persons born abroad in WKA would be nothing more than dicta, but when you go to a case actually about a person born abroad, as in Rogers v. Bellei, you’re totally cut off at the knees. While the court never specifically stated that Bellei was naturalized (or NBC for that matter), the entire opinion the Court anchors its discussion in naturalization. Justice Black, in his dissent flatly calls out majority on their treatment as naturalization, pointing their distinction is that he was not naturalized in the US, thus not subject to the 14th amendment (he also concluded that Bellei was naturalized).

  48. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 20, 2013 at 9:38 pm #

    I suspect you are correct but since I don’t really have any evidence I might as well be polite.

    JPotter: “She”? That ain’t no woman! It’s a man, man!

  49. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 20, 2013 at 9:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If you continue to randomly make stuff up, chances are that you will eventually get it right, but not so far.

    Infinite number of monkeys versus an infinite number of birthers. Hmm. I think I’ll put my money on the monkeys.

  50. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 9:58 pm #

    slash2k: And that paragraph proves my point, not yours. There is a body of law concerning the citizenship of those born within the country of alien stock, and a separate body of law concerning those born without the country of native stock. Those two bodies of law intersect, but they do not overlap, and neither restricts the other.

    There are two bodies of law, but they’re not necessarily both accepted as the common law. Just because there are statutory additions, does not necessarily mean the underlying common law was changed, and WKA (again, only dicta) points out several of those authorities that questioned whether the common law was changed, either here or in England. This is further complicated by the fact that the Brits don’t have the problem of a Constitution that is the supreme law of the land. They of parliamentary supremacy. In short, Parliament cannot pass an “unconstitutional” act. If they can pass it, it’s ok. However, we don’t quite have the flexibility. I’d argue that it was clearly not part of the common law. Congress felt the need to pass a statute three years after the Constitution was ratified to make foreign born children of citizens. Congress at various times took that privilege away, leaving foreign born with no right of citizenship. So if Congress has the power to grant, condition, or withdraw the right of citizenship, how can it possibly be part of the common law, that invokes particular Constitutional rights? It has to be something else….and since there are only two sources of citizenship, it has to be naturalization.

  51. avatar
    misha marinsky August 20, 2013 at 9:58 pm #

    helen: Cruz may not be eligible as their is no sign…

    I agree. Their is no sign. Thanks for pointing that out, right their.

  52. avatar
    misha marinsky August 20, 2013 at 10:12 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Any citizen is eligible for most elected offices in the United States…..from dog catcher to member of Congress.

    Mr. Helen has brought up parental marriage as central to being elected, and I agree:

    “That bastard could not be elected dog catcher.”

  53. avatar
    misha marinsky August 20, 2013 at 10:15 pm #

    helen: Natural born citizens are citizens born in the USA to to American Citizens who have no cloud on their citizenship.

    Like George Romney?

  54. avatar
    misha marinsky August 20, 2013 at 10:27 pm #

    Cruz is eligible. I can’t wait for the primaries. Rand Paul, Rafael Edward Cruz, Sanctorum…

    Get out the butterfly nets…

  55. avatar
    slash2k August 20, 2013 at 10:32 pm #

    @JoZeppy: no, Rogers v. Bellei is about who is or who is not a citizen of the U.S. (getting back to my point about Congress’s power to determine who needs naturalizing), and whether a citizen of the U.S. can lose that status by operation of statute. How is that at all relevant to Cruz? Justice Black declares Bellei to have been naturalized but the majority, as you yourself acknowledge, does not.

    Jurisprudence on citizenship has shifted somewhat since Kawakita v. United States (which held that even those born on the soil and under the jurisdiction could lose their citizenship by operation of statute). Rogers v. Bellei posits a difference between citizenship by statute and citizenship under the 14th Amendment. It does not posit a difference between citizenship by birth and natural-born citizenship.

  56. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 20, 2013 at 10:39 pm #

    misha marinsky: Get out the butterfly nets…

    Like I said…..it’s turning into spectator sport. Time to rent some more bleachers, clean up the old popcorn machine and order a few kegs from Liquor Barn.

  57. avatar
    Keith August 20, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

    CarlOrcas: I particularly like the comment from jberryhill: “It would be clearer if Obama’s citizenship were indicated as “US”, since Canadians are also “Americans”.”

    Hmmm…..if Canadians are Americans then what are Mexicans? Oh, oh.

    Mexicans consider themselves very much “Americano”, pointing out that there is a North America, a Central America, and a South America.

    They consider US and Canadian citizens “Notre-Americanos” and think it is rather arrogant of the “yanquis” to think they have sole possession of the term “American”.

  58. avatar
    Keith August 20, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

    helen: there are native born citizens, naturalized citizens, and natural born citizens.

    True, but misleading.

    There are Natural-ized citizens and there are Natural-Born citizens.

    Every Native-born citizen is, by Constitutional definition a Natural-Born Citizen.

    It is not necessarily so that every Natural-Born citizen is a Native-Born Citizen.

    It is a fact that MOST Natural-Born Citizens are Native-Born Citizens, but it is NOT a fact that all are. McCain and Cruz are two examples of Natural-Born Citizens who are not also Native-Born.

    It is a fact that every person who lives in the Phoenix metropolitan area lives in Arizona. It is not a fact that every person who lives in Arizona lives in the Phoenix metropolitan area (thank goodness for Tucson, Flagstaff, Yuma, Kingman, Nogales, and all the other great Arizona communities).

    The Presidential eligibility clause in the Constitution requires only that the President be Natural-Born, not Native-Born.

  59. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

    slash2k:
    @JoZeppy: no, Rogers v. Bellei is about who is or who is not a citizen of the U.S. (getting back to my point about Congress’s power to determine who needs naturalizing), and whether a citizen of the U.S. can lose that status by operation of statute. How is that at all relevant to Cruz? Justice Black declares Bellei to have been naturalized but the majority, as you yourself acknowledge, does not.

    Jurisprudence on citizenship has shifted somewhat since Kawakita v. United States (which held that even those born on the soil and under the jurisdiction could lose their citizenship by operation of statute). Rogers v. Bellei posits a difference between citizenship by statute and citizenship under the 14th Amendment. It does not posit a difference between citizenship by birth and natural-born citizenship.

    The majority never calls Bellei a NBC, but their rationale heavily relies on the a discussion of naturalization. So likewise, the SCOTUS never called WKA an NBC, but when their entire discussion is about NBC, we can conclude that is what he is.

    And from the majority opinion:

    “The reach of congressional power in this area is readily apparent:

    1. Over 70 years ago, the Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, reviewed and discussed early English statutes relating to rights of inheritance and of citizenship of persons born abroad of parents who were British subjects. United States v. Won Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 668-671 (1898). The Court concluded that “naturalization by descent” was not a common law concept, but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment.”

    We look to the common law for undefined terms used in the Constitution..

    Again, nowhere in the majority opinion do you have a hint that they were trying to extend NBC to include Bellei. In fact, quite the opposite. Nowhere does the opinion lead you to conclude that Bellei was anything but naturalized.

  60. avatar
    slash2k August 20, 2013 at 11:13 pm #

    JoZeppy: Congress felt the need to pass a statute three years after the Constitution was ratified to make foreign born children of citizens

    To MAKE them citizens, or declare they already were citizens?

    JoZeppy: since there are only two sources of citizenship, it has to be naturalization.

    I would argue, however, that the other source is the body of law (common, statute, and case) denoting who is already a citizen without need of naturalization. If common law is case law that builds on itself (your words), then Calvin’s Case is part of the landscape of the law by 1789; so are the statutes of Edward III. You don’t need to be born in England to be born in the allegiance of the King of England.

  61. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2013 at 11:22 pm #

    slash2k: To MAKE them citizens, or declare they already were citizens?

    MAKE them citizens. Rogers v. Bellei makes it very clear that Congress is under no obligation to grant citizenship to foreign born children, and has, on occasion left them without citizenship. If they are already citizens, congress can do nothing to deprive them of their citizenship.

    slash2k: I would argue, however, that the other source is the body of law (common, statute, and case) denoting who is already a citizen without need of naturalization. If common law is case law that builds on itself (your words), then Calvin’s Case is part of the landscape of the law by 1789; so are the statutes of Edward III. You don’t need to be born in England to be born in the allegiance of the King of England.

    But that is clearly that the case, as between 1802 and 1855 the children of citizens born abroad were aliens, with no claim of citizenship. The statutes of Edward III clearly aren’t considered to be incorporated to the common law definition, otherwise this would not be possible.

  62. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 20, 2013 at 11:27 pm #

    Cruz can’t be Canadian, because the rest of his head doesn’t completely separate from the lower jaw, when he talks.

  63. avatar
    misha marinsky August 20, 2013 at 11:32 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Cruz can’t be Canadian, because the rest of his head doesn’t completely separate from the lower jaw, when he talks.

    Eh?

  64. avatar
    misha marinsky August 20, 2013 at 11:33 pm #

    Keith: It is a fact that every person who lives in the Phoenix metropolitan area lives in Arizona.

    Except Arpaio. He lives on Mars.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 20, 2013 at 11:55 pm #

    I don’t think “landscape” is a legal term. Americans knew about British statues making foreign born children of natural born subjects themselves natural born subjects. The US Congress decided that we should have such a statute too. If we needed a statute, then it must not have been the case without a statute according to the Congress.

    slash2k: If common law is case law that builds on itself (your words), then Calvin’s Case is part of the landscape of the law by 1789; so are the statutes of Edward III. You don’t need to be born in England to be born in the allegiance of the King of England.

  66. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 20, 2013 at 11:57 pm #

    Misha,

    It’s a South Park reference. All of the Canadians, from Terrence and Phillip to Kyle’s adopted brother Ike are animated with the top half of their head completely detached when they talk.

    Andrew,

    Cruz is probably in disguise—sort of like one of those Mission Impossible masks…

    misha marinsky: Eh?

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2013 at 12:00 am #

    I wouldn’t agree, since the 14th Amendment includes naturalized citizens made so by statute.

    The distinction is between persons who become citizens in the United States and those who become citizens outside the United States.

    slash2k: Rogers v. Bellei posits a difference between citizenship by statute and citizenship under the 14th Amendment. It does not posit a difference between citizenship by birth and natural-born citizenship.

  68. avatar
    slash2k August 21, 2013 at 12:03 am #

    JoZeppy:

    Rogers v. Bellei: 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.

    Read that last clause carefully. By statute, Congress has the power to govern citizenship status, even as Parliament did. The Statute of 1351 did not purport to naturalize children born outside the realm; it simply declared those born ad fidem Regis were subjects of the King.

    Similarly, statutes could give or withhold citizenship as the King in Parliament (or Congress) saw fit, The statute of 7 Anne c.5 (“” the children of all natural-born subjects born out of ligeance of her Majesty her heirs and successors shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom to all intents constructions and purposes whatsoever.”) again did not purport to have such children naturalized; it declared they were natural-born, by statute.

    If you can, by statute, declare someone to be natural-born, then it follows that you can by statute you declare them not natural-born (or alternatively fail to pass a statute making any declaration).

  69. avatar
    The European August 21, 2013 at 1:48 am #

    It is stunning how much some birthers hate Pres. Obama. They eat up one of their own (conservatives) hoping that this will somehow get BHO out of office

  70. avatar
    Lupin August 21, 2013 at 3:26 am #

    Cruz was born on a 22 December. That would make him a Sagittarius. But Mario said Sagittariuses are not native-born citizens unless their fathers are capricorns. I don’t know which sign was Cruz’s dad but Orly says he wasn’t born a capricorn but an anteater. So Cruz is ineligible. There.

    How is that for an Helen of Troll impersonation?

  71. avatar
    Lupin August 21, 2013 at 3:26 am #

    The European: It is stunning how much some birthers hate Pres. Obama.

    And we all wonder why that is? (Not.)

  72. avatar
    brygenon August 21, 2013 at 3:38 am #

    JoZeppy: The Supreme Court has stated very clearly where we go in such an instance, the Common Law. Not to other legislation. Not to the OED. The Common Law. The clearest statement we have on the Common Law definition is WKA. WKA stated that “naturalization by descent” was not part of the Common Law, but a statutory enactment. Two things to note there. The use of the term “naturalization” and that it is not part of the Common Law.

    The Court was equally clear that what we adopted was the language of English common law, not the rule. The clearest statement on the meaning of “natural born” is in Wong’s quote of British Jurist A.V. Dicey: “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.'”

    A common law system is one in which great weight is placed on legal precedent. The common law is what previous court cases have taken it to be. In England, much of the law could not be traced back to any statutory authority, and “common law” is often used to refer particularly to that for which the oldest known basis is case law. This form of common law is not superior to statute; statute can amend the common law at any time.

    Ted Cruz’s eligibility will not be decided by a deep-dive into which English laws have no identifiable origin in legislation or edict. The language of English common law is also the language of English statutory law. The reason we look to it in interpreting our Constitution is that it was the legal terminology known to the authors and ratifiers. Which British rules originated from a court rather than a monarch or a pariliment is unimportant.

    JoZeppy:
    The other problem is the one case I’ve seen that says McCain was NBC was Robinson v. Bowen, which cites to Rogers v. Bellei. I’ve stated my issues with that elsewhere, so I won’t go into that much detail…

    Whatever your issues with that case, it was about as much of a problem as the Panamanian-born Republican nominee had on eligibility.

  73. avatar
    The Magic M August 21, 2013 at 9:40 am #

    brygenon: The reason we look to it in interpreting our Constitution is that it was the legal terminology known to the authors and ratifiers.

    And because they did not, as the Vattelists claim, invent new meanings for Common Law terminology that they simply “forgot” (or didn’t bother) to share with the people they wrote the Constitution for.

    The European: They eat up one of their own (conservatives) hoping that this will somehow get BHO out of office

    Birthers are so far out that they don’t consider anyone in the conservative spectrum “their own”. They believe the GOP is “in on it” and they can’t even get the most far-out conservative groups (like the Oath Keepers) to buy into their stuff, thereby rendering them all “traitors” as well in the birthers’ book.

  74. avatar
    John Reilly August 21, 2013 at 10:14 am #

    Lupin:
    Cruz was born on a 22 December. That would make him a Sagittarius. But Mario said Sagittariuses are not native-born citizens unless their fathers are capricorns. I don’t know which sign was Cruz’s dad but Orly says he wasn’t born a capricorn but an anteater. So Cruz is ineligible. There.

    How is that for an Helen of Troll impersonation?

    Not very good. All of your words are spelled correctly. In addition, you have spaces between each of your words (something Vattel did as well.)

  75. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 10:28 am #

    slash2k: Read that last clause carefully. By statute, Congress has the power to govern citizenship status, even as Parliament did.

    No it does not. Congress only was the power to pass rules on naturalization. Congress’ power is limited by the grants in the Constitution, Parliament has no such limitation. Therefore, any statute passed must, by defintion, be a naturalization statute. So while Parliament may declare anyone it wants to be natural born, irrespective of when that declaration is made (it could declare an adult foreigner a NBC if it so wished), Congress can only naturalize those with its ability to pass a statute.

    slash2k: If you can, by statute, declare someone to be natural-born, then it follows that you can by statute you declare them not natural-born (or alternatively fail to pass a statute making any declaration).

    And they key point being, that while Parliament has that power, the US Congress only has power of naturalization.

  76. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 11:40 am #

    brygenon: The Court was equally clear that what we adopted was the language of English common law, not the rule. The clearest statement on the meaning of “natural born” is in Wong’s quote of British Jurist A.V. Dicey: “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’”

    You’re taking the Dicey quote out of context. The very next sentance (still quoting Dicey), “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” A short paragraph later, it states again (yet again quoting Dicey), “at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth.”

    brygenon: A common law system is one in which great weight is placed on legal precedent. The common law is what previous court cases have taken it to be. In England, much of the law could not be traced back to any statutory authority, and “common law” is often used to refer particularly to that for which the oldest known basis is case law. This form of common law is not superior to statute; statute can amend the common law at any time.

    And as Dicey pointed out, and is quoted WKA, “naturalization by descent is not part of the common law.” The question is did the founders understand “naturalization by descent” to be part of the term, NBC? The fact that they passed a statute 3 years latter, leads me to believe they did not. The fact that children born abroad were stripped of any citizenship 15 years after ratification of the Constitution leads me to believe that it was not part of their understanding of NBC. And reading Rogers v. Beilli’s reliance on natrualization, I would argue that as recently as 1971, it was not considered part of the defintion of NBC. The Court further quoted Binney, “The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.”

    brygenon: Ted Cruz’s eligibility will not be decided by a deep-dive into which English laws have no identifiable origin in legislation or edict. The language of English common law is also the language of English statutory law. The reason we look to it in interpreting our Constitution is that it was the legal terminology known to the authors and ratifiers. Which British rules originated from a court rather than a monarch or a pariliment is unimportant.

    And as I stated previously, yes, the common law can be added to by statute, GENERALLY. The question is, what did the founders understand that common law meaning to be. As from the quotes from Dicey above, it appears that the concept of natrualization by descent was not considered part of the accepted definition. The fact that it was refered to as naturalization is another telling clue, don’t you think? So if the term NBC was only understood to mean born in the dominion, and citizenship by descent as naturalization, those understandings must be applied here. And while parliament has to power to change the very definition itself, we do not have that luxery. Here we are also talking about altering the meaning of the Constitution. I know of no instances where the Court has upheld such a backdoor amendment process Constitutional (or for that matter, do I even know of any such attempt). And again, Congress was only granted the power over naturalization. If all they can do is natrualize, how then can they alter the path to natural born citizenhip?

    brygenon: Whatever your issues with that case, it was about as much of a problem as the Panamanian-born Republican nominee had on eligibility.

    I din’t delude myself in thinking this is anything but an academic process. I questioned McCain’s NBC status when he ran, but only in passing. Like I said, it’s an intellectual debate for me, not a political jihad. I much rather be in a room with Lawrence Tribe debating the issue over drinks, than in a court room arguing it. Meaning of NBC aside, I know of no way to raise the issue before a court. In any challenge, standing is a giant hurdle. Those who argueably have standing would never do it, because it very well would be political suicide. And finally, the courts have held the nomination process is in the exclusive control of the political parties, so even if you could get by standing, there’s not much chance the courts will hear the arguments, and finally, the courts will leave it to the political branches to work out, and electoral college to work out. Personally, I think Arnold Schwartzenager could run, and the courts would stay out of it. There’s just no mechanism in the courts to address the issue (and I get the feeling the courts don’t want to wade into that).

    Furthermore, I have no problem with Cruz running. He’s an arrogant radical that will reinforce the image of the crazy Republican, and turn of the moderate indpendants.

  77. avatar
    Sean August 21, 2013 at 11:48 am #

    Let Cruz run. I just want to see the Teabaggers stutter like Jackie Gleason. Hamina Hamina Hamina Hamina.

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2013 at 12:05 pm #

    I don’t see that Dicey is being taken out of context at all. I don’t see that anything you cited from Dicey in any way alters the context. Dicey said:

    “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’”

    Saying “A means B” is of the form of a definition. This is exactly what the Oxford English Dictionary says is the meaning of “natural born.” There is a very strong presumption from these two sources that Dicey is defining “natural born subject” in this sentence. If Dicey had said “is” instead of “means” then I might be better disposed to accept what follows as an exposition of the definition or a clarification, but he didn’t say “is.”

    To say that Dicey defined “natural born subject” as someone born a subject under the common law is contrary to fact–English law made persons natural born subjects who were not born subjects under the Common Law, and Dicey could not have been unaware of that.

    So why would Dicey contradict himself in following text as well as contradict the state of the Law when he was writing? I do not see how this two-meaning theory is justified.

    Rather, when Dicey said “A means B” he defined A, i.e. “natural born subject.” When a word is defined, the definition may be substituted for the word, and if you substitute “British subject at the moment of his birth” for “natural born subject” in the further citations, you get:

    “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a British subject at the moment of his birth.”

    Isn’t that correct? If it is correct, then it cannot be an argument impugning the assertion that Dicey meant what he said in what I have labeled his “definition.”

    Dicey defines “natural born subject” and then goes on to talk about who is a natural born subject under the common law.

    This is blatantly obvious to me, but not to lots of other folks and I haven’t quite figured out why.

    JoZeppy: You’re taking the Dicey quote out of context.

  79. avatar
    donna August 21, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    JoZeppy: Furthermore, I have no problem with Cruz running. He’s an arrogant radical that will reinforce the image of the crazy Republican, and turn of the moderate indpendants.

    Sean: Let Cruz run. I just want to see the Teabaggers stutter like Jackie Gleason. Hamina Hamina Hamina Hamina.

    i CONCUR

    as republican strategist steve schmidt said this week, we’re going to have a titanic fight inside the republican party as we approach 2016 – it’s a sign of dysfunction within the party – this will be a political disaster for republicans

    While Cruz’s friends from the debate team foresaw a successful career in politics for Cruz, many of the Princeton alums offered that they were deeply troubled by the possibility of Cruz running for president, a notion that one, who did not want to be quoted speaking against a former classmate who is now a senator, called notion “HORRIFYING.” (emphasis mine)

    Stephanie Petelos, president of the College Republicans at the University of Alabama: “The majority of students don’t derive the premise of their argument for or against gay marriage from religion, because we’re governed by the Constitution and not the Bible.” And now the state Republican Party is advancing a resolution that would boot her from the steering committee.

  80. avatar
    Kiwiwriter August 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm #

    The only questions I have for “Helen,” who is probably not female are these:

    What law school did you graduate from?

    That was an on-line non-accredited university, wasn’t it?

  81. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 1:01 pm #

    By our own Court’s opinions, there are two types of citizens – natural born, and naturalized. Add to that Dicey’s statement that, “naturalization by descent is not part of the common law” you have a double condemnation in that he excludes it from the common law, and defines it as “naturalization.” So even if I accept, arguendo, that natrual born means merely born a subject/citizen, we, as bound by the US Constitution, are also stuck with only the common law defintion, that Dicey states, it means those born in the domain are those who acquire that status at birth. I’ll say that one more time. According to Dicey, the common law says those who are born citizens are NBC, and also under the common law, only those born in the domain are born citizens citizens at birth. He clearly excludes, “naturalization by descent” as being part of the common law. It is a statutory addition to the common law.

    Now of course, additions can be made. And Parliament is not limited in their power to add citizens, or how they define it. So while parlaiment is free to add naturalization by descent, with no consequence, to the definition of NBC, we are not. Just as Congress can’t make an endrun around the amendment process by redefining “commerce” in a statute, Congress can’t make an endrun around the NBC clause by redefining NBC.

  82. avatar
    charo August 21, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

    JoZeppy: You’re taking the Dicey quote out of context …

    I agree whole heartedly with much or your legal commentary, particularly the following:

    And while parliament has to power to change the very definition itself, we do not have that luxery. Here we are also talking about altering the meaning of the Constitution. I know of no instances where the Court has upheld such a backdoor amendment process Constitutional (or for that matter, do I even know of any such attempt). And again, Congress was only granted the power over naturalization. If all they can do is natrualize, how then can they alter the path to natural born citizenhip?

  83. avatar
    Rickey August 21, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

    A Cruz supporter is accusing Rand Paul’s people of ginning up the issue.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-ally-accuses-rand-paul-team-of-pushing-birther-issue-in-iowa/

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2013 at 1:49 pm #

    I’m trying to understand your position, but it seems like you are begging the question.

    While there may be citations that don’t come to my mind, my recollection is that the courts have said that their are two sources (not kinds) of citizenship, and that those are implied by the Constitution, birth and naturalization–not “birth under the common law and naturalization” but simply “birth and naturalization.” To suggest that only birth under the common law satisfies court understanding of “birth” derived from Article II is to ignore the fact that when the Constitution went into effect, there were state laws making persons citizens, and had done for 100 years already. National citizenship not derived from state citizenship is a concept that developed much later. I simply do not see the argument that anything in the Constitution requires that only persons who are citizens under the common law are natural born citizens under Article II, or are born citizens.

    The Constitution implies some persons are citizens by birth. If natural born citizen means citizen at birth, then the court’s “birth and naturalization” would simply mean those born citizens and those made citizens later. Just because some persons are citizens at birth by the common law does not mean that all persons who are citizens at birth must be so by the common law, nor does any interpretation of the Constitution force that upon us. This is confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.

    Remember Madison’s speech before Congress on the eligibility of Congressman Smith. The question was when Smith became a citizen of the United States for eligibility purposes. Madison said that if South Carolina had a clear statute on citizenship, then there would be no question whether Smith was eligible or not. That is, eligibility for federal office under the Constitution in 1790 according to Madison was based on state law, not the common law, unless said state law did not exist. It was only because South Carolina law wasn’t clear that Madison had to look to other principles to decide when Smith became a citizen.

    And as I have pointed elsewhere, Dicey defines (“A” means “B”) natural born subject as a subject from birth. Again it would be begging the question to assume that he redefined it in the exposition that follows, which is not redefining natural born subject, but stating who is a citizen at birth under common law.

    Granted that Rogers v. Bellei seems to say that persons born citizens overseas are “naturalized;” this is you must admit an odd usage of the phrase “naturalized”, and further I think you will agree that any such usage is dicta. It is not necessary to call them naturalized to exclude them from the 14th Amendment. The kind of question that was answered in Rogers is not the kind of question considered in Minor and I think it would be overstepping what those cases say to draw the conclusion you do.

    Basically I read your argument is saying, the definition is this because Congress cannot redefine it. That begs the question of what the definition was in the first place.

    JoZeppy: By our own Court’s opinions, there are two types of citizens – natural born, and naturalized. Add to that Dicey’s statement that, “naturalization by descent is not part of the common law” you have a double condemnation in that he excludes it from the common law, and defines it as “naturalization.” So even if I accept, arguendo, that natrual born means merely born a subject/citizen, we, as bound by the US Constitution, are also stuck with only the common law defintion, that Dicey states, it means those born in the domain are those who acquire that status at birth. I’ll say that one more time. According to Dicey, the common law says those who are born citizens are NBC, and also under the common law, only those born in the domain are born citizens citizens at birth. He clearly excludes, “naturalization by descent” as being part of the common law. It is a statutory addition to the common law.

    Now of course, additions can be made. And Parliament is not limited in their power to add citizens, or how they define it. So while parlaiment is free to add naturalization by descent, with no consequence, to the definition of NBC, we are not. Just as Congress can’t make an endrun around the amendment process by redefining “commerce” in a statute, Congress can’t make an endrun around the NBC clause by redefining NBC.

  85. avatar
    slash2k August 21, 2013 at 1:52 pm #

    JoZeppy: So even if I accept, arguendo, that natrual born means merely born a subject/citizen, we, as bound by the US Constitution, are also stuck with only the common law defintion

    Why are we stuck with only the common law definition, though? The power to establish a uniform law of naturalization has as an essential component the power to legislate who needs naturalizing in the first place.

    By 1789, the rule for 400 years had been that citizenship was defined by the common law as amended by statute. Whether you use “landscape of the law” or “state of the law” or another term, it is well-known to the founders that common law was not the only vehicle for defining citizen. The act of 7 Anne quote above is a good example: it’s also known as the Foreign Protestant Naturalization Act, and its first several sections define the process for *making* subjects from immigrants. Then section 3 says in effect, “oh, by the way, this group over here, they don’t need making into subjects, because they are deemed and declared to be natural-born subjects already.” That is part of the scope of British naturalization law: declaring who is a subject already and how to make new subjects of those who are not. What is your argument that American naturalization law does not cover the same breadth of scope? Is “naturalization law” in its British meaning different than the same term in its American meaning?

    Edited to add: looks like Doc made the same point, and better.

  86. avatar
    HistorianDude August 21, 2013 at 2:15 pm #

    JoZeppy: The clearest statement we have on the Common Law definition is WKA. WKA stated that “naturalization by descent” was not part of the Common Law, but a statutory enactment.

    Help me out here… I have searched the decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark. The phrase you placed in quotation marks (“naturalization by descent”) can be found nowhere in the text.

    Could you be a bit more specific?

  87. avatar
    HistorianDude August 21, 2013 at 2:33 pm #

    JoZeppy: Just read Wonk Kim Ark. It defined it as born on the territory, subject to the jurisdiciton.

    What would lead you to believe this to be an exclusive definition? Given the stated facts of the case any discussion of the citizenship status of foreign born children of citizens would be a bit superfluous, do you not agree? The definition as offered by Wong Kim Ark is certainly sufficient to make a person a natural-born US citizen… but there is no indication it is the necessary definition.

  88. avatar
    HistorianDude August 21, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

    Rickey: A Cruz supporter is accusing Rand Paul’s people of ginning up the issue.

    Like father, like son.

    It was Ron Paul supporters who were the original McCain birthers.

  89. avatar
    helen August 21, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

    I have for years objected to the use of the British Crown’s usage of the word “subject” to be the same as the American word “citizen”

    They are two different things.

    A subject is under the control of the regent! A “citizen” is not under the control of the President.

    And to say that because a “subject” is a “subject” because he was born on the King’s land, and therefore a subject, means that a person born in the USA is the equivelent to a “citizen” is not my point of view.

  90. avatar
    Daniel August 21, 2013 at 3:06 pm #

    helen: I have for years objected to the use of the British Crown’s usage …… is not my point of view.

    I’m sure the British Crown will give your objection all the consideration it deserves. Maybe even as much as the USA gives your point of view….

  91. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 3:08 pm #

    I’ll try to answer both Dr. and Slash with one answer (sorry if I miss parts). As I read Dicey, he defines the common law definition in two steps.

    1) Who are NBC/S > those who are born citizens

    2) Who is born a citizen/subject under the common law > those born in the dominion under the jurisdiction.

    That was the state of the common law, at the time of the drafting of our Constitution. Of course you have that language, “and as amended by statute.” But that is irrelevant to our discussion, because for questions of meaning of terms in the Constitution, we look to the meaning in the common law, as of the drafting. A snapshot of the Common Law at one point in time. And according to Dicey, naturalization by descent was not part of the common law understanding, albeit, a statutory reality.

    As for the language of “sources” of citizenship. I believe Doc is correct. However, it does not make an effective difference. It comes down to whether define the grant to citizens’ children born abroad naturalization or not. The child is not entitled to the claim of citizenship as a result of its birth. It is a grant of Congress. As whether “naturalization by descent” is dicta or not…..I’m not sure. I’ll have to re-read it. But to the extent the court was using the ability to withdraw a naturalized citizen’s citizenship, and what Justice Black refered to as “naturalzied, but not in the United States” it may be part of the holding in the same way WKA’s natural born citizenship was part of the holding (a fundamental part of the rationale of making him a citizen).

    Now, of course, the English/British parliament can change who is a citizen at birth, via “naturalization by descent” (I’m using Dicey’s language here just for consistency). Now arguably, in England/Britian, that person is a Natural Born Subject, because he fits Dicey’s definition of subject at birth. Now why can’t Congress do the same thing? Because when looking at undefined terms in the constitution, that have their source in the common law, we look to the common law at the time of the drafting. Can Congress make citizens from birth? Yes. Can they be NBC? No. Why? For two reasons: 1) By doing so effectively changes the meaning of a clause of the Constitution, and Congress cannot do that, it only can be done by amendemnt; and 2) Congress was only granted to power of naturalization. Naturalization is the process of removing one’s alienage.

    By using the language in the Constitution, the founders have frozen the meaning of the phrase in time. Yes, congress can make statutory changes to the sources of citizenship. However, Congress is strictly limited in its powers by the Constitution. Parliament, on the other hand, is not. The British has a concept of Parliamentary Supremecy. We, on the other hand, have Constitutional Supremecy. So by that very nature, no, we do not have the same power as the British naturalization law. Congress cannot amend the Constitution by a statute.

  92. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    HistorianDude: Help me out here… I have searched the decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark. The phrase you placed in quotation marks (“naturalization by descent”) can be found nowhere in the text.

    Could you be a bit more specific?

    I’m sorry. It was “nationality by descent” in WKA. It was in Rogers v. Bellei that used “naturalization by descent.” I appologize for my sloppiness.

  93. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 3:21 pm #

    HistorianDude: What would lead you to believe this to be an exclusive definition? Given the stated facts of the case any discussion of the citizenship status of foreign born children of citizens would be a bit superfluous, do you not agree? The definition as offered by Wong Kim Ark is certainly sufficient to make a person a natural-born US citizen… but there is no indication it is the necessary definition.

    I agree that any discussion in WKA about citizenship of those born aboard would be mere dicta. However, the the extent that it was adopted by and followed by Rogers v. Bellei, it would be the law.

  94. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

    helen: And to say that because a “subject” is a “subject” because he was born on the King’s land, and therefore a subject, means that a person born in the USA is the equivelent to a “citizen” is not my point of view.

    I hate to break it to you, but your point of view really doesn’t matter much. When Jefferson originally drafted the Declaration of Independence, he used the word subject. I think that, and the Supreme Court’s relaince on the equivalency between the two is probably a far more useful point of view than yours.

  95. avatar
    donna August 21, 2013 at 3:38 pm #

    JoZeppy: When Jefferson originally drafted the Declaration of Independence, he used the word subject.

    Draft of Declaration of Independence named subjects, not citizens

    Hyperspectral images of a draft of the Declaration of Independence reveal that it originally used the word ‘subjects’ instead of ‘citizens’ at a critical juncture. After writing “our fellow subjects,” author Thomas Jefferson scrubbed it out and replaced it with the familiar alternative. To the Library of Congress, whose Preservation Research and Testing Division analyzed the document with the latest high-resolution camera equipment, it illustrates an important moment: “when [Jefferson] reconsidered his choice of words and articulated the recognition that the people of the fledgling United States of America were no longer subjects of any nation, but citizens of an emerging democracy.”

    http://boingboing.net/2010/07/03/declaration-of-indep.html

  96. avatar
    slash2k August 21, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

    JoZeppy: But that is irrelevant to our discussion, because for questions of meaning of terms in the Constitution, we look to the meaning in the common law, as of the drafting.

    You read any of the relevant opinions (Wong Kim Ark, Rogers v. Bellei, etc.), and they all include a discussion of the *statute* law of the English realm as related to citizenship. Why would the statutes of 17 Edward III or 7 Anne or 11-12 Wm III matter at all in the discussion, unless we look to the meaning of the terms in the law, common and statute, as of the drafting?

    You are left arguing either (1) the statutes are relevant and part of the discussion, or (2) lots of Supreme Court justices have wasted lots of space on irrelevant matters. (It’s not even just on citizenship, either: Justice Scalia, e.g., quoted a statute of William and Mary in writing the court’s opinion on what the Second Amendment means [DC v. Heller].)

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2013 at 4:22 pm #

    My problem with this is twofold:

    First it assumes that the Common Law defines “natural born subject” or that it defines “natural born subject” in terms of birth within the legiance of the king. I don’t see that either has been demonstrated. What the Common Law said, as I understand it, is that persons born within the legiance of the king are natural born subjects, not that natural born subject means born withing the legiance of the King (necessary and sufficient conditions). I would further object to the idea that the British Parliament changed the definition of natural born subject through legislation. The various acts are not worded that way. They don’t say “natural born subject now means such and so.” They say that these persons are now taken to be natural born subjects. The 1772 act says, for example:

    That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, by virtue of a Statute made in the Fourth Year of King George the Second, to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, which relates to the natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom.

    I focus on the phrase “enacted to be.” This does not seem in any way to define natural born subject but to the change the status of persons vis-a-vis the the definition.

    Generally if one thing defines another, then the two terms can be substituted without changing the meaning. However, of you place “born within the legiance of the King” in place of “natural born subject of Britain” in the preceding, it becomes absurd:

    That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, by virtue of a Statute made in the Fourth Year of King George the Second, to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, which relates to persons born within the legiance of the king, intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of persons born within the legiance of the king, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be,persons born within the legiance of the king, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom.

    My second objection to this is that it ignores the fact that at the time of the enactment of the Constitution, there were extant state laws determining who was born a citizen and to invoke the default of the English Common Law contradicts the principle that legislation supersedes the common law. It’s fine to take a snapshot of the state of the law in 1789, but it is not fine to crop the photo so as to exclude how the states had changed the common law up to that point in defining citizenship. It would seem to me a fiction to invoke the Common Law as governing the citizenship of anyone in 1789 when there was a state law that said otherwise.

    If it were actually true that it was understood in 1789 that English Common Law defined citizenship by birth then why (besides that they were racist) did the Supreme Court rule that the slaves were not citizens.

    Normally one does understand naturalization as removing alienage, but are you arguing that an unborn child of US citizen parents is an alien, who becomes a non-alien at birth? I might agree that naturalization, in this care, removes “potential alienage” but not actual alienage. I really think that Rogers introduced a novel meaning for “naturalization” and I don’t think it’s justifiable to compare what was said about naturalization before Rogers and afterwards–apples and oranges.

    Applying your argument to “felony,” one would say that any time the Congress passed a law creating a felony, there were redefining the term “felony.” I think, however, that any legal dictionary you consult will not define “felony” in terms of a comprehensive list of the offenses that are felonies. This is how Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd ed) defines “Piracy” (a term used in the Constitution): “In criminal law. A robbery of forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority, done animo furandi, in the spirit and invention of universal hostility. ” So do you claim that 49 USC 46502 is unconstitutional because there were no airplanes in 1789.

    JoZeppy: Because when looking at undefined terms in the constitution, that have their source in the common law, we look to the common law at the time of the drafting. Can Congress make citizens from birth? Yes. Can they be NBC? No. Why? For two reasons: 1) By doing so effectively changes the meaning of a clause of the Constitution, and Congress cannot do that, it only can be done by amendment; and 2) Congress was only granted to power of naturalization. Naturalization is the process of removing one’s alienage.

  98. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 21, 2013 at 4:48 pm #

    [birther mode]Guys, this is boring! Where are the ad hominem attacks? Where are the baseless smears? Where are the cherry picked references and arguments to illegitimate authority?
    [/birther mode]

    Nice job demonstrating how to have an honest debate. Carry on, gentlemen.

    Dr. Conspiracy: My problem with this is twofold:

  99. avatar
    Arthur August 21, 2013 at 5:21 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Guys, this is boring! Where are the ad hominem attacks? Where are the baseless smears?

    You rang, sir? It’s ORYR to the rescue!

    “The scumbag sitting in the white house was born in kenya, son of an african, and a dual citizen. How can anyone of similar circumstance be told they can’t run for president? The problem is the commie usurper, not Ted Cruz or anyone else. Until the situation is rectified, other similar peeps can run, or there will be a discrimination lawsuit bigger than anything west of mombasa. The time is soon for the Stockman/Posse to do it’s thing, and get the commie usurper crimes out to the whole world.”

  100. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 5:55 pm #

    slash2k: You read any of the relevant opinions (Wong Kim Ark, Rogers v. Bellei, etc.), and they all include a discussion of the *statute* law of the English realm as related to citizenship. Why would the statutes of 17 Edward III or 7 Anne or 11-12 Wm III matter at all in the discussion, unless we look to the meaning of the terms in the law, common and statute, as of the drafting?

    You are left arguing either (1) the statutes are relevant and part of the discussion, or (2) lots of Supreme Court justices have wasted lots of space on irrelevant matters. (It’s not even just on citizenship, either: Justice Scalia, e.g., quoted a statute of William and Mary in writing the court’s opinion on what the Second Amendment means [DC v. Heller].)

    Courts regularly discuss less than relevant matter. That is why we have dicta. Heck, the defining points of Marbury v. Madision establishing judicial review are for all intents improper since the court had earlier determined that they didn’t have jursidiction to hear the matter. The Court in WKA spent a lot of time discussing the statutes, only to determine that they were not part of the common law, and which ultimately none were relevant anway, since WKA was born in the dominion.

    And as for looking at a statute, it depends for what purpose. Scalia’s citation to the statutes of William and Mary are in part due to the fact that unlike “natural born” there isn’t a clear common law history or idiomatic meaning to the operative terms in our 2nd Amendment. So he had to turn somewhere to establish a legal basis. And according to Scalia (I’ll take his word on this point), that statute is understood to be the basis of our Second Amendment.

    Conversely, Natural born subject/citizen has a long history on both sides of the pond. Our surpreme court has stated on multiple occiasions that when we run across an undefined term in the Constitution, we turn to the common law. In fact, on this very subject both in Minor and WKA they have said, we turn to the common law. They don’t say common law and statutes we feel relevent…they say “the common law.” Now as if you say, “well, if not relevant, why do they bring them up?” On the same line of thinking, if we do consider statute and common law, why does the court in WKA go out if its way to point out that those statutes are not considered part of the common law? They are going through the process of establishing what is included in the common law.

  101. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    [birther mode]Guys, this is boring!Where are the ad hominem attacks?Where are the baseless smears?Where are the cherry picked references and arguments to illegitimate authority?
    [/birther mode]

    Nice job demonstrating how to have an honest debate.Carry on, gentlemen.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs

  102. avatar
    JoZeppy August 21, 2013 at 6:28 pm #

    And I haven’t forgotten about you Doc….I just have to squeeze in some real work between posts.

  103. avatar
    helen August 21, 2013 at 10:31 pm #

    Citizen, naturalized citizen, native born citizen, natural born citizen.

    Apparently you don’t believe the adjectives mean anyt”hing.

    “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

    If you fall under that clause, how can you be a natural born citizen who does not need

    “naturalization”

  104. avatar
    donna August 21, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

    helen: If you fall under that clause, how can you be a natural born citizen who does not need “naturalization”

    doc had the answer in his article:

    Since according to U. S. Law, Canadian-born Ted Cruz was a U. S. citizen at birth, then yeah, he’s eligible to run for President.

    Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

  105. avatar
    richCares August 21, 2013 at 10:48 pm #

    yes, he is eligible but he does break irony meters, he was born in a country with gov health care, the first few years of his life were with free health, BONG! Yet he rails against Obamacare, weird!

  106. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 21, 2013 at 11:03 pm #

    Of course the adjectives mean something you twit. “Citizen” is the parent class which contains everyone; “naturalized citizen” is the group of people that received their citizenship under the uniform rules of naturalization set up by the Congress (which may or may not include everyone who is made a citizen by statute—a group which includes Rafael Cruz); “native born citizen” includes all persons receiving citizenship by virtue of their birth in the US (i.e. everyone born in the US except children of diplomats and occupying enemies); “natural born citizen” includes all native born citizens and may include some or all citizens at birth (the only people who are definitely excluded are those who receive their citizenship via a naturalization process at some point after their birth. While there is room for honest debate about Rafael’s eligibility, there is none regarding President Obama’s—and I think everyone here would agree that it is highly unlikely that a judge would rule Rafael ineligible in any case.

    Can you explain what things you think all of those adjectives mean? I’m guessing that anything you can come up with will be easily contradicted by some law or credible authority. Of course if you can’t come up with anything, you further confirm that you’re merely a troll.

    helen:
    Citizen, naturalized citizen, native born citizen, natural born citizen.

    Apparently you don’t believe the adjectives mean anyt”hing.

    “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

    If you fall under that clause, how can you be a natural born citizen who does not need

    “naturalization”

  107. avatar
    HistorianDude August 21, 2013 at 11:06 pm #

    helen: Citizen, naturalized citizen, native born citizen, natural born citizen.

    Apparently you don’t believe the adjectives mean anyt”hing.

    Adjectives do usually mean something. They just don’t have to mean anything different since our language has a large number of synonyms. A fast rat is the same thing as a speedy rat which is the same thing as a swift rat which is the same thing as a quick rat.

    Further, not all adjectives mean things relevant to the discussion. Since the Constitution only mentions natural born citizens and naturalized citizens, no other modifiers are of any constitutional significance.

  108. avatar
    Sam the Centipede August 21, 2013 at 11:12 pm #

    To add to Slarti’s exposition: it is important to be wary of assuming that words mean what you think they mean. “Naturalization” was (and occasionally still is) sometimes used to mean the action of acquiring citizenship however it happens. We usually employ the term to refer to the action of acquiring citizenship by filling in forms and completing other requirements. However, it can be – and has been – used to refer to the action of acquiring citizenship by being born in an appropriate location and/or with appropriate parent(s).

  109. avatar
    Keith August 21, 2013 at 11:59 pm #

    Sam the Centipede:
    To add to Slarti’s exposition: it is important to be wary of assuming that words mean what you think they mean. “Naturalization” was (and occasionally still is) sometimes used to mean the action of acquiring citizenship however it happens. We usually employ the term to refer to the action of acquiring citizenship by filling in forms and completing other requirements. However, it can be – and has been – used to refer to the action of acquiring citizenship by being born in an appropriate location and/or with appropriate parent(s).

    This is true. I remember reading some treatise that referred to citizens as ‘naturals’. It did not use the word ‘citizen’ and it did not use the word ‘subject’, ever.

    Try as I might I cannot find that text anymore. It was from the 19th century I think, but possibly the 18th. I have not mentioned it before because I can’t quote it, but I do think it would have made a good point about the origin of the word ‘naturalized’ in this context.

  110. avatar
    John Reilly August 22, 2013 at 12:49 am #

    helen:
    Citizen, naturalized citizen, native born citizen, natural born citizen.

    Apparently you don’t believe the adjectives mean anyt”hing.

    “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

    If you fall under that clause, how can you be a natural born citizen who does not need

    “naturalization”

    Helen of Troll is back.

    Still not answering questions. Still asking questions about the scary Black guy in the White House and now about the Cuban Senator from Texas.

    Had no questions about McCain or Palin.

    Why? Because they are white.

    Helen admits to being a racist.

    When are you going to post McCain’s or Palin’s birth certificates, Helen?

  111. avatar
    Joey August 22, 2013 at 1:28 am #

    helen:
    Citizen, naturalized citizen, native born citizen, natural born citizen.

    Apparently you don’t believe the adjectives mean anyt”hing.

    “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

    If you fall under that clause, how can you be a natural born citizen who does not need

    “naturalization”

    In 1874, the Supreme Court’s majority in Minor v. Happersett stated that “The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”
    The “elsewhere” is subsequent U.S. case law, the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, and statutory law.

  112. avatar
    helen August 22, 2013 at 2:47 am #

    citizens, anyone who can vote in federal elections including those barred for felonies.
    Naturalized citizens, any who can vote in federal elections because the law allowed them to become citizens.
    Native born citizens, those citizens who derive their citizenship because they were born in the USA and meet the legal requirements
    Natural born citizens, those citizens who were born in the USA that are not excluded by constitutional reason, and whos parents were eligible to vote in federal elections.

    For those who think I don’t answer questions

  113. avatar
    Arthur August 22, 2013 at 2:56 am #

    helen: For those who think I don’t answer questions

    Thank you for the information. Two more questions: did you create these descriptions, and if not, where did they come from?

  114. avatar
    The Magic M August 22, 2013 at 3:56 am #

    helen: and whos parents were eligible to vote in federal elections

    Which specific type of Vattelism is that? “Were eligible” is kinda sketchy, do you mean “at the time their child was born”?

    Besides, replacing citizen with “eligible to vote” creates additional problems if you claim that the Founders wanted to restrict who is eligible for President.
    At their time, and assuming your definition were correct, only children who are male land-owners and whose parents (plural!) were male land-owners were natural born citizens.

    Therefore, since women weren’t eligible to vote, *nobody* was an NBC by your strange definition because nobody had *two* eligible voters as parents (or is this were the gays came in?).

    Also you’re saying that by expanding who is an eligible voter (women, blacks etc.), Congress was able to redefine, more specifically: broaden, NBC?
    But I thought birthers said the Founders wanted a “strong check” and not one that could be muddied any time the set of eligible voters was extended. And what’s “natural” about that? Can’t have the cake and eat it.

    That makes even less sense than Vattelism in general because it isn’t even logical within your own crazy framework.

  115. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2013 at 4:46 am #

    helen: Natural born citizens, those citizens who were born in the USA that are not excluded by constitutional reason, and whos parents were eligible to vote in federal elections.

    So there were no Natural Born Citizens in the United States before 18 August 1920? That is somewhere close to 100 years of Presidents who were not Natural Born Citizens then. How does that work, exactly?

    Exercise for the reader: why is that date relevant to the point?

  116. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2013 at 4:50 am #

    The Magic M: Therefore, since women weren’t eligible to vote, *nobody* was an NBC by your strange definition because nobody had *two* eligible voters as parents (or is this were the gays came in?).

    OK, you beat me to the point; I was too quick to reply before reading your answer.

    You bring up a good point about gay marriage here. Does this mean that Helen is endorsing the idea that the Framers understood that gay marriage was one of the 9th Amendment rights perhaps?

  117. avatar
    American Mzungu August 22, 2013 at 5:49 am #

    helen: citizens, anyone who can vote in federal elections including those barred for felonies.

    Children can’t be citizens?

    What about people who haven’t registered to vote? Is it the act of registering to vote that makes you a citizen?

    You include felons who have lost their right to vote. Why are they citizens, if voting in federal elections defines citizenship?

    Please give some reference for your definitions.

  118. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 22, 2013 at 5:56 am #

    I guess I should have added that your explanations might be contradicted by simple logic, Helen. That’s the problem with making up what you want the law to say—it doesn’t fit together seamlessly like it should… Well, you might not have shown yourself to be a troll, but you didn’t exactly dazzle us with your brilliance on this one.

    Slartibartfast: Can you explain what things you think all of those adjectives mean? I’m guessing that anything you can come up with will be easily contradicted by some law or credible authority.

  119. avatar
    Northland10 August 22, 2013 at 6:10 am #

    helen: Natural born citizens, those citizens who were born in the USA that are not excluded by constitutional reason, and whos parents were eligible to vote in federal elections.

    So, Bill Clinton was not eligible since his father was not eligible to vote, except, perhaps, in Chicago (hi scott e). Does that mean he hid his past and “blythely”got himself elected president?

  120. avatar
    Northland10 August 22, 2013 at 6:25 am #

    Keith: So there were no Natural Born Citizens in the United States before 18 August 1920? That is somewhere close to 100 years of Presidents who were not Natural Born Citizens then. How does that work, exactly?

    Exercise for the reader: why is that date relevant to the point?

    Helen’s definition has a Minor problem.

  121. avatar
    dch August 22, 2013 at 8:52 am #

    1. Where is Cruz’s long-form birth certificate? (Ans: Havana, Cuba)
    2. Who else assisted Ted Cruz in this obvious cover up? (Ans: Fidel Castro)
    3. Is the Canadian BC a red herring when we should be looking in Havana, Cuba? (Yes – send a posse!)

    His mother must have traveled from Canada to Cuba to give birth in the Cuban homeland of his father and then filed for a Canadian BC (check the dates and record number sequence).
    Travel to Cuba was never restricted from Canada, so his parents “moved” to Canada has part of long range conspiracy hatched by the Castro brothers to place a Cubano-Communist “sleeper-POTUS” in the office of the POTUS in 2106. Fidel has even stayed alive to see his diabolical plan begin to come together! He just never expected the Birthers!

  122. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate August 22, 2013 at 9:22 am #

    Remember all those tangential accusations about Obama lacking eligibility beause he couldn’t pass a background check for a security clearance? Gander sauce time:

    Background Check Likely Asked Cruz About Dual Citizenship

    [snip]

    Several years ago, [Senator Ted] Cruz held multiple unelected positions in the federal government — jobs that, at least one of which, involved a background check. Based on TPM’s exhaustive research, it’s highly unlikely Cruz would have made it through that process without facing direct questions about dual citizenship. So, what did Cruz tell his bosses about his citizenship?

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/ted-cruz-citizenship-background-check.php?ref=fpblg

  123. avatar
    John Reilly August 22, 2013 at 9:23 am #

    helen:
    citizens, anyone who can vote in federal elections including those barred for felonies.
    Naturalized citizens, anywho can vote in federal elections because the law allowed them to become citizens.
    Native born citizens, those citizens who derive their citizenship because they were born in the USA and meet the legal requirements
    Natural born citizens, those citizens who were born in the USA that are not excluded by constitutional reason, and whos parents were eligible to vote in federal elections.

    For those who think I don’t answer questions

    Helen of Troll is back. Still not answering questions. Come on Helen. What was your factual basis for determining that McCain and Palin are natural born citizens. Link to birth certificates or other evidence. After all, you voted for them.

  124. avatar
    JoZeppy August 22, 2013 at 10:37 am #

    helen:
    citizens, anyone who can vote in federal elections including those barred for felonies.
    Naturalized citizens, anywho can vote in federal elections because the law allowed them to become citizens.
    Native born citizens, those citizens who derive their citizenship because they were born in the USA and meet the legal requirements
    Natural born citizens, those citizens who were born in the USA that are not excluded by constitutional reason, and whos parents were eligible to vote in federal elections.

    For those who think I don’t answer questions

    Now only if you had answers that had any basis in reality….THAT would be a treat.

  125. avatar
    Arthur August 22, 2013 at 10:47 am #

    dch: 1. Where is Cruz’s long-form birth certificate? (Ans: Havana, Cuba)
    2. Who else assisted Ted Cruz in this obvious cover up? (Ans: Fidel Castro)
    3. Is the Canadian BC a red herring when we should be looking in Havana, Cuba? (Yes – send a posse!)

    Very funny, and just as ridiculous as birther notions about President Obama. Obviously, one of the differences between Obots and birthers is that Obots recognize nonsense for what it is, and birthers believe it.

  126. avatar
    Curious George August 22, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

    “The time is soon for the Stockman/Posse to do it’s thing,….”

    The most hilarious comment in the thread.

  127. avatar
    Rickey August 22, 2013 at 1:50 pm #

    helen:

    Natural born citizens, those citizens who were born in the USA that are not excluded by constitutional reason, and whos parents were eligible to vote in federal elections.

    So if the parents are under the age of 18, their child can’t grow up to be President?

  128. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 22, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

    helen: Natural born citizens, those citizens who were born in the USA that are not excluded by constitutional reason, and whos parents were eligible to vote in federal elections.

    So….what if dad (or mom; both citizens) has a felony conviction for drug trafficking does that mean the kids can’t be President some day?

  129. avatar
    Rickey August 22, 2013 at 2:16 pm #

    An amusing story at Salon today.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/ted_cruzs_ironic_birther_predicament/

  130. avatar
    The European August 22, 2013 at 3:30 pm #

    Rickey:
    An amusing story at Salon today.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/ted_cruzs_ironic_birther_predicament/

    A mountain of problems for Cruz. And he may very well have triple citizenship. Do we see the power of karma here ?

  131. avatar
    helen August 22, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

    Women derived ther citizenship from their husbands. Children aren’t considered to be citizens until they reach maturity, felons are citizens , as citizens can not be deprived of their citizenship by court action.

    Hey, folks, you asked for my defintions.

    Let see anyone else post any definitions.

    Can a child born in a train crossing the united states , parents aliens to the USA, and is the child an american citizen and which state is the child a citizen of?

    I don’t give a darn about anyone’s birth certificate that has not been posted as showing that the person is a US Citizen.

    Why is there such a big code section in the US Law if citizenship is so easily defined.

    Referring to the felony concept was to show that they can not vote, but are still citizens as the citizenship is limited.

    And that bring in

    Citizenship granted by law can be terminated by law, but citizenship by birth can not be terminated by law, except as allowed in the Constitution.

    But not to worry , folks, as Obama has stated that you don’t have a right to vote even if you are a citizen!

    That is what you elected him to do, isn’t it?

  132. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 22, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

    helen: That is what you elected him to do, isn’t it?

    Please….tell me you wrote this for one of those worst fiction contests – “A dark and stormy night……” and all that….and you just posted it here by mistake.

    Please!!

  133. avatar
    Arthur August 22, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    helen: Hey, folks, you asked for my defintions.

    Actually, I’ve been asking for the source of your definitions. Since you haven’t provided any, and since you have no expertise in the areas you write about, it’s clear you’re simply making things up to fit your fractured grasp of citizenship.

    helen: But not to worry , folks, Republicans have stated that you don’t have a right to vote even if you are a citizen!

    FIFY.

    helen: Let see anyone else post any definitions.

    Idiot: see helen

    helen: And that bring in

    The sheaves? Your pants? The porch furniture?

    helen: I don’t give a darn about anyone’s birth certificate that has not been posted as showing that the person is a US Citizen.

    And I suppose you don’t give a damn about any trumpet playing band, because it aint what you call rock and roll.

  134. avatar
    The European August 22, 2013 at 4:15 pm #

    Arthur, you just wasted a line of a very good song on a troll …..

  135. avatar
    Kiwiwriter August 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm #

    Actually, Helen, in addition to asking for your sources on these definitions, I’m asking about your training in the law…what law school did you go to?

  136. avatar
    Daniel August 22, 2013 at 4:19 pm #

    Helen has got to be pulling a Poe.

  137. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 22, 2013 at 4:27 pm #

    helen: Children aren’t considered to be citizens until they reach maturity

    —-
    This is a remarkably false statement, among many… Where do you get such ideas?

  138. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 22, 2013 at 4:35 pm #

    helen:
    Women derived ther citizenship from their husbands.

    That is one of the most sexist things that you’ve said. Furthermore, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Your favorite case (Minor v. Happerset) said that women were people born or naturalized in the United States, and as a result were citizens of the United States, and the state which they live.

    Children aren’t considered to be citizens until they reach maturity,

    Again, this is false: You’re equating the right to vote with citizenship. These are two seperate things. Minor v. Happerset made that very clear.

    felons are citizens , as citizens can not be deprived of their citizenship by court action.

    That’s actually true that felons are citizens, but it’s not because courts cannot deprive people of their citizenship. Courts can strip someone of their citizenship for crimes (treason is a prime example of it). A conviction of a felony is by it’s very definition a court action.

    Can a child born in a train crossing the united states , parents aliens to the USA, and is the child an american citizen and which state is the child a citizen of?

    Yes, that person is. If someone is born on a train travelling between Mexico and Canada, for the time that they are on that train, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (provided that they don’t have diplomatic immunity, or are not a member of an invading force). The train can be stopped, and they can be arrested within the United States, if they are found to have committed any crime within the United States. Under U.S. Law, they are a U.S. Citizen if they are born on that train. Planes are a bit different under the law (on International Flights), and I don’t know all the intricies of those.

    Why is there such a big code section in the US Law if citizenship is so easily defined.

    Because it actually defines the specific instances that people are citizens. That’s like saying, “Why is there such a big section in the US Law if Murder is so easily defined.”

    Referring to the felony concept was to show that they can not vote, but are still citizens as the citizenship is limited.

    The right to vote and citizenship have nothing to do with eachother. The entirity of the case of Minor v. Happerset was all about the right to vote. The holding was that while Virginia Minor was a citizen, there was nothing in the constitution that guarenteed anybody the right to vote (other than by race), so State governments could determine who could vote, and who cannot vote. But let’s get to more of a philosophical argument. Despotic Dictatorships do not give the right to vote to anybody, does that mean that they have no citizens of the country?

    Citizenship granted by law can be terminated by law, but citizenship by birth can not be terminated by law, except as allowed in the Constitution.

    That’s again false. It’s difficult to do, but the government can revoke someone’s citizenship, whether they’re a citizen by birth, or a naturalized citizen. It’s defined within the law.

    But not to worry , folks, as Obama has stated that you don’t have a right to vote even if you are a citizen!

    Actually, Obama didn’t say that, the Supreme Court said that. That’s the case that you’re so fond of quoting: Minor v. Happerset. That has been Supreme Court Precedent for 135 years. It was initially used to deny women the right to vote.

  139. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 22, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

    J.D. Sue: Where do you get such ideas?

    Not out of any functioning human brain.

    I particularly liked the one about kids born on trains. Kinda reminds me of the Kingston Trio’s “Lost on the MTA”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU

    And then this one conjures up images of millions of stateless waifs wandering the streets of America.

    Amazing stuff.

  140. avatar
    Arthur August 22, 2013 at 4:42 pm #

    The European:
    Arthur, you just wasted a line of a very good song on a troll …..

    I’m just happy someone got the reference–I imagine it went over helen’s grizzled head. And probably her beard.

  141. avatar
    Thomas Brown August 22, 2013 at 4:51 pm #

    Helen’s last name must be Hunt. “Cause if you’re looking for the logical basis for her statements, you may as well go to Helen Hunt for it.

  142. avatar
    Arthur August 22, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Please….tell me you wrote this for one of those worst fiction contests – “A dark and stormy night……” and all that….and you just posted it here by mistake.

    You’re thinking of the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. Here’s the website: http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/

    And this is this year’s winner:

    “She strutted into my office wearing a dress that clung to her like Saran Wrap to a sloppily butchered pork knuckle, bone and sinew jutting and lurching asymmetrically beneath its folds, the tightness exaggerating the granularity of the suet and causing what little palatable meat there was to sweat, its transparency the thief of imagination.”

    Take note, helen, the Bulwer-Lytton contests welcomes wretched writers of all kinds. You’re certainly wretched enough to win an honorable mention in historical fiction.

  143. avatar
    Arthur August 22, 2013 at 4:56 pm #

    Daniel: Helen has got to be pulling a Poe.

    Never underestimate a birther’s ability to deliver a pig’s snout and believe it’s a silk purse.

  144. avatar
    Majority Will August 22, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

    Daniel:
    Helen has got to be pulling a Poe.

    A ravin’ lunatic?

  145. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 22, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

    Majority Will: A ravin’ lunatic?

    Quothe the Ravin’, “Nevermore”?

  146. avatar
    Arthur August 22, 2013 at 6:20 pm #

    Majority Will: A ravin’ lunatic?

    Speaking of lunatics, have you see this:

    “A large number of Louisiana Republicans (29%) think President Barack Obama is to blame for the federal government’s poor response to Hurricane Katrina, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Wednesday — despite the fact that the storm occurred three years before he took office.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/obama-hurricane-katrina_n_3790612.html

  147. avatar
    Majority Will August 22, 2013 at 6:35 pm #

    Arthur: Speaking of lunatics, have you see this:

    “A large number of Louisiana Republicans (29%) think President Barack Obama is to blame for the federal government’s poor response to Hurricane Katrina, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Wednesday — despite the fact that the storm occurred three years before he took office.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/obama-hurricane-katrina_n_3790612.html

    Is ODS a preexisting condition?

  148. avatar
    Rickey August 22, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

    helen:
    Children aren’t considered to be citizens until they reach maturity

    Really? Is there a maturity test which you have to take before you are declared a citizen?

    If you are saying that children aren’t considered to be citizens until they are old enough to vote, you are saying that nearly half of the Americans who were killed during the Vietnam War weren’t citizens, since until 1971 the voting age in the United States (with a few exceptions) was 21.

  149. avatar
    aarrgghh August 22, 2013 at 6:58 pm #

    Arthur: “A large number of Louisiana Republicans (29%) think President Barack Obama is to blame for the federal government’s poor response to Hurricane Katrina, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Wednesday — despite the fact that the storm occurred three years before he took office.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/obama-hurricane-katrina_n_3790612.html

    it’s been well established that most looney notions enjoy the support of between 25% to 35% of americans (though not necessarily the same americans of course).

    “… you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.”

  150. avatar
    Monkey Boy August 22, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

    Northland10: Does that mean he hid his past and “blythely”got himself elected president?

    I caught that Tom Swiftie.

  151. avatar
    Monkey Boy August 22, 2013 at 7:52 pm #

    dch:
    1. Where is Cruz’s long-form birth certificate? (Ans: Havana, Cuba)
    2. Who else assisted Ted Cruz in this obvious cover up?(Ans: Fidel Castro)
    3. Is the Canadian BC a red herring when we should be looking in Havana, Cuba?(Yes – send a posse!)

    His mother must have traveled from Canada to Cuba to give birth in the Cuban homeland of his father and then filed for a Canadian BC (check the dates and record number sequence).
    Travel to Cuba was never restricted from Canada, so his parents “moved” to Canada has part of long range conspiracy hatched by the Castro brothers to place a Cubano-Communist “sleeper-POTUS” in the office of the POTUS in 2106.Fidel has even stayed alive to see his diabolical plan begin to come together!He just never expected the Birthers!

    Works for me.

  152. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2013 at 7:54 pm #

    helen: Can a child born in a train crossing the united states , parents aliens to the USA, and is the child an american citizen and which state is the child a citizen of?

    Yes, the child is a Natural Born Citizen unless the parents are diplomats.

    State ‘citizenship’ is basically an obsolete concept since the 14th Amendment. States have ‘residents’. So where does the child reside?

    helen: But not to worry , folks, as Obama has stated that you don’t have a right to vote even if you are a citizen!

  153. avatar
    Arthur August 22, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

    aarrgghh: it’s been well established that most looney notions enjoy the support of between 25% to 35% of americans (though not necessarily the same americans of course).

    Yes, you’re most likely right–still, it’s a depressing statistic. I mean, it’s not like Katrina is an event far removed from the respondents, either in space or time. On the other hand, it IS Alabama, so I guess I’m happy the number wasn’t larger.

  154. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2013 at 8:27 pm #

    helen: But not to worry , folks, as Obama has stated that you don’t have a right to vote even if you are a citizen!

    Could you provide a link to the Obama quote, please. It sounds more like the Governor of Florida or other republican controlled state to me as it is various Republican controlled State legislatures that are manically passing voter suppression laws.

    It is in the Republicans interest to suppress the vote, not the Democrats.

  155. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2013 at 8:31 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Courts can strip someone of their citizenship for crimes (treason is a prime example of it).

    Not if it means that the person is then Stateless.

  156. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2013 at 8:40 pm #

    Thomas Brown:
    Helen’s last name must be Hunt.“Cause if you’re looking for the logical basis for her statements, you may as well go to Helen Hunt for it.

    badda-bing

  157. avatar
    Bob August 22, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    Cruz/Shatner 2016!

  158. avatar
    misha marinsky August 22, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    helen: Can a child born in a train crossing the united states, parents aliens from Mars, and is the child an american citizen and which state is the child a citizen of?

    Yes – the baby is both NBC and a citizen of the United Federation. Any state will do, except Texas, Louisiana, or Freedonia.

    Hey, did you hear the news about Tunisia and Threenesia? Some provinces split off, and are calling themselves Threenesia.

    It’s all here:
    http://www.thespoof.com/news/world/39832/threenesia-declares-independence

  159. avatar
    misha marinsky August 22, 2013 at 8:46 pm #

    Keith: Not if it means that the person is then hapless.

    FIFY

  160. avatar
    misha marinsky August 22, 2013 at 8:49 pm #

    Bob: Cruz/Shatner 2016!

    Cruz/Paul 2016! Much more entertaining.

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 22, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

    The Supreme Court said that in Minor v. Happersett.

    Keith: Could you provide a link to the Obama quote, please. It sounds more like the Governor of Florida or other republican controlled state to me as it is various Republican controlled State legislatures that are manically passing voter suppression laws.

    It is in the Republicans interest to suppress the vote, not the Democrats.

  162. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    Monkey Boy: I caught that Tom Swiftie.

    “Elephants are jumping out of trees”, he said flatly.

  163. avatar
    misha marinsky August 22, 2013 at 9:05 pm #

    Arthur: Never underestimate a birther’s ability to deliver a sow’s ear and believe it’s a silk purse.

    Here’s the illustration:

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/3765120149_c563060f6e.jpg

  164. avatar
    jdkinpa August 22, 2013 at 10:44 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate August 22, 2013 at 9:22 am (Quote) #

    Remember all those tangential accusations about Obama lacking eligibility beause he couldn’t pass a background check for a security clearance? Gander sauce time:

    Background Check Likely Asked Cruz About Dual Citizenship

    [snip]

    Several years ago, [Senator Ted] Cruz held multiple unelected positions in the federal government — jobs that, at least one of which, involved a background check. Based on TPM’s exhaustive research, it’s highly unlikely Cruz would have made it through that process without facing direct questions about dual citizenship. So, what did Cruz tell his bosses about his citizenship?

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/ted-cruz-citizenship-background-check.php?ref=fpblg

    ————————————————————————————————–

    Coincidentally, I’m in the process of doing my reinvestigation for my security clearance.

    Here are the questions for citizenship.

    Select the box that reflects your current citizenship status and click Save.

    Provide your current citizenship status:
    I am a U.S. citizen or national by birth in the U.S. or U.S. territory/commonwealth.

    I am a U.S. citizen or national by birth, born to U.S. parent(s), in a foreign country.

    I am a naturalized U.S. citizen.

    I am not a U.S. citizen.

    Note the 2nds questions and the wording. “I am a U.S. citizen or national by birth, born to U.S. parent(s), in a foreign country.”

    Ref: OMB No. 3206-0005
    Form: SF86

    This may not be the form that Cruz was required to use, but the Form: SF86 is for Secrete and above and though these are revised ever now and then I doubt that the format or questions has changed much over the years.

    http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

    So when Cruz said he didn’t know he had dual-citizenship; he either didn’t understand the question on the form (then), which I doubt since he obviously knew where he was born, or he’s pretending to be ignorant of his dual-citizenship now to placate the right-wing-dings. Either way, he’s the worst kind of ideologue, pandering to the base, for the basest of reasons, gaining power no matter the cost.

  165. avatar
    Keith August 22, 2013 at 11:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Supreme Court said that in Minor v. Happersett.

    Yes Helen claimed Obama said it. That’s the link I want.

  166. avatar
    John Reilly August 23, 2013 at 12:05 am #

    helen: I don’t give a darn about anyone’s birth certificate that has not been posted as showing that the person is a US Citizen.

    So Helen of Troll, why do you refuse to show us a link to the birth certificates of McCain and Palin, for whom you voted, so we can see the actual factual basis on which you determined they were natural born citizens.

    We know why. You’re a lying racist troll.

  167. avatar
    y_p_w August 23, 2013 at 2:04 am #

    helen:
    Women derived ther citizenship from their husbands.Children aren’t considered to be citizens until they reach maturity, felons are citizens , as citizens can not be deprived of their citizenship by court action.

    Hey, folks, you asked for my defintions.

    Let see anyone else post any definitions.

    Well – my minor child has a US passport. On the 2nd page it states the named person as a citizen/national of the United States. The State Dept says that the passport of a noncitizen national must be endorsed as such, and I don’t see it anywhere. So thus the State Dept recognizes my kid as a citizen of the United States.

  168. avatar
    John Reilly August 23, 2013 at 2:15 am #

    y_p_w: helen:
    Women derived ther citizenship from their husbands.Children aren’t considered to be citizens until they reach maturity, felons are citizens , as citizens can not be deprived of their citizenship by court action.

    So this means, of course, that if Helen of Troll is an American (rather than from another planet), she derives her citizenship from Mr. Helen of Troll.

    He and Mr. Taitz can go commiserate with each other.

    Our two children, both minors, have passports and have been out of the country multiple times. Last time I checked, the Secretary of State certified they were citizens.

  169. avatar
    Lani August 23, 2013 at 3:42 am #

    helen:
    Women derived ther citizenship blah blah blah
    </blockquote

    OK, trolls are funz for playing with and knocking about. But really, hasn't enough time been spent with this one? "She" is boring. Nothing new, just old debunked stuff.

    Bring on the new trolls!

  170. avatar
    The Magic M August 23, 2013 at 4:06 am #

    helen: Women derived ther citizenship from their husbands.

    So unmarried women cannot produce natural born citizens in your bizarro world? I thought you birthers had reserved that ridiculous claim for the (for them) improbable case that neither the “born in Kenya” nor the “two citizen parents” crap flies and they have to resort to Yet Another Theory Why The Black Guy Is Ineligible, this time the “his parents were not legally married, therefore usurper” crap squared.

  171. avatar
    The European August 23, 2013 at 5:22 am #

    jdkinpa:
    1% Silver Nitrate August 22, 2013 at 9:22 am(Quote) #

    So when Cruz said he didn’t know he had dual-citizenship; he either didn’t understand the question on the form (then), which I doubt since he obviously knew where he was born, or he’s pretending to be ignorant of his dual-citizenship now to placate the right-wing-dings. Either way, he’s the worst kind of ideologue, pandering to the base, for the basest of reasons, gaining power no matter the cost.

    His mother never told him about his triple citizenship. So how could he know ? Haavaad does not teach such trivia.

  172. avatar
    Kate1230 August 23, 2013 at 7:58 am #

    helen:
    Women derived ther citizenship from their husbands.Children aren’t considered to be citizens until they reach maturity, felons are citizens , as citizens can not be deprived of their citizenship by court action.

    Hey, folks, you asked for my defintions.

    Let see anyone else post any definitions.

    Can a child born in a train crossing the united states , parents aliens to the USA, and is the child an american citizen and which state is the child a citizen of?

    I don’t give a darn about anyone’s birth certificate that has not been posted as showing that the person is a US Citizen.

    Why is there such a big code section in the US Law if citizenship is so easily defined.

    Referring to the felony concept was to show that they can not vote, but are still citizens as the citizenship is limited.

    And that bring in

    Citizenship granted by law can be terminated by law, but citizenship by birth can not be terminated by law, except as allowed in the Constitution.

    But not to worry , folks, as Obama has stated that you don’t have a right to vote even if you are a citizen!

    That is what you elected him to do, isn’t it?

    U.S. law that was enforced at the time Barack Obama moved to Indonesia with his mother, stated that no minor child could give up their citizenship nor could a parent relinquish it for them. This very law proves you wrong about children not acquiring citizenship until they reach the age of majority. I find it impossible to believe that you are anything but a troll as to make this idiotic claim would mean that birthers never had an argument about Barack Obama since children didn’t acquire citizenship at birth. Is that really what you’re trying to say? Or do you just spew whatever nonsense comes to mind?

  173. avatar
    JD Reed August 23, 2013 at 9:00 am #

    1% Silver Nitrate August 22, 2013 at 9:22 am(Quote) #

    “So when Cruz said he didn’t know he had dual-citizenship; he either didn’t understand the question on the form (then), which I doubt since he obviously knew where he was born, or he’s pretending to be ignorant of his dual-citizenship now to placate the right-wing-dings. Either way, he’s the worst kind of ideologue, pandering to the base, for the basest of reasons, gaining power no matter the cost.”
    Not endorsing Cruz’s political views, but you’re being way too harsh on him. Very possibly the subject never came up until now, when people are mentioning him as a presidential possibility (not likely, in my view.)

  174. avatar
    JD Reed August 23, 2013 at 9:09 am #

    Keith: Could you provide a link to the Obama quote, please. It sounds more like the Governor of Florida or other republican controlled state to me as it is various Republican controlled State legislatures that are manically passing voter suppression laws.It is in the Republicans interest to suppress the vote, not the Democrats.

    Amen to that. If folks such as Helen who make such hit-and-run assertions would instead cite the original source of any such questionable quote, political dialog would rise to a much higher plane.
    Let’s see if Helen will man up (or woman up, as the case might be) and provide her source for the assertion that Obama said even citizens have no right to vote.

  175. avatar
    misha marinsky August 23, 2013 at 9:09 am #

    The Magic M: So unmarried women cannot produce natural born citizens in your bizarro world?

    Unmarried women can only produce bastards. Bastards cannot hold office:

    “That bastard could not be elected dog catcher.”

  176. avatar
    Northland10 August 23, 2013 at 9:14 am #

    JD Reed: Let’s see if Helen will man up (or woman up, as the case might be) and provide her source for the assertion that Obama said even citizens have no right to vote.

    Any day now…

  177. avatar
    Paper August 23, 2013 at 9:26 am #

    Not common law only. See South Carolina v. United States (1905) for instance.

    To reprise a previous comment of mine, after noting the role for taking “words in their natural sense,” and bearing in mind the “recourse to the common law,” listing various citations including the one from WKA, this Court then sums up by saying that in order to “determine the extent of the grants of power, we must, therefore, place ourselves in the position of the men who framed and adopted the Constitution, and inquire what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of those grants.” Later, the court speaks to the relevance of “that that which is implied is as much a part of the Constitution as that which is expressed.”

    In other words, common law is an important reference point but not an exclusive one, as the issue is not the constraints of common law but the understanding of the framers.

    The long history, of which the founders had experience, included circumstances not limited to common law, circumstances where statutes came into play, namely involving those born elsewhere. The Court speaks of having *recourse* to common law, the *light* of common law, not the dictates of common law. There is discussion to be had about original intentions, but my point here is that such discussion is not limited exclusively to common law untouched by other considerations.

    In WKA, the court is discussing someone born in this country. The arguments they are countering are aimed at someone born here. Those arguments attempted to misapply common law/statutes to someone born here. WKA definitively put that attempt to rest. There is no question on that point. It seems beyond the scope, however, to say that WKA limits the discussion to common law only.

    JoZeppy:

    Conversely, Natural born subject/citizen has a long history on both sides of the pond.Our surpreme court has stated on multiple occiasions that when we run across an undefined term in the Constitution, we turn to the common law.In fact, on this very subject both in Minor and WKA they have said, we turn to the common law.They don’t say common law and statutes we feel relevent…they say “the common law.”Now as if you say, “well, if not relevant, why do they bring them up?”On the same line of thinking, if we do consider statute and common law, why does the court in WKA go out if its way to point out that those statutes are not considered part of the common law?They are going through the process of establishing what is included in the common law.

  178. avatar
    The Magic M August 23, 2013 at 10:41 am #

    misha marinsky: Unmarried women can only produce bastards. Bastards cannot hold office:

    “That bastard could not be elected dog catcher.”

    The special irony is that many birthers believe Obama’s mother was a “staunch Communist”, yet hold up their “American parents are a strong check against foreign influence” meme.

    I’m really not sure whether I should bet money if birthers will come up with ideas legal theories irrefutable proof God’s word why women can’t hold office if Hillary runs (I mean birthers in large numbers, not single ones like Pauly Guthrie).

  179. avatar
    sfjeff August 23, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

    helen: But not to worry , folks, as Obama has stated that you don’t have a right to vote even if you are a citizen!

    All but one state restricts citizens who are convicted felons from voting.

    So obviously Obama is correct.

    Republicans go further and want the law to be that you do not have a right to vote unless you present identification that they will determine to be acceptable.

    So Republicans think you do not have a right to vote unless you provide your documents.

    Meanwhile Helen-

    What textbook did your civic class use that said that both of your parents must be U.S. citizens in order to be a natural born citizen. I was in middle school in the 70’s and our certainly said no such thing

  180. avatar
    Monkey Boy August 23, 2013 at 1:47 pm #

    I found “helen” in Texas.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/23/tea-partier-at-ted-cruz-town-hall-canada-is-not-really-foreign-soil/

    “Canada is not really foreign soil,” opines “helen.” We really annexed it in 1812, but kept it secret so as not to inconvenience the Loyalists that left the Colonies after the Revolutionary War rather than live in a republic. We really didn’t want to put them through that again–an act of Christian charity.

  181. avatar
    Reality Check August 23, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

    I have always believed that natural born citizen meant citizen from birth. It is the simplest and most democratic definition of the term. it is consistent with the meaning of the generic term “natural born”.

    I realize that some pretty good arguments can be made and have been made against people in Cruz situation not being NBC. Ultimately, the nine people in the robes would have the final say so on this. I think they would come down on the side not limiting participation in the political process based on a thin legal basis.

  182. avatar
    Daniel August 23, 2013 at 2:58 pm #

    Monkey Boy:
    I found “helen” in Texas.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/23/tea-partier-at-ted-cruz-town-hall-canada-is-not-really-foreign-soil/

    “Canada is not really foreign soil,” opines “helen.”We really annexed it in 1812, but kept it secret so as not to inconvenience the Loyalists that left the Colonies after the Revolutionary War rather than live in a republic.We really didn’t want to put them through that again–an act of Christian charity.

    We must have annexed Canada while they were out burning down our Whitehouse. Hardly seems fair.

    http://youtu.be/FQJ8dYz-_UQ

  183. avatar
    Northland10 August 23, 2013 at 3:00 pm #

    sfjeff: Meanwhile Helen-

    What textbook did your civic class use that said that both of your parents must be U.S. citizens in order to be a natural born citizen. I was in middle school in the 70′s and our certainly said no such thing

    Maybe the third time is the charm. I do not recall him/her answering that question earlier when raised by Ricky or myself. I would love to see that mythical textbook.

  184. avatar
    Kiwiwriter August 23, 2013 at 3:21 pm #

    Daniel: We must have annexed Canada while they were out burning down our Whitehouse. Hardly seems fair.

    http://youtu.be/FQJ8dYz-_UQ

    I’d be careful on that if I was “Helen.” Canada has defeated the United States in four wars:

    1. American War of Independence
    2. War of 1812
    3. Aroostook War
    4. 1849 “Pig” War

    And Canada caused the 1965 Northeast Power Blackout.

    I wouldn’t mess with them.

    More seriously, this week marks the 71st anniversary of the Dieppe disaster, Canada’s most memorable moment of World War II, and a horrific defeat. A lot of good kids died in that futile raid. Whole regiments went ashore in their first and only battle, and were utterly wiped out.

  185. avatar
    Reality Check August 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm #

    I believe I slipped a double negative in there. You knew what I meant. 😉

    Reality Check: I realize that some pretty good arguments can be made and have been made against people in Cruz situation not being NBC.

  186. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm #

    Not to mention the fact that 90% of their population is massed on our border…

    Kiwiwriter: I’d be careful on that if I was “Helen.” Canada has defeated the United States in four wars:

    1. American War of Independence
    2. War of 1812
    3. Aroostook War
    4. 1849 “Pig” War

    And Canada caused the 1965 Northeast Power Blackout.

    I wouldn’t mess with them.

    More seriously, this week marks the 71st anniversary of the Dieppe disaster, Canada’s most memorable moment of World War II, and a horrific defeat. A lot of good kids died in that futile raid. Whole regiments went ashore in their first and only battle, and were utterly wiped out.

  187. avatar
    helen August 23, 2013 at 4:23 pm #

    Enough with the blather and jesting.

    A citizen is a citizen, can never not be a citizen.

    think about that statement, instead of spouting nonsense.

    if it did not require 2 citizens parents to be a NBC why did they try to change the law!

    As to Palin and McCain I care little about there birthplaces as they are not candidates for anything,

    As to not answering questions, I am not paid to defend Obama or Palin.

    As to not responding to posts, I have lots of homework, to do and right now am doing three loads of washing.

    All Americans are Nationals , but not all are citizens!

    Not all citizens have the right to vote in federal elections, even if they are not felons.

    As to what Obama said, it is just another one of his greatness evidenced in his press releases.

    For he is a Great President, if you define the word GREAT in the way you want to define it.

    Words are toys to be played with in the game of life, remember that!

  188. avatar
    helen August 23, 2013 at 4:55 pm #

    “The Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to all those “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which everyone agrees excludes the children of diplomats and an 1884 Supreme Court case said excluded many others who did not owe their primary allegiance to the United States.”

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/rethinking-birthright-citizenship/

    Now, the illegal aliens are not completely subject to the Jurisdication of the USA as they retain the protection of their home country, under various treaties between the countries.

    And, as the children may be dual citizen they are not under complete jurisdication of the USA. As the child may be under the protection of the parents’ home country.!

    Now Obama could have returned to the Kenyan and taken his son and wife with him, and would have complete rights over his son in Kenya.

    Do you think the USA would have take steps to get Obama ll returned to the USA ?

    if Obama returned to Kenya, and was a dual citizen with American and Kenyan citizenship, could Kenya called him into Government service?

    Or did Obama revoke his English, Kenyan, citizenship when he was naturalized when returning to USA from Indonesia, or was he using his English passport, if he had one

  189. avatar
    JPotter August 23, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: I wouldn’t mess with them.

    Yeah, well, the US doiminates where it really counts, on the gridiron!

    http://www.mmbolding.com/BSR/Candian_Football_League_vs_National_Football_League.htm

    Please ignore that aberration dated 8/8/61. Nothing to see there.

  190. avatar
    misha marinsky August 23, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

    Northland10: I would love to see that…textbook.

    Right here: http://www.fourcolorcomics.com/sc/2026104?height=-1

  191. avatar
    Monkey Boy August 23, 2013 at 6:37 pm #

    Daniel: We must have annexed Canada while they were out burning down our Whitehouse. Hardly seems fair.

    http://youtu.be/FQJ8dYz-_UQ

    birthers: “Where are the Redcoats when we need them?”

  192. avatar
    GLaB August 23, 2013 at 7:27 pm #

    Monkey Boy:
    I found “helen” in Texas.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/23/tea-partier-at-ted-cruz-town-hall-canada-is-not-really-foreign-soil/

    “Canada is not really foreign soil,” opines “helen.”We really annexed it in 1812, but kept it secret so as not to inconvenience the Loyalists that left the Colonies after the Revolutionary War rather than live in a republic.We really didn’t want to put them through that again–an act of Christian charity.

    Well, well, Farrar has shown up there. At least he’s consistent.

  193. avatar
    Andrew Morris August 23, 2013 at 8:11 pm #

    For light entertainment, look at the recent ravings from Butterdezillion. Saner people than her still get locked up.

  194. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 23, 2013 at 8:26 pm #

    I was looking at David “out of breath” Farrar’s monotonous drivel and found this gem from AnzaSummer:

    Okay, I have a test everyone should have to pass before they are allowed to vote in the next election. 1) Who was President on 9/11, 2) Who was President when Hurricane Katrina hit and responsible for our response to it, and 3) Which President had Osama bin Ladin taken out. Two extra questions for registered Republicans: 1) Where was Obama born and, 2) What is Obama’s religion. And one bonus question for everyone: Whose dog would you rather be; Obama’s or Romney’s?

    GLaB: Well, well, Farrar has shown up there.At least he’s consistent.

  195. avatar
    Andrew Morris August 23, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    I wouldn’t try to parse Helen’s nonsense. It seems to be characteristic of right-wing nutjobs to make assertions that have absolutely no legal or factual basis. Spend a minute on the Butterdezillion site for stuff even more bizarre and delusional.

  196. avatar
    Majority Will August 24, 2013 at 9:02 am #

    Andrew Morris:
    I wouldn’t try to parse Helen’s nonsense. It seems to be characteristic of right-wing nutjobs to make assertions that have absolutely no legal or factual basis. Spend a minute on the Butterdezillion site for stuff even more bizarre and delusional.

    The dregs are showing the last of these birther bigots to being bored, lonely and desperately craving attention.

  197. avatar
    Suranis August 24, 2013 at 9:21 am #

    Helen there is a really good discussion of the roots of women’s citizenship in America in a supreme court decision in the 1800’s, The case was called Minor V Hapersett. I think you should have a read of it as it would show that is just not true.

    helen: Women derived ther citizenship from their husbands. Children aren’t considered to be citizens until they reach maturity, felons are citizens , as citizens can not be deprived of their citizenship by court action

  198. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2013 at 9:23 am #

    helen:
    Enough with the blather and jesting.

    A citizen is a citizen, can never not be a citizen.

    Not true. There are expatriating acts. Also one can lose citizenship for treason or falsifying a citizenship application.

    think about that statement, instead of spouting nonsense.

    if it did not require2 citizens parents to be a NBC why did they try to change the law!

    The only law regarding natural born citizen was repealed in 1795, and it didn’t have anything to do with changing 2 parents.

    As to Palin and McCain I care little about there (sic) birthplaces as they are not candidates for anything,

    As to not answering questions, I am not paid to defend Obama or Palin.

    So what is the excuse for your disinformation campaign.

    As to not responding to posts, I have lots of homework, to do and right now am doing three loads of washing.

    Well, instead of wasting your time and my time saying things that you cannot support and that aren’t true and that nobody believes, why not do something productive? If you are not willing to support your comments, what is the justification for you commenting here? This is a forum for discussion, not one-sided assertion of crank ideas.

    All Americans are Nationals , but not all are citizens!

    There are few exceptions, not relevant to topics discussed here.

    Not all citizens have the right to vote in federal elections, even if they are not felons.

    Children, for example.

    As to what Obama said, it is just another one of his greatness evidenced in his press releases.

    I’m not interested in what Obama says in your fevered imagination.

    For he is a Great President, if you define the word GREAT in the way you want to define it.

    Straw man.

    Words are toys to be played with in the game of life, remember that!

    This is not a playground. You’re banned.

  199. avatar
    Arthur August 24, 2013 at 10:02 am #

    helen: As to not responding to posts, I have lots of homework, to do and right now am doing three loads of washing.

    And don’t forgot all the kids you have to chase off your lawn.

  200. avatar
    Majority Will August 24, 2013 at 11:06 am #

    helen: As to Palin and McCain I care little about there (sic) birthplaces as they are not candidates for anything,

    And subjectively and qualitatively, they never were.

  201. avatar
    Vince Treacy August 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

    At 12:12 AM today, University of Texas law professor Sandy Levinson posted on the legal site Balkinization about Ted Cruz’s citizenship, and noted that his citizenship at birth was dependent on his mother’s residence in the United States.

    “…in order to be a statutory citizen in 1970, when now-Senator Cruz entered the world, his mother had to have lived for five years in the United States following her 14th birthday. Otherwise, she could not have passed her own undoubted citizenship on to her baby boy.”

    http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/08/ted-cruzs-birth-certificate-distraction.html

    Sandy notes that little attention has been paid to this question about Cruz.

    He assumes that Obama would have been a citizen even if born in Kenya, but a poster named Brett has already corrected this, noting that his mother was not resident in the U.S. for five years after age 18. This issue, of course, was examined and resolved by Professor Eugene Volokh back in 2008-09, who concluded that Obama would not have been a citizen at birth under the law applicable at the time.

    Balkinization is a site maintained by law professors, chiefly devoted to constitutional issues.

  202. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 24, 2013 at 1:04 pm #

    Always good to hear from you Vince! (Not to mention a welcome break from Helen the troll)

    If only there was a way to revoke the citizenship of birthers for irredeemable stupidity such as this:

    helen: Or did Obama revoke his English, Kenyan, citizenship when he was naturalized when returning to USA from Indonesia, or was he using his English passport, if he had one

    Helen,

    Can you admit that Rafael’s Canadian BC is insufficient to prove that he is a citizen, let alone natural born, while President Obama’s BC (either of the ones that have been released) proves he is unquestionably a natural born citizen? Or do you just want to further strengthen the case that you are nothing but a dishonest troll?

    Vince Treacy: “…in order to be a statutory citizen in 1970, when now-Senator Cruz entered the world, his mother had to have lived for five years in the United States following her 14th birthday. Otherwise, she could not have passed her own undoubted citizenship on to her baby boy.”

  203. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 24, 2013 at 1:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is not a playground. You’re banned.

    Thank you.

  204. avatar
    Northland10 August 24, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

    helen: Now, the illegal aliens are not completely subject to the Jurisdication of the USA as they retain the protection of their home country, under various treaties between the countries.

    And, as the children may be dual citizen they are not under complete jurisdication of the USA. As the child may be under the protection of the parents’ home country.!

    To the banned Helen troll.. if you’re reading…. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Page 118 U. S. 369, One more time:

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

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

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

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

    Once again, the banned Helen, like many birthers, makes a claim with no proof, and is opposite of the actual facts. Not once do they even stop to ask themselves, if jurisdiction does not apply to illegal aliens (or aliens in general), then why have there been countless attempts to make a law or Constitution amendment to stop birthright citizenship.

    Oddly, all of the said birthright citizenship proposals I have found only required one citizen parent, and if it was specific on which one, it was the mother. Whenever I asked various birthers about this, they never responded or pulled out some red herring (yes, banned Rambo.. I’m looking at you).

  205. avatar
    Northland10 August 24, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Not to mention the fact that 90% of their population is massed on our border…

    Canadian’s, They walk among us.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpUM47y7uT4

  206. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 24, 2013 at 1:35 pm #

    Northland10,

    I would also point out that, in the time of the Founders, children of white women were considered citizens (regardless of the father) while children of black women (even if the father was Thomas Jefferson himself) were not.

    Northland10: Oddly, all of the said birthright citizenship proposals I have found only required one citizen parent, and if it was specific on which one, it was the mother. Whenever I asked various birthers about this, they never responded or pulled out some red herring

  207. avatar
    American Mzungu August 24, 2013 at 1:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You’re banned.

    Well earned “Helen”, well earned.

  208. avatar
    misha marinsky August 24, 2013 at 2:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is not a playground. You’re banned.

    Good-bye to traderjack.

  209. avatar
    Paper August 24, 2013 at 2:17 pm #

    The question of the exact parameters of natural born citizenship aside, here’s a clip from last night’s Rachel Maddow show where a Cruz supporter is concerned about Obama’s alleged foreign birth but not about Cruz’s admitted foreign birth. She laughs it off saying, well, Canada isn’t really a foreign country.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27201422

  210. avatar
    Arthur August 24, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

    Paper: She laughs it off saying, well, Canada isn’t really a foreign country.

    Well, of course it isn’t a foreign country! Everybody knows that they speak American in Canada. Except in Quebec, of course, but I think that’s technically a part of France.

  211. avatar
    Arthur August 24, 2013 at 2:49 pm #

    Northland10: Canadian’s, They walk among us.

    That was chilling! It’s important to realize how antagonistic Canadians can be. See, for example,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcbJGGjevOQ

  212. avatar
    SueDB August 24, 2013 at 3:14 pm #

    Two Words…

    William Shatner

  213. avatar
    brygenon August 24, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

    JoZeppy: Can Congress make citizens from birth? Yes. Can they be NBC? No. Why? For two reasons: 1) By doing so effectively changes the meaning of a clause of the Constitution, and Congress cannot do that, it only can be done by amendemnt; and 2) Congress was only granted to power of naturalization. Naturalization is the process of removing one’s alienage.

    No one is saying that the reason “natural-born citizen” means citizen from birth is that Congress has changed the meaning. As best we can tell, that’s what it traditionally meant.

    Congress definitely has power to make citizens from birth. Such an action enlarges the set of natural-born citizens, but does not change the meaning of the term. Congress can also add land to the United States, another action that enlarges the set of natural-born citizens without changing the meaning.

  214. avatar
    misha marinsky August 24, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

    Arthur: Everybody knows that they speak American in Canada.

    Eh?

  215. avatar
    brygenon August 24, 2013 at 6:34 pm #

    JoZeppy: I din’t delude myself in thinking this is anything but an academic process. I questioned McCain’s NBC status when he ran, but only in passing. Like I said, it’s an intellectual debate for me, not a political jihad. I much rather be in a room with Lawrence Tribe debating the issue over drinks, than in a court room arguing it.

    Do you have realistic prospects of doing either one?

    Starting from the body of law and precedent, and excluding that which has been overturned, one can easily derive any number of losing legal theories. ‘Tis naive to take law as a consistent set of premises from which valid logic will derive only sound conclusions.

    Law functions in the real world. It’s the stuff that has to be settled because following it is not optional. The real academics and intellectuals in the field focus on resolution, not moot philosophical debates. The best legal argument is, by definition, the one that will prevail.

    When I say that Ted Cruz is eligible, I’m talking about in reality. There’s a possibility that future history will prove me wrong. Falsifiability is a *good* thing. I’m skeptical of intellectuals who trace out theories to their own satisfaction while immunizing themselves from any possibility of correction.

  216. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 24, 2013 at 7:12 pm #

    SueDB:
    Two. Best. Words. Ever.
    William Shatner

    FIFY 😉
    What can I say? I’m a fan of The Shat!

  217. avatar
    US Citizen August 25, 2013 at 1:43 am #

    “As to Palin and McCain I care little about there birthplaces as they are not candidates for anything,”

    Neither is Obama.

    I think what Helen should really be concentrating on is that Obama wasn’t 35 and a citizen, because, you know, citizenship starts at 21.

  218. avatar
    ArthurWankspittle August 25, 2013 at 11:02 am #

    SueDB:
    Two Words…

    William Shatner

    Pah! Justin Bieber

  219. avatar
    Vince Treacy August 27, 2013 at 10:13 pm #

    Randy Barnett, the professor who led the charge against the Obama health bill, has just posted on the topic of natural born citizens at the Volokh Conspiracy:

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/27/natural-born-subjects-natural-born-citizens/

    His last line:

    “If this is correct, then the term “natural” in “natural born citizen” is not surplusage, and, in the 1790 Naturalization Act, Congress merely codifed or the underlying popular sovereignty conception of natural born citizen as children born to sovereign American citizens.”

    What does he mean? Is he implying that natural born citizens musst have citizen parents, the Fourteenth Amendment notwithstanding?

  220. avatar
    Slartibartfast August 27, 2013 at 10:41 pm #

    Vince,

    I read the article and I think that is exactly what he means—and it is a position which cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment in general and completely contradicts the understanding of the 14th as being merely declaratory of the law under the Constitution as originally ratified.

    Take that with a grain of salt, though. Most of what I know about this topic came from reading comments from some guy using an avatar of the USS Enterprise over at Jonathan Turley’s blog, so it might only apply to the United Federation of Planets… 😉

    Vince Treacy:
    Randy Barnett, the professor who led the charge against the Obama health bill, has just posted on the topic of natural born citizens at the Volokh Conspiracy:

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/27/natural-born-subjects-natural-born-citizens/

    His last line:

    “If this is correct, then the term “natural” in “natural born citizen” is not surplusage, and, in the 1790 Naturalization Act, Congress merely codifed or the underlying popular sovereignty conception of natural born citizen as children born to sovereign American citizens.”

    What does he mean? Is he implying that natural born citizens musst have citizen parents, the Fourteenth Amendment notwithstanding?

  221. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 28, 2013 at 8:03 am #

    I think that he might be invoking a Sovereign Citizen argument that would say since individuals are Sovereigns, then the natural allegiance of a child is to their parents, not to their country of birth. This guy may believe that the 14th Amendment was never ratified. In any case, sounds like a crank to me.

    Vince Treacy: What does he mean? Is he implying that natural born citizens musst have citizen parents, the Fourteenth Amendment notwithstanding?

  222. avatar
    Vince Treacy August 28, 2013 at 10:04 am #

    The problem is that he is a big-time libertarian law prof at Georgetown Law School. He came within one Justice of sinking Obamacare. He wants a Constitutional Convention to overhaul the Constitution.

  223. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 28, 2013 at 10:32 am #

    One observes that in this regard there is no difference between aliens who are in the country legally and those in the country illegally, nor between those having temporary or permanent residence. I don’t know what this “protection” is, however. I recall a certain instance in the news today where we are asking North Korea politely to release a detained American. We lack jurisdiction in North Korea.

    helen: Now, the illegal aliens are not completely subject to the Jurisdication (sic) of the USA as they retain the protection of their home country, under various treaties between the countries.

  224. avatar
    Sef August 28, 2013 at 10:47 am #

    helen: Now, the illegal aliens are not completely subject to the Jurisdication of the USA as they retain the protection of their home country, under various treaties between the countries.

    Under this “theory” an illegal alien could get a gun, by whatever means, and go on a rampage for which he would not be accountable in the U.S. Why don’t the birthers ever think things through to their logical conclusion. Must be lack of REM sleep,

  225. avatar
    Dave August 28, 2013 at 11:41 am #

    Yeah, as far as legal expertise goes Randy Barnett is the polar opposite of Taitz or Apuzzo — the fact that he’s a right-wing extremist notwithstanding. He is a very smart guy who knows how to make legal arguments that judges might buy.

    And in his post he’s not saying his theory is how it is, he just summarizes what others have said about what the writers of the Constitution must have meant by the term “natural born citizen” and says here’s another possible meaning. And since the subject is “what is the original meaning of this term” and not “what does the law say now” it is sensible that he doesn’t bring up the 14th amendment.

  226. avatar
    Dave August 28, 2013 at 11:44 am #

    I’ve been reading the comments to Barnett’s post, and there’s a funny thread where someone points out that a meaning of “natural born” at the time was “illegitimate”.

  227. avatar
    JD Reed August 28, 2013 at 11:49 am #

    I found interesting passages in a book that I’m reading titled “American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America.”

    “In 1823, some 3,000 Anglo-Americans (mostly Deep Southern and Appalachian in origin) were living in Texas illegally, roughly equal to the official population of the territory. … (p. 209)
    “In 1830 Mexico reversed polity and banned American immigration altogether … In any case, the law failed to stem the tide. American immigration actually increased, reaching 1,000 a month by 1835, at which point Tejanos (Texans of Hispanic heritage) were outnumbered by American immigrants by more than ten to one.”(p 210)
    If this history is accurate, Texas was settled by illegal immigrants. But that was then, and this is now …

  228. avatar
    gorefan August 28, 2013 at 12:43 pm #

    Dave:
    I’ve been reading the comments to Barnett’s post, and there’s a funny thread where someone points out that a meaning of “natural born” at the time was “illegitimate”.

    There was this from John Adam’s diary:

    “M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock ? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded from other advantages. ” In France,” said M. Marbois, ” they are not admitted into the army nor any office in government.” I said, they were not excluded from commissions in the army, navy, or state, but they were always attended with a mark of disgrace. M. Marbois said this, no doubt, in allusion to Mr. F.’s natural son, and natural son of a natural son.”

  229. avatar
    Paper August 28, 2013 at 2:02 pm #

    Well, this is one of the reasons, in my view, that it is a non-starter to pluck the word “natural” from the word “natural born.” The emphasis on “natural” as distinct from “natural born” is a wrong turn.

    gorefan: There was this from John Adam’s diary:

    “M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock ? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded from other advantages. ” In France,” said M. Marbois, ” they are not admitted into the army nor any office in government.” I said, they were not excluded from commissions in the army, navy, or state, but they were always attended with a mark of disgrace. M. Marbois said this, no doubt, in allusion to Mr. F.’s natural son, and natural son of a natural son.”

  230. avatar
    Rickey August 28, 2013 at 5:04 pm #

    Dave:
    Yeah, as far as legal expertise goes Randy Barnett is the polar opposite of Taitz or Apuzzo — the fact that he’s a right-wing extremist notwithstanding. He is a very smart guy who knows how to make legalarguments that judges might buy.

    And in his post he’s not saying his theory is how it is, he just summarizes what others have said about what the writers of the Constitution must have meant by the term “natural born citizen” and says here’s another possible meaning. And since the subject is “what is the original meaning of this term” and not “what does the law say now” it is sensible that he doesn’t bring up the 14th amendment.

    Last year Salon published an article which is highly critical of Barnett. It was written by a law professor at Northwestern.

    http://www.salon.com/2012/06/20/the_brain_behind_the_healthcare_fight/

  231. avatar
    JPotter August 29, 2013 at 8:17 am #

    JD Reed: Texas was settled by illegal immigrants.

    Native Americans: doomed by lax immigration policy. If only they’d thought of building an alligator-lined fence along the Eastern Seaboard.

    Speaking of, here’s a weird bit I recently came across,Virginia’s 1924 “Racial Integrity” Act:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

    A very birther-y law, designed to protect the integrity of the white race. Mandated recording of racial characteristics … with only 2 categories. “White” or “Colored”. 1-drop rule. No Native Americans … certainly no Africans 😉

    This law still has an effect, screwing up some tribes ability to gain Federal recognition.